Press Releases

February 07, 2008

Handelsblatt Interview with German Foreign Minister Steinmeier on the Occasion of the Munich Conference on Security Policy, February 8-10

official translation of interview published on February 4, 2008

(…)

Vice-Chancellor, you will be addressing the Munich Conference on Security Policy, (…) where you will be explaining why the meeting of the six foreign ministers to discuss the Iranian nuclear programwas a step forward?

Among other things. Of course, Iran's nuclear program will be one of the dominant themes in Munich. The decisive step which would enable us to rule out the threat of uranium enrichment by Iran has yet to be taken. But perhaps the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will publish a report in the next few days which portrays Iran's cooperation in clarifying the unresolved issues regarding the Iranian nuclear program in a rather more favorable light.

Be honest, haven't international efforts actually lost steam since the report from the US intelligence services was published?

No. That's why it was so important that the five veto powers and Germany demonstrated their unity of purpose. The draft for a new Security Council resolution is undoubtedly a reflection of this unity. The US report has shown that we are no longer under quite so much time pressure. But it has confirmed that Iran was working on a nuclear weapons program up to 2003. That is why we cannot afford to slacken our efforts to resolve the problem and eliminate any threats posed to Iran's neighbors and above all to Israel.

Isn't the price of this unity of purpose the fact that the real goal has been lost from sight? If Iran has mastered uranium enrichment by 2009, it will maybe already have achieved its primary goal.

To do that the country would have to make the leap to industrial enrichment. Unlike last year, we no longer fear that they will be so advanced by 2009.

German business is becoming increasingly outspoken in its criticism of sanctions, which it claims are hitting it hard.

I said two years ago that economic consequences would be unavoidable if we failed to find a political solution. The sanctions are not hitting German companies any harder than firms in other European countries.

But President of the Federation of German Industries Jürgen Thumann claims that sanctions are absolutely the wrong way to go about achieving political compromise.

We get the impression that the Iranians are feeling the economic squeeze in certain areas. This hasn't prompted the political leaders to rethink. But it has sparked discussion in Iran on whether it might after all be better to enter into negotiations. I am banking on these forces becoming stronger.

Business representatives also criticize a contradiction in Germany's Iran policy. On the one hand the Federal Government constantly emphasizes the need for international unity of purpose, on the other hand it does not help companies in the face of unilateral US sanctions.

Particularly those companies that operate on the US market make their own decisions. They don't ask us what they should do.

Then there is the gripe that the Federal Foreign Office is one of the worst culprits for dragging its feet.

I don't believe that's the case. At least, I know of no decision that has not been taken in consensus with the Federal Ministry of Economics and, where necessary, in consultation with the Federal Chancellery. But I would like to come back to the Conference on Security Policy. The issue of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction does not centre solely on Iran.

Who else is involved then?

I share the concerns of a number of former US Secretaries of State such as Henry Kissinger, who are worried about the increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons. We therefore have to inject more momentum into the topic of disarmament again. But that will only work if the nuclear-weapon powers, too, finally fulfill the obligations they have pledged to honor under the relevant treaties and begin to disarm. Otherwise the next attempt to revise the Non-Proliferation Regime will also come to naught. At the Conference on Security Policy, I will warn participants that NATO also has responsibility on the issue of disarmament. The transatlantic alliance needs to remind itself of its fundamental tasks. They certainly include support and military defense capabilities. But they also include striving for disarmament. Security is not established solely through the use of arms, but also by the creation of trust. We need more effort to be channeled into talks on disarmament and dialogue along the lines of the CSCE.

Let's turn to another problem country, Syria. With hindsight, do you think the visit of the Syrian Foreign Minister was a success?

Wise foreign policy rarely culminates in reports of rapid success. It generally involves a lot of hard graft. I said to the Syrians before the Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, "If you get involved in the peace process and take the initial step of attending the conference in Annapolis, diplomatic channels that have to date been blocked will open up to you." That is the basis of my willingness to continue the dialogue in Berlin. Syria did indeed attend the conference and merely mentioned that it would like to discuss the Golan Heights in subsequent rounds of talks. I have kept my promise to the Syrians. That is the basis of credibility and trust – and the background to this visit.

