| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
"The door to negotiations remains open" – Federal Foreign Minister Steinmeier in an interview with the Handelsblatt newspaper on Iran and other security issues
published on February 19, 2007 Handelsblatt: Mr Steinmeier, will the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme escalate or subside? The fact that Iran's chief negotiator Ali Larijani took the opportunity in Munich to outline Iran's position, as well as the fact that Tehran refrained from announcing the development of further centrifuges, are positive signs. Contrary to expectations, Larijani hasn't yet given any reliable indication in his talks with the EU High Representative Javier Solana and myself that Iran is prepared to make concessions. However, there is a new reflectiveness in Iran. I hope that in the foreseeable future Iran will respond in concrete terms, for example to the proposals put forward by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on returning to the negotiating table. What will happen when the UN Security Council deadline for a renewed assessment by the IAEA expires on Wednesday? In the resolution adopted unanimously just before Christmas, the international community once again spelled out what it expects of Iran. This week the IAEA will report on whether Iran has complied. Should the conclusions drawn in the report be negative, we will have to consult on what further action is required. Regardless of this, we are still prepared to keep the door to negotiations with Iran open, especially if Iran takes tangible steps towards meeting the international community's demands in the near future. Why does the option of a tougher resolution have to be discussed if the deadline has already passed? The most recent resolution doesn't map out a course of action for the eventuality that Iran doesn't honour its obligations. We therefore have to talk soon about what to do next. I'm in favour of resolute action while upholding the united international front. The US is arguing that success in the case of North Korea was only possible because the thumbscrews were tightened. Does North Korea therefore serve as a model on how to deal with Iran? North Korea and Iran are not in the same situation. North Korea doesn't have fossil energy and has been isolated both politically and economically for some time now. Iran's situation is completely different. Does Iran's situation require a tougher response? The central and key point in the case of North Korea is that the international community demonstrated a united front and opted for persistent diplomacy. It may be that economic pressure has to be stepped up in the case of Iran too if nothing else works. But I'm still hoping we'll find another solution. How concrete are the plans for an international organization to supply emerging economies such as Iran with fuel so that they can do without uranium enrichment? We proposed in the IAEA last autumn that such a project be considered: a multilateral uranium enrichment plant on an extraterritorial site, under the auspices of the IAEA and its export controls. The international supply of nuclear fuel could thus be guaranteed and emerging economies such as Iran wouldn't have to complete the fuel cycle themselves. The proposal on such a structure, perhaps in one of the G77 states, is, at any rate, concrete enough for the IAEA to deal with it when the time comes. We are conducting intensive talks on this at present. Would a sanctions package mean that the incentives on offer would also have to be enhanced? To be frank, I can't think of much which could be added to the package already offered to Iran. The package has something to offer for almost all key sectors of Iran's economy, including the supply of high-tech. But first of all Iran has to restore the confidence it has destroyed with 18 years of secret development in the nuclear sector. The US Administration has called upon China not to conclude new energy contracts with Iran. Do you support this demand? We've noticed that the growing uncertainty has led German companies to refrain from further developing their activities in Iran in sanctions-free sectors. This restraint is reflected in the German-Iranian trade statistics, which show a fall. I'm certain China is aware of how important it is that the international community presents a united front to Iran. What did you think of President Putin's speech in Munich? Anyone who knows Russia well has heard every single point of criticism put forward by President Putin before. Admittedly however, the tone and content of his speech was decidedly clear and hard-hitting. Personally I'm disappointed that President Putin failed to seize this opportunity to canvass support for his country's positions. Despite differing interests in some spheres, we need each other in many conflicts. Iran is such a case in hand. It would have been good if President Putin had highlighted Russia's contribution towards the stabilization and resolution of many regional conflicts. Are the US plans to station a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe wise? As the stationing locations are closer to Russia, the Americans should have spoken to Russia beforehand. At least the debate in Munich has encouraged the American and Russian defence ministers to discuss this matter. Do you believe the system makes sense? There are several different factors at play here. Firstly, there's a debate in NATO about providing Europe with a shield against missile attacks. The Prague NATO summit in April 2002 issued a mandate on examining this issue and this process hasn't yet been completed. In addition, the current discussion is about a US project to protect American territory. To this end, the US would like to station defence missiles in Europe to intercept attacking missiles at a very early stage. The experts will have to decide whether this system makes military sense. In view of the strategic nature of such projects, however, I would urge caution and an intensive dialogue with all partners either directly or indirectly affected. Do you believe Europe faces a threat from Iranian missiles? I'm not an expert on military technology. According to maps showing the missiles' range, Iran's weapons technology is not advanced enough at present to pose a threat to Europe. What other countries could pose a threat? I don't want to speculate on that. But it's precisely because some questions remain unanswered that discussions should be held beforehand. What impact will President Putin's speech in Munich have on the debates on Kosovo and the Middle East? We witnessed an interesting simultaneity between President Putin's speech and Russia's decidedly cooperative stance in, for instance, the Middle East Quartet. I therefore haven't detected any signs which indicate a change in Russia's conduct in international conflicts. But confrontation is looming in Kosovo. Well, Russia's position has always been that we have to negotiate with the Serbs and Kosovo Albanians until agreement has been reached on a new status for Kosovo. Other governments, including our own, are sceptical as to whether any solution can be found through negotiation when the positions are so irreconcilable. During the coming weeks, we have to try to address the proposals and wishes of both the Serbs and the Kosovo Albanians. But if no solution can be found within a reasonable space of time, then the Security Council will have to decide Kosovo's status. The Russian Government warns that the separation of Kosovo would set a dangerous precedent which wouldn't enhance stability. Kosovo is certainly a unique case. It is the long-range result of Milosevic's policies, which provoked instability and war. However, the aim of the international efforts was to end the violence in the Western Balkans. That won't be possible in the long term unless the Kosovo status issue is resolved. Do you fear the impact on other separatist movements? Kosovo should and must not serve as an international-law model. Although Kosovo wasn't a recognized Yugoslav republic, the international community was obliged to intervene after the Serbs began to torment the Kosovo Albanians. The UN Special Envoy Martii Ahtisaari is after all not delivering a lecture to a seminar on international law. If he were to propose that Kosovo be forced to rejoin the Serbian state, this would mean war. At the same time, he has to make it clear that Kosovo and Serbia don't have the same status under international law. That's why he's proposing controlled independence. Russia could use its veto to prevent partial sovereignty. The US is threatening unilateral recognition of Kosovo should it do so. What will the German Government do? I can only say that anyone considering making use of a veto or declaring unilateral recognition has to think very carefully about the repercussions this could have on the Balkans. We therefore have to work towards preventing both scenarios within European bodies, the Kosovo Contact Group and then in the Security Council. The interview was conducted by Andreas Rinke and Roland Tichy.
|
|
 Newsletters
 Printer-Friendly
Page
Email This Article |
||
|
|||||
|
|||||
