Interview with Federal Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

published on November 7

Minister, you seem delighted with Barack Obama's election victory. Why?

Being a Social Democrat, I'm naturally pleased with the victory of the Democratic candidate. I sat in front of the TV at home until the early hours of the morning on election night and was impressed: Obama's victory speech was powerful, as was John McCain's speech. The joy which we witnessed in Chicago and other American cities was quite simply contagious.

Has America moved to the left?

Enlarge image

Foreign Minister Steinmeier met with Senator Obama in Berlin in July 2008.

(© photothek.net; by Imo)

America has certainly voted for change – in my view a change in the right direction. I sought a dialogue with Obama early on, also because we Social Democrats share many of the goals set out in his election manifesto. I recognize many of our own ideas and objectives: a fairer taxation system; more investment in education; reform to create a fair and classless health system and, not least, his fundamental ideas on foreign policy.

Obama wants to subsidize the US automobile industry and to restrict free trade. How can that please the German Government? After all, Germany is an exporting nation.

There have always been trade conflicts with America, and there will be more in the future. However, I don't think we'll have to fight more battles with the Obama Administration than during the eight Bush years. Indeed, I hope we'll find new approaches to world trade and work together with Washington to revive the Doha Round.

American Presidents have always regarded themselves as the leaders of the free world, and they have been described as such even in Germany. Can that also apply to Obama, given America's weakness?

Even though the influence of new powers will increase, the United States of America will remain a world power, due to its size and the importance of its economy alone. However, this can only generate influence if America wins back confidence. The future President Barack Obama will have to try and achieve this first – his promise of change stands for that, too.

How much change will Obama mean for German-American relations?

Every American President, including Obama, will represent American interests first and foremost. So there will also be differences of opinion with the Obama Administration. The question is how to deal with them – and I'm optimistic about Obama. I believe that our dealings – also in difficult issues – will be based on partnership.

The Iraq war led to a rift in German-American relations which was unprecedented in the post-war period.

However, it also has to be said that since then we have returned to sensible working relations. Nevertheless, Obama's election presents new perspectives. I'm calling for a new transatlantic agenda. Common security issues will continue to be high on this agenda. But greater importance will be attached to the joint efforts to deal with climate change, energy security as well as disarmament and arms control.

Where will Obama ask more and where less of Germany?

I find this question, which is asked particularly often in Germany, short-sighted and timid. We have no reason at all to belittle our international engagement. We really don't need to hide our light under a bushel. And I believe Barack Obama knows that.

So Washington won't make any new requests to Berlin?

I don't think the Obama Administration will bombard us with unrealistic demands.

Would the desire for German troops in southern Afghanistan be unrealistic?

In terms of duration and intensity, Germany's engagement in Afghanistan is matched by few other countries in the world. Just a few weeks ago, the Bundestag agreed to increase the number of German troops in Afghanistan by another 1,000 to 4,500. This year alone, we are spending 170 million euro on civilian reconstruction. I discussed all of this with Barack Obama here in Berlin in July and he appreciates Germany's contribution.

Pakistan, which you visited recently, is facing a serious crisis. Could Obama order a military intervention should democracy collapse there? And would Germany support him?

I can't see Germany becoming involved in a military intervention in Pakistan. However, the international community will have to provide financial aid to this country, which is on the verge of economic collapse. We will play our part. The new government in Islamabad has assured me that it wants to focus more on the comprehensive fight against Islamism and terrorism and their causes in its own country. It knows that this is a prerequisite for cooperation with the international community.

What changes are you expecting in America's policy on Iraq? When will the troops be withdrawn? Is that even prudent?

Obama has never said that the Americans would leave Iraq in haste under his leadership. That's sensible, for an immediate withdrawal would dangerously destabilize the country. He has argued in favour of gradually withdrawing the US troops as Iraq becomes more stable. Obama will therefore negotiate a timetable with the government in Baghdad.

In the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, Obama has shown a willingness to enter into dialogue. What should be the next steps here?

