In reaction to the U.S. decision to leave the Paris Protocoll I twittered this open letter to Mr. Trump today, hoping to change his mind. Will he respond?
Dear Mister President,
I respect, that you respect slightly autocratic leaders like Wladimir Putin or King Salman from Saudi-Arabia more than liberal ones like German Cancelor Angela Merkel, with whom you, according to news reports, refused at your first meeting even the handshake. Though I respect that, I´m not happy with it, because it means, that your respect is connected with the military potential of whom, you are dealing with. Consequently it makes sense to me, to use the same language of the military potential for my own purpose, so that your employees and finally you are taking notice.
Probably we agree, that the word of an head of state, which is backed by nuclear weapons, has more weight than that one of one without. Therefor I have no problems to imagine a Germany armed with nuclear weapons. The German navy could easily maintain a fleet of, let´s say, a dozen nuclear fueled submarines, armed with about 200 nuclear warheads. This fleet might be supplied by naval-bases on former German colonies, with whom we would have to establish special-relationships, including generous compensations for recieved injustice, of course. By this means Germany could even after a devastating nuclear attac stay capable in launching a second strike against the aggressor. You will say, that this is not a realistic scenario, that the American forces in Germany, especially the numerous secret services, would prevent that. But don´t forget the lessons from the russian Crimea-operation, which showed, that it is possible, to force the troops of an alien power to leave a certain territory without neccessarily leading to an outbreak of a war. Applied to the US-forces in Germany it should be sufficient to block your bases and demand your withdrawl, because the whole world, including the both for the German national security most important countries, Poland and France, would not only understand, but probably even welcome it. The more, as the U.S. couldn´t give an explanation, why they intend to resist. The independence of Germany in security affairs would take place in cooperation with its European neighbours and a refascisation of German civil society can be excluded. Should a German administration ever decide to undertake such measures, the U.S. would have to leave.
This scenario may appear somehow dangerous and it´s definitely accompanied by several problems, which I later briefly discuss, but the question is, if it makes more sense to take the risk, than to follow the „leader of the free world“ into an potential ecological apocalypse. After all we are humans, not lemmings.
The biggest problem of the upper scenario would be of course the trouble, the whole issue would make. Especially for the German citizens in the U.S. and vice versa for the U.S.-citizens in Germany, who could be in the worst case all interned. Consequently there´s a threat, by the way, that your political opponents in the FBI and elsewhere could abuse such a situation as a pretext, to get you impeached because of your German roots and put you into prison. And who of those, who brought you to the decision to leave the Paris Protocoll, would visit you then in prison? I ask you seriously to ask yourself this question. And I know, you don´t belong to the sort of people fooling themselfes, so I give the answer on my own: Nobody, who convinced you in leaving the Paris Protocoll, would remain in the case of cases at your side. So why do you take such a risk for them? Don´t think, that I make fun of you. The Paris Protocoll is a much to important issue for that. The point is rather, that decisions, concerning partly security issues, like leaving the Paris Protocoll have to take a glance even at the most unlikely cases, which you seemingly oversaw yet.
But let´s get back to the more common consequences of an open break of that, what was once called the German-American-Friendship. The economic losses, for example, would be immense. Allthough they could soon appear as beneficial, if the FRG decides, to stand on its own feets and act in key-sectors like Information-, Armament- or Spacetechnology in an really independent way and become one of the leading nations in it, instead of relying on the U.S. Who knows, but maybe the economic dynamic resulting from that approach would even compensate the temporary loss of the United States as a trade-partner. The more, as after a later normalization of our relationship we would have to talk about the gold of the Bundesbank, which is stored in the U.S. and can be nominally demanded back at any time.
On the other side a break off of the most important european ally would mean for the United States the end of the concept of dominance through propagating liberal values, which was the ideological base of U.S. foreign policy since their joining of the Anti-Hitler-Coalition in December 1941, because the U.S. can hardly expect anybody to believe their promises, if even the contemporary Germany turns away. The whole system of international relationships would rearrange and the U.S. would face a significant weakening of their position.
So, finally, the United States have in the case of a German-American break off more to loose than Germany. You need us more than we you. Therefor it´s in the last consequence not a strong position, from which you cancel „deals“ like the Paris Protocoll, which demand a thinking in last consequences.
