Address by H.E. Wolfgang Ischinger
German Ambassador to the United States
at the Woodrow Wilson Center
Washington, DC
January 24, 2002

It is a great honor and a pleasure for me to speak at the Woodrow Wilson Center today. Under the leadership of Lee Hamilton, this institution has continued to grow as an outstanding forum for international, academic, and political debate in Washington.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

When I took up my duties here in Washington six months ago, a long list of American-European grievances dominated the transatlantic agenda. The first op-ed piece I wrote as German Ambassador dealt with the Kyoto Protocol. Diverging opinions on the biological weapons convention, missile defense, the death penalty, and trade disputes were other issues on the transatlantic conflict agenda. To many observers on both sides of the Atlantic, the U.S. and the EU seemed to be "drifting apart" in the post-Cold War world.

To be frank - and I am on the record on this - I never bought that proposition. September 11 has confirmed my assessment. There have not been many moments in the last 50 years when Europeans have felt as close to America as in the aftermath of September 11 - both politically and emotionally. Those 200,000 Germans at Brandenburg Gate were not the only emotional display of solidarity with America in Germany and elsewhere in Europe following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The call that "we are all Americans" demonstrated that we considered the September 11 attacks an attack on ourselves, on our common values, on freedom, on the rule of law, on tolerance and above all on respect for human dignity. It is this joint commitment to basic values that distinguishes our transatlantic relationship from any other inter-regional cooperation in the world.

9-11 made something else clear, too - a new sense of purpose in the transatlantic relationship. Combating international terrorism moved to the top of our agenda. My own country made it clear from the very first moment that it stands by the U.S. in this fight against what is seen as a threat to all of us. And Germany has lived up to that commitment of full solidarity made by Chancellor Schroeder. For the first time in its postwar history, Germany has committed thousands of troops to a major military operation outside of Europe.

Thus, 9-11 has brought about a shift in the paradigm, not only for the U.S. but also for Germany. Fifty years after the end of the Second World War, Germany has come of age and is assuming its share of the responsibility for global stability, in response to the expectations of our friends and partners. "America knows that it can rely on its German friends," wrote President Bush in a message to the German people some weeks after the attacks. ". . .Our common democratic traditions, our strong friendship, and our human and material resources make our close partnership one of the world's chief instruments for achieving lasting peace and prosperity."

So far so good. Does this mean that we are heading toward a new golden age in transatlantic relations? I am not so sure. First, old questions have not vanished with 9-11 - Kyoto, arms control, and trade disputes are still waiting to be resolved.

Second, new questions have arisen. How are we going to continue the fight against terrorism ? What's next? What about Iraq? What about the proper treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners? How can we bring peace to the Middle East and how are we going to address the underlying causes of terrorism and extremism? What can Americans and Europeans do together to make globalization a success for the greatest possible number of people?

The postwar transatlantic relationship has been a unique success story. It has prevailed in the secular conflict between western democracies and communism. Now, in the age of globalization, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to pursue the objectives we achieved for Europe in the last century on a more global scale - to strengthen democracy and human rights and to make the world a safer, more stable, and better place.

Neither Europe nor America can meet this challenge alone. Make no mistake, even with America's breathtaking military capabilities, there is no such thing as a Pax Americana.

In my view, the fight against international terrorism demonstrates that America needs friends and allies. I disagree with those who believe that, because victory in Afghanistan was easy, America does not need allies who tend to complicate things. I believe the opposite is true. And we in Europe are still your closest friends and allies.

So, the real question is this: What must Europe do, what can the U.S. do in order to meet the challenge and maintain the level of understanding, the new sense of common purpose that we have gained over the past few months?

Let me talk about these questions for a few minutes, and let me start with the challenge to Europe.

Only a strong Europe that is capable to act can make a credible and substantial contribution to a transatlantic relationship facing global challenges. With the introduction of the euro, Europe has just taken a historic step on its way to this goal. For the first time since the Roman Empire and after countless wars, 12 European nations have merged their sovereignty in the field of monetary policy. There's no doubt that the other EU member states will follow sooner or later. It is good to see that the American press has understood the significance of this step and reacted positively to the euro. The Chicago Tribune even predicted that the EU would become the world's next superpower and eventually surpass the U.S. as the leader of the global economy. Maybe that's going a bit far, but, actually, what if the Tribune is right after all?

There is no doubt that the introduction of the euro will have far-reaching consequences. It will enhance Europe's position as a major global economic player, with the euro as the world's second reserve currency after the dollar. It will strengthen solidarity among Europeans as well as enhance their sense of identity as Europeans. And it will certainly give a new impulse to two other major European projects: EU enlargement and constitutional reform.

