| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Inaugural Speech by Johannes Rau, President of the Federal Republic
of Germany Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you for all the good wishes you have expressed today as I take up my new tasks. They motivate and encourage me like the great majority of the letters I have received since May 23. It heartens me to sense the trust so many people have placed in me. To deserve that trust will be my earnest endeavor. As we travel together on the road ahead, I invite your support and critical comment. My special thanks today go to the man who, as I did, stood for President five years ago and whom I now succeed: Roman Herzog. Over the past five years, Professor Herzog, you have represented our country around the world, bringing to the task your own inimitable temperament and style: straight to the point, eschewing verbiage and flowery language. Everyone could grasp what you considered to be important, which for you did not include your own person. Here - as we have seen again today - your gift for wit and self-irony stood you in good stead, attributes for which German professors - of jurisprudence, to boot - are by and large not particularly renowned. Your comments on recent German and European history as well as your silence, when the time and place so required, have helped strengthen confidence in our country. For that I wish to thank you. In the years ahead you plan to devote more time to academic work. Many people, myself included, will be wondering what lessons Roman Herzog the constitutional expert and Basic Law commentator will draw from his practical experience of presidential office. It was in 1986 that you published your commentary on Article 54, which deals with these aspects. Will we soon be seeing an update based on your own experiences? To you, Frau Herzog, I would also like to express warm thanks. In addition to all your duties at your husband's side, you have done sterling work in focusing attention on a hitherto little known illness and thus helped a great many suffering people. To two of my predecessors present here today I address a special word of greeting: Richard von Weizsäcker, whom I have known well for decades, and Walter Scheel, who hails from my own Bergisches Land and will be celebrating his eightieth birthday next week. Six months from now the date in the calendar will be January 1, 2000. A significance is often attributed to the year 2000 that seems to know almost no bounds. The same goes for the way we talk about globalization. At times globalization is discussed as if it were the dawning of a new golden age, at others as if it were the quintessence of everything that is evil in the world. Both views I consider mistaken. For us Germans and people across the world globalization holds out tremendous opportunities - if we but recognize and seize them in the right way. Basically globalization means grasping that in this one world of ours we are far more interdependent and interconnected than ever before. No country today can rest easy in the belief it can escape the consequences of its own mistakes or those of others because it is so far away, economically stronger, politically more influential or more powerful militarily. Since we are directly or indirectly affected by whatever others do, today even more than in the past we cannot be indifferent to what happens elsewhere in the world. Obviously not every country has the same political weight, not every company the same economic strength. Some have a greater say than others in determining the permutations of advantage and disadvantage. You need be no pundit or proponent of chaos theory to know the slightest changes at one point may have enormous repercussions at another. Economic globalization has profound implications for us all. It poses anew the question of how to balance economic activity in the service of private interest with democracy in the service of the public interest. The task of responsible policy-making is not only to establish and fine-tune this balance but also to determine what public functions are best performed at the regional or national level and what can only be successfully undertaken at the international level. This does not, as far as I can judge, mean rehashing all the old arguments yet again. Nowhere today does anyone seriously doubt the market mechanism's superiority over other economic models. There are, however, different views as to what the market can and cannot do, what framework and political parameters it requires. Those are precisely the issues - no more and no less - at the center of the public debate, not only here in Germany. Also in France, the United States, Britain and Japan academics and politicians, trade unionists, businesspeople and intellectuals are gripped by the same preoccupation. Citizens expect political parties to provide answers to the problem of how, in this globalization age, a new balance can be established between the pursuit of private economic interests and the exercise of public responsibility. Bringing freedom, justice and solidarity into harmony not only here at home but in the wider world is an ongoing quest, which must be constantly tackled anew in the light of the fullness of real life. Neither microeconomics nor macroeconomics can serve as our compass. We must take our bearings from our understanding of the individual and how individuals relate to one another. That is a matter that concerns each one of us and - whether consciously or not - informs our every action. It is a question politics must address, and neither utopian ideologies nor supposedly objective pressures can provide refuge or excuse. In politics we are concerned not with ultimate truths but with viable solutions. The political debate should focus on what is the best available option for everyone or for the majority. Only then can we begin to appreciate what Hannah Arendt meant when she said that politics was love of humanity applied to real life. We in positions of political responsibility must take seriously the concerns of citizens. We must neither cast them into fear and despair nor lull them into a false sense of security. They want to know where they stand. They have a right to know towards what goal politics is heading and where the political parties differ. In democracies it is crucial the parties make clear