Abstracting and creating agitprop realities: a longue-durée view of political “storytelling” on two sides of the same post-Communist coin

Anyone who is - in a non-ideological way - trying to make sense of the major political stories of the most recent past and of the present “news” (or disinformation) content featured in the media, is having a hard time figuring what is really going on. The amount of information (mostly agitprop (=agitation and propaganda)) coming from the different corners of the boxing ring that is the arena of political ideologies is incoherent and contradictory, to put it mildly. That being said, we will still try to point out what in our view are the five most significant discrepancies of the last twenty-five years in the “political storytelling” between East and West, South and North, i.e. the periphery and core or centre of the global political order (or rather disorder) that has since been centered around the United States of America. It has, however, been an economic and political pecking order that has constantly been challenged and reshuffled ever since the end of the Cold War.
 

  

The Soviet flag being taken down on the Kremlin, Moscow, on December 26, 1991. This
marked the end of the existence of the Soviet Union sixty-nine years after its foundation (Source: YouTube)

In the first “long decade” (1988/89 to 2001) following the anti-Soviet reforms and/or protests that lead to revolutions, that started from Hungary (Miklos Németh/Gyula Horn) in November, 1988, and spread all across Central and Eastern Europe until even the Soviet Union itself was dissolved in late December, 1991, the US had its unchallegend “unipolar moment”. Washington's relations with both the now weakened Russia and the emerging China were mostly neutral or even amicable, they were seen as (second-rate) “partners”; post-Soviet Russia was in the U.S. view demoted to a regional power. The U.S.-led involvement in the war in the collapsing Yugoslavia (against a culturally Christian Orthodox, Russophile Serbia) and the first post-cold war NATO expansion into territories that just ten years earlier had been part of the Warsaw Pact, i.e. the Soviet military and political sphere of influence (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland), didn't meet any fierce resistance at the time - although Russia did support Serbia against the Western forces, but still had to tacitly accept the negative outcome for it (most significantly the breakup of Serbia with the foundation of Kosovo, and the independence of Montenegro that followed later).

Some (ideologically challenged, naïve, or unforesightful) elites in the U.S. felt that Francis Fukuyama's “end of history” had indeed come, with the main enemy of the previous five decades demoted and, in the short-term (i.e. normal U.S.) perspective at least, no one else on the radar (Europe or the EU, as more or less even until today, couldn't be taken seriously then, except as an economic power). The “end of history” story was the first discrepancy between U.S. “storytelling” or “created reality” and factual challenges of that reality outside that bubble (mind you, the U.S. was dealing with such “important” issues as the sex life of their president during those years). The ideologues in the bubble of the 1990s had dismissed or underestimated what the involvement (by economic, military and/or political, covert intelligence operations) of their own country and its Western (and some non-Western) allies in the Middle East and South Asia had created as a backlash. Muslim-majority, but mostly secularist states had turned into new challengers of the American hegemony in their region, into extremist, Islamist fundamentalist states, committing or at least supporting acts of terrorism (Iran already since back in 1979, with Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, some factions in Palestine and Egypt following suit), with other states in danger of also turning fully Islamist due to the catastrophic economic circumstances, that make a totalitarian, fundamentalist religious extremism attractive to desperate young populations. Furthermore, inequivocal and uncritical US support of Israel (and all the illegal Israeli policies) in the Israeli-Palestine conflict play(ed) its part in the trouble that had (and still has) been brewing there for decades. Those “chickens came home to roost” in a big way in what has to date been the most visible and obvious attack on and challenge of the U.S. hegemony, on that sunny New York morning on September 11, 2001 (soon abbreviated simply as “9/11”). Ironically (if we follow what has generally been presented as the narrative), most (fifteen out of nineteen) of the terrorists were not from Iran or Afghanistan, but citizens of Saudi Arabia, which officially has been (and still is) a US ally, but at the same time, the House of Saud (which is amicably linked to the “House of Bush”) has, more or less openly, financed Islamist terrorism regionally and globally.

Then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld speaking at a press conference in the pentagon barely eight hours after the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Also at the podium: Sec. of the Army White, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Shelton, Sen. Warner (Virginia) and Sen. Levin (Michigan) 

So, this is the second discrepancy between created reality and, at least “historical”, i.e. geopolitical, “truth”. The centre, i.e. the U.S. government, with its “friends and allies” in tow, described “9-11” mainly as “an attack on our Western values of democracy and freedom” which had to be answered by a “crusade”, a “war on terror” (George W. Bush), that is going on to this day; the periphery, where the retaliatory action happened, had to suffer from two long and protracted wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) and their consequences. Many instances of war crimes, e.g. torture and human experimentation, have been committed by U.S. forces as part of the “war on terror”. The periphery side of the “storytelling” was done by channnels such as Al-Jazeera: founded in Doha, Qatar in 1996, it came into prominence in the West in the wake of “9/11”, with the most comprehensive coverage of what was happening as a reaction to those attacks, i.e. the war in Afghanistan. It presented the “collateral damage”, i.e. the civilian victims of the bombings or drone strikes, and aired views that were very critical of that war and of the U.S. policies in relation to it. In November of 2001, the Afghan offices of Al-Jazeera were destroyed in a U.S. bombing raid on Kabul; the following month, a reporter of the network was abducted and brought to Guantanamo. So, the views on this “war on terror” differed, just as the results did: while there hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil anymore since “9/11”, U.S. allies have been hit in the years as a result of their participation in the controversial Iraq War (Madrid 2004, London 2005).

                         
                     George W. Bush: "CIA people [i.e. torturers] are really good people,
                               and we're lucky to have them" (Source: Young Turks)

The war on terror, dubbed “operation Enduring Freedom”, actually didn't bring freedom to many, on the contrary, it has curbed many freedoms, for both centre and periphery: the civil rights of both U.S. and non-U.S. populations were severely infringed upon by acts such as the Patriot Act, which legalized massive surveillance (e.g. collection of all internet and phone data), basically abolished the basic legal concept of habeas corpus, i.e. the right to protest against unlawful detention, and promoted a militarization of the police force, especially in the U.S. As for (more or less covert) paramilitary or proxy operations abroad, private mercenary armies, unaccountable and “off the record”, have been hired to do the “dirty work”. Anyone can be dubbed an “illegal combatant”, and captured anywhere around the world, be it in the actual war zone or from their home, e.g. in Germany (Khaled al-Masri), and held indefinitely at camps such as Bagram or Guantanamo, where they faced “enhanced interrogation” (torture). Politicians all across the globe (but especially those of the “Five Eyes”, i.e. U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand) have since used the “war on terror” to massively increase the surveillance of their citizens.

The conclusion of this second discrepancy or paradox is: The “democratic freedoms” were “defended” by getting rid of fundamental elements of democracy, i.e. civil rights. Whistle-blowers like Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, who have disclosed these paradoxes, i.e. the war crimes and/or mass surveillance practices mentioned above in the “name of freedom”, have paid the price of completely or at least massively losing their freedom of movement for that, as they are either already under arrest or facing arrest once they would be within reach of U.S. authorities. Those responsible for the, if not illegal, yet despicable practices, are getting away with them, scot-free.


