Annalena Baerbrock and the Greens proclaim idealistically and fundamentalistically: human rights are non-negotiable. If one looks at the history and the position and function of human rights and practical realpolitik, one must come to the counter result: human rights are negotiable – what else? That human rights are non-negotiable is a similar statement, according to which Islam belongs to Germany. This has a certain clarity of truth, since there are 4-6 million Muslims in Germany, but not necessarily, since the Christian and secular traditions shape Germany and most of the Western countries and Islam does not at all, unless you make references to Goethe’s East-West Divan, Max von Oppenheim’s „German Jihad“, the alliance between Emperor´s Germany and the Ottoman Empire or Hitler’s relations to PLO Arafat’s uncle, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his anti-Semitism, which is very integrative and educational The question is what exactly is meant by this and whether it should be differentiated.

Human rights appeared with the Magna Charta in theory and with the American and French Revolutions in reality, but already in view of the Terreurs of the Jacobins and Robbiespierre, as well as Napoleon’s Wars of Liberation, it is already evident that the heralds of human rights did not take it very seriously with those of their opponents – from guilotine to humanitarian wars to enforce the Code Napoleon with millions of dead as far as Moscow across Europe. The American Civil War was not only owed to the abolitionists, but a product of North America, which developed into capitalism, that wanted to expand this mode of production and wage labor and to remove the South from the shackles of the feudalist slave-owning society. So it was not just humanistic motives that allowed the US Yankees to conquer the South, for example Lincoln himself was not an abolitionist, but thought about sending the “negroes” back to Africa or founding their own black state separate from the White Anglosaxon Protestants, such as in the USA there was also segregation till the 1960s. Even the Kennedies did not care about the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King at first, especially since there were all the Dixie Democrats of the Southern state. This shows two things: that the proclaimers of human rights often use them tactically, especially economically. following election tactical and geopolitical interests, themselves were not just humanistic free spirits who only dealt with the ideal of human rights.

During the Cold War, human rights were also a central title of the so-called free West. Human rights violations by communism were denounced, but logically all human rights violations in the West from brutal military dictatorships from Latin America, Asia to Franco, Salazar, Greek colonels, Turkish coup generals, 1 million deaths under General Sukarno, Saudi Arabia’s beheading orgies of opposition members or the racist Boers in South Africa were tolerated as all proxy wars.with illions of deads The massacres in the West were only a topic of the left, the torture chambers were always full, and the death squads and military dictators carried out the missions they had learned from the US military in the Schools of America. Everything was allowed, if it only pushed back communism, human rights violations only identified in the East, the end justified the means. The CSCE negotiations took place at the same time, with Kissinger opening 8 negotiating baskets, including human rights, which were negotiated with one another. Human rights in the East were negotiable, and the CSCE process created more freedom for all the Eastern dissidents from Solidarnosc, Charter 77, Russian and GDR civil rights groups, which were then used during Reagan’s policy of confrontation to make the peaceful revolutions of 1989 possible. Even here, human rights were negotiable and the whole thing was very successful in the Western sense, which is why today’s authoritarian regimes do not necessarily have the need to conduct these negotiations as they did then, because they can be back doors for regime change.

So if someone claims today: human rights are non-negotiable, this contradicts the entire historical experience, is a fundamentalist ideal far removed from any realpolitik, absolutizes all rights of the individual vis-à-vis the social rights of a collective, other possible conception of human rights, has missionary intentions up to human rights wars and humanitarian wars, which would have to be waged for this ideal, whereby the end justified the means and then again human rights violations and is in the best case an appeal to raise a maximum demand in order to then negotiate realpolitically on the basis of these maximum demands . Even in the latter case, human rights are negotiable again despite all the noble fundamental propaganda.

I am not saying that one should not stand up for human rights, but that one should look closely at the respective situation and also what means of power one has in order to achieve which concrete results with any diplomatic counterpart, especially since one konows that these so-called human rights wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libia, as always supposedly well-intentioned by such idealists, resulted in mainly Islamists, against whom a Ghaddafi was a human rights activist and women’s rights activist and after he was toppled brought about the Islamic state, the Taliban and Erdogan’s Islamist murder militias of Syria to Libya as new human rights activists,

Especially since the entire government under George W. Bush Jr. because of human rights violations and the waging of wars of aggression from Abu Graib to Iraq would have to be brought before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which nobody in the West is demanding, especially since everyone knows that this kind of human rights violations is okay with hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of refugees and Kissinger also once said: The first American to be indicted in The Hague will be freed by the US Marines. In this other sense, human rights and human rights violations are non-negotiable for the US and other states. The balance of power and Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi are also too clear. Especially since, if one wanted to get serious about it, the USA would initiate an Operation Desert Storm over Germany and Berlin and human rights apologists would have to hide in the Führerbunker, insofar as a nuclear mushroom cloud did not blow up over Berlin.So much for the balance of power and the extent to which human rights violations and wars of aggression are or could be negotiable.Maybe Trump would bring the establishment globalist Democrats and Republicans to jail for their never ending wars as he already wanted to imprison Hillary Clinton, but in that case we haven´t to care about human rights anymore as a fascist like Trump and his followers don´t care about it anyway. And it would be an inner-US affair and the Europeans or any other state would not be involved, maybe be the next target as they supported the old US establishment.

Conversely: It is just too easy and also extremely dangerous to say: Topple human rights violators Saddam, Assad, Ghaddafi, Putin and everything will be better. The Greens also believe that in Russia a Russian Hitler like Zhirinovsky could never seize power or another nationalist, even with Navalny it is not clear to what extent he is a nationalist. As in the Greater Middle East, they dream above all of a liberal-democratic opposition that doesn’t really exist. The main thing is that human rights are non-negotiable and human rights violators have to be toppled – then everything will be better.