Interview with Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer on a new world order, America and the importance of the European Union in the weekly newspaper "Die Zeit" on 8 May 2003.

Question (Gunter Hofmann/Bernd Ulrich): Mr Minister, is the situation in Iraq and in the Middle East better today than it was before the war?

Answer (Fischer): Saddam Hussein is gone. The fall of a dictator is always cause for rejoicing. And there is hope that things will improve. It remains to be seen how the situation will develop.

Does that mean that the war was justified after all?

Our position is unchanged. We still take the view that peaceful means were not exhausted. But a different decision was made. There's no point now in continuing yesterday's debate. We must look to the future. With regard to dictators and despotic regimes, I would like to refer to a speech made by Kofi Annan following the Kosovo war. He called for state sovereignty to be reconsidered in cases of gross human rights violations, thus allowing the UN to legitimately intervene. There are numerous candidates, not only in the Middle East, if that is the new principle. When will it be applied? By whom will it be legitimized? This would amount to the universalization of the principle of humanitarian intervention. However, I believe that human rights violations within a state cannot in themselves be sufficient grounds for military intervention.

If gross human rights violations alone are not sufficient grounds, what other criteria must be met?

All other peaceful means must be exhausted and, certainly, there must be a serious threat to peace and stability or the risk of genocide.

Would a successful remodelling of Iraq and the Middle East not legitimize the war in retrospect?

No, it would not. I believe that we must now seize the opportunities available. Besides, we won't know for a few years yet whether the stability risks in this region have really been avoided. On the other hand, we were always fully aware that we Europeans are linked in many different ways to this region, not only as a result of our geopolitical situation. This region is part of European security in the 21st century. And whatever our position was on the Iraq war: as soon as the first shot was fired, the success of this attempt to create a new order became of crucial importance to European security.

Is this the beginning of a new world order which Europeans can help to shape?

I think that is going too far. The end of the Cold War raised the question as to what would replace its bipolar order. Light and darkness were sharply divided along a very dangerous border in the order created by Yalta. When the Wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1990, this order disappeared with them. What remained were considerable progress and breakthroughs towards overcoming long-term crises which had been rooted in the Cold War. Conversely, however, there was also a dramatic breakdown in order. And the worst thing, of course, was the terrorist threat which emerged from Afghanistan.

The question now is: what will become of the Europeans given the dominant role of the US? Will they come together? Will they be able to determine their own fate or will they merely be forced to carry out what has been decided elsewhere?

What is specifically European about this new order?

The difference is whether there is a cooperative or a confrontational approach to the Arab-Islamic crisis zone.

But that distinction is very theoretical. Only a combination of cooperation and confrontation can work.

The Europeans can do things which others cannot. Conversely, we have shortcomings which others do not have. The fact that Europe has more qualms about employing military means is due to its history. In concrete terms, it is crucial that the prospect of a future within Europe be held out to Turkey, a country which is both Moslem and secular, and only we can do that. The very difficult negotiations with Tehran on an association and stability agreement are also an important instrument, particularly in the light of Iran's position on the Middle East conflict, medium-range missiles and the nuclear potential. And look at the Europeans' achievements in the Middle East conflict. It is said time and again that European foreign policy is in a sorry state. But the Middle East peace plan, a road map in the truest sense of the word, is a European proposal. It was subsequently adopted by the other members of the Quartet and further developed in collaboration with them, but in principle it evolved from European ideas. This applies in particular to the Palestinian reform process and to the creation of the office of prime minister. Certainly, all of this cannot take the place of a united will within the EU, nor can it make up for the lack of military capabilities. But this, together with the EU's regional cooperation, provides a range of instruments which are needed for operative policies in this region.

Don't these societies need democracy more than anything else?

Certainly, but this is about more: it is about modernization, although this immediately raises a difficult question: democratization may also mean having to accept Islamic majorities. Is the West prepared to do that?

So you don't want democratization if Islamist majorities are possible?

No. The question simply makes it clear that we must take a broader view of democratization, namely as modernization. It has an economic, an institutional, a rule-of-law and a cultural component. Linking Islamic culture to democracy, the rule of law, the market economy, the division of powers and the separation of state and religion – that is what I mean by modernization.

Have you, have the Europeans, not always said that? Didn't the Iraq war change anything?

We have been conducting this discussion for a long time, for example at a conference attended by EU and Islamic states in Istanbul in February 2002. What is new is that the US will have a long-term military presence in Iraq and must ensure that Iraq's territorial integrity is preserved, that regional stability is maintained in this transformation and that this process advances. That is a very long-term task.

Does this example mean that Europeans must be more proactive than hitherto in their attempts to make universal standards for the common good prevail including respect for human rights?

I am very much in favour of doing all we can to bring about a peaceful transformation, but on a long-term basis.

What do you mean by long term?

We are not talking about months.

More than twenty years?

I'm no prophet. It's a long-term task. This is not just about a major social transformation in one but, rather, in several countries.

Do you want to redefine international law for this, to make it more proactive?

What direction would you like us to take?

With more scope for intervention from outside?

Who would decide on that? Those who wield the most power? That would create major problems for international law.

That's our question.

Yes, but I don't want to make international law more "proactive". I am a multilateralist. I don't believe that the United Nations can or should be replaced by "coalitions of the willing". It may make sense to consider making UN decisions more binding. But the controversy surrounding the International Criminal Court illustrates how difficult this debate is.

The US is now pushing the debate on humanitarian interventions itself.

Of the various justifications for the Iraq war, only humanitarian intervention remains.