                                 
            Trailer for the documentary "Citizenfour" by Laura Poitras, with Glenn                                   Greenwald, on the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden (December 2014)
                                                   (Source: YouTube)

Even if we leave the morals aside and look at the results, we have to conclude that, despite all the military and intelligence efforts, the goal of reducing global terrorism has utterly failed: there has been a fivefold increase interrorist fatalities since “9/11”, groups such as the Taliban and al-Qaida have not been weakened significantly, at least in the regions where they originated (Afghanistan, Middle East); others, such as the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” IS (Islamic State in Syria and Iraq) terrorists, are a new Frankenstein's monster that sprung up as a result of the Iraq War and the civil war in Syria, armed with supreme weapons that had been supplied to the post-Saddam Iraqi Army and the Syrian Free Army/opposition to President Assad by Western countries. So, a new monster has been created, and the old ones haven't really gone away. Let's leave aside the debate on how beneficial it is to certain ideologues of illiberal “security measures”, in the West and elsewhere, to keep such monsters alive as welcome enemies and distractions from other urgent problems and issues.

"There is no alternative" to austerity and privatization? The Varoufakis papers of the Eurogroup meetings

Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, the personalized anti-"tina", is currently the main enemy of the German-led mainstream technocrats of the "Eurogroup" due to his resistance to continue the austerity policies of the "troika". Anyone who (like some German newspapers) claims that "he and the Greek government are brash and asking a lot, but have not provided any papers of propositions or alternatives to the austerity programme at the recent Eurogroup meetings" is now debunked by the documents by Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis that have been published by www.capital.gr (the English version can be found here (via Robert Misik, Viennese journalist)

Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis

The alternatives to be found in these papers can be summarized in four main points: 

a) a development bank instead of privatizations

"[W]e want to invest to reduce energy costs for medium and large scale industries, to support innovation, start-ups and to promote a shift towards sectors with comparative advantages and export potential such as pharmaceuticals, organic agriculture, light manufacturing, energy resources, with the emphasis naturally on renewables. (...)

Quick fire sales of public property, at a time when asset prices are deeply depressed, is not something that anyone would advocate.

Instead, the government will create a development bank which will incorporate state assets, enhance their equity value through reforming property rights and use them as collateral for the purposes of providing, in association with European investment institutions such as the European Investment Banks, funding to the Greek private sector"

b) investment instead of austerity with unrealistic growth goals

"We recognize the tremendous efforts made by your countries’ taxpayers to support Greece’s debt and maintain the integrity of the euro.

However, unrealistic, self-defeating fiscal targets have been imposed on our country and population and hence must be revised. A primary surplus target of 4.5% of GDP year-in-year-out has no historical precedent in any situation resembling that of Greece today. It will simply not be possible for our country to grow if we remain on the growth sapping austerity path imposed on our economy. It is also quite inconsistent with achieving a sustainably reduced debt-to-GDP ratio.

The new contract we propose to discuss with you should recognize this evidence."

c) fight against tax evasion and rent-seeking, stop policies undermining social cohesion

"The government undertakes to reduce tax evasion, tax immunity, smuggling, cartelsand rent-seeking. Reforms will improve the enforcement of income tax, VAT, and social contributions, and fight tax evasion with an emphasis on transfer pricing in large corporates active abroad. The government stands ready to discuss legislative proposals to reinforce the legal framework for an independent tax authority within the Ministry of Finance.

A full legislative package will improve the business climate and undermine rent-seekers, in particular in the oil sector, the financial sector, and the media. Public procurement procedures will be made more transparent and fair thanks to a more centralized system, efficient monitoring and e-procurement. Reforms will increase the overall efficiency of the public sector, with an objective to improve the quality of services delivered to every citizen. Policies undermining social cohesion have failed and will be dropped."

"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"? Sanctions and “twisting arms” or: On being on the right or wrong side in the “world of rules”

According to our business and political elites, we in Europe and North America (and, ideally, in all of “global society”) are living in a “world of rules”. According to our business and political elites, we in Europa and North America are living in a free and democratic society. According to our business and political elites, some countries have “left this world of rules” and thus have to be punished.

This "world of rules" (and Russia's "leaving it") was what Radoslaw Sikorski, former foreign minister of Poland, mainly spoke about at a talk on the Ukraine crisis at Harvard University in November of 2014. Yet, time and again, it is becoming increasingly clear, that these “rules” are just political tools – as President Obama put it recently, “we occasionally have to twist the arms of countries that wouldn't do what we need them to do.“ Since 2004, a "Presidential proclamation allows the US government to ban foreign nationals whose corrupt conduct hurts US interests, without providing proof of the charges."

Radoslaw Sikorski (left) elaborating on and defining who is on the good and the bad side of the "world of rules", at Harvard University, Cambridge, Ma.,  November 20th, 2014

So it is up to Washington and New York, but also their transatlanticist (neo-)“liberal“ allies in London, Frankfurt and elsewhere (e.g. Warsaw) and some of their lackeys in the media, to define what is treated as corruption and what is not – i.e. there is “good“ corruption, white-collar crime and fraud, as long as it happens on Wall Street, K Street, in the City of London, at Frankfurt high-rises, at Brussels institutions, or in Ukraine, and “bad“ corruption or white-collar crime, in Greece, Russia, Hungary, or Venezuela etc. You can not only be on the right or wrong side of history, but also of corruption, geopolitics or the war on terror, as above countries and countless civilians in embattled conflict regions elsewhere have learned the hard way (by having their “arms twisted“ or as “collateral damage“ of austerity or "democracy promotion").
Many countries/regimes or armies/groups haved turned from Paulus to Saulus in recent decades, because they started challenging US domination or hegemony: the Mujaheddin, anti-Soviet allies in the 1980s, became the “Taliban“ and enemies in the 1990s, with a war against them starting in 2001; Iraq, an ally against Iran in the 1980s, turned enemy in the 1990s, with a war toppling the regime in 2003; Libya, a business partner until well into the 2000s, turned enemy at the beginning of the next decade, with the regime toppled in 2011; the Syrian opposition fighters, supported with arms, then turned enemies (ISIS/ISIL); Russia, a “friend and partner“ in the 1990s and in the “war on terror“ of the early 2000s, increasingly was seen as an enemy from the late 2000s, with NATO expansion into the Baltics and the war in Georgia, and now the current, even bigger conflict over Ukraine. Others, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, have always held US support despite the former's illegal settlement policy and war crimes in Palestine, and the latter's funding of Islamist terrorism (not to mention the human rights violations). They have always been exempt from “the rules“, and “more equal than others“.

The discord between the U.S. and Europe over their different approaches became increasingly visible ahead of Minsk II in early February

President Obama recently admitted that the US was more than just an benevolent bystander and its politicians more than purely coincidental visitors to Kiev (V. Nuland/J. McCain) in the "Maidan" conflict between pro-Western protesters and the government in Ukraine. These protests, that had started in late 2013, escalated in late January/early February of 2014 and led to the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovich almost exactly a year ago, on February 22nd/23rd. A treaty signed by all parties to the conflict, that would have set up a transitional government, was breached by the radical wing of the protesters, who toppled Yanukovich anyway - but as they were on the right side of the Western “world of rules“, they didn't have to stick to them. Subsequently, as a backlash of this coup and thus the expansion into what Russia perceives as its sphere of influence, the Kremlin annexed Crimea (important due to its Russian naval port Sevastopol), and an “anti-Maidan“, pro-Russian insurgency in the Donbass Region, in Eastern Ukraine, ensued. The US/NATO is allowed to expand its sphere of influence, Russia is not. On the other hand, the Kremlin hasn't acted in the most conciliatory manner either within the last few years; but diplomatic failures have also been committed by the EU/Brussels in its dealings with Russia over the envisaged EU membership of Ukraine. Most recently, though, for the first time since the run-up to George W. Bush's Iraq War in 2003, remarkable cracks in the transatlantic foreign policy axis are highly visible again.