there are paths leading to the future, very different paths even, and the choice is neither arbitrary nor dogmatic. Only in extreme cases in democracies is it a question of "all or nothing." While remaining true to one's principles is all very well, it is nonetheless better to advance by small yet concrete steps than to bemoan people's reluctance to risk a great leap forward. That does not mean we must forego ambitious goals. On the contrary: since the road towards our political goal is often a winding one involving a good many detours, vision and sound judgement are essential. More than at any time in the past we must consider today what impact our decisions will have on the lives of coming generations. There is an egoism of the present at the expense of the future that I deplore. All of us can cite examples. To seize the opportunities globalization holds out, action in the political arena is required. That must encompass not only the social and ecological dimensions of economic activity but also the way we manage technological progress. Such political parameters can best be set within an overall framework of democracy, the rule of law and social responsibility reaching beyond the nation state. It is vital that we learn the political lessons of economic globalization. To my mind, the most important task for society currently is the creation of new jobs. That is first and foremost a matter for business. It is up to the policy-makers to provide the right frame of reference for supply and demand as well as the right incentives. New jobs cannot be created at the push of a button, nor is there any patent recipe. We need a range of initiatives so that whoever is able to do so can indeed earn their own living. We need more business start-ups, more state-of-the-art technology, more investment in education, science and research. We need intelligent forms of work management that combine shorter working-hours with longer operating times. We need lower non-wage labor costs and less overtime. No discussion on "the end of the work-based society" can or should delude us into thinking there is any alternative to paid work - for financial but also for social reasons - for the vast majority of people. Our future will depend on whether we succeed in developing and organizing the world of work so that the needs of people and the needs of the economy are matched. Work is a means of earning a living. That gives it immediate value. But it is also a means of developing one's own particular skills - and that lends it further value. So Hans Küng is absolutely right when he maintains the lack of meaningful work also undermines human dignity. It is therefore far from academic to highlight the value of work for a person's sense of self-worth and for the cohesion of society as a whole. Those who see labor as a mere cost factor whose price must be kept as low as possible - whatever the importance of wages and salaries for the economy as such - are stoking a fire that could, whether they realize it or not, threaten the very foundations of Western civilization. It may be that in the long run we will need to view work in a new light. If the trend to shorter working-hours persists, people may have more time to devote to the community and voluntary work in clubs and associations, to improving local amenities or promoting art and culture, time also to spend on their own projects. That would create a society with a stronger civic spirit than we have at present, in which the values of community and solidarity would once again be writ large. As those who know me well realize, I am thinking here also of the role played by the Christian churches and other faiths in nurturing these values in society. Ten years after the Iron Curtain was swept away and the Wall came tumbling down we are still seeking a new order for Europe and across the world. The hostile military blocs of former years are gone. But we have yet to build the pan-European order of peace and security which could ensure that in Europe at any rate war would no longer be an instrument of policy. From a new international order for peace built on the premise of global sustainable development we are yet far removed. Fourteen weeks ago in Yugoslavia we witnessed events which scarcely anyone in these closing years of the century believed could or should ever happen again. For the first time since its founding 50 years ago NATO used military means in Europe, with the Bundeswehr participating in combat operations. For two weeks now the guns have been silent. In Kosovo German soldiers have been greeted as liberators. It gladdens me to know the hope I expressed on May 23for an end to the war has been fulfilled and the challenge henceforth is to work for lasting stability in South-East Europe. Now we will see that the real test is to win the peace. An extraordinarily serious discussion has been conducted on the legal, political, military and moral ramifications of Germany's participation in the military operation against Serbia, with neither side disputing each other's ethics or the existence of a case for and against. I was with those who after much agonizing felt we could not stand idly by while in the heart of Europe people were terrorized and driven from their homes. In such extreme circumstances even the use of military force is justified. That places a heavy burden not only on the soldiers on the ground but also on our political and military leaders. The way in which Germany shouldered this responsibility and continues to do so has enhanced our country's standing in the eyes of the world. I salute our German soldiers and salute, too, the staff of the relief agencies now working in Kosovo to ensure universal respect for the human rights and human dignity of all people, whether Kosovars or Serbs, Christians or Muslims. What lessons can and should be learnt from the current situation in the former Yugoslavia? For me the most important lesson is this: prevention is the best policy if we are to avoid the false alternative of guilt incurred by standing aloof or guilt incurred as a result of military intervention that makes victims also of quite innocent people. A policy that seeks to build a Europe in which people live in peace side by side must take a strong stand on human rights before people are threatened with deportation, terror and death. We need a policy that does not