Only last week, the German government convincingly denied the involvement of its intelligence agents in helping the US to locate bombing targets in Iraq. But an article  in the New York Times on Monday called all that and more into question. Based on information contained in a classified Joint Forces Command study on the development of Iraq's military strategy, the article is damning in its assessment of the degree to which German intelligence aided the US war effort. The report asserts that German agents provided US forces with sketches of Saddam Hussein's defense plan for Baghdad.

The German government was quick to respond.  A statement by the president of the German intelligence agency BND, Ernst Uhrlau, was released in which he energetically denied the Times report. "The allegations that appear in the Times article lack any foundation and are plain wrong," he said.  

But the damage had already been done and most of the editorialists simply discount the German government's denial of the report and call loudly for an investigation of the matter once and for all.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung, for its part, ponders the meaning of "no." To wit, "Was this 'no' really a clear 'no' -- that is, did it have the quality of an act of liberation from the American paternalism? Or was it more sham than a real no?" And it sees the steady release of droplets of information as an act of titration that slowly wears down the rock-solid no to reveal its true essence. And while some of the reports turned out to be false, many were not. "If Chancellor Merkel understands this a sign that she shouldn't overdo it with self-confident independence, well then the American sources wouldn't see any harm done." Still, no matter how much information comes out, the no won't turn into a yes, observes the SZ, "because it remains a fact that Schöder, in contrast to Britain's Blair or Italy's Berlusconi, didn't send any German soldiers into Iraq." The only way to deal with this, according to the paper, is a special parliamentary investigation to force witnesses to testify under oath.

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung offers a surprisingly generous assessment of the Realpolitik that went into decisions to aid the US. "Politics, even foreign politics, requires compromise," says the paper. But Schröder's act of glorifying himself as the chancellor of peace not only leaves a bad taste, but "turns downright repulsive as more and more details come to light." In a tone of righteous indignation, the paper complains "the worst is not how the BND behaved in Baghdad. This aid lies within the same framework as the officially public support operations of the U.S: forces. The worst is the sustained concealment, the constant lies." It, too, calls for an special parliamentary investigation.

The Financial Times Deutschland, on the other hand, sees the assertions in the New York Times and the German government's denials as simply one argument against the other. "But almost nothing has changed in the situation. The arguments for a special parliamentary investigation remain as shaky as they were before." Furthermore, says the FTD, a special parliamentary investigation would be virtually pointless in this situation, since "the government that would be investigated here, has long since been voted out; its top personnel -- with the exception of the current Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier -- retired." Indeed, the FTD doesn't see the makings of a scandal in all this "unless the most recent denials from Berlin prove to be false."

-- Karen Nickel Anhalt
12:30 p.m. CET

---

The EU Aid Package: Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't

The European Union's decision to grant an urgent aid package of €121.5 million to the Palestinian Authority before the terrorist Hamas party officially takes office was seen by most newspapers in Germany as the correct decision. Although the lesser of two evils is still evil, preventing financial collapse in the Palestinian territories -- and the greater radicalization which that would most certainly give rise to -- is the better option.

The aid package, according to an Associated Press report, comprises €40 million for the Palestinian Authority's energy and other essential utility bills, which the EU will pay directly once an international audit firm confirms the validity of the bills; €64 million for health and education projects to be paid to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA); and €17.5 million for salaries of Palestinian Authority employees. The EU hopes to maintain some degree of control over the use of the funds to prevent them from financing terror.

The EU aid package, said Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, shows "Europe supports Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority." The reaction to the deal was considerably frostier in Israel. "It's the wrong decision, at the wrong time, to the wrong address," senior Israeli government official Raanan Gissin told the AP in Jerusalem. Gissin said that the money was bound to reach Hamas militants who have sworn Israel's destruction. German papers, on the other hand, discussed the consequences of not giving funds.

Four weeks after the election, observes the center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung, "a powerful experiment is being conducted in the Palestinian territories in fast forward: will a terrorist group allow itself to be tamed and made less radical by pressure from outside?"  But it warns that "one can't wait for the answer because the risks of this experiment are too great." Indeed, sending the funds to stave off financial ruin is an important signal. And it places responsibility for success more firmly in the hands of Hamas. "The terror organization is grappling with its role, feeling the pressure of its responsibility…Hamas knows the terms for cooperation and has every possibility for accepting the rules of the game. If it refuses, then no more money should flow."

The conservative Die Welt ruminates on the EU's dilemma: Give aid to Hamas and risk funds being used for terrorism or see the Palestinian territories sink into financial ruin and become more radicalized. "The EU wants to help, but can't steer its aid directly to its goal. Who can guarantee that the next Hamas suicide bomber isn't financed by the EU or his family recompensed with euros? No one. And yet it is right that the Palestinian Authority isn't purposely forced into ruin as well as into irrational chaos." More importantly, if the EU provides the funds now, then it prevents "the radical regime in Tehran or extremist circles in Saudi Arabia" from stepping in. "That would be in no one's interests -- certainly not the EU's," concludes the paper.