"Enough is enough": Outrage on the outposts of the American Empire. The NSA scandal, mass surveillance, drones and “free trade” corporatocracy

German president Joachim Gauck ("enough is enough") and Chancellor Angela Merkel are yet again “indignant and outraged” over a new surveillance scandal - an employee of the German intelligence service (BND), who has been spying on the NSA inquiry commission of the German parliament, for the CIA. (Will any serious consequences follow? Of course not). Yet, to observers of the usual U.S. modus operandi in foreign relations, this is not surprising, but just the tip of the iceberg of a liberal U.S. imperialism that is becoming increasingly illiberal under the threat of the Empire declining, at least economically, and of intelligence agencies (the “deep state”) acting with as much impunity as ever. 

A graffito of the whistle-blower and leaker Edward Snowden in Astoria, New York (July 2013)

About a year ago, Edward Snowden, whistleblower and hero to most liberally-minded in the West and elsewhere, traitor and foe to conservatives and regressives in the U.S., fled Hawaii to reveal to the “Guardian” and the “Washington Post” documents indicative of the scale of the scandalous mass surveillance of citizens of other states by the NSA and other security agencies in five Anglophone countries (the “Five Eyes”). Later last year it became clear, that even high-ranking officials, most prominently German Chancellor Angela Merkel, were spied upon; (official) indignation was big then, much bigger then among them, in comparison to their indifferent reaction to the revelations that the communication channels of the hoi polloi are being tapped. Nothing followed. But now, after a year of humiliating revelations, even politicians who are not deemed on the left side of the political spectrum, such as Gauck and Merkel, are slowly (at least rhetorically) beginning to doubt the value and sincerity of the transatlantic partnership, or in Germany's case, the “German-American Friendship”, that so far had been invoked as the basis of European-American partnership, security and trust.

Imperial disregard for so-called "friends and allies"

Direct U.S. influence is now felt not only outside Europe, e.g. in the Middle East, anymore, where Israel, despite illegal settlement policies and disproportionate actions in dealing with the Palestinians (and another full-on war on Gaza pending), has been backed with no questions asked and all possible U.N. sanctions on Israel vetoed for decades. In Eastern Europe and the Caucasus pro-capitalist, pro-NATO, pro-neoliberal revolutions (Georgia, Ukraine) have been more or less openly supported, financially and otherwise, by Washington. In the Pacific, a geopolitical confrontation with China in the South Chinese Sea is slowly, but steadily evolving into a serious conflict. While Arabs and other non-Western populations are more or less rightfully accusing the U.S. of meddling into their affairs, if not open imperialism, for decades, this has now, most recently, also been a theme for an increasing number of citizens of states that so far undoubtedly were deemed part of the “West”. The populations of these countries, the most prominent and most powerful of them being Germany, are now also increasingly aware of direct instances of U.S. imperialism in their countries, after decades of indirect U.S. influence through cultural imperialism, i.e.“soft power” (Disney, Hollywood etc.) after World War II. The mass surveillance is just the most obvious instance, that is specifically coming to light with regard to U.S. behavior towards “friends and allies”, and that is now even known to the bulk of the population. Many in the political elites continue to stress the steadfastness of amicable transatlantic, specifically German-American, relations; however, the latest scandal is just another sign that the United States couldn't care less how its “friends and allies” feel about its behavior. This has started (at least) a decade with G. W. Bush's war on Iraq, with which he followed through in 2003, against the resistance of many other states, most prominently France, Germany and Russia, and has been continuing until today, with the PRISM mass surveillance program, and the spying on the citizens of “friendly states” coming to light. Today, news broke that the U.S. intelligence agencies are also spying on some of their own citizens, i.e. on those that are Muslims.

logo of the PRISM surveillance program, in existence since 2005

Drones/UAV's and PRISM: A fictionalization of human rights, international law, democracy and transparency 

It's necessary to “fight terrorism”, is the less and less credible official legitimation of the mass surveillance; the use of drones to kill “terror suspects” without trial (i.e. legal murder) is legitimated the same way (new Ukrainian president Poroshenko has quickly learned this lesson in rhetorics and is now also “fighting terrorism” in Eastern Ukraine by bombing civilians, breaking a truce brokered by diplomats of all parties involved with impunity). Those in Guantanamo are not given a fair trial, Osama bin Laden was immediately shot instead of tried (as a trial would have raised interesting questions over inconsistencies with regard to 9/11). 

While most of the (Western) world is focusing on the events in Eastern Ukraine and most of the (Western) media is hyping Russia into the the role of the (old and new) antagonist of the “free” world, the rotten, inverted side of the Western Janus face remains largely unseen for many followers of the average mainstream “news”. The covert drone war of the U.S., for example, goes largely unnoticed in the mainstream media. UAV's (“unmanned aerial vehicles”), many of them steered from U.S. bases in Southern Germany, have killed more than 2 400 (not convicted, just declared) terror suspects (with at least 276 civilian casualties as “collateral damage”) since 2004. The latest targeted killings, the biggest U.S. drone attack since December (when at least 12 civilians died (out of 17 victims overall)) went almost unnoticed in the West, as it was overshadowed by the coverage of the anniversary of the Boston marathon bombings, where three people were killed and 264 injured a year ago. While Christians celebrated Easter, at least 13 Yemenis were killed by drones, including at least 3 three civilians; the Yemeni government had officially forbidden the U.S. to carry out further strikes in its territory after the last attacks, but regardless of that, the imperial masters make the rules, not the government of (from the U.S. perspective) a petty Arab state. National sovereignty, who cares? The lawfulness of those targeted killings by drones is doubtful at best, but the U.S. (along with their U.K. poodles) are blocking any resolution criticizing them, let alone initiatives calling for an investigation of the matter. On Monday, April 21, the U.S. government was ordered to release the documents that, from its perspective, legalize the killing of U.S. citizens by drones, by a circuit court of appeals in Manhattan, after the NY Times sued it for doing so; the court ruled that the government waived its “right to secrecy” in the matter by publicly making statements justifying the killings, which means: Had the government remained silent, those documents on the matter could have legally remained secret and the right to secrecy would have overridden the public right to know about the justification, i.e. transparency, that is a vital right in a democratic system. 

The policies and strategies behind the "terrorism" rhetoric are mere instruments of power politics, though, and conducive to nothing else but the increased fictionalization of human rights, international law, democracy and transparency, as is the talk of sanctions to “punish breaches of international law” and “free trade for the benefit of everyone”.

Sanctions: Some animals are more equal than others

Sanctions and free trade are the other “principles”, better mantras, of the neoliberal rhetoric, promoting shiny, happy principles of “more humane warfare”, of “democratic capitalism and creation of wealth” and a liberal world order with seemingly equal rules for everyone (but some (U.S., the “Five Eyes”, Israel) are more equal than others (Russia, Arab states)).

