German President Horst Köhler resigns

[Serafina]

Der Spiegel

German President Horst Köhler, under fire for controversial comments he made about Germany's mission in Afghanistan, resigned with immediate effect on Monday in a shock announcement that comes as the latest in a series of blows to Chancellor Angela Merkel.

German President Horst Köhler announced his resignation on Monday in response to fierce criticism of comments he made about Germany's military mission in Afghanistan.

"I declare my resignation from the office of president -- with immediate effect," Köhler, with tears in his eyes and speaking in a faltering voice, said in a statement, flanked by his wife Eva-Luise.


The president is the head of state and his duties are largely ceremonial. But the resignation is the latest in a string of setbacks for Chancellor Angela Merkel since her re-election last September. The German federal assembly -- made up of parliamentary MPs and delegates appointed by the country's 16 federal states -- will have to vote for a successor to Köhler within 30 days, according to the federal constitution.

The president had become the target of intense criticism following remarks he made during a surprise visit to soldiers of the Bundeswehr German army in Afghanistan on May 22. In an interview with a German radio reporter who accompanied him on the trip, he seemed to justify his country's military missions abroad with the need to protect economic interests.

"A country of our size, with its focus on exports and thus reliance on foreign trade, must be aware that ... military deployments are necessary in an emergency to protect our interests -- for example when it comes to trade routes, for example when it comes to preventing regional instabilities that could negatively influence our trade, jobs and incomes," Köhler said.

It sounded as though Köhler was justifying wars for the sake of economic interests, in the context of the Afghan mission which is highly controversial in Germany and throughout Europe.

'The Criticism Lacks the Necessary Respect for My Office'

In his statement on Monday, Köhler said: "My comments about foreign missions by the Bundeswehr on May 22 this year met with heavy criticism. I regret that my comments led to misunderstandings in a question so important and difficult for our nation. But the criticism has gone as far as to accuse me of supporting Bundeswehr missions that are not covered by the constitution. This criticism is devoid of any justification. It lacks the necessary respect for my office."

Köhler became president in 2004 and was elected for a second five-year term in 2009. The former head of the International Monetary Fund was the first non-politician to become German head of state. He is a member of Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats and was nominated for the presidency by the CDU with the backing of their coalition partners, the pro-business Free Democrats.

Köhler won praise during his first term for making a series of strong speeches urging Germany to reform its economy, and his apparent independence from the government prompted mass circulation Bild newspaper to dub him "Super Horst." But he surprised commentators in recent months by appearing to stay on the sidelines in the euro crisis.


Finding a successor will pose a headache for Merkel, whose popularity has slumped in recent months. She has been hit by criticism of her handling of the euro crisis and by the loss of a center-right majority in the upper house following sharp declines for her CDU in a state election in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany's most populous state, on May 9.

A further blow came last week with the resignation of CDU heavyweight Roland Koch, the governor of Hesse, a conservative hardliner whose departure has left a big gap in the right wing of her party.

Too bad - in my oppinion, he did an excellent job.
IIRC, the Grundgesetz (constitution) doesn't even account for the possiblity of the president resigning.

A quick note: The german Bundespräsident has a job somewhat comparable to, say, the british queen. He is generally not actively participating in governing Germany. Our equivalent to the US-president is the office of Bundeskanzler.

[D.Turtle]

I'm utterly baffled at this decision. I mean, yes his explanation was a bit unfortunate and not very politically astute, but I don't think they were bad enough to cause his resignation.

I also didn't see very much extreme or loud criticism of his remarks - I may have missed it.

But still, utterly baffled.

It will be interesting to see who replaces him.

[Serafina]

Well, yes, i am also quite surprised. And so is the rest of the Republic. Pretty much no one excepted that at all.

I suspect that that interview was just the last drop in the bucket for Köhler - some of his views were just too rational for large parts fo the public and quite some politicans. He propably felt that he could not achieve anything.

Then again, what do i know?

[General Mung Beans]

Doesn't make any sense: one comment and then resignation? I agree its very, very unfortunate.

[Thanas]

I'm utterly baffled at this decision. I mean, yes his explanation was a bit unfortunate and not very politically astute, but I don't think they were bad enough to cause his resignation.

I also didn't see very much extreme or loud criticism of his remarks - I may have missed it.

