The trials of Schmidt
Tim Garton Ash
Berlin Whatever has happened to Chancellor Schmidt? Seven months ago he was swept back to power with an overwhelming vote of confidence from the West German electorate. Last weekend he was threatening to resign. In fact, three powerful blows in rapid succession have thrown the West European heavyweight champion back onto the ropes, not visibly bleeding but breathing very hard.
The first was a foul: the below-the-belt attack from Menachem Begin, who fabricateda Nazipast for the GermanChancellor in an alarmingly successful attempt to whip up election hysteria in Israel. The second was a left hook from Paris, where Mitterrand's election robs Herr Schmidt of his Closest personal friend. The third was a right upper cut from West Berlin, where another election brought a resounding defeat for the Social Democrats (SPD) who have ruled the city for 30 years, and a qualified victory for the opposition Christian Democrats (CDU). Begin's attack has done Schmidt little harm at home. But it illustrates one of the most pressing dilemmas of West German foreign policy. No one has to be more careful in their relations with the state of Israel — but no one needs Arab oil more. The attack was sparked off by Schmidt's visit to Saudi Arabia, and his even countenancing the possibility that West Germany would supply Leopard tanks to the Saudis. The tanks would earn the money to pay for the oil which the Saudis supply. West Germans depend on imported oil for almost half their energy. Last year they paid 60 thousand million Deutschemarks for it — a burden which helped to pull the economic giant down into the red to the tune of 28.1 thousand million Deutschemarks (the current account deficit). There is one obvious way to reduce the country's dependence on imported oil, and the fiscal horrors this brings in its wake — nuclear power. But opposition to nuclear Power has become a rallying point for West German youth protest. You see them everywhere now, the stickers with the legend `Atomkraft — nein danke' on the hippies' bicycles and the environmentalists' rusty Citroen 'deux chevaux', on the squatters' front-doors and the socialist lawyers' large Mercedes. It contributed largely to the gress success of the so-called 'alterna tives' in the West Berlin election. They increased their share of the vote by nearly four per cent (while the SPD lost just over four per cent). This challenge from the left is echoed in the ranks of the SPD.
Schmidt's room for manoeuvre is further reduced not merely by the loss of Giscard, but even more by developments in Poland which threaten to tumble the whole edifice of European détente which Helmut and Valery so carefully constructed with the aid of friend Edward. Edward Gierek — remember him? — now stands before a Communist Party commission to explain how he drove Poland into its present economic swamp. The vehicle was of course supplied by the West — and primarily by West Germany.
On top of this comes Reagan's America, thumping the tub and demanding unquestioning loyalty from Western Europe in the holy war against communism. Herr Schmidt will be urging the President in Washington to start arms limitation talks with the Russians as soon as possible. This is what his resignation threat implied. Talking of 'implementing' what the West Germans call the 'NATO double resolution' of December 1979— in which NATO agreed to station middle range nuclear missiles in Europe and at the same time to press for disarmament talks — he said: 'With that I stand and fall'. But a large question mark hangs over his ability to carry his own party with him when it comes to stationing nuclear missiles on German soil. As with nuclear energy there is a vociferous opposition within the SPD, led in parliament by the so-called 'gang of four' radical deputies, one of whom, Herr Karl-Heinz Hanssen, is now threatened with expulsion from the party. Moreover, even his Party Chairman, Willy Brandt, has taken to wandering the country bearishly growling about the 'poisonous bungling' of the super-powers. The implica tion is that America and Russia are somehow equally responsible for the deterioration of international relations. The extraparliamentary left who came out in force on the streets of West Berlin on 8 May — the anniversary of the 'Liberation' of Germany by the Red Army, more traditionally celebrated in East Berlin — go one step further. They appear convinced that America is to blame — period. The 'alternative list' in Berlin demanded the withdrawal of Western allied forces from the city.
In itself this need not be taken overseriously. But the electoral result of this protest vote must be taken very seriously indeed: it could spell the beginning of the end for Chancellor Schmidt's social-liberal (SPD-FD) coalition in Bonn. For the Berlin liberals (FDP) are now faced with the choice of abandoning their Bonn partners and going into a coalition with the CDU, or being held responsible (somewhat unfairly) for sabotaging the efforts of CDU mayoral candidate, Herr Richard von Weizsaecker, to form a majority government. If they choose the latter course they are likely next time to fall below the five per cent of votes required (under the West German system) before a party is represented at all in the House; if the former, they will be branded as turncoats, and they will plant a timebomb under the government in Bonn.
This bomb might just explode as early as next month, when the Chancellor will have to steer a controversial defence budget through the Bundestag. But the coalition still has a majority of 45. It is therefore more likely that the explosion will be delayed. Next spring sees elections in the Chancellor's home town of Hamburg. If Hamburg goes the way of West Berlin (which at the moment seems probable), and the liberals join the Christian Democrats on Herr Schmidt's back door,.that will be the end of the coalition which has ruled West Germany for a decade.
Previous page