On the death of Hans-Ulrich Wehler (1931-2014), German social historian

German historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler (1931-2014) has died on Saturday. His most prominent work is a five-volume work on the social history of Germany ("Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte") in the Early Modern and Modern Era (1700-1990). He was not a historian in the "ivory tower" of academia, but also commented on socio-political issues; over the last couple of years, he had repeatedly criticized the increasing inequality in income and property in Germany and globally.

Wehler at the Leipzig Book Fair, March 2013

Wehler, born in Freudenberg near Siegen in Westphalia on September 11th, 1931, died in Bielefeld last Saturday (July 5th, 2014). He graduated from high school in 1952, attending the same gymnasium as the most prominent West German post-war philosopher, Jürgen Habermas. A student at Cologne, Bonn and at Ohio Unversity at the time of West Germany's post-war "economic miracle" ("Wirtschaftswunder"), he became a lecturer at Cologne at the height of the "1968er" student movement in Germany; after a couple of years there, he took up a full professor chair at West Berlin's (left-wing) Free University in 1970. For most of his career, from 1971 until 1996, he taught at the "reform" University of Bielefeld, with stints in Berne, Switzerland, and in the U.S., at Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and Yale. 

Recently, Wehler had pointed to the increasing inequality as a danger to social peace and to the ongoing social erosion of the basis of a German society, that for the immediate post-war decades rather aptly had been characterized as a rather "levelled middle-class society" ("nivellierte Mittelstandsgesellschaft") by sociologist Helmut Schelsky (who, like Wehler, was one of the pioneers of the newly-founded "reform" university at Bielefeld).

At Bielefeld, Wehler and others developed and taught the method of Critical Social History ("Kritische Sozialgeschichte", "Bielefelder Schule" (Bielefeld School)). Wehler was influenced by Max Weber's theories and saw grand social and economic developments as the motors of history. He always focused on the complexity and totality of modernity.

In 2013, he wrote in Germany's ZEIT weekly newspaper: "It remains an open question, why there is so little resistance against the exorbitant increase in inequality of incomes and property. After all, labour unions have half of the seats on the boards of corporations; but questions of wages and bonuses are mostly decided upon consensually. Are such delicate [i.e. important, PB] questions simply rubber-stamped? For it is not about the enforcement of genuine market forces, as the hegemonic neoclassical school in the U.S., in Britain and in Germany suggests, but about classical decision-making by a few men in a small arena. (...)

The blatant inequality of income and property is indisputably dangerous, despite the domestic tranquility. For it had always been the basis of legitimacy of the Federal Republic of Germany, that the social product of our economy should be distributed more or less equally. That had been the big achievement of a pragmatic cooperation between corporations and labour unions. But nowadays, the blatant differences can't be legitimated any more, even more so because the middle class and the lower class are suffering from a stagnation of their real income. Political pressure, leading to adequate reforms, is necessary. The overcoming of this inequality is vital, Germany's often-praised ability to reform is at stake here."

“All quiet on the Eastern Front” and “some are more equal than others”? The assocation agreement, the Ukraine, Russia, the EU and the U.S. after “EwroMaidan” and “Crimvasion”

The signature of the association agreement between the de-facto new Ukrainian government of Arseny Yatsenyuk in Kiev and the EU last Friday, four months after the beginning of the protests, is not the end of the Maidan story and certainly not the end of the conflict in the country and the whole Eastern European region. Western hypocrisy and double standards towards Russia with regard to Maidan and Crimea have estranged Moscow not only further from London and Washington, but now increasingly from Brussels and Berlin as well.

E.U. and Ukrainian flags in Kiev, 2008

About a hundred victims of the Maidan later, only superficially “all is quiet on the Eastern front”. The EU has won a Pyrrhic victory in having a pro-Western government in power in Kiev and the treaty signed. Why Pyrrhic? Because the country is virtually bankrupt and, despite the regime change, remains split. As Russia is likely to break all economic and financial ties to and support of the Kiev government, the EU has to foot the bill of its - in the current (financial) state it is in, megalomaniac - expansion drive. Brussels, and NATO, are part of the power game and to blame for their black-and-white, undiplomatic, role in the conflict. 

Yet, European politicians have only condemned Russia's, admittedly aggressive, brash and imperial, realpolitik, and military and political behaviour with regard to the annexation of Crimea. But they remain nauseously tranquil with regard to their own mistakes in the escalation of the conflict and, more importantly, uncritical towards Western imperialism, i.e. neo-conservative and imperial behaviour of the U.S. intelligence agencies and military - if they are not even in open support of it, as e.g. the government of the United Kingdom is. The U.S. strategy of dividing Europe (the EU) and Russia has borne fruit. Especially the German-Russian relations, who could be described as cooperative, if not amicable, about a decade ago (when Vladimir Putin spoke, mostly in German, in the Bundestag in 2001), lie in complete tatters, as Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) and her foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD), chose to unequivocally side with Washington.

Vladimir Putin addressing the Bundestag, Berlin on September 25, 2001, mostly in German

Almost exactly four months ago, on November 21, 2013, the protests soon known as „Maidan“ or „Euromaidan“ started when thousands of people, some primarily out of anger at Victor Yanukovich's government for its oligarchic character, some primarily out of their pro-Western or pro-EU stance, and some out of anti-Russian nationalism, rallied on the Independence Square (Maidan Nezaleshnosti) in the Ukrainian capital Kiev. Nine years after a previous series of protests in 2004 in Ukraine, dubbed Orange Revolution, those protests were triggered by the refusal of then-President Viktor Yanukovich to sign an association agreement with the European Union. The protests, directed not only against the pro-Russian policies of Yanukovich, but also against the economic plight of the country, continued for three months, well into the new year, 2014, until an escalation into more severe violence took place, and subsequently, triggered by that escalation, a revolutionary upheaval shook the political foundations of the country, torn between East and West. Right-wing extremists increasingly took over the Maidan, who had consisted of people of mixed allegiances previously. The first fatalities came on February 18 and the following days: about 100 people were killed in clashes between police and protesters, or by snipers (whose affiliation, first believed to be pro-goverment, has recently become less clear). International diplomacy, that had been rather inactive until then, finally tried to solve the conflict; the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland brokered a deal, including a snap presidential election, between the Yanukovich government and opposition leaders, which they agreed upon on February 21. However, the more radical elements from the right wing, who had hijacked the leadership of Maidan, didn't accept the deal and ousted the president in a coup, only a day later, on February 22. The newly-formed government that was set up consists of moderate (neo-)liberals, but also of right-wing extremists of the anti-Russian „Svoboda“ party. The protected status of Russian as a minority language was scrapped, angering the pro-Russian or ethnically Russian population in Eastern Ukraine and on the Crimea Peninsula, giving Russia a pretense to get involved not only politically, but militarily.

The host country of the Sochi Winter Olympics in early and mid-February that were overshadowed by the escalation in Kiev, saw its geopolitical interests, i.e. its ecomomic hegemony in Ukraine and the continued existence of its naval base in Sevastopol in Crimea, endangered by the anti-Russian coup in Kiev, and, almost immediately after the Games were over, moved to take the peninsula, largely (70%) populated by ethnic Russians, (back) into its territory, in late February and early March, in a parallel operation of military invasion and political annexation. Russia was welcomed by an autonomous, anti-Maidan government that had taken over power on Crimea. A referendum set up after the de-facto invasion overwhelmingly supported Russia's move, “bringing back Crimea to its mother country”.