The Spiegel was a bit harsh, but that is about it.

That said, I find it very bad that he decided to resign - I think the debate over why and how we use our military is an important one.

[Dahak]

I found his recent comments on the German military not so bad or unacceptable as some of the press or politicians.
Still, listening to his resignation speech, he looks like a spoilt kid destroying his sand castle...

[Rogue 9]

Well, yes, i am also quite surprised. And so is the rest of the Republic. Pretty much no one excepted that at all.

I suspect that that interview was just the last drop in the bucket for Köhler - some of his views were just too rational for large parts fo the public and quite some politicans. He propably felt that he could not achieve anything.

Then again, what do i know?

If his duties were largely ceremonial, is there really a possibility he could have achieved anything anyway?

[Thanas]

Well, yes, i am also quite surprised. And so is the rest of the Republic. Pretty much no one excepted that at all.

I suspect that that interview was just the last drop in the bucket for Köhler - some of his views were just too rational for large parts fo the public and quite some politicans. He propably felt that he could not achieve anything.

Then again, what do i know?

If his duties were largely ceremonial, is there really a possibility he could have achieved anything anyway?

Yes, because some presidents managed to govern from the pulpit, i.e. suggest actions and got them pushed through due to popularity.

[Ritterin Sophia]

So wait, dude was getting flak for basically laying out the reality of the situation?

[Serafina]

So wait, dude was getting flak for basically laying out the reality of the situation?

Many germans, including most of the media, behave incredibly stupid regarding to Afghanistan.

For some reason, it is seen as a war of agression and supression, that somehow violates the purspose of the Bundeswehr (well, if it was, then it would - but it isn't).
Even if you think that there is no legitimate threat to Germany from there - that's not the only reason we are there. But of course, that get's mostly ignored.

In general, Germany is very anti-militaristic (for obvious historical reasons).
Some politicans (luckily on influential ones) actually wanted to stip the Bundeswehr down to a small infantry force - no armor, artillery, anti-air, airforce, navy etc - now that there is no cold war going on any more.

And foreign endeavours, regardless of the reason, always awaken bad memories - shutting down most peoples brains.

[Thanas]

So wait, dude was getting flak for basically laying out the reality of the situation?

No, the situation is more complex (sorry Fina).

The german constitution does not allow for wars of aggression (something the Americans insisted on, btw). It further says that no war may be waged without parliamentary approval. Köhler was making a few statements in favor of enforcing economic interests via warfare that can be construed as coming out in support of Germany, say, bombing another nation to get more favorable trade deals. Again, not what he meant, but they could be construed as such.
The point is the constitution does not allow warfare for economic interests, so people jumped on that and he then resigned.

[Serafina]

No, the situation is more complex (sorry Fina).

No need to apologize, thanks for correcting me
Either way, that makes much more sense - and i honestly do not know how i missed that angle.

[Ritterin Sophia]

The point is the constitution does not allow warfare for economic interests, so people jumped on that and he then resigned.

Then it's exactly what I said, he got flak for telling the truth. He laid out the political reality of globalization, that nations need to protect their investments internationally. Other people didn't like to hear the truth and so misconstrued his words. Unless the German Constitution is inviolable and incapable of change? I'm honestly not sure. Unless it is then the most you can take his statement to mean is that Germany should think about amending it.

[Coyote]

Looks like the poor guy got seriously railroaded. His entry on Wiki is updated, and apparantly this is what he said that was "controversial"--

"Meine Einschätzung ist aber, dass insgesamt wir auf dem Wege sind, doch auch in der Breite der Gesellschaft zu verstehen, dass ein Land unserer Größe mit dieser Außenhandelsorientierung und damit auch Außenhandelsabhängigkeit auch wissen muss, dass im Zweifel, im Notfall auch militärischer Einsatz notwendig ist, um unsere Interessen zu wahren, zum Beispiel freie Handelswege, zum Beispiel ganze regionale Instabilitäten zu verhindern, die mit Sicherheit dann auch auf unsere Chancen zurückschlagen negativ durch Handel, Arbeitsplätze und Einkommen. Alles das soll diskutiert werden und ich glaube, wir sind auf einem nicht so schlechten Weg."