The accession of new members to the EU in 2004 will change the face of Europe in a fundamental way. EU enlargement is the biggest political and economic effort to stabilize an entire region since the Marshall Plan. It will not only create an economic region of almost half a billion consumers - a wealthy market and a bigger one that of the U.S. It will also strengthen democracy and market economy in the whole of Europe. Thus, EU enlargement serves America's strategic interest in a stable Europe and vibrant markets. If we get it right, EU enlargement will make possible what Europeans have been dreaming of for centuries: the creation of an undivided Europe based on shared values, on respect for cultural diversity, on joint responsibility, and on the absence of a hegemonic power.

However, EU enlargement will not be feasible without major institutional reforms. In March, a committee of wise men under the chairmanship of President Valery Giscard D' Estaing will take up its work to map out the institutional reforms needed to make an enlarged European Union functional. Our aim is a better distribution of competences between the European Union and the member states, more transparency, and more legitimacy and democracy within the EU. We must make progress on the huge project of a European constitution. I expect that, by the end of the next EU intergovernmental conference in 2004, the European Union will be more efficient, more able to act, and easier to understand - not only for our American friends but also for European citizens, for whom the EU treaty continues to be extremely difficult to grasp.

I also expect the next intergovernmental conference to bring us closer to a common European foreign and defense policy that really deserves that name. Now that a single currency has been introduced and the political and economic fates of the member states have been linked, the EU needs a real common security strategy. I would go even a step further. Do we really need 15 military commands, 13 naval academies, and 15 air forces in the EU? Hasn't the time come for a European army? Why should a group of nations who have decided to link their fates through a common currency not take the next logical step, namely to link their fates through mutual security pledges? Why not? And why not try to create some synergy effects, which would help build a more powerful European military contribution to transatlantic security?

Only an EU with effective political and military instruments will make possible the balanced burden-sharing within the Alliance that has been called for by the U.S. A united, democratic Europe has been a major goal of America's Europe policy for 50 years.

Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, we are not there yet. It is true that Europe would not have been able to run the Afghanistan campaign the way the U.S. did. It is also true that European defense budgets are not what - I know - some of you believe they should be.

I know some of you have little confidence in the EU or in the prospects for an evolving and ever more powerful EU. My answer to you is, don't underestimate the EU. If you look at long-term trends and developments, the EU has made tremendous progress.

- In 1957, six European countries established the European Communities with the aim of creating a common market. In 1992, the single market, consisting at that time of 12 member states, was complete.
- In 1989, the EU decided to establish a European Monetary Union - only 10 years later this revolutionary step was accomplished.
- In the early nineties, the EU was unable to prevent mass murder and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Today, the EU not only is the major donor to civilian reconstruction in the Balkans but also provides most of the troops stabilizing Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia. In Macedonia, European countries for the first time in the history of NATO are running a military operation on their own - with the U.S. providing only logistical support. Germany is the lead nation of operation Amber Fox.

Clearly, Europe is moving in the right direction. We are carrying a bigger, a fairer share of the burden. My advice to you, to impatient Americans is, show strategic patience and strategic trust in us. We are moving right along.

Not just the EU is changing; the same is true of the U.S. Its military power is as unrivaled as ever before. At the same time, September 11 has destroyed the illusion that the American heartland is invulnerable. The notion of a strategic sanctuary no longer applies. What does this mean for America's role in the world and for transatlantic relations? Will the U.S. try to act alone or will it act according to the principles which have guided American foreign policy since the end of the Second World War, as expressed by former Secretary of State James F. Byrnes in his famous Stuttgart speech in 1946:

"We have learned, whether we like it or not, that we live in one world, from which we cannot isolate ourselves. We learned that peace and well-being are indivisible and that our peace and well-being cannot be purchased at the price of the peace and the well-being of any other country."

America drew the consequences from this lesson by building the transatlantic relationship, by founding the UN and NATO, and by paving the way for international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. Today, more than half a century later, NATO remains the bedrock of European security and America's main anchor in Europe. For my country, NATO remains as important as it was before the end of the Cold War. Without a bilateral treaty with the U.S., Germany as a non-nuclear state has no other security guarantee than the one offered by Article 5 of the NATO treaty. Germany, therefore, has a vital interest in maintaining NATO. My government fully supports NATO's opening up to new members. The NATO summit in Prague in November will decide on the accession of new members to NATO. Together with enhancing the role of the NATO-Russia Joint Council, this step will bring us an important step closer to the overriding aim of the Atlantic Alliance - the establishment of a just and stable peace order for the whole of Europe.

Enlargement, however, is only one of the many issues we have to address. We need to answer even more fundamental questions. What should NATO look like in the future, as security threats emanate less and less from Europe and more and more from the European periphery and beyond? What importance will the U.S. attach to the Atlantic Alliance in the future?

Invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty after the terrorist attacks of September 11 was an unprecedented step in NATO history. But, despite NATO's commitment, the U.S. did not make much use of NATO during the military campaign against terrorism. Some have said, "We are able to do it without allies who tend to be difficult anyway; therefore, we don't need NATO anymore." I cannot imagine that this would be the majority view in Washington.