The same way Yanukovich had been ousted by force, despite the diplomatic agreement reached just hours before, and a parliament “formally“ voting him out under the pressure of armed neo-Nazi Right Sector thugs, the Crimean population “formally“ voted under the barrel of Russian or pro-Russian soldiers' guns to join the Russian Federation. Two acts of force, that were backed by “legal“ legitimatory acts after the fact.

EU High Representative Catherine Ashton, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and French foreign secretary Laurent Fabius in Paris, March 5, 2014

But how was this reported and assessed by most European and U.S. politicians and in some (or most) media (with a few exceptions, especially on the Left)? Unbelievably one-sided - apparently “some are more equal than others”. U.S. Foreign Secretary John Kerry made a laughing stock out of himself by uttering in all seriousness, with a completely straight face: ”You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext”. To repeat, this was meant in a serious way. The U.S. must know about this, because when it comes to invading other countries on dubious grounds and without broad international support, they certainly know their stuff, most recently in the Iraq War at the beginning of the 21st century that Kerry mentioned. Destabilizing countries and regions, specifically those who are not “market-friendly” yet, is the favourite hobby of neo-cons like Victoria Nuland, the assistant foreign secretary of State "for Europe and Eurasian affairs", who gained prominence in Europe for saying “fuck the EU”, uttering in a Freudian slip, the U.S. attitude towards Brussels' “foreign policy” in Ukraine and elsewhere, namely that it should not exist independently of U.S. interests.

Whereas Putin is no doubt an authoritarian, undemocratic president, not far short of a dictator, the new Ukrainian government, that the EU just signed the association agreement with, is a government in which right-wing extremists of the Svoboda party run crucial ministries, such as defense; Svoboda's leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, has openly invoked hatred against Russians, Jews and Germans. Neo-fascist or at least right-wing extremist parties are also in power in countries that are already EU members, most prominently in Hungary, and have been in the past, e.g. in Austria from 2000 to 2008. Bulgarian president Rossen Plevnelyev (of the GERB party, a conservative party, member of the European People's Party fraction in Brussels, i.e. affiliated with Merkel's CDU), apparently a parrot of Germany and Austria (and dependent on their economic clout within the EU) and a fan of NATO, had the nerve to dismiss the fact that right-wing extremist nationalists are in power in Kiev as “Russian propaganda” echoed by “controlled” media allegedly “bought by Gazprom”, in a talk on the “prospects of Southeastern Europe from the perspective of Bulgaria”, at Vienna's Diplomatic Academy on Friday (as if Western media was not “controlled” at all). He pointed out the breach of the Budapest Memorandum on Security, signed between the U.S., the U.K., Russia and the Ukraine in 1994, by Russia's “Crimvasion”, but e.g. failed to mention that his country had supported the Iraq War, that was doubtful in its legality, to put it mildly, in 2003. He also failed to mention that the association agreement is basically a dictate by the IMF and the World Bank, to impose a neo-liberal agenda and austerity on Ukraine with no commitment on future membership of Ukraine (or at least lifting visa restrictions for Ukrainians) on the part of EU, in return for “economic and financial aid” by these actors, and that people on Crimea, now Russians (at least from Moscow's point of view), enjoy higher salaries and pensions than they would under the Kiev government.

Snowden, Syrien, Ukraine. Russlands alte, neue Weltmachtambitionen: Putins „Spiel mit dem Feuer“ auf der Krim als Kulmination des geopolitischen Machtkampfes mit dem Westen

Nach der Zustimmung der Duma zu einem Militäreinsatz am Wochenende hat der Kreml zu Wochenbeginn rasch Fakten geschaffen: russische Truppen kontrollieren de facto bereits die gesamte Halbinsel Krim, auch außerhalb der in Sewastopol seit Jahrhunderten bestehenden Schwarzmeerflotten-Basis Russlands und dem kurzzeitig von ihnen besetzten Flughafen Simferopol. Putins aktuelles „Spiel mit dem Feuer“ auf der Krim ist jedoch nicht „nur“ die Reaktion auf den nationalistischen ukrainischen Umsturz, sondern die langfristige Kulmination eines jahrzehntelangen geopolitischen Machtkampfes mit dem Westen. Während dieser oftmals heuchlerisch unter dem Deckmantel "demokratischer" oder "Menschenrechts"-Motive Kriege für seine Wirtschafts-Interessen führt, ist es für das post-sowjetische Russland offen erkennbar handfester Machtverlust, gegen den es offensiv-aggressiv agiert.

 Vladimir Putin mit dem damaligen ukrainischen Präsidenten Leonid Kuchma auf dem russischen Marine-Flagschiff "Moskwa" (2001)

Nach der Weigerung Yanukovichs im November, ein Assoziierungsabkommen mit der EU zu unterzeichnen, ist das Pendel in Kiew vor zehn Tagen wieder in die westliche Richtung geschwungen: Die neue ukrainische Führung dort ist vor zehn Tagen durch einen Putsch der nationalistischen Opposition ins Amt gekommen, der den nur Stunden zuvor diplomatisch erzielten Kompromiss - "Waffenstillstand", Neuwahlen, Übergangsregierung der nationalen Einheit - zwischen dem Westen (hier: Deutschland, Frankreich und Polen), der friedlichen gemäßigten Opposition und Russland (vom 21. Februar), ad absurdum führte. Dieser hätte die Lage nach den von (in ihrem Hintergrund mysteriösen) Scharfschützen angerichteten blutigen Massakern an Maidan-Demonstranten de-eskaliert; der radikale Flügel akzeptierte den Vertrag jedoch nicht, und so wurde die konfrontative Lage aufrechterhalten. Die neuen Machthaber in Kiew haben zudem in den letzten Tagen mit einigen populistisch-nationalistischen, unklugen Maßnahmen, wie etwa der Abschaffung von Russisch als zweiter Amtssprache in den von ethnisch Russen bevölkerten Ost-und Süd-Provinzen, zusätzlich unnötig Öl ins Feuer gegossen und Moskau so einen willkommenen Anlass zur Aggression geliefert. Der Antrag zu dem nationalistischen Sprachgesetz kam von der besonders populistisch agierenden rechtsextremen "Swoboda"-Partei. Vielerorts wurden zudem von Sympathisanten dieser Partei Statuen Lenins und des russischen Napoleon-Bezwingers, General Kutusow, vom Sockel gestoßen. 


Der russische Präsident nimmt dies gern zum Anlass für einen Krieg, um nach Olympia in Sochi, seinem "Erfolg" gegen den Westen im Syrienkonflikt und dem Asyl für Snowden das russische Prestige vermeintlich weiter zu steigern. Der Krieg ist vielleicht auch einigen ukrainischen Nationalisten in der Übergangsregierung recht, die von der katastrophalen finanziellen Misere, in der sich der Kiewer Staatshaushalt befindet, abzulenken hoffen. Denn die Ukraine ist de facto bankrott. Dies ist die Schuld des nun gestürzten Oligarchen Yanukovich; vor den Maidan-Protesten war dieser trotz seiner keineswegs weißen Weste ein willkommener Gesprächs- und möglicher Geschäftspartner der EU, nach seinem blutigen Vorgehen gegen die Maidan-Proteste wurde er im Westen rasch zum "pro-russischen" Diktator stilisiert.

