Skybird
09-27-10, 05:09 AM
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,719608,00.html
It seems that 20 years ago, the French, lacking the industrial weight of Germany, used the events in Germany to blackmail the Germans to accept what France since long was trying to acchieve: to set the raodsigns for a European centralised superstate in whcih and by which they hoped to play a dominant role in Europe that by economic power alone they are unable to play. For that, France always has needed Germany, like in return Germany always needed France for legitimiation of German policy forming in Europe without having fearsome neighbours raising their eyebrows again.
Reunification had a price. Protocols, that have been held secret until now, according to Spiegel informations reveal that just the Kohl government quitting it's resistence to a fast introduction of a European currency, paved the way towards German reunification.
Hamburg - French president Francois Mitterand demanded in 1989 an accelerated introduction of the European currency union as a price for his agreeing to German reunification. This is revealed by a secret protocol of a talk between Mitterand and the German foreign minister of that time, Hans-Dietrich Genscher. "Germany can hope for reunification only if it is located inside a strong community", the French president said. At the same time Mitterand complained about "that the Germans currently have a foot on the brake regarding an economy and currency union." With regard to the European summit in Strassbourgh that was about to take place, Mitterand said: "The Germans have to face a very important choice."
According to the protocol, Genscher then held out in prospect German concessions. "It is necessary to gain a decision in Strassbourgh for a governmental conference preparing the economy and currency union." On the summit, European heads of governments agreed to start the currency union as the next step.
At the same time the assembly supported a German reunification.
Contemporary witnesses now confirmed to Der Spiegel that German reunification and European currency union are very strongly linked to each other indeed. Former advisor to Mitterand and later foreign minister Hubert Védrine said: " Mitterand wanted no German reunification without progress made at the European integration, and the only program that was already prepared, was the currency." Former head of the German Federal Bank Karl-Otto Pöhl became even clearer: "Possibly the European currency union would not have even become a reality without German reunification."
Representants of the old German government of that time deny the claim that introducing the Euro was the price for German reunification. "There never was such a deal", said former interior minister Wolfgang Schäuble. The finananc em inister of that time Theo Waigel said: "There is nopthing true in this thesis. The Euro came precisely according to the preset timetable."
The "preset timetable" must be doubted, even more, if there was such a timetable that was met by later reality, then it was a timetable designed by political deamnds, not by economic reason, since meanwhile it has become obvious that the Euro has been introduced several decades too early and in total ignorration of the massive econmic diferences between member states that have led to the frictions and tensions we have seen this year. And the French claim that Mitterand only wanted progress made for European integration, can only be seen as an euphemism. France always has been one of the driving powers behind establishing a European superstate by which it hoped to gain influence and strength that by itself it does not have anymore.
If the Euro was the price for German reunification, then I must ask indeed if it really was worth it. All Europe now is paying the price, and the stable D-Mark has been abandoned for the sick-by-design-and-timing Euro. I complain since long time that the beginning of chnages in the orientation of the EU's design and claim seem to meet the end of the cold war. If these protocols exist and are true, then they may explain why that is so indeed. For Europe, in the long run the price was quite severe: we now have a democratically non-legitimised tyrannic structure ruling our lives more and more and destroying European freedoms and identities, and we have the Euro's rule and the resulting inability of nations adapting to economic structural differences inside Europe, plus the implementation of an eternal redistribution system inside the EU, that makes nations with smaller debts having to compensate eternally for nations with higher debts and worse financial management, making it a parasitic relation of one-sided abuse. Seen that way, considering the price payed by all Europe, German reunfication maybe must be rated as a disaster. Even more so when considering that a prominent number of Eastgermans are not happy with reunification at all, and that despite hundreds of billions of financial transfer payments from West to East, the East still is loosing a basis that would make it attractive for maitaining a demographic future that. Many regions in the East are dying, and this although even the special "solidarity tax", as it is called here, has produced almost 190 billion that were payed to the East in the past 20 years. Add to this the even greater payments by the regular Federal budgets made during that time. Can the EU misery of Europe be seen as a justified price for one nation's reunification - if that reunification is doubted by many of it'S inhabitants themselves and has produced so big problems in that country itself?
Seeing it all together, I cannot escape to have doubts. And the deal 20 years ago between the governments of Mitterand and Kohl - I call a stinking, foul deal.
