International -- Readers Report
Deconstructing Germany's Decline
As a German, I am ashamed of the statement by Axel Wintermeyer about "crude anti-Americanism" in "The decline of Germany" (Cover Story, Feb. 17). This is one of those gross oversimplifications that dominate German politics these days. Disagreement with Bush's politics has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Americanism, as little as disagreement with Sharon's politics has to do with anti-Semitism.
Statements like this are party-driven populism that might sound funny at a party Stammtisch but damage the image of Germany in the world when published in an international journal. It is sad that Jack Ewing could not refrain from quoting this nonsense given his very good analysis of the German situation in the rest of the story.
Wolfgang Fischer
Germering, Germany
Germany is complaining about almost everything, albeit on a very high level. From my vantage point, there are two pillars (extensively written about by Meinhard Miegel in The Deformed Society: How the Germans Suppress Their Reality, among others) which further buttress the immobility. One is the Besitzstandswahrung, loosely translated, the conservation of the status quo of ownership, manifesting itself in not giving up anything of what you have attained. And the other is the direct and indirect power of the unions having authority but no responsibility in the parliaments and workplace.
Throw in demographic trends, self- delusion, and top it off with the killer argument of "social justice for all," and you will have to wait for it to get worse before Germany begins its behavior modification. Warning voices abound, but those who should and can act are suppressing reality.
Gero (Gerry) F. Weber
Nussloch/Heidelberg, Germany
Thank you for the great article. I can only hope that Chancellor Schröder and his colleagues have read it, too. Not having a plan to cope with the economic downfall of Germany, which to a great extent he is responsible for, he should take the suggestions of the author and make them his Regierungserklaerung (address to the nation) instead of copying the old sayings of Willy Brandt.
When he was elected in 1998, I, like the majority of Germans, had hoped Schröder would be able to implement radical reforms. He had the chance, but having only his reelection in mind he failed miserably because he feared the trade unions. Without limiting the power of these old- fashioned organizations, there will be no radical reforms possible, and Germany will continue its decline into irrelevance. For all hard-working Germans, who contribute to the steadily rising exports, it is embarrassing that the Chancellor and his government look for reasons elsewhere instead of addressing the homemade problems.
Wolf von zur Muehlen
Bangkok
I don't like U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's remarks and the wholly inappropriate grouping of Germany with Cuba and Libya. I don't like what could hardly be described as a concise German foreign policy, either. But I support a military action regarding Saddam, and I am not alone. I think the current U.S.-German relationship is best described as one between a son who is turning 60 soon and a parent who does not accept that this child is indeed growing up. Both need a newly defined relationship management, namely, that between two grown-ups.
Friedrich v. Nathusius
Kronberg, Germany
Congratulations on your perceptive analysis of present-day Germany. While this is neither the place nor time to feel any cynical Schadenfreude vis-à-vis the decline of Chancellor Schröder's Germany, it's certainly appropriate to reflect on the implications of Germany's decline for the rest of Europe and the Atlantic alliance. As John Rossant points out so succinctly in his commentary ("How Germany's fall from grace harms Europe"), many of Germany's recent problems stem from the political and economic indigestion following the hasty reunification of the former East Germany. In fact, the cost of and the time necessary to (successfully) assimilate the former East Germany could be a foretaste of what the European Union can expect from an overly ambitious enlargement project. Economic success is meaningless in the long run unless it is accompanied by political maturity and a preparedness to assume responsibility. The latter was never the case in Germany, and artificial alliances with France (as seen in the recent Franco-German deal over the future European Union constitution) cannot paper over such deficiencies.
Germany must never forget that it would not be where it stands today without America's post-war Marshall Plan help and it would not get away with the lowest defense budget among NATO member states without benefitting from the American military shield in the background.
Karl H. Pagac
Villeneuve-Loubet, France
I would praise your update on Germany if it did not contain the frequent implication that since they do not copy the U.S., they are wrong. But are the problems of Germany and other European countries so different from those of the U.S.? The brilliant analysis by Michael J. Mandel recently published by you shows that since 1997, most of the profits of U.S. companies went to the rich workers ("The painful truth about profits," Economics, Nov. 4). In Europe, these profits go to the poor workers. We do not have capital left for investing. In the Soviet Union, the limited wealth they produced went to workers--all relatively poor--and to bombs. They had no capital left to produce dishwashers. We Europeans at least do not waste money on bombs. Does the U.S. really need all those arms to maintain its economic and political superiority?
It is extremely convenient for capitalists from rich countries, including the U.S., to invest what little capital is left in low-cost China, India, etc. So the easy answer is innovation, or all of us will fade into oblivion, as your correspondent says a bit dramatically, to be replaced by China and India.
Giacomo Spina
Trieste, Italy
Manned Space Missions: Make Them History
"How to make the space program soar again" (American News, Commentary, Feb. 17) reminds me of the time when we, the space scientists, were invited by NASA to Houston to draft a report on the scientific use of the space shuttle. It was when the Manned Space Center was desperately attempting to survive after the termination of the Apollo Mission. After one week of intensive discussions, we concluded that there are few meaningful scientific missions for the space shuttle that cannot be done by unmanned spacecraft.
This conclusion is still valid. The manned space mission has since become more and more political and bureaucratic as it moved to the space station project, not only in the U.S. but also in the rest of the world. By observing the Japanese program, the main driving force for manned missions seems to originate from the attempt of the government space agency to survive, since the cost-effectiveness from the science point of view is minimal. As a scientist and a taxpayer, I resent the abuse of science for the sake of the survival of a government agency.
Akira Hasegawa
Kyoto, Japan
Editor's note: The writer is a theoretical physicist and space scientist.
|
Copyright 2003, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Printer-Friendly Version
