Angela Merkel addresses a Joint Session of Congress

by albertacowpoke | November 3, 2009 at 08:33 am

368 views | 56 Recommendations | 13 comments

German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is presently addressing a joint session of Congress. She is the second German Chancellor to do so.

Merkel was recently re-elected and formed a coalition with the Free Democrats (FDP), which are fiscally conservative. This coalition is against any further stimulus and believes that tax cuts will fuel the economy.

In her first term she formed, what was called a great coalition, a coalition which involved the two major parties in the German parliament. The Social Democrats (SPD) had disappointing results during the last election, giving Merkel the opportunity to move government slightly right of centre.

Merkel will address climate change, trans-atlantic relations and the downfall of communism.

Angela Merkel met with President Obama prior to the speech. Their discussion was expected to cover Afghanistan and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Merkel and Obama have a good working relationship, although they differ in their approach particularly where it concerns Iran. Iran is one of Germany's trading partners and may not be fond of sanctioning Iran.

The war in Afghanistan is very unpopular in Germany and Merkel will probably resist sending any more troops to the war-torn country.

German Chancellor Andrea Merkel will address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, becoming only the second German chancellor to do so.

Merkel is expected to speak about climate change, trans-Atlantic relations and the downfall of communism in Europe. It was announced that Merkel, who was reelected to a second four-year term in September, would address Congress last month.

The chancellor will also meet with President Barack Obama at the White House before the speech. The two are likely to discuss the war in Afghanistan and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The two nations do not necessarily see eye to eye on the subjects, despite Merkel and Obama having a good relationship. The U.S. would like Germany to send more troops to Afghanistan, an unpopular proposition there. Obama would also like to impose tighter economic sanctions on Iran, which is a trading partner with Germany.

2 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

a211423

at 11:42 on November 3rd, 2009

The U.S. would like Germany to send more troops to Afghanistan, an unpopular proposition there.

Majority support in Europe is waning for advancment of military operations in Afghanistan. This must hold some weight in the U.S. determination on whether to escalate there, if the administration has not already decided. An international decision based on whether or not to support the war by participating nations in Afghanistan is more credible than a singular U.S. arbitrary decision. This might be one explanation for waiting to make the decision. The trip to Asia and discussions in Japan and China could be the final piece.

albertacowpoke

at 11:51 on November 3rd, 2009

a211423 you may be right in your analysis. Having said that, would it not be in the interest of the President to address the American public and explain why he is taking so long to reach a decision?

I am afraid the longer he waits, without an explanation and as casualties mount in Afghanistan, he will appear weak.

The recent events in Afghanistan, legitimizing Karzai and the talk about working directly with Provincial Governors do not exactly instill confidence.

a211423

at 12:19 on November 3rd, 2009

Yes, I agree some explanation would give people better knowledge of what the stratedy is without having to give decision.

People are already saying he is indecisive=weakness. I don't believe this analogy because I think all decisions should be well thought out using the principles of decision making which can be detailed and take longer than most people can tolerate.

I think the administration is in the "Evaluate options that will solve problem" stage. The problem is multifacted: 1) leave knowing you have the support of international community; 2) stay knowing you have the support of the international community; 3) stay or leave knowing you the support of the American people; 4) stay or leave based on faith in the Afghani government to rule effectively with minimal military involvement except for training and infrastructure development to oversee foreign aid investment.

albertacowpoke

at 12:27 on November 3rd, 2009

Selection and maintenance of the aim will give the solution to this problem. There has to be a clearly defined foreign policy, i.e. Aghanistan goal. This should lead to courses open followed by Pros and Cons of each selected course. This can be a mental or written exercise, depending on the complexity of the problem.

Rory Cripps

at 17:28 on November 3rd, 2009

ACP: Uh Oh! When I hear you say "selection and maintenance of the aim", it's time to run for cover! lol!

I've asked the question before and I ask it again: In the eyes of Obama, is the situation in Afghanistan a war--or is it something else? At this point, the Afghanistan ball is solely in Obama's court. He can blame Bush all that he wants, but at this point, only his most die-hard supporters would fall for that spiel. In regard to Obama's handling of the Afghanistan situation, he looks indecisive and way out of his league. I don't know how he sleeps at night knowing that American and NATO troops continue to die in that hell-hole. I wonder how many varieties of prescription drugs he's on? Obama told the American people that his administration was going to be the most open and honest administration in America's history. He can put his money where his mouth is and subject himself to a drug test and then post the results of the test for all of America to see.

albertacowpoke

at 17:59 on November 3rd, 2009

You know talking about casualties of war. Romeo Dallaire, which was a Canadian General in charge of UN troops in Rwanda during the genocide, according to him attemepted suicide because of PTSD four times.

He said that there were 102,000 PTSD related suicides committed by Vietnam Vets. So he puts the war deaths of Vietnam to 160,000. The place is turning into a hell hole. If you look at the weekly DoD casualty rates, what is not spoken off a lot are the WIA. Even that figure doesn't include PTSD casualties.

Soldiers want clear direction and they also want to know what they're fighting for. When that becomes blurred they start second guessing themselves.

There is so much information and misinformation out there, that it would be prudent for the President to address first of all his military and the public at large. This should be approached with as much vigour as his campaign speeches.

a211423

at 12:47 on November 3rd, 2009

I hope the goals in Afghanistan will be defined in the decision of whether to leave or stay. We can support Afghanistan in every way except by giving human lives in military offense to an undefined enemy. Supporting a form of democracy if the people want it, is what we can do without military intervention. Afghanistan's population is complex and diverse, and I don't know if a Western form of democracy is what they want or need. I would look to scholars of the region for direction, for they evaluate the social, economic, anthropological and geographical implications. Several studies I have read repeat that a presidential form of government is not as effective in tribal societies. A parlimentary form with equal represenation brings all regions into governance. I would tend to agree with this if it could bring peace to the Afghani people.

ANGELAMerkel (not verified)

at 13:50 on November 3rd, 2009

ANGELAwww.faz.net/s/RubFC06D389EE76479E9E76425072B196C3/Doc~E19372F8C0CBC4799B452D8CB01A71BBF~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html

YankeeJim

at 17:07 on November 3rd, 2009

Merkel and the German people are correct about Afghanistan and I think abhorently incorrect about Iran. Germany, of all countries, should see the similarities between their past and the Iranian present.

albertacowpoke

at 17:14 on November 3rd, 2009

Thanks for your comments YankeeJim. It is amazing, at times, how countries react when it interferes with their own trade practices.

YankeeJim

at 04:49 on November 5th, 2009

It really is all about the money.

Soyunangel

at 19:33 on November 3rd, 2009

Oops... her name is Angela (not Andrea).

albertacowpoke

at 19:48 on November 3rd, 2009

Soyouangel. You have this quite right. Interestingly enough I just googled it and several news agencies in North America used Andrea. As you can see in my highlighted portion above The Hill did too. I googled a Geman Newspaper and Wikepedia and you had it right. Thank You very much.