                                         

Anteil der ethnischen Ukrainer (Westukraine: 90-100%, Ostukraine: 55-60%, Krim: ca. 25%, Ukraine gesamt ca. 75%)

Vom Machtmenschen Vladimir Putin ist das Zitat überliefert, dass der Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion die größte geopolitische Katastrophe des 20. Jahrhunderts gewesen sei. Aus seiner und russischer Sicht ist diese Haltung verständlich, bzw. wenn man die Welt rein unter den Kriterien geopolitischer Stabilität betrachtet. Denn in dem bipolaren System zweier Machtblöcke und unter dem atomaren „Gleichgewicht des Schreckens“, das aufgrund der drohenden “Mutually Assured Destruction“ (MAD) zwischen dem „Westen“ (NATO) und dem „Ostblock“ (Warschauer Pakt) herrschte, war Europa zwar für 40 Jahre gespalten, aber auch stabil, mit einer geopolitischen Machtlinie, die mitten durch den Kontinent verlief, dem „Eisernen Vorhang“.

Der Ost-West-Konflikt um Einflusssphären bestand aber jedenfalls nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges fort. Am Balkan stellte sich Russland in den 1990er Jahren beim Zerfall Jugoslawiens gegen den Westen. Russland positionierte sich als Schutzmacht des konfessionell ebenso orthodoxen serbischen „Brudervolkes“ klar gegen das NATO-geführte westliche Bündnis, auf die Seite von Slobodan Milosevic im Krieg Belgrads erst gegen Kroatien und in Bosnien und dann im Kosovo (2000 erfolgte dort ein vom Westen finanzierter Umsturz, Milosevic wurde entmachtet). Am Kaukausus wurde Georgien in den frühen 2000er von den Vereinigten Staaten als Gegengewicht zu Russland aufgebaut. 2003 wurde dort der Ex-Außenminister der Sowjetunion, Edward Schewardnadse, nach acht Jahren Präsidentschaft von der „Rosenrevolution“ entmachtet, eine pro-westliche Regierung kam an die Macht. Dem Land wurde 2008 sogar die NATO-Mitgliedschaft angetragen und die Regierung unter Michail Saakaschwili provozierte Russland dort im selben Jahr zu einem militärischen Eingreifen im (bis heute schwelenden) Dauerkonflikt um die pro-russischen, abtrünnigen georgischen Provinzen Abchasien und Süd-Ossetien. Eine weitere „Farbrevolution“ 2004 in der Ukraine, die „Orangene“ Revolution, in der, von der eher nationalistischen und/oder pro-europäischen Bevölkerungsschicht aus dem Westen des Landes getragen, Yanukovich aus dem Amt und pro-westliche Kräfte an die Macht gebracht wurden, schlug eine weitere westliche Bresche in den russischen Einflussbereich.

Flagge der seit 1994 innerhalb der Ukraine bestehenden "Autonomen Republik Krim"

Auch in anderen Regionen als direkt an Russlands Grenzen standen und stehen sich westliche und russische Interessen diametral gegenüber, zuletzt wurde dies beim Konflikt um Syrien deutlich, dort stellte sich Russland mit seiner Pro-Assad-Haltung vehement und erfolgreich gegen ein Eingreifen des Westens. Zuvor, 2011, hatte sich Russland klar gegen die militärische Aktion einiger westlicher Staaten in Libyen gestellt. Zudem verschärften sich innerhalb des letzten Jahrzehnts diplomatische Kleinkriege zwischen den Geheimdiensten Moskaus einerseits und denen Londons und Washingtons andererseits, mit der Kulmination in den Affären um den zum britischen MI5 übergelaufenen Alexander Litvinenko, den Russland 2006 vergiftete, und um den Ex-NSA-Agenten, jetzt “whistle blower“ Edward Snowden, von vielen in den USA als Staatsfeind deklariert, dem Russland im August 2013 Asyl gewährte.

Geopolitisch handelt es sich bei dem nun erneut im Brennpunkt stehenden Bereich direkt westlich und südlich der russischen Grenzen um eine Zone, in der in den letzten Jahren westliche Akteure eine Annäherung ehemals unter russischem bzw. sowjetischem Einfluss stehender Staaten an EU und NATO mehr oder minder erfolgreich vorantrieben und -treiben. Dies steht natürlich im krassesten Gegensatz zu russischen Interessen. Erste Staaten des ehemaligen Warschauer Pakts wurden bereits 1999, weniger als ein Jahrzehnt nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges, Mitglied der NATO, dem Antipoden der Sowjetunion, die meisten anderen folgten 2004. Im gleichen Jahr folgte die EU-Mitgliedschaft der meisten Ostblockstaaten (mit weiteren Aufnahmen 2007), während andere sich aber gleichzeitig (wieder) an Russland annäherten (Weissrussland) oder zwischen pro-westlichen und pro-russischen Regierungen schwankten (Orangene Revolution in der Ukraine 2004, Machtwechsel zugunsten Russlands/Yanukovichs dort 2010).

Die Annäherung der EU an ehemalige Sowjetrepubliken (seit 2008 in der „Östlichen Partnerschaft“ offiziell institutionalisiert) gipfelte in dem Assoziationsabkommen der Brüsseler Konföderation mit der Ukraine, das im November des letzten Jahres zur Unterschrift bereit lag, dem aber dann von Viktor Yanukovich unter Druck Moskaus diese verweigert wurde. Dies führte zu den pro-europäischen Maidan-Protesten, die am 1. Dezember 2013 erstmals eskalierten.

Die Eidgenössische Volksinitiative „gegen Masseneinwanderung“: Freiheit für Kapital, Schlagbäume für Menschen? Ist die helvetische Abschottung Torheit oder splendid isolation „freier Schweizer“?

Stanislas Wawrinka ist, spätestens seit einigen Wochen, einer der wohl bekanntesten Schweizer der Gegenwart. Denn der 28-jährige gewann am 26. Januar 2014 in Melbourne die Australian Open, eines der fünf größten Turniere („Grand Slams“) der ATP-Profi-Tennistournee. Der in Lausanne gebürtige Sportstar ist, wie z.B. auch viele Fußballnationalspieler der Eidgenossen, ein Sohn von Einwanderern. Nicht etwa von einem Finanzmanager oder Professor stammt er ab, sondern von einem Bauern aus der ehemaligen Tschechoslowakei und einer Sozialarbeiterin.

Stanislas Wawrinka (Wimbledon, 24. Juni 2013)

Die Aufstellung der Fußballnationalmannschaft („Nati“) bestand in den letzten Jahrzehnten etliche Male zu mehr als der Hälfte (bis zu acht von elf Spielern) aus Einwandererkindern, meist aus ärmeren Schichten, oft aus den Ländern des ehemaligen Jugoslawien, aus Albanien oder dem Kosovo, der Türkei, aber auch Italien. 

Die Schweizer Debatte über Immigration ist angesichts der sozio-ökonomischen und demographischen Lage auch in Europa insgesamt notwendig, darf aber nicht auf dem plump-simplistischen und populistischen Niveau geführt werden wie derzeit im Anti-EU-Europawahlkampf (ein Paradoxon per se) der rechten Parteien, wie in deren Organen, den national orientierten Boulevardmedien, oder seit jeher an den Stammtischen. Die knappe Mehrheit der Schweizer ist jedoch solchen Parolen gefolgt und hat sich, wohl aus irrationalen Überfremdungsängsten, gegen mehr Einwanderung entschieden; denn wirtschaftlicher Schaden entsteht der Schweiz durch die Zuwanderung nicht. Das Ergebnis stellt das bisherige ökonomische Erfolgsmodell des Alpenlandes in Frage, genauso wie das bisher recht enge Verhältnis der Schweiz zur EU und ihre Mitgliedschaft im Europäischen Wirtschafts- sowie im Schengen-Raum.