But why do I write that to you?
In opposition to the opinion of the mainstream media I came at the beginning to the estimation, that you could be the right man at the right time, a point of view, which I see myself forced to change finally after your decision to leave the Paris Protocoll. In view of the potencially far-reaching consequences of your decision moreover in this notably sharpness. Nevertheless I still evaluate certain elements of your policy as positive, so your decision to cancel the TTIP-negotiations, and I am really far away from demonizing you, because your victory in the 2016 elections against all odds restored my faith into American Democracy, which was destroyed after the faked elections of 2000, when Al Gores victory was stolen, to such an extend, that all nice words from former President Obama couldn´t fix it. But your victory against the establishment did it. I respect you. And I appreciate, that you meet persons of the LGBT-Community with respect, too. But, to be honest, I see beside that some misunderstandings, but this is of course not the place to discuss them. Instead the main point is, that your decision to leave the Paris Protocoll is based on an incomplete analysis of the situation and should consequently be reviewed.
Of course I am convinced, Mister Trump, that your decision to cancel the Paris Protocoll is well weight and that you listened carefully to the voices from the scientific community, who spoke out for a remain. Because of that I won´t repeat the well known arguments for staying within the treaty. It should be enough to note, that the significance of some changes of certain elements of the biosphere like the North-Eastern-Passage being ice-free, the melting of the glaciers or wide-spread desertifications is beyond doubt and that on the other side some of the points made by scepticals of men made climate change like the overseen impact of the sun on global climate could imply, that these overseen factors could work as accelerators of an anyway ongoing process.
Without exaggeration it can be said, that the biosphere of planet Earth after 200 years of industrial capitalism is in its whole in a situation of such an extremely tension, that a collapse sooner or later is not only possible, but will probably become real, if we don´t undertake appropriate measures. In case of a sudden global collapse, so in the worst case, the food stocks may soon not be sufficient for everybody. And what humans are ready to do, when there isn´t enough food for all, is historically so often documented, that I don´t name it explicite. Nevertheless this unnamed scenario exists in my mind as an realistic threat and even if someone calls that an apocalyptic mood of an hypochondriac, I point out, that no one on this planet knows, how the process of a whole biosphere collapsing looks alike. Nobody has ever witnessed that. We don´t know, how sudden a collapse might happen. We don´t know how fast it then evolves. But we can easily imagine, that societies under circumstances, which are widely regarded as inevitable apocalyptically, will get into such an disorder, that the state and his order break down to a certain extend. That would lead to a common war of everyone against everyone, of the people and of the trunk-states. Once started such a process would be irreversible. Mankind would shrink in a most bloody and barbaric manner, untill a new ecological balance takes place on the planet.
I don´t see, how someone could take responsibility for risking mankind to loose civilisation in favour of hell before his inner court. And I don´t see, which sense it makes for Americas allies such as Germany, to follow you on a path, which leads, in the worst case, to cannibalism. Because of that I ask you with all respect, which is entitled to you for your vita, your position and your political instinct, to rethink your allready made decision to leave the Paris Protocoll. Nevertheless I appreciate, of course, your argument, that you have to take care for the interests of the American working class and I don´t speak out for immediate hard measures, which would cause job losses, but the fact, that climate-politic has an impact on global security cannot be ignored. Therefor it is necessary, that all major states stay in a process, which deals with global warming and its consequenses, because being within a common process guarantees, that its participants will hold together, when the worst case happens, and are ready to act in a solidaric manner and avoid the breakdown of human civilisation. Consequently it can not be swallowed, that a single country, even if it is the most important of the world, steps for short-term interests out of the civilisatoric minimal consensus.
So I hope, that you reconsider the risk, you expect your mostly much younger fellow men to carry, precisly and finally take back your decision to leave the Paris Protocoll. Don´t come to Hamburg to the G20-summit as „this crazy guy, with whom the whole world can´t even talk about the wheather“, but show to the people of the world, that the fate of humanity, you take responsibility for, too, is not only in your hands, but in good, in golden hands.
Tim Jungeblut, Writer
Berlin, 4th of July 2017