Germany's Schulz calls Trump 'un-American', warns against lifting Russia sanctions

[webfact]

Germany's Schulz calls Trump 'un-American', warns against lifting Russia sanctions

REUTERS

 

New Social Democratic Party (SPD) leader Martin Schulz addresses a news conference at their party headquarters in Berlin, Germany, January 30, 2017. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch

 

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany's centre-left chancellor candidate Martin Schulz has criticised U.S. President Donald Trump's policies as "un-American" and warned against lifting sanctions imposed against Russia over its role in the Ukraine crisis.

 

In one of the sharpest remarks yet by a senior German politician since the new American leader took office, Schulz told the Funke media group in an interview published on Wednesday that Europe had to stand up to defend liberal values.

 

"What Trump is doing is un-American," Schulz said, adding that the United States like no other country in the world stood for enlightenment, democracy and freedom.

 

"If Trump is now driving a wrecking ball through this set of values, then I will tell him as chancellor: That's not the policy of Germany and Europe," Schulz added.

 

Germany's Social Democrats last week nominated former European Parliament president Schulz to run against Chancellor Angela Merkel in a federal election in September, and the surprise move has boosted popular support for the centre-left party.

 

Merkel said on Monday the global fight against terrorism does not warrant putting groups of people under suspicion, adding Trump's order to restrict people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States violates the spirit of international cooperation.

 

Turning to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Ukraine conflict, Schulz said that sanctions imposed against Russia could only be lifted after both sides had implemented the so-called Minsk peace plan.

 

"As long as the Minsk peace agreement is not fully implemented, the sanctions cannot be lifted. We must tell Putin very clearly that Russia is obliged to respect and defend international law," Schulz said.

 

Schulz' comments bring more clarity about his stance on Russia after some leading Social Democrats have voiced support for a partial lifting of sanctions as long as Russia is implementing some aspects of the plan.

 

Merkel, one of the architects of the peace deal, has repeatedly said that sanctions against Russia can only be lifted once the Minsk agreement has been fully implemented.

 

(Reporting by Michael Nienaber; Editing by James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-01

[halloween]

" Merkel said on Monday the global fight against terrorism does not warrant putting groups of people under suspicion ......"

 

OK I'll bite. Why not?

[simple1]

5 hours ago, halloween said:

" Merkel said on Monday the global fight against terrorism does not warrant putting groups of people under suspicion ......"

 

OK I'll bite. Why not?

"The necessary and decisive battle against terrorism does not in any way justify putting groups of certain people under general suspicion - in this case people of Muslim belief or of a certain origin," Merkel said.

"In my opinion, this act runs contrary to the basic principles of international refugee help and international cooperation," she said.

[Baerboxer]

What a load of socialist twaddle. 

 

Did Schulz complain or even comment when Obama and his administration identified these countries in 2015?

 

Another member of the world must have socialist politically correct governments we approve of no matter how corrupt or inept they are movement.

 

Trump is unlikely to pander to Germany's new found world power ambitions as Obama did. Whereas Hilary would certainly have done so. And that very big payment by the German government to the Clinton Family Foundation was in no way connected of course, just as Deutsche Bank, VW and Siemens are all whiter than white bastions of integrity, 555!

 

The prospect of a EU military HQ'd in Germany, under German command and management is not a nice prospect. Thankfully the French aren't that gullible.

[JHolmesJr]

Schulz needs a less in how to respect the president of the USA.

 

You don't warn the donald.

 

Unless you want to commit twittercide.

 

What's un-american mean anyway? The idea is to fulfil campaign promises. I guess breaking campaign promises is very American too.

[Jingthing]

trump is (in my opinion intentionally) provoking an American civil war. He seeks to divide, not unite. He provokes mass protest, some of course which will be violent. This is how he will consolidate his power and step by step TRASH every American constitutional freedom that DECENT (non-fascist) Americans hold dear. So, in that sense, especially considering the obvious Putin connection to trump, he is indeed very much in opposition of the best American values. Yes, we have had fascists in the past. Lindbergh. Joseph McCarthy. But now we've got one in almost TOTAL control of the government.

 

God help us. 

[zorro1]

Trump is sticking to his promises. Good on him and let's not forget he was actually elected. That's democracy for you.

[Andaman Al]

50 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

What a load of socialist twaddle. 

 

Did Schulz complain or even comment when Obama and his administration identified these countries in 2015?

ALL Obama's administration did was identify them as high threat. The visa application was rigorous enough to take care of the threat, that is why the only terrorist attacks on American soil recently have been home grown with maybe one person who's origin and motivation were questionable. Otherwise all home grown.

 

The UN, EU, USA all have lists of countries we can and can not do business with, in particular the countries we can and cannot deal with for defence equipment because those countries are identified as 'high risk'. Go on google and find those lists. This is a far cry from what Trump has done and Obama did nothing of the sort that is comparable to Trump.

 

As a genuine question, will you guys still defend Trump if he decides to drop a few nukes somewhere? You seem capable of defending him for anything.