Schweizer Fußball-"Nati" ohne Migrantenkinder, auch Trainer Hitzfeld (Deutschland) wäre nicht dabei (Quelle, NDR)

Meist wuchsen die späteren Sportstars als Migrantenkinder in den Großstädten der Schweiz auf, in einem Klima, das ihnen wohl nicht immer wohlgesonnen war, aber dennoch tolerant. Der hohe Anteil an Ausländern in den Städten ist Resultat des Reichtums der Eidgenossenschaft. Nicht nur aus wirtschaftlicher Not und/oder politischer Verfolgung kommen und kamen viele Zuwanderer in die Schweiz, sondern ein Großteil wurden auch für hochqualifizierte (akademische u.a.) Jobs angeworben (viele davon aus Deutschland, wodurch mancherorts, durch „gefühlte“ Überzahl an Deutschen z.B. an den Universitäten, die alte, latente Schweizer Germanophobie ausbrach). Eine andere Gruppe sind neutral ausgedrückt Steuersparer, die ihr Geld am Finanzamt ihres Heimatlandes (oder dem Ursprungsland des Geldes) vorbei in die Schweiz bringen, wo sie weit weniger als dort oder so gut wie gar nichts davon an den Schweizer Fiskus und die Banken abführen müssen. Woher das Geld kommt, kümmert den Staat nicht, nicht die „normalen“ Groß-Banken in Zürich und anderswo und erst recht nicht jene, die, z.B. im Kanton Zug, nur zum Zwecke solcher Geschäfte mit dem Geld von Ausländern bestehen.

Plakate der Schweizer Volkspartei anlässlich der Volksabstimmung zur Ausländer- und Asylpolitik 2010 in St. Gallen.

An dem Geld und der Arbeitskraft sowohl ungelernter Arbeiter als auch hochqualifiziert beschäftigter Zuwanderer hängt in der Eidgenossenschaft also vieles, v.a. in den wirtschaftsstarken urbanen Ballungsräumen. Ähnlich wie in den meisten anderen „hoch entwickelten“ Ländern wie z.B. den USA, wo man sich „a day without a Mexican“, wie ein (humoristischer, aber dennoch zum Nachdenken anregender) Film über das Zuwanderungs-Thema in Kalifornien heißt, gar nicht mehr vorstellen kann, ohne dass ein Großteil des öffentlichen Lebens zum Erliegen kommen würde, besteht also eine Abhängigkeit von Zuwanderern.

Trailer zu "A day without a Mexican" (USA 2004, englisch)

Die helvetische Alpenrepublik ist nun, nach dem Votum am vergangenen Sonntag für die Begrenzung von Einwanderung, gespalten wie selten zuvor. Die ländlichen Gebiete der Zentral- und Ostschweiz haben sich äußerst knapp durchgesetzt, die urbanen Zentren und die Romandie sind überstimmt worden. Das eidgenössische Wahlvolk liefert - nach dem Minarettverbot 2009 - eine weitere Steilvorlage für Europas neonazistische Hetzer und xenophobe Rechtspopulisten, rechtzeitig zur Europawahl im Mai. Marine Le Pen (Front National) in Frankreich und Heinz-Christian Strache (FPÖ) in Österreich zum Beispiel jubeln mit Christoph Blocher über das denkbar knappe, aber für die Berner Regierung dennoch bindende, Resultat und wünschen sich ähnliche Abstimmungen auch in ihren Ländern. Die Nationalkonservativen von der SVP (Schweizer Volkspartei) Blochers haben mit ihrer ökologisch-verkehrspolitisch verbrämten („mehr Ausländer heißt vollere Autobahnen und Züge“), aber de facto „Überfremdungs“-Ängste schürenden Kampagne die äußerst knappe Stimmen-Mehrheit (50,3% zu 49,7%, um 0,6%=19 526 Stimmen), aber deutliche Stände-Mehrheit (17 von 26 Kantonen) gewonnen. Auf die Kantone heruntergebrochen ergab sich größtenteils das für die Schweiz übliche Nordost-Südwest- bzw. Sprachgruppen-Gefälle (nordöstlich des „Röstigrabens“ konservativ, südwestlich davon liberal). Am deutlichsten für die Initiative stimmten das Tessin sowie die traditionell konservativen Kantone der Ost- und Zentralschweiz (Appenzell, Glarus, Luzern, Nidwalden, Obwalden, Uri, St. Gallen, Schwyz), aber auch ländliche, nahe der deutschen Grenze gelegene nördliche Kantone (Aargau, Schaffhausen, Thurgau). In der Romandie sowie auch in den deutschsprachigen Städten, oder städtisch geprägten Kantonen, lehnten die Stimmbürger die Initiative dagegen mehrheitlich ab (am deutlichsten in Waadt, Basel-Stadt und Genf).

Eben nicht in den urbanen Zentren wie Basel, Genf, Lausanne und Zürich, mit hohem Migrantenanteil, erhielt die Initiative also die meisten Stimmen, sondern in den ländlicheren Kantonen, wo der Ausländeranteil meist weit niedriger ist (Ausnahmen sind die Kantone in Grenznähe zu Deutschland (s.o.) oder Italien (Tessin)). In dieser Tatsache spiegelt sich der zwischen Engstirnigkeit und Kirchturmpolitik einerseits und kosmopolitischer Weltoffenheit andererseits oszillierende Nationalcharakter der Schweiz. Ist die Schweiz ein „Land des Geldes“ und gleichzeitig „Land der Angst“ (so titelte SPIEGEL Online am Sonntagabend)?

Wovor hat der reiche „freie Schweizer“ Bürger auf dem Land bzw. in den Bergen Angst, „wenn der Alpenfirn sich rötet“, wie es im Schweizerpsalm, der Nationalhymne, heißt? Offenbar vor einer diffusen Überfremdung, denn sein persönlicher Reichtum wird nicht dadurch geschmälert, dass es in der Schweiz viele Ausländer gäbe (die es in seinem Umfeld sowieso eher weniger gibt als in den Städten). 

Der Holocaust-Gedenktag und die Debatte um den Wiener „Akademikerball“: Gratmesser für Demokratie oder für die Salonfähigkeit des Rechtsextremismus in Österreich

Am vergangenen Freitagabend, wenige Tage vor dem heutigen Holocaust-Gedenktag, trafen sich auf dem von der Freiheitlichen Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) veranstalteten „Akademikerball“ in der Wiener Hofburg in deren Selbstwahrnehmung die „Leistungsträger“ und "Anständigen" der Gesellschaft. Wie jedes Jahr gab es gegen den (Ort des) Ball(s) große Proteste. Die Maßnahmen zur Sicherung dieser Versammlung waren jedoch um ein Vielfaches strikter und repressiver als in den Jahren zuvor. Die dieses Jahr besonders intensive Debatte um den Ball und die Proteste dagegen sind wichtig und Gradmesser der Demokratie oder der Salonfähigkeit des Rechtsextremismus in Österreich.