allow arms exports today only to intervene against their use tomorrow. We need to reject nationalism root and branch. Nationalism and separatism have the same roots. Nationalism has nothing to do with love of one's country but with hatred for the countries of others. Where this hatred leads we have seen not just over these past months or in the former Yugoslavia. Willi Brandt, as I recalled on May 23, spoke of our desire to be a nation of good neighbors. Who in 1969 could have believed that we would now enjoy relations with all our neighbors that epitomize what I mean by good-neighborliness? That is of course by no means just Germany's doing. There are many we have reason to thank. And the best way of expressing these thanks is by remaining a driving force in the process of European unification. Good neighborliness - today that is simply home affairs in the European context. But we need good neighborliness also here in Germany: between people of different origins and faiths, with different cultural traditions. Tolerance in a democracy is no malaise but its life-blood. My predecessor Roman Herzog helped put education firmly back onto the political agenda. That is a project I intend to carry on, drawing also on my own work and experience. The educational debate covers a range of diverse topics: class-sizes, the supply of teachers, flexibility, giving schools more freedom to make their own decisions, how much time to allot to different subjects, how schools should be equipped. All that is important and I can well understand the fervor on all sides of the debate. Such issues of organization or material resources are clearly relevant, yet they should not distract us from the most vital question of all: What should our children learn? How can we best prepare and equip young people today so they can find their way in and actively shape the world of tomorrow? What do they need to know? What skills should we teach them? What perspective or values are necessary to lead a fulfilled life? Those are questions that have attracted little attention hitherto, perhaps because there are no easy answers. None of us know what tomorrow's world will be like. We know only that in many respects it will be quite different from the one we are familiar with. Nor do we know what demands on people that world will make. There are those who believe above all technical and scientific know-how will be required, and they have a good case. There are others who argue by contrast for a renaissance of the humanities. They point out - and I think they are right - that education is more than just factual knowledge and mere information does not impart understanding. If that is correct, we ought first to focus on the goals we want to see realized in our schools and then turn our attention to the instruments most apt to achieve them. There is a general consensus we would do well to remember - or indeed build anew - which holds that a country like Germany with few natural resources can only succeed, with all citizens partaking of that success, if we invest in our citizens, in their education, training and skills. To reap the greatest gains from investment in intellectual resources, however, we must eschew short-term thinking or narrow concentration on particular sectors. Just as 20 years ago no one could precisely predict our needs in terms of engineers or software developers, so it is impossible today to provide any reliable prognosis for the next two decades. We know only this: not less but more will be demanded of people intellectually, in terms of more specific or more general job skills. And we must equip our young people in school today so they can cope with the changes we know lie ahead. Education and knowledge, however, are more than just an essential ingredient of economic success. Facts can be readily acquired but understanding takes time. Hubert Markl, the well-known and highly esteemed President of the Max Planck Society, posed a good question when he asked what was the good of producing giants of knowledge with stunted hearts. The faster the pace of change, the more important it is that people learn to keep their bearings, to distinguish between what held yesterday yet is now obsolete, and what held yesterday but still holds true today, for there are some things that are immune to change. We are inclined in my experience, when certain values and virtues are invoked or their absence deplored, to talk in far too abstract terms. Whenever principles or yet loftier matters are at stake, we tend to forget what real life is like, what influences, encourages or discourages us. A society where it is smart above all to know the price of everything and the value of nothing will lose out in the end. Moralizing and wagging fingers at people are no substitute for setting a good example. If we order society in such a way that those who play fair feel they are the losers, what is the point of learned gatherings bemoaning the decline in values? We must also beware of postulating a decline in values when what we are witnessing is not a decline but simply a change in how these values are generally reflected in real life. We should order and regulate what needs to be ordered and regulated in society in ways that foster freedom, justice and solidarity. A society in which everyone pursues their own selfish ends may at first sight seem successful, but ultimately it cannot survive. Society is not some arbitrary assemblage of individuals going their own separate ways. Compassion, love for one's neighbor, solidarity - these are attributes and attitudes fundamental to any society, not fancy extras. Compassion, love for one's neighbor, solidarity can be neither bought nor sold yet their value is priceless, and they can be neither legislated for nor decreed. They must be part of life's living texture. This by no means stands in the way of self-development and self-fulfillment. Over the past decades ever more people in our society discovered they were no longer at the mercy of events but able to take control of their own lives. That is a measure of real progress. But free personal development is a very different thing from a self-centered society, which ultimately leads to self-isolation. People want to accomplish something and society is right to demand and encourage such efforts. But we should not demand too much of people. That goes particularly