09-11-02
Interview: "There must be an Islamic way into the modern age;" Lessons for the political world and the consequences of a war against Iraq
Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in the Frankfurter Rundschau daily newspaper

Q: Mr. Fischer, exactly one year later – what happened on September 11, 2001?
A: September 11 saw an attack by a terrorist organization on the people and government of the United States. It was an attack by very simple means, using civilian aircraft that had been transformed into guided missiles. An attack without regard for human life, for age or gender, religious affiliation or nationality. An attack on the heart, mind and soul of America, on the most powerful nation of our time, which is of key importance for peace and stability. The emotional shock suffered by the people in the US goes very deep, as I can understand very well. Terrorism is a new "asymmetric" threat from an organization that although it had the support of the theocratic regime in Afghanistan is not itself a state organization.

Q: These terrorists had previously carried out other attacks, also on American targets and in the US.
A: Yes, but not on this horrendous scale. This brand of terrorism is a new type of totalitarianism. Its goal, as Osama bin Laden has himself said, is the creation of a theocracy. Bin Laden wants to destroy Israel and weaken the US, but his prime objective is to destabilize the Arab peninsula. The threat does not only target the United States, our most important Alliance partner, to which our country owes its unity and freedom, but also open society as such. We therefore could not then and cannot now look the other way. Nor is it possible to negotiate with these terrorists. They have to be fought and vanquished. This is unfortunately the bitter truth.

Q: Is "war" the right word?
A: De facto, we find ourselves at war with international terrorism. The most important step was the formation of the anti-terror coalition. Only through this will we succeed in defeating this terrorist network for good. They have lost the territorial basis provided by the Taliban dictatorship. But the danger remains. Not everything has been changed. The old problems – international, regional, structural – have not disappeared. But a new threat to world peace has emerged which can with simple means wreak havoc and destruction as only states could in the past.

Q: And how far has the defense or the protection against this threat progressed?
A: It was right to destroy the Taliban regime in order to subsequently help the Afghan people rebuild their nation – a very long term and dangerous task. But the problem is not just Afghanistan. We are dealing with an international terrorist conspiracy, and I can well understand if people in the US ask what would happen if this new totalitarian force got its hands on weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that they would use them. Neither we nor the US can tolerate this terrible danger. We would therefore be well advised to consider carefully whom we are dealing with, and what we should do.

Q: Who belongs to this "international terrorist conspiracy", and who does not? Is it possible to draw a line?
A: The network that sent its activists to Afghanistan for training can be identified using intelligence information. Its edges are blurred, as is only natural for a network. But at its core is Al Quaeda, is Osama bin Laden. The region in which this crisis has developed stretches from the Atlantic to the Indus. And we Europeans are the direct regional neighbors. Our security is very much at stake!

Q: After the attacks, outraged voices were heard saying that even looking into the causes of such evil deeds removes the blame from the perpetrators.
A: On the contrary, the threat must be analyzed very carefully! September 11 showed how forgotten conflicts can re-emerge to pose a threat to world peace. If you want to track down and defeat those responsible for 9-11, you have to look at the roots, including the spiritual roots. Having analyzed this new threat carefully, I would distinguish four elements that become particularly virulent when combined. They can be matched to periods of European history: religious hatred, legitimized by cloaking