Demonstration gegen den Wiener "Akademikerball" im Vorjahr (Heldenplatz, 01.02.2013)

Denn die Polizei verhängte im Hinblick auf die angemeldeten Demonstrationen ein Platzverbot für die halbe Innenstadt, das eine größere Fläche umfasste als beim Staatsbesuch von George W. Bush 2006 in Wien und ein pauschales Vermummungsverbot in fast der Hälfte aller Wiener Gemeindebezirke. Zudem, noch gravierender, wurde die Pressefreiheit eingeschränkt, Medienvertreter durften nur für eine halbe Stunde und nur in Begleitung eines Exekutivbeamten über den Ball berichten. 


2 000 Polizisten wurden aus der ganzen Republik, sogar aus dem fernen Bregenz, in die Hauptstadt gekarrt, um den Ballbesuchern einen ruhigen Abend zu garantieren; denn den Kontakt mit von ihnen (in einer Wortschöpfung, am prominentesten durch Jörg Haider und die Kronen-Zeitung verwendet) als „Linkslinke“ bezeichnetem „unanständigen Gesindel“, „dem Mob“, „grünen Gutmenschen“ und der „Journaille“ will man in den Kreisen der korporierten „Akademiker“ tunlichst vermeiden. Aus der Warte der Demonstranten (und der der meisten anderen) handelt es sich nämlich eben bei den Ballteilnehmern keinesfalls um der „Freiheit“ verpflichtete Mitglieder einer demokratischen Gesellschaft, sondern im Gegenteil, dieser gegenüber ablehnend bis feindlich eingestellte Rechtsextreme. In den prunkvollsten Räumlichkeiten der Republik Österreich versammelten sich, wie in den Jahren zuvor, in Wirklichkeit stramm rechts der gesellschaftlichen Mitte stehende Anti-Demokraten.


Der Protest, dieses Jahr von 6.000 bis 8.000 Menschen in zwei Demozügen durch die Wiener Innenstadt geäußert, richtete sich für die meisten Demonstranten eben nicht gegen den Ball selber, sondern dagegen, dass der Ball in den Prunkräumen der Hofburg stattfindet, also in Räumlichkeiten, die der Republik Österreich gehören. Er kritisierte weniger, dass der Ball stattfindet, sondern dass er dort, also „in der Mitte der Gesellschaft“ und im Zentrum des demokratischen Österreich stattfindet, obwohl daran Personen teilnehmen, die sich am Rande dieser „freiheitlich-demokratischen“ Gesellschaft bewegen und diese, trotz ihres euphemistischen Namens „Freiheitliche“, abschaffen wollen und die anti-demokratische, anti-semitische und xenophobe Ansichten vertreten. Er wird und wurde seit Jahren von der Mitte der Wiener Gesellschaft mitgetragen, u.a. auch von Holocaust-Überlebenden und den den jüdischen Verbänden Wiens (es waren auch Davidstern-Symbole und hebräische Schriftzüge im Demozug zu sehen), denen es diesmal im Gegensatz zu den Vorjahren untersagt worden war, eine Protest-Lesung am Heldenplatz abzuhalten. Kurzum: es handelt sich beim „Akademikerball“ nicht um eine „normale, friedliche Tanzveranstaltung“, sondern um ein exklusives politisches Vernetzungs-Treffen Rechter bis Rechtsextremer mit gesellschaftlichen Auswirkungen; die Betreiber der Hofburg distanzieren sich davon, auch wenn sie den Ball mit der Begründung nicht verbieten (dürfen/können/wollen), dass die FPÖ als drittstärkste Partei im österreichischen Parlament vertreten ist und ihr somit die Ausrichtung gestattet werden muss.



Am „Akademikerball“ trifft sich eben nicht eine weltoffene, inklusive, akademische Elite , sondern eine „ehrenwerte“, exklusive „geschlossene Gesellschaft“ national(istisch) gesinnter Männer (Frauen sind eher als "schmückendes Beiwerk" dabei), die mit „akademischer“
(Welt-) Offenheit für andere als ihre konservativen, chauvinistisch-patriarchalen Strömungen nichts am Burschen-Kapperl hat. Diese Illiberalität ist ihre „Tradition“, auf die sie sich berufen, und der sie ausgerechnet an dem Platz, dem Heldenplatz, frönen, an dem Hitler sich am 15. März 1938 für den Anschluss Österreichs an Nazi-Deutschland 1938 feiern ließ und an dem sie (oder ihre Gesinnungsgenossen) jährlich am 9. Mai beim „Totengedenken“ den deutschen Wehrmachtssoldaten als „heldenhaften Opfern fürs Vaterland“ huldigen. FPÖ-Chef Heinz-Christian Strache führte diese „Tradition“ als Berechtigung für die Veranstaltung des Balls in der Hofburg ins Feld. Die UNESCO sah das vor zwei Jahren anders und strich die "Wiener Bälle" wegen des damals noch als WKR (Wiener Korporationsring)-Ball benannten Balls von der Liste des schützenwerten „immaterielles Kulturerbes“.

Als Reaktion auf die UNESCO-Streichung 2012 gab die Betreibergesellschaft der Hofburg ihre Rolle als Veranstalterin dieses nun euphemistisch in „Akademikerball“ umbenannten Treffens auf (er heißt übrigens so, obwohl dort auch Nicht-Akademiker, der prominenteste eben ein Studienabbrecher und Zahntechniker aus Wien namens H.-C. Strache, teilnehmen). Spätestens seit 2012 ist der Ball also endgültig eine reine Parteiveranstaltung der rechtspopulistischen bis rechtsextremen FPÖ. Denn er hat mit der Universität nur (noch) entfernt etwas zu tun, ist nun ein FPÖ-Ball, d.h. einer Partei, die neben den „ganz normalen“ Neofaschisten und Rassisten u.a. auch Holocaustleugnern und verurteilten „Wiederbetätigern“ dort eine Plattform bietet (in Österreich wird mit „Wiederbetätigung“ der Straftatbestand des Verstoßes gegen ein Gesetz, das seit 1945/47 NS-Parolen und die Wiedergründung einer NS-Partei verbietet („Verbotsgesetz“), bezeichnet); so ist z.B. vor wenigen Tagen Gottfried Küssel (ein Teilnehmer am WKR 2001) wegen Wiederbetätigung zu einer Haftstrafe von sieben Jahren und neun Monaten verurteilt worden. Die Österreichische Hochschülerschaft distanziert sich seit Jahren von dem Ball, genauso wie das Bundesheer bzw. das Verteidigungsministerium, das dort Teilnehmenden verbietet, in Uniform hinzugehen, da „das Who’s who der nationalen und internationalen extremen Rechten“ dort anwesend sei und man „nicht den Anschein erwecken [wolle], dass das österreichische Bundesheer derartiges Gedankengut unterstützt“ (Zitat des damaligen Verteidigungsminister Darabos (SPÖ)). U.a. waren dort Politiker von rechtsextremen Parteien Deutschlands (Patrik Brinkmann, Matthias Faust, beide DVU/NPD), Belgiens (Filip De Winter, Vlaams Blok/Belang) und Frankreichs (Bruno Gollnisch, Marine Le Pen, Front National). Also hochpolitisch und daher auch legitim, dagegen zu protestieren.