Let us make no mistake, NATO's future will depend on America's sustained willingness to continue to cooperate with its European allies. NATO will continue to be seen as a relevant and credible political and military institution only if Washington turns to it in a crisis - as an instrument of preventive diplomacy and crisis prevention and, if need be, as a military alliance. Only a credible and relevant NATO will be able to fulfill its role as the main guarantor of European security, as an organization that not only prevents a renationalization of European defense policies but also projects stability to the European periphery. So, can we prevent NATO from drifting into irrelevance? I certainly hope so. It is up to the U.S. to answer that question.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
America and Europe are facing challenges that go beyond traditional security threats. Fighting international terrorism is at the top of our agenda right now - but it is certainly not the only issue. Climate change, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, organized crime, mass poverty and migration - all these issues affect our lives. These new challenges do not respect national or even continental borders. No single nation state - not even one flanked by two oceans like the U.S. - will be able to cope with these issues alone. We must therefore use multilateral institutions, such as the UN or the IFIs, and we should strengthen multilateral agreements instead of weakening them.

The "m-word" usually stirs little enthusiasm in Washington. Engaging in multilateral cooperation does not seem to be a natural reflex for a country which, like the U.S., is more or less a continent onto itself. Is 19th-century realpolitik really so appealing? Even if international agreements such as the Biological Weapons Convention, the land mine ban, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or the Kyoto Protocol have their shortcomings in one way or another, in most cases it is better to have an imperfect agreement than to have no agreement at all. That is the German view. There is no alternative to multilateral action if we want to build international legitimacy, if we want to have internationally accepted and verifiable standards and get everyone on board.
We hope to see a continued U.S. commitment to multilateral diplomacy, not merely selective multilateralism.

If we, the big players, don't demonstrate our commitment to playing by the rules, can we expect others to respect international commitments? If we don't sign written agreements, why should we, for example, expect Iran or Syria to do so? If we begin to deal with international law on an à-la-carte basis, others will do the same - which would not be to our advantage. Herein lies the unique leadership responsibility of the U.S. No one else can provide the necessary "leadership by example." If you don't, nobody else will!

The broad network of international organizations and agreements was a huge success of American postwar foreign policy. Multilateral action and commitment to treaties are not just a testimony to America's reliability. The responsible exercise of power will also help prevent other nations from ganging up on "Mr. Big." It was a wise move by the Bush Administration to go to the UN and NATO immediately after September 11 in an effort to build a coalition against terrorism, encompassing not only the European allies and Japan but also countries such as Russia, India, and Pakistan. This is multilateralism at its very best - we would like to see more of it in the future. It is in everyone's interest, including America's!

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Since 9-11, the transatlantic agenda has been dominated by the fight against terrorism. In its first phase, military action played a crucial role. Now, as the next phase is beginning, we need to address the underlying causes of terrorism and other threats as well - mass poverty, hunger, and alienation in many parts of the world. Curing the symptoms with military power is not good enough. We need to look at the root causes of extremism and deal with underdevelopment and the lack of opportunities for growth, as well as with the obvious gap in communication and dialogue between the West and Islamic world.

One important lesson of September 11 is that if we neglect failing states in Asia, Africa, or elsewhere and if we turn a blind eye on humanitarian disasters, we place our own security at risk. If we do not prevent states from failing, those failing states will prevent us from living in security and prosperity.

Against this backdrop, I particularly applaud and welcome the financial contribution to the reconstruction of Afghanistan which Secretary Powell announced at the recent donor conference in Tokyo. This is a good long-term investment in America's security, besides being urgently needed help to rehabilitate a devastated and desperate country. America owes its unique position as a world leader not least of all to its ideals; its political culture; its global commitment to freedom, democracy, and the rule of law; its internationalism, and the generosity of the American people. These were the qualities with which you won not only World War II but also the hearts of millions of Europeans and others around the world.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Jessica Matthews recently wrote in the periodical Foreign Policy: "When the U.S. and Europe see eye to eye, there is little they cannot accomplish. When they do not agree, however, there is little they can achieve." I could not agree more.

Together, we are the world economy's engine of growth. Together, we have built a multilateral trade system, which we both want to improve. As NATO allies, we work together to preserve peace and project stability in Europe and beyond. Together, we pursue the strategic aim of a just and stable peace order for Europe that includes Russia. Now the time has come to make the transatlantic relationship fit for the global agenda of the 21st century.

September 11 was a terrible tragedy, but we can and must turn it into a huge opportunity for the U.S. and Europe - an opportunity to reshape the international system, lay the foundations for a more stable, more cooperative world after the end of the Cold War era, and consolidate a healthy transatlantic relationship. I am convinced that when we work together in this spirit, on the basis of our joint values, only the sky's the limit.

Advanced Search    Help

Statements & Speeches

Subscribe Here You can also read the current issues here.

Printer-Friendly Page