It seems that 20 years ago, the French, lacking the industrial weight of Germany, used the events in Germany to blackmail the Germans to accept what France since long was trying to acchieve: to set the raodsigns for a European centralised superstate in whcih and by which they hoped to play a dominant role in Europe that by economic power alone they are unable to play. For that, France always has needed Germany, like in return Germany always needed France for legitimiation of German policy forming in Europe without having fearsome neighbours raising their eyebrows again.
Reunification had a price. Protocols, that have been held secret until now, according to Spiegel informations reveal that just the Kohl government quitting it's resistence to a fast introduction of a European currency, paved the way towards German reunification.
Hamburg - French president Francois Mitterand demanded in 1989 an accelerated introduction of the European currency union as a price for his agreeing to German reunification. This is revealed by a secret protocol of a talk between Mitterand and the German foreign minister of that time, Hans-Dietrich Genscher. "Germany can hope for reunification only if it is located inside a strong community", the French president said. At the same time Mitterand complained about "that the Germans currently have a foot on the brake regarding an economy and currency union." With regard to the European summit in Strassbourgh that was about to take place, Mitterand said: "The Germans have to face a very important choice."
According to the protocol, Genscher then held out in prospect German concessions. "It is necessary to gain a decision in Strassbourgh for a governmental conference preparing the economy and currency union." On the summit, European heads of governments agreed to start the currency union as the next step.
At the same time the assembly supported a German reunification.
Contemporary witnesses now confirmed to Der Spiegel that German reunification and European currency union are very strongly linked to each other indeed. Former advisor to Mitterand and later foreign minister Hubert Védrine said: " Mitterand wanted no German reunification without progress made at the European integration, and the only program that was already prepared, was the currency." Former head of the German Federal Bank Karl-Otto Pöhl became even clearer: "Possibly the European currency union would not have even become a reality without German reunification."
Representants of the old German government of that time deny the claim that introducing the Euro was the price for German reunification. "There never was such a deal", said former interior minister Wolfgang Schäuble. The finananc em inister of that time Theo Waigel said: "There is nopthing true in this thesis. The Euro came precisely according to the preset timetable."
The "preset timetable" must be doubted, even more, if there was such a timetable that was met by later reality, then it was a timetable designed by political deamnds, not by economic reason, since meanwhile it has become obvious that the Euro has been introduced several decades too early and in total ignorration of the massive econmic diferences between member states that have led to the frictions and tensions we have seen this year. And the French claim that Mitterand only wanted progress made for European integration, can only be seen as an euphemism. France always has been one of the driving powers behind establishing a European superstate by which it hoped to gain influence and strength that by itself it does not have anymore.
If the Euro was the price for German reunification, then I must ask indeed if it really was worth it. All Europe now is paying the price, and the stable D-Mark has been abandoned for the sick-by-design-and-timing Euro. I complain since long time that the beginning of chnages in the orientation of the EU's design and claim seem to meet the end of the cold war. If these protocols exist and are true, then they may explain why that is so indeed. For Europe, in the long run the price was quite severe: we now have a democratically non-legitimised tyrannic structure ruling our lives more and more and destroying European freedoms and identities, and we have the Euro's rule and the resulting inability of nations adapting to economic structural differences inside Europe, plus the implementation of an eternal redistribution system inside the EU, that makes nations with smaller debts having to compensate eternally for nations with higher debts and worse financial management, making it a parasitic relation of one-sided abuse. Seen that way, considering the price payed by all Europe, German reunfication maybe must be rated as a disaster. Even more so when considering that a prominent number of Eastgermans are not happy with reunification at all, and that despite hundreds of billions of financial transfer payments from West to East, the East still is loosing a basis that would make it attractive for maitaining a demographic future that. Many regions in the East are dying, and this although even the special "solidarity tax", as it is called here, has produced almost 190 billion that were payed to the East in the past 20 years. Add to this the even greater payments by the regular Federal budgets made during that time. Can the EU misery of Europe be seen as a justified price for one nation's reunification - if that reunification is doubted by many of it'S inhabitants themselves and has produced so big problems in that country itself?
Seeing it all together, I cannot escape to have doubts. And the deal 20 years ago between the governments of Mitterand and Kohl - I call a stinking, foul deal.