"In my estimation, though, we—including [German] society as a whole—are coming to the general understanding that, given this [strong] focus and corresponding dependency on exports, a country of our size needs to be aware that where called for or in an emergency, military deployment, too, is necessary if we are to protect our interests such as ensuring free trade routes or preventing regional instabilities which are also certain to negatively impact our ability to safeguard trade, jobs and income. All of this should be discussed and I think the path we are on is not so bad."

– Horst Köhler, Interview with Deutschlandradio[6], 22 May 2010

And it was also pointed out:

After coming in for criticism, he stated at a later time that in the interview he was referring to piracy off the coast of Somalia. In his assessment of the national discourse and mood about military deployment this nuance was frequently left out in news reporting.

Now of course this is Wiki, so it may be spin doctoring or miscomprehension, but it looks like he said this about the potential necessity to use the German military to protect trade routes, and he was referring to Somalian piracy. But because he said these comments in Afghanistan, it was interpreted to mean that he was applying a rationale for the unpopular war couched in economic necessaity?

Too bad... the use of force in patrolling the Somalia situation isn't something that generates too much complaint, I believe. Thanas is right; German society seriously needs to have a good debate on the use of the military.

Wasn't a humanitarian mission to Africa heavily criticised a few years ago, even though the German troops were unarmed and delivering food?

[Thanas]

The point is the constitution does not allow warfare for economic interests, so people jumped on that and he then resigned.

Then it's exactly what I said, he got flak for telling the truth. He laid out the political reality of globalization, that nations need to protect their investments internationally. Other people didn't like to hear the truth and so misconstrued his words. Unless the German Constitution is inviolable and incapable of change? I'm honestly not sure. Unless it is then the most you can take his statement to mean is that Germany should think about amending it.

Changing this part would pretty much mean deciding that Nuremberg was wrong and victor's justice (meaning all but declaring that Wars of Aggressions are all fine and dandy if they suit a nation, therfore meaning that Raeder and a lot of the Nazi scum were actually innocent by today's standards etc) , ignoring the immediate result of Allied influence on the constitution (the americans wanted that one in there iirc) etc.

So due to WWII, it is not as easy as simply declaring "well, military might is a legitimate tool of the political business".

Looks like the poor guy got seriously railroaded. His entry on Wiki is updated, and apparantly this is what he said that was "controversial"--

"Meine Einschätzung ist aber, dass insgesamt wir auf dem Wege sind, doch auch in der Breite der Gesellschaft zu verstehen, dass ein Land unserer Größe mit dieser Außenhandelsorientierung und damit auch Außenhandelsabhängigkeit auch wissen muss, dass im Zweifel, im Notfall auch militärischer Einsatz notwendig ist, um unsere Interessen zu wahren, zum Beispiel freie Handelswege, zum Beispiel ganze regionale Instabilitäten zu verhindern, die mit Sicherheit dann auch auf unsere Chancen zurückschlagen negativ durch Handel, Arbeitsplätze und Einkommen. Alles das soll diskutiert werden und ich glaube, wir sind auf einem nicht so schlechten Weg."

"In my estimation, though, we—including [German] society as a whole—are coming to the general understanding that, given this [strong] focus and corresponding dependency on exports, a country of our size needs to be aware that where called for or in an emergency, military deployment, too, is necessary if we are to protect our interests such as ensuring free trade routes or preventing regional instabilities which are also certain to negatively impact our ability to safeguard trade, jobs and income. All of this should be discussed and I think the path we are on is not so bad."

– Horst Köhler, Interview with Deutschlandradio[6], 22 May 2010

And it was also pointed out:

After coming in for criticism, he stated at a later time that in the interview he was referring to piracy off the coast of Somalia. In his assessment of the national discourse and mood about military deployment this nuance was frequently left out in news reporting.

Now of course this is Wiki, so it may be spin doctoring or miscomprehension, but it looks like he said this about the potential necessity to use the German military to protect trade routes, and he was referring to Somalian piracy. But because he said these comments in Afghanistan, it was interpreted to mean that he was applying a rationale for the unpopular war couched in economic necessaity?

Too bad... the use of force in patrolling the Somalia situation isn't something that generates too much complaint, I believe. Thanas is right; German society seriously needs to have a good debate on the use of the military.

