germany

Manifesto of Congress for Cultural Freedom

Drafted by Arthur Koestler, who delivered it in Berlin in 1950.

1. We hold it to be self-evident that intellectual freedom is one of the inalienable rights of man.

2. Such freedom is defined first and foremost by his right to hold and express his own opinions, and particularly opinions which differ from those of his rulers. Deprived of the right to say “no,” man becomes a slave.

3. Freedom and peace are inseparable. In any country, under any regime, the overwhelming majority of ordinary people fear and oppose war. The danger of war becomes acute when governments, by suppressing democratic representative institutions, deny to the majority the means of imposing its will to peace.

Peace can be maintained only if each government submits to the control and inspection of its acts by the people whom it governs, and agrees to submit all questions immediately involving the risk of war to a representative international authority, by whose decisions it will abide.

4. We hold that the main reason for the present insecurity of the world is the policy of governments which, while paying lip-service to peace, refuse to accept this double control. Historical experience proves that wars can be prepared and waged under any slogan, including that of peace. Campaigns for peace which are not backed by acts that will guarantee its maintenance are like counterfeit currency circulated for dishonest purposes. Intellectual sanity and physical security can only return to the world if such practices are abandoned.

5. Freedom is based on the toleration of divergent opinions. The principle of toleration does not logically permit the practice of intolerance.

6. No political philosophy or economic theory can claim the sole right to represent freedom in the abstract. We hold that the value of such theories is to be judged by the range of concrete freedom which they accord the individual in practice.

We likewise hold that no race, nation, class or religion can claim the sole right to represent the idea of freedom, nor the right to deny freedom to other groups or creeds in the name of any ultimate ideal or lofty aim whatsoever. We hold that the historical contribution of any society is to be judged by the extent and quality of the freedom which its members actually enjoy.

7. In times of emergency, restrictions on the freedom of the individual are imposed in the real or assumed interest of the community. We hold it to be essential that such restrictions be confined to a minimum of clearly specified actions; that they be understood to be temporary and limited expedients in the nature of a sacrifice; and that the measures restricting freedom be themselves subject to free criticism and democratic control. Only thus can we have a reasonable assurance that emergency measures restricting individual freedom will not degenerate into a permanent tyranny.

8. In totalitarian states restrictions on freedom are no longer intended and publicly understood as sacrifices imposed on the people, but are, on the contrary, represented as triumphs of progress and achievements of a superior civilisation. We hold that both the theory and practice of these regimes run counter to the basic rights of the individual and the fundamental aspirations of mankind as a whole.

9. We hold the danger represented by these regimes to be all the greater since their means of enforcement far surpasses that of all previous tyrannies in the history of mankind. The citizen of the totalitarian state is expected and forced not only to abstain from crime but to conform in all his thoughts and actions to a prescribed pattern. Citizens are persecuted and condemned on such unspecified and all-embracing charges as “enemies of the people” or “socially unreliable elements.”

10. We hold that there can be no stable world so long as mankind, with regard to freedom, remains divided into “haves” and “have-nots.”  The defence of existing freedoms, the reconquest of lost freedoms, and the creation of new freedoms are parts of the same struggle.

11. We hold that the theory and practice of the totalitarian state are the greatest challenge which man has been called on to meet in the course of civilised history.

12. We hold that indifference or neutrality in the face of such a challenge amounts to a betrayal of mankind and to the abdication of the free mind. Our answers to this challenge may decide the fate of man for generations.

13. The defence of intellectual liberty today imposes a positive obligation: to offer new and constructive answers to the problems of our time.

14. We address this manifesto to all men who are determined to regain those liberties which they have lost and to preserve and extend those which they enjoy.

“Germany now has a bright foot in the door”, or, U-boats of the Indo-Pacific

So writes Felix Seidler – somewhat gleefully, as he explains the benefit of Singapore’s purchase of two Type 218SG U-boats.

In addition to the potential for these lucrative arcontracts, Germany has an interest in a stable, peaceful maritime arc running from Singapore and Vladivostok. China’s re-armament, coupled with a more assertive military doctrine, and its aggressive enforcement ensures the opposite.

Seidler flags growing doubt about the US pivot in the region, and says “the countries of the region must be able to balance China’s rise, at least partially, by themselves. Therefore, German-built subs can surely do their share.”

As the post-WWII order erodes, you can’t help but wonder where it will leave Germany. Just weeks ago, erstwhile German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle was on the streets of Kiev, stirring things up with the Kremlin. If geography is destiny, a Germany unchained from that post-WWII feeling, will resume its role in international affairs. I can’t help but think that’s also part of the subtext of all the Stasi-talk regarding the Snowden allegations.

And so, here come the U-Boats of the Indo-Pacific, courtesy of Singapore.

Germans to beef up counterintelligence – resolution to Snowden spying revelations

(German spy: Marina Lee)

This action may mark the effective conclusion to the US-German dispute over spying, all declarations and agreements aside.

Basically, Germany will begin spying on the US and stepping up its defence from US spying. Or as the Reuters story puts it:

Germany’s domestic intelligence agency has until now only systematically observed countries of concern, while allies in the European Union and NATO were observed only if there was a concrete suspicion, such as that they were spying on Germany or recruiting spies in the country, the official said.

But given the NSA revelations, the agency will in future need to have a 360-degree view which will include friendly countries, the official said.

The US won’t be able to complain. They wouldn’t have much right to complain. The Germans, since the end of WWII (back then-the West Germans, of course) have been under a protective bubble of the US and one of these elements of the bubble was the freedom from making huge expenditures on their own security, either through the military or elsewhere.

Now Germany will have to increasingly have to bear those cost. Possibly the bigger toll may be on the slightly innocent, slightly priggish worldview many Germans have somehow maintained since reunification. Now it looks like they’re going to have to shoulder more of the costs and responsibility. But with the freedom will come a fuller self-sufficiency they haven’t had since before WWII.