[kamahele]

56 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Schulz needs a less in how to respect the president of the USA.

 

You don't warn the donald.

 

Unless you want to commit twittercide.

 

What's un-american mean anyway? The idea is to fulfil campaign promises. I guess breaking campaign promises is very American too.

Why does a foreigner need to respect the US president when most Americans don't?  As for the definition of un American, try to look at what it says on the statue of liberty and compare that to Trump's actions. That would be the definition of un American.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, kamahele said:

Why does a foreigner need to respect the US president when most Americans don't?  As for the definition of un American, try to look at what it says on the statue of liberty and compare that to Trump's actions. That would be the definition of un American.

Yes, I respect anyone that doesn't respect the insane clown president. He deserves no respect. The awesome POWER of destruction and nuclear codes he holds ... well, that's different. 

[dunroaming]

2 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Schulz needs a less in how to respect the president of the USA.

 

Respect for the President of the USA?  Priceless!

 

Considering how many "Americans" on here constantly condemn Obama, Clinton, Bush etc etc expecting the rest of us to "respect the president of the USA  is a bit ironic isn't it?  Or maybe they are all fair game apart from the new one.  Respect has to be earned and Trump is only earning disgust from the rest of the world.

[elgordo38]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

We must tell Putin very clearly that Russia is obliged to respect and defend international law," Schulz said.

When you send Putin your letter of obliged to respect send a carbon copy to Mr. Xi and Mr. Kim. 

[WaywardWind]

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

What a load of socialist twaddle. 

 

Did Schulz complain or even comment when Obama and his administration identified these countries in 2015?

 

Another member of the world must have socialist politically correct governments we approve of no matter how corrupt or inept they are movement.

 

Trump is unlikely to pander to Germany's new found world power ambitions as Obama did. Whereas Hilary would certainly have done so. And that very big payment by the German government to the Clinton Family Foundation was in no way connected of course, just as Deutsche Bank, VW and Siemens are all whiter than white bastions of integrity, 555!

 

The prospect of a EU military HQ'd in Germany, under German command and management is not a nice prospect. Thankfully the French aren't that gullible.

Obama did NOT identify these countries - that infamy belongs solely to the Republicans. 

 

Read the legislative history of the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act.

[Ulysses G.]

6 hours ago, WaywardWind said:

Obama did NOT identify these countries - that infamy belongs solely to the Republicans. 

 

 

That is disinformation. The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted by President Donald Trump in his executive order on immigration were initially identified as “countries of concern” under the Obama administration.

[WaywardWind]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

That is disinformation. The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted by President Donald Trump in his executive order on immigration were initially identified as “countries of concern” under the Obama administration.

No, it is not. 

As I said to the other poster, read the legislative history of the TTPA, and you will learn how the list came to be law.

 

It was introduced by Republicans, ailed as stand alone legislation, and then re-introduced as an amendment to the omnibus appropriations legislation - the law that allows the USG to continue operations - to ensure that it had to get past President Obama.

 

Here's where to start reading: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158/text

[Ulysses G.]

Obama signed it and the buck stops with him. I give him credit for that.

[mrwebb8825]

On 2/1/2017 at 9:06 AM, webfact said:

Merkel said on Monday the global fight against terrorism does not warrant putting groups of people under suspicion, adding Trump's order to restrict people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States violates the spirit of international cooperation.

So, these countries in question slaughtering Christians PURELY for religious reasons AND traveling to other countries PURELY for the sake of slaughtering inocent men, women and children PURELY based on their religion IS in (her version) the spirit of international cooperation??

You know what Merkel, YOU run YOUR country YOUR way and we'll let our elected President run our country OUR way.

[Linzz]

On 2/1/2017 at 9:12 PM, Jingthing said:

trump is (in my opinion intentionally) provoking an American civil war. He seeks to divide, not unite. He provokes mass protest, some of course which will be violent. This is how he will consolidate his power and step by step TRASH every American constitutional freedom that DECENT (non-fascist) Americans hold dear. So, in that sense, especially considering the obvious Putin connection to trump, he is indeed very much in opposition of the best American values. Yes, we have had fascists in the past. Lindbergh. Joseph McCarthy. But now we've got one in almost TOTAL control of the government.

 

God help us. 

Are you sure it's Trump trying to provoke civil war? The violent protests are from the Left. Its their way or no way with a mixture of inability to accept an election outcome and a general intolerance of any dissent from their opinion. They will obstruct government in every way and cancel free speech and justify it because they believe that they are born to rule and any outcome they don't agree with, even won by democratic process, is deemed illegitimate. 

[ilostmypassword]

On 2/2/2017 at 3:49 AM, Ulysses G. said:

Obama signed it and the buck stops with him. I give him credit for that.

What nonsense.  He signed it because the overriding concern for the welfare of the nation was getting that budget passed. How could he have known that a Donald Trump would formulate an executive order without input from the people he put in charge of homeland security and then use this law as  a justification for this kind of ban?