In case the new findings laid out in the press with relish, about the sleaze cooperation between the German “Bundesnachrichtendienst” BND and the American intelligence services on the intense spying upon German and European industry, are true – if only a little – Ms Chancellor should draw the consequences. Why should the black-red-gold flag still fly over the Federal Chancellery? The poster with the three monkeys “hear nothing – see nothing – say nothing” would be much more fitting, instead. However, something was actually said: that was in the summer of 2013, when the NSA wiretapping scandal was declared closed and things were sent down the wrong tracks.
But the problem lies deeper. This becomes evident by many citizens worried questions. They are directed at the issue of German sovereignty and at the question whether there might be a so-called “chancellor dossier”. If one investigates, it seems that statements of this kind go back to a former MAD* chairman. They allege that a candidate for the German chancellorship has to confirm by “loyalty oath” in “the oval office” of “the White House”, before he can take office in Germany. Of course, one runs a risk in using a former MAD chairman as a key witness for such bold assertions. Actually, the MAD has never been known for being able to judge things of state political importance. But the uneasiness is there and is being nourished by publications by the dozen.
It is not only the knowledge of many citizens about the influence of American financiers on the German press that contributes to this suspicion. Fact is, after all, that in the United States different rules apply for a financial or any other commitment of foreigners in the press sector than those that are applied for American financiers in the German press. There may be historical reasons that the principle of reciprocity is being applied differently on both sides of the Atlantic, although it concerns the treatment of the very same issue. Such differences are, however, not appropriate today.
Most people in the country are vehemently displeased to notice murderous activities such as drone operations from German bases under US control. This has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with common defense. For the highest constitutional organs, such as President, President of the Bundestag, President of the Constitutional Court and the Chancellor, it would be a state-political obligation to stop these criminal activities. Thereby they would serve the world peace. This is explicitly postulated in their own constitution, however, nobody cares about that.
Precisely, the things that became known about the interception practices at the expense of one’s own German or European industry by one’s own intelligence service makes us indeed not only think about a “state within the state”, but also about the fact that a foreign state has usurped German state authorities and uses them with or without the knowledge of the Federal Chancellery against the German citizens.
The crux of the matter is probably that via the contracts, as they have been concluded on the occasion of the reunification of Germany by the dozen – in order not to jeopardize the intrinsic goal of the reunification from a German perspective – occupational law provisions that had nothing to do with the common NATO defense were imposed on reunified Germany. Today we see the consequences thereof, as even highest court judgments make clear. Ms Chancellor should seize any opportunity to stop this situation. •
* MAD (Military Counterintelligence)
If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.