German Papers: Chump Talk - DER SPIEGEL
Zum Inhalt springen

German Papers Chump Talk

Russian President Vladimir Putin offers a number of concessions for a strengthened friendship with Germany, even a supporting role for Europe in solving the Chechnya conflict. But will his talk bear fruit for Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's efforts to pull his Kremlin pal towards the west?
Dieser Beitrag stammt aus dem SPIEGEL-Archiv. Warum ist das wichtig?

Russian President Vladimir Putin's two-day state visit in Germany continues to dominate the editorial pages on Wednesday. On his arrival, Putin gave his pal, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, an early Christmas present by announcing he would repay billions in debt to Germany, which will help alleviate the country's budget deficit. The two also broached controversial issues plaguing Russia these days, but critics are still unlikely to be mollified. Putin on the controversial state auction of oil giant Yukos: It was constitutional. Schroeder: It's a Russian domestic problem. And that tricky Chechnya problem? Commenting on protesters' posters he encountered in Germany, he said: "The war has been over for three years. The people can go home. Merry Christmas."

For the mass-circulation Bild newspaper, all the hugs, smiles and jocularity between Putin and Schroeder has become a bit over-the-top. "Is the Chancellor too nice to Putin?" the paper asks. "Doesn't the chancellor embrace his 'buddy' a bit too often and too enthusiastically?" All this cozying up between Berlin and Moscow is getting annoying. Still, "Schroeder's friendly overtures are helping to bring Moscow closer to Europe and will have the effect that Moscow follows a European line in Chechnya."

Not so fast, argues the conservative Die Welt newspaper, asking whether it is Putin's real aim to solve the Chechnya problem with a new policy. "It's too early to tell whether he was being serious or just using diplomatic platitudes," it continues. And, of course, there's the statement about the war in Chechnya having been over for three years. "That doesn't give much hope," the paper concludes.

The business daily Handelsblatt says the invitation to open a dialogue on Chechnya presents a huge challenge for the European Union and also makes it a partner in the issue. "Now, the 'strategic' side of the relationship appears to be taking on a fully new dimension," it writes. During his past several visits, Putin has implied that he's open to suggestions from Europe on how the Chechnya conflict might be resolved. "That's a confession and a challenge at the same time," it adds. "Putin is admitting that the Russian policies on the situation in the northern Caucuses aren't working," it continues. "At the same time, he's demanding that his critics in the west take some responsibility themselves." And that, argues the Financial Times Deutschland, is an "opportunity" that Berlin and Brussels must use.

Schroeder has taken major risks in aligning himself so closely with Putin, but the left-leaning Sueddeutsche Zeitung says they may pay off. "The chancellor's message has been that the relationship between Berlin and Moscow is nothing for everyday political quarrels." What's it for then? Visionaries, visionaries like himself. "If Putin keeps his promises, Schroeder could turn out to be right -- and then he will interpret this as a statesman's foresight."

The leftist Die Tageszeitung takes a completely different tack from the others, arguing that Putin really hasn't brought much new to the table at all. The only "interesting concession" he's made on this visit is that he's now willing to talk about the freedom of press in Russia. "That's real news," it writes, "because in Russia, it's 'normal' for 20 to 22 journalists to be killed. This year, 54 became victims of their careers." Otherwise, Putin got maximum mileage out of minimal concessions on Ukraine and Chechnya. That, the paper argues, "is the real art of chumming up -- and Chancellor Schroeder is at best its victim, not its meister -- that's Putin."

In separate news on Wednesday, an influential member of Germany's opposition Christian Democratic Union became the fourth senior official in the party to step down in two months. Though each has resigned under different circumstances, the departures have seriously undermined the country's second-most-powerful political party. CDU General-Secretary Laurenz Meyer announced his resignation following revelations that, in addition to his federal salary as a member of parliament, he also drew tens of thousands of euros as an employee of RWE, Germany's largest electricity company. Though most papers running commentary on Wednesday actually went to press the evening before, they still had something to say about the scandal.

"In the times of Martin Luther, there was a system of the selling of indulgences set up by a monk named Tetzel, who taught that one could absolve his sins with cash payments," writes the Sueddeutsche. "Meyer wants to transfer about €80,000 to the non-profit SOS Children's Villages organization according to the motto: when the money rings in the coffers, Meyer can jump out of the fire." But it isn't that simple. "One shouldn't succumb to such attempts to consider these scandals casual sins," the paper warns. "The sums being dealt with here are only small compared to the damage they create politically. The loss of trust among citizens will be ever greater. And parties whose leaders act this way are just ruining themselves."

For its part, Die Welt makes a fairly bizarre argument in Meyer's defense. The guy could have been "smarter" and "more becoming," it suggests, but this is really about a class war. The paper doesn't outright say it, but you judge. Here's the premise: "The Meyer Scandal isn't over yet because the public can't handle it when politicians earn more than certain 'morals' permit them to." But that isn't fair, the editorial huffs. "How is a politician supposed to behave when he, for a time, switches from the corporate to the public one and, in doing so, takes on a lot more risks than the majority of his state-fed 'colleagues,' who have either worked for the government or in union shops?"