Chancellor Gerhard Schröder Talks to WSJ About State of Transatlantic Relations, February 16, 2005

Article reprinted here with permission of the Wall Street Journal.

A week before U.S. President George W. Bush's visit to Europe, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder described an improved trans-Atlantic relationship where the once-divisive U.S.-led war in Iraq is "a piece of history." But in a wide-ranging interview with Marc Champion and Frederick Kempe of The Wall Street Journal Europe, Mr. Schroeder also defended his views on issues that could bring new confrontations with the U.S., including his recent call for a better way for Europe and the U.S. to work out strategic differences than currently exists inside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Below is an edited transcript of the interview, conducted Monday evening in the chancellor's Berlin office.

NATO

Q; Were you surprised by the critical response your proposal for reforming the trans-Atlantic relationship received?

No. What I am aiming for with my proposal is to strengthen NATO and the trans-Atlantic relationship as a whole, which doesn't just refer to NATO. To achieve that, we have to discuss political questions more deeply than in the past before decisions are made. Of course, there are different places to do this, and NATO is one of them. Such a dialogue helps avoid misunderstandings, and provides the legitimacy to do difficult things together. That's the core of the position I've taken.

Q; Doesn't the negative reaction of many U.S. participants in the Munich security conference show there is a lot of mistrust toward the German government?

I don't have that impression. The visits of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others have shown strongly that Washington is firmly resolved to open up a new chapter in the trans-Atlantic relationship. That was a justified suggestion, and it demands a political response. What I did just now was to offer that response in a constructive sense.

Q; That's a response that surprised NATO's secretary-general, didn't it?

Well, I would have liked very much to have gone to Munich to explain my proposal, but I was prevented by illness. Everyone who has at least some insight cannot possibly dispute that these problems described do exist.

PRESIDENT BUSH

Q; How would you describe your personal relationship with George W. Bush?

I have always said that the U.S. president is someone with whom communication is very good and whom I like to deal with. This is regardless of the fact that we have disagreed on one point or another in the past. There are absolutely no personal reservations, on the contrary.

Q; Opinion polls still show that very high numbers of Germans mistrust President Bush. Do you see any prospects for turning this trend around?

Relations between Germany and the U.S. must not depend on polls. That's true for both sides of the Atlantic. Therefore, our cooperation with the president of the United States has to be based on trust. That's the obligation of every government that operates rationally, and mine is rational.

Q; Shouldn't a rational regime do more to increase public understanding of American policy?

What the German chancellor can do toward good relations with the U.S. is being done. Nobody will need to complain about a lack of initiative. That's why I don't see a deficit here.

Q; Where are we now in the trans-Atlantic relationship?

I believe that today that we each know what the other side expects, and what the other can do. In that regard I am very happy that exaggerated expectations, as well as the feeling that some would not do enough, no longer exist. This offers a very, very good basis for a discussion of what is required with regard to an international division of labor. This is better and more possible today than ever before. I believe that George W. Bush's visit will be a very successful one.

Q; In postwar Germany there seldom has been such a negative attitude toward the U.S. Isn't it popular these days for a politician to be against America?

This allegation does not hold water.... When I look today at what young people have for dreams, where they would study if they had the choice and could pay for it -- most of them think of America first. That's not just so in Germany, but in all of Europe. When I see what kind of music my daughter listens to, this is often what you hear in the American charts -- at least I think so. So, to equate opposition to a war in Iraq with anti-Americanism is totally wrong.

IRAN

Q; Will Iran be the next test for the trans-Atlantic relationship?

We share the same goals here and in the U.S. The discussion is only about the means we are using to achieve this goal. The European powers rely on negotiations, which I believe is right. In order to negotiate successfully one has to offer something to the other side. That's the way negotiations work. In this case, what's specifically on offer is economic cooperation and security. Naturally, both can be guaranteed best by Europe and America together. As a result, I hope the European approach is emphatically supported by everyone. The closer the cooperation, the more promising are the results.

Q; Would this mean to open the door to the World Trade Organization for Iran?

Many steps are possible. I would wish for Iran to be offered more economic cooperation. What we need to do is to signal to the other side that if Iran fulfills the demands of the international community, this will have a positive effect on the return of the country into the community of nations -- political as well as economic.

Many Americans say that in that case the Europeans must also be prepared to be tougher with Tehran in case of failure and refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council.

An automatic trigger is always bad. I believe in the success of the negotiations. But I do not exclude further steps.

Q; Is there any case in which you would consider military action against Iran to be justified?

I am against military intervention. But these are all speculative considerations in which I don't want to engage.

CHINA

Q; Why is Germany in favor of lifting the arms embargo on China at a time when Taiwan is still threatened militarily by China?

It is important to realize why the embargo was imposed by the EU in the first place. This did not happen for reasons of foreign or security policy. It rather happened as a reaction to the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Now the question occurs if the embargo is still appropriate in view of a new leadership in Beijing and moderate progress in liberalization. We have come to the conclusion that it is not appropriate. According to the latest plans the embargo may be lifted in the first half of 2005.

However, it is very clear that we do not intend to deliver weapons, and China knows this. The lifting of the embargo is a symbolic act.

Q; But there is strong resistance to the EU's plans in the U.S. Congress. Won't lifting the embargo strain the trans-Atlantic relationship?

I believe that there is a rational discussion about this in the U.S. I cannot imagine that the trans-Atlantic relationship will suffer seriously from this topic.

RUSSIA

Q; Isn't there a tendency away from democratic development in Russia?

The West would do well to understand the situation in which the Russian president presently finds himself. What did he start out with? Seventy-five years of Communist rule, with all the human and structural upheavals that this brought about. A 10-year decline of the state. This is why his foremost task was and is to reinstall the state as guarantor of security for his citizens and investors. At the same time he has to deal with a conflict in the southern part of his country, which wasn't started by him.

One cannot overlook the necessity for democratic development. I, however, consider [Vladimir] Putin to be more successful than is sometimes portrayed in the West. Nobody, and certainly not Putin himself, is denying that there are still gaps in the democratic development of the country. But I consider him to be a person who wants democratization and who has achieved some successes, despite difficult conditions.

Q; Do you think the West often misinterprets these attempts to rebuild the state as dictatorial tendencies?

Nobody implies that Putin has dictatorial tendencies. You cannot say this.

IRAQ

Q; Have you changed your opinion on the Iraq war in any way?

No, and I won't. But the war is now a piece of history. What's important now is what has come afterward. Europe and the U.S. have a common interest in the democratic development and reconstruction of Iraq. As far as I am concerned, I support that -- even if I am sometimes accused of being inconsistent. I ask myself what are the interests of my country. The clear conclusion is that we have to contribute to increase the stability in the entire region of the Middle East.

Q; Would you have problems with the opening of an EU office in Baghdad?

If the EU Commission believes it should be present in Baghdad they need to make that decision. I don't see why we should have anything against it.

Chancellor Schröder Welcomes US President Bush to Mainz on Feb. 23, 2005
Learn more about the meeting between Chancellor Schröder and President Bush in this Germany Info special.

Advanced Search    Help

Statements & Speeches

Subscribe Here You can also read the current issues here.

Printer-Friendly Page