The unresolved dispute with Iran over its nuclear programme is certainly the conflict with the greatest potential for escalation in the world right now. There is therefore an urgent need for joint action to find a solution. That won't be possible without American participation. It's good that Obama is prepared in principle to enter into direct talks with Iran. However, I would caution Tehran not to misinterpret this signal. We still expect Iran to provide clear and verifiable evidence that it isn't building nuclear weapons.

What do you expect such talks to achieve?

The last 29 years of American-Iranian relations have seen many squandered opportunities. Whenever Washington approached Tehran the latter was not willing or able to seize the opportunity – and vice versa. I hope that direct talks can mark a fresh start here.

How should America's position on the Middle East conflict change? Should direct talks be conducted with Syria?

Syria's role in the region has been underestimated, although it has to be said that its conduct was often destructive in the past. In recent times, we have witnessed a change in Syria's approach. It's still too early to talk about a change of paradigm, but its relations with Lebanon have changed. Ambassadors are finally to be exchanged at the end of the year. Washington is following this very closely. Should Syria continue along this path, there will almost certainly be direct talks with the Obama Administration. I believe that makes sense and I'll therefore support it.

The Russian President Medvedev announced on Obama's election that Russia wants to base short-range missiles in Kaliningrad in response to America's plans to set up a missile defence shield. Is he trying to provoke Obama?

If that's the case, then it's not very wise. It was the wrong signal at the wrong time. Russia should recognize that it has an opportunity to establish good American-Russian relations with the future American President. After all, he's looking for new partners. Moscow should not create further misunderstandings but, rather, accept the offer made in Obama's manifesto.

In any case, the deals with Poland and the Czech Republic on an American missile defence shield have already been finalized. Obama won't be able to do anything about that, will he?

Let's wait and see. We've always been in favour of working together to defend ourselves from dangers which threaten the US, Europe and Russia in equal measure. This goal will be pushed aside if Russia and the West start up a race to station missiles.

Do you see a danger, despite Obama's election, that a new Cold War could develop? You warned about this in connection with the missile shield.

The danger that America and Russia repeat the pattern of power politics of the last centuries has not been averted. Intelligent politics must prevent the use of inappropriate instruments. The Russian leadership should therefore see that Obama is a partner who is prepared not to continue the old feuds. That offers an opportunity – especially for security and stability in Europe.

What were Bush's most serious mistakes?

The final assessment of the George W. Bush era has yet to be made. In Germany, too, some former supporters of Bush's policies are now expressing trite criticism. However, we shouldn't forget that following the attacks on 11 September 2001 Washington had to master some very difficult situations which shaped the American people's sense of threat and changed American foreign policy.

Didn't the real estate crisis in America bring the world to the verge of economic disaster?

Yes, the crisis originated in the US but it uncovered a global problem – the lack of international oversight structures and binding rules. Recklessness and greed could therefore take root in all countries. Years ago, Germany suggested to its G8 partners that we should intervene and set up a regulatory framework; the Americans and British in particular rejected this idea. I am concerned that opposition to binding international rules is again being voiced in the departing US Administration.

What will be the most cumbersome legacy of the Bush era for Obama?

America lost confidence and credibility in the world under Bush and, with that, influence. The reorientation in foreign policy announced by Obama offers hope that Washington can make up ground in this respect. It's a good sign when Obama says that he wants more partners and less opponents.

Obama won the election because he instilled enthusiasm and motivated people. What can the SPD candidate for chancellor learn from that?

Barack Obama conducted a great campaign, but it was a very American campaign, involving much bathos and high emotions. I believe this would be greeted with scepticism by down-to-earth Germans. We can certainly learn something in terms of organization or the use of the Internet. But we want to be elected in Germany. That's why we have to find our own style.

Obama's benign style was praised, while McCain's sharp attacks didn't have the desired effect. Can you learn from that?

What do you mean learn? I've never believed that unfairness and rudeness will guarantee success at the ballot box – on the contrary.

The interview was conducted by Günter Bannas and Wulf Schmiese.

© All rights reserved. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH, Frankfurt. Made available by the Frankfurter Allgemeine archive.