So it was terrorism rather than social hardship in the developing countries which served as a wake-up call for the West and reminded it that it must show greater commitment?

No. I believe that the positive aspects of the criticism of globalization are still relevant. Indeed, look at our most important neighbouring continent. It is not written anywhere that Africa's conflicts will always only be fought in Africa, that is to say internally. Europe's commitment there is not only due to historical obligations but also to the fact that Africa is our strategic neighbouring continent. A share in globalization, in the knowledge society, development, democracy and all these questions have a very important role to play. Everyone nods their head when this is discussed. But when we talk about opening up markets, for instance at the forthcoming round of negotiations in Doha, when we talk about whether the European sugar market should be opened, then most Europeans are not interested – but it is a key issue for sugar producers in the Third World.

So for you, security means democratization, participation and economic equity?

Ultimately, we will always be influenced by our experiences after 1945 which combined values, interests, military strength and the ability to hold out to people the prospect of a brighter future. We in divided Germany in particular witnessed how spellbound people were by the "other" system. This illustrates even more lucidly the theory of a world domestic policy, which I have always regarded as the right way forward.

What have the Americans learned from the Iraq war?

You obviously have an educational approach to this interview.

We are always learning something new.

And what would that be?

That the freedom virus can evidently spread more quickly than we previously believed possible. Would you subscribe to that view?

I find the term "virus" inappropriate at the present time. And you're very quick to draw conclusions. If we succeed in holding out the prospect of long-term modernization to the region, yes. But that will require a long-term commitment.

Two things have changed as a result of the Iraq war: there has been some movement in the two major pretexts for terrorism and fundamentalism, namely the Palestinian conflict and the stationing of American troops at holy Islamic sites.

Slow down! I do agree with you when you say that we must make progress here. But I would warn against regarding the problems as already solved in such a short space of time – I find that pretty bold. On the contrary, I was in Israel and Palestine recently. Once the security problems are under control, we will soon discover that this is a conflict about land, about relinquishing settlements, about the right to return, about Jerusalem, about the borders of a democratic Palestinian state. It is about compromises on both sides – and I stress: on both sides. I don't want to be discouraging. But I refuse to say that there is more than a chance of resolving this situation at present. But the opportunity is there.

Have the chances of resolving the Middle East conflict and of fighting terrorism improved as a result of the Iraq war? Yes or no?

Only time will tell. There is no doubt that we have an opportunity to move forward if the will is there on all sides.

One concrete example: does the EU have the strength to prevent Iran from developing an atomic bomb?

That will most certainly play a very important role in the negotiations on the partnership and cooperation agreement. The IAEA also has a key role to play here. There is no need for any state in the Middle East to provoke a nuclear arms race or to develop delivery systems which don't provide self-defence. On the other hand, we must try and engage Iran.

Is the Middle East the issue which could bring Americans and Europeans together again?

Europe has shortcomings in the way it formulates its positions and in its institutions. So far we have been unable to develop a common strategic outlook, not in opposition to the US but, rather, in cooperation with it. Not least, we lack the military capabilities. The other elements, economic and political ones, are in place.

More weight, but not a counterweight?

Right. I'll give you an example: the European Union is a real power in all fields in which it has already completed the integration process: in trade, in issues relating to competition, in the monetary area. It is quite natural for both American companies and the Administration to deal with this power on a partnership basis, sometimes in competition, but, all in all, in a spirit of cooperation. And the same goes for the other direction. Europe's economic strength is not directed against the US. On the contrary, it has led to increased American and European investment on both sides. It has not led to one side opposing the other, Europe's power against America's.

However, the impression we have at the moment is that America is no longer interested in this independent and strong Europe.

I believe that many things are not as bad as they seem.

There is already an antagonism at present. It affects the entire European policy of compromise, of rules, of norms. The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas said that we should not fool ourselves and that America's normative authority is in ruins.

It's the prerogative of intellectuals, indeed it's their task, to exaggerate, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Is this an exaggeration? Does America still have a normative authority?

As an active politician, I find it difficult to judge such a categorical statement. I do not mean that I expect more balance from intellectuals. And the debate continues in the US, too. They will certainly realize one thing there: that despite all the power which America has, the question of legitimization goes beyond the capabilities of the US. America needs the UN. And vice versa.

How do you want to overcome the fundamental problem that in the United Nations – as in the case of Iraq – dictators are party to the decision on whether to put a stop to a dictator?

That is part of a fundamental debate on reform. However, this debate cannot take place – and that is why I would like to come back to the International Criminal Court – if it is a one-way street. It will only work if it is a two-way process. I do understand the problem which the US has with the United Nations, even though I do not share that view. Europeans often mistakenly regard the US as a continental nation-state European in character. It is not. The US is a collection of 50 individual states which have come together in a union, that is to say to form a single political will.

The West's goal in the 20th century was to overcome communism. What is its goal in the 21st century?

We should not talk of the West's goal. We all need a new global order which offers as many societies, states and citizens as possible peace, justice and a common future. I regard this as the "kitchen debate" of the 21st century. However, not in the sense of being "against" someone but, rather, in the sense of widening participation in these same institutions, norms, values as well as opportunities.

Otherwise, the West may one day no longer exist?

We will have to wait and see.

And finally, a culinary question. Do you already have a favourite Italian restaurant in Brussels?

Why? I don't need a favourite restaurant in Brussels. And I won't need one in the future either.

Advanced Search    Help

Statements & Speeches

Subscribe Here You can also read the current issues here.

Printer-Friendly Page