He wasn't really railroaded. He was critized and instead of really facing up to the criticism and pushing for a debate, he resigned. Keep in mind though that his best friend of over 40years had just died and he had lost his best employees as well, so maybe he just did not have the fight in him. Had he truly dug in and started a debate he would have won it, IMO, because over 80% of Germans had a favorable view of him.

Which is why this resignation is so unusual.

Wasn't a humanitarian mission to Africa heavily criticised a few years ago, even though the German troops were unarmed and delivering food?

Yeah, because it turned out the humanitarian mission was a french ploy to install one of their guys in the palace and have Germany pay for it. THe German troops played good cop while the french foreign legion or other Special Forces made sure the election would go the way they wanted.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The point is the constitution does not allow warfare for economic interests, so people jumped on that and he then resigned.

Then it's exactly what I said, he got flak for telling the truth. He laid out the political reality of globalization, that nations need to protect their investments internationally. Other people didn't like to hear the truth and so misconstrued his words. Unless the German Constitution is inviolable and incapable of change? I'm honestly not sure. Unless it is then the most you can take his statement to mean is that Germany should think about amending it.

Changing this part would pretty much mean deciding that Nuremberg was wrong and victor's justice (meaning all but declaring that Wars of Aggressions are all fine and dandy if they suit a nation, therfore meaning that Raeder and a lot of the Nazi scum were actually innocent by today's standards etc) , ignoring the immediate result of Allied influence on the constitution (the americans wanted that one in there iirc) etc.

So due to WWII, it is not as easy as simply declaring "well, military might is a legitimate tool of the political business".

Good luck getting people to admit realism is just "the Nazis had every right to fight like they did, the problem is just that they lost" in a clownsuit.

[Coyote]

So... are people saying that the sole reason Germany went to war in 1939 was solely for economic gain, and there were no other motivating factors at work at all?

Revanchism? Nationalism? Imperialsm? Ethnic cleansing? None of these played a part?

That's odd... so now it's like, if you go to war for those reasons, but there's no economic gain involved, then war is okay.

[MKSheppard]

The whole "Waging aggressive war" was just that bullshit. How else are you supposed to wage a military operation? Inaggressively?

Raeder and Doenitz did get fucked over.

The USSR and Britain basically invaded Iran to secure an important route of supply for lend lease aid -- that's good; while the invasion of Norway to secure an important route of supply for iron ore is double bad; even though the Allies were already freaking planning their own invasion of Norway -- it's just that the Nazis got the jump on them. For that Raeder went to Spandau.

Doenitz got screwed for doing the same thing the US Navy did -- apparently sinking British shipping in a war is evil -- while sinking Japanese shipping in a war is good.

[Thanas]

So... are people saying that the sole reason Germany went to war in 1939 was solely for economic gain, and there were no other motivating factors at work at all?

Revanchism? Nationalism? Imperialsm? Ethnic cleansing? None of these played a part?

That's odd... so now it's like, if you go to war for those reasons, but there's no economic gain involved, then war is okay.

No, you missed my post. What Raeder and Dönitz got convicted for - together with a lot of other Nazi general officers - was waging a war of aggression. The other factors playerd a part, but that is what Nuremberg convicted them for. Ergo, changing that clause in the constitution is pretty tantamount to saying Nuremberg was wrong.

The whole "Waging aggressive war" was just that bullshit. How else are you supposed to wage a military operation? Inaggressively?

Raeder and Doenitz did get fucked over.

The USSR and Britain basically invaded Iran to secure an important route of supply for lend lease aid -- that's good; while the invasion of Norway to secure an important route of supply for iron ore is double bad; even though the Allies were already freaking planning their own invasion of Norway -- it's just that the Nazis got the jump on them. For that Raeder went to Spandau.

Doenitz got screwed for doing the same thing the US Navy did -- apparently sinking British shipping in a war is evil -- while sinking Japanese shipping in a war is good.

We pretty much agree on that, Shep. You and I know that. The general public not so much, they will just see "ZOMG. WAR OF AGGRESSION = NAZIS." It brings back a lot of pretty heavy stuff.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The whole "Waging aggressive war" was just that bullshit. How else are you supposed to wage a military operation? Inaggressively?

You know exactly what it means. There's a distinctive difference between the German invasion of Poland on one hand, and the inception of hostilities against Germany following its declaration of war, and against Japan after it bombed Pearl Harbor. It means the resort to overwhelming force is only justified in reactive self-defense.