for those who for various reasons are not or only very modest achievers or who are not yet or no longer achievers. That includes children and the elderly as well as the physically or mentally handicapped. When we speak of achievement, we should not forget those who often achieve a great deal that never figures in any balance-book or in the nation's economic statistics. Every society needs as many able and willing achievers as possible. Every society also needs those capable of outstanding achievement. For a true picture of the full range of achievement, however, a broad definition is required of what it really is. It then becomes clear that those launching successful new businesses achieve as much for society as unpaid coaches of young athletes. Those who contribute thus to the general weal may be medical consultants or nurses, innovative researchers or committed shop stewards, artists and writers who sharpen our awareness and widen our horizons or those who push back the frontiers of medicine or science. Some of you are no doubt aware that as a young man in the Fifties I went into politics because I could not reconcile myself to the division of Germany. Along with Gustav Heinemann and Helene Wessel, Diether Posser, Erhard Eppler and many others I belonged to the not exactly successful All-German People's Party. My whole life long this has been a strong concern of mine going far beyond the political domain. So I count myself fortunate indeed that on the day the Wall came down, November 9, 1989, I happened to be in Berlin and Leipzig. In the evening of November 9and during the two days that followed I saw at first hand the sheer amazement, the indescribable joy of people over their new-found freedom, for which many of them had demonstrated week-in, week-out on the streets. Experience teaches me political life, too, can benefit if we in positions of responsibility manage to retain that capacity for amazement. The past decade has brought enormous changes in all areas of life. People in Brandenburg, and Saxony, in Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern have reason to be proud of all they have accomplished building up the new Länder. Not every obvious deficit and shortcoming, not every major problem still facing us today can be put down to a lack of inner unity in our reunited country. That is a form of words in fact that can lead to misunderstandings. Our task is not to make all 16 Länder (states) in Germany replicas of each other in the shortest possible time. They are not to evolve according to some centrally defined norm. We should seek rather to make federalism yet more strong and vibrant, since from the strength generated by diversity all Länder stand to gain. The goal must be equal opportunities for all, men and women, wherever they were born, wherever they live, in the North, South, East or West of Germany. In today's society equality of opportunity is the stuff of freedom. Let cultural and regional differences be preserved, for they add spice and variety to life. But let us work to overcome or compensate for the grievous legacy of the past 40 years in the new Länder. Both in a reunified Germany and in an integrating Europe we need diversity in unity. We should not forget even ten years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall that the people who lived in the GDR, through no fault of their own, have carried by far the greater burden of German history. They were no less clever or industrious than people in West Germany, but under the prevailing conditions their diligence and commitment could not bear the same fruit. A few weeks ago we commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of our Basic Law. We can rightly say it is the best constitution we Germans have ever had. But that holds true only if we daily give it new life and substance. It provides the framework for political action as well as the standards by which all such action is judged. Over recent years important parts of the Basic Law were changed because the reality of life in Germany had changed. For many people these changes were hard to accept, for some they went too far. With that in mind, it is vital we remember there are many areas where we must press still more vigorously to change the reality on the ground so that it may more closely resemble what we enshrined as the goals of our Basic Law. True equality between men and women is as much part of this as protecting for the future the natural resources on which life depends or the mandate to build a democratic society founded on social responsibility. As Gustav Heinemann rightly put it: the Basic Law is no shackle, it is a great opportunity. Each of my predecessors left his own stamp on the presidential office. That was true of Theodor Heuss and Heinrich Lübke, Gustav Heinemann and Walter Scheel, Karl Carstens and Richard von Weizäcker and also of you, Herr Herzog. While each sought to bring his own particular gifts and talents to the office, they were all nonetheless representatives of Germany as a whole. The German President today has, as I see it, a two-fold task. He must speak for the Germans and he must provide a channel for minorities to voice their concerns. That is what I intend to do, with the gifts I have and in my own way. Everyone should know I draw strength and confidence from the Christian faith and that I respect all those who build their lives on different foundations. I want to listen so that no one may remain unheard. Where contact has been broken off, I want to help people re-establish communication, between East and West, between young and old. I want to bring into the public domain what needs to be debated in our society. I want to encourage everyone who - in plants and offices, in universities and political parties, in learned bodies and grass-roots organizations, in the media and associations - is working to build our country's future. I would like to see us Germans building our future in Europe and in this world we share hand in hand with our neighbors and partners, with confidence and courage - and a demeanor neither overbearing nor faint-hearted. That we will achieve if we match a sense of confidence with a sense of responsibility and if everyone uses the opportunities given them also for the general good. Thank you. |
|
 Newsletters
 Printer-Friendly
Page
Email This Article |
||
|
|||||
|
|||||