… which the Federal Chancellery and the CDU weren't too pleased about ….

During that visit I didn't mince my words and directly addressed the problematic role played by Syria in Lebanon, for example. And I urged Syria to play a constructive role in the presidential elections in Lebanon.

Isn't the arrest of a human rights activist, which you have also criticized, a sign of a tougher stance?

It is certainly a negative signal from Damascus. We are not only striving to secure his release, we also want to find out whether the imprisonment is the consequence of a struggle between various forces in Damascus.

The CDU's harsh criticism of your Syria and China policy leads us to suspect that the grand coalition has identified foreign policy as a battlefield. Is that so?

Obviously, some people would like to think so. But if we look at things rationally, I believe there have been hardly any other two years in Germany's post-war history in which a coalition has cooperated so harmoniously on so many foreign policy issues. Everyone outside Germany has gained the impression that German foreign policy is not only portrayed as a coordinated effort, but is also effective. But of course different opinions are sometimes aired.

On the significance of human rights, for instance?

No, certainly not on the issue of the significance of human rights. In the grand coalition it is high time we all recognized that everyone is working in their own way to implement human rights.

But things don't sound so harmonious between the CDU and the SPD on the issue of China.

A human rights policy towards China isn't a new invention. The Red-Green Government instigated dialogue on the rule of law and human rights with China. Many international partners are envious of this instrument of cooperation. But maybe the Red-Green Government at that time was too reticent in voicing how much progress it had made on this kind of preventive security policy. What is clear is that human rights are and remain at the heart of any German foreign policy. And I am pleased that we are back on the way to normalizing our relations with China.

That is precisely the point on which SPD and CDU politicians are arguing who is riding on the back of whom – the Chancellor by receiving the Dalai Lama or you by salvaging German-Sino relations.

Anyone who is responsible for this country's foreign policy does not act according to those criteria.

Taiwan bemoans the fact that it is paying the price for reconciliation with Beijing because you have not only emphasized the one China policy but also counted Taiwan as part of Chinese territory.

In so doing I have merely described what our policy to date is. Germany's one China policy has not changed.

Why, in Germany's view, is Taiwan not allowed to become an independent state, whereas Kosovo is?

Kosovo is a special problem. The situation there is entirely different. The status of Kosovo is the last unresolved issue in the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Independent states have already emerged in the course of this process, most recently Montenegro. In 1999 the international community assumed responsibility for further developments in Kosovo. We wanted to negotiate a joint solution with Serbia, but unfortunately that didn't work out. Now we cannot halt the course of history.

But couldn't history at least be slowed down and the declaration of independence by the Kosovo-Albanians delayed?

We have invested considerable effort in trying to bring about a solution based on consensus. Literally no stone has been left unturned. Now we have to respect the fact that an agreement between Serbs and Kosovars was not possible.

How do you see Russia's role?

Russia has a different opinion on the Kosovo question. But the common European view is that stability in the Western Balkans would be irresponsibly jeopardized if we continued the talks without a goal or a fixed timetable.

Do you expect a change in Russian foreign policy and a stronger leaning towards the West after the probable election of Dimitry Medvedev as President?

I know from talks I have had with Dimitry Medvedev that he takes a positive view towards Europe. However, we should be prepared for Russia to pursue its self-confident policy, which rests on strong economic growth, even under a potential President Medvedev. Nonetheless, I would urge Europe to reach out more decisively towards Russia once again. One obstacle, the row about the import ban on Polish meat, has finally been removed. The way is therefore now open to resume talks on the EU partnership agreement. And these could then also provide a framework for discussion of problematic areas such as European-Russian energy relations.

Advanced Search    Help

Contacts

Officials & Institutions

Background Papers

Subscribe Here You can also read the current issues here.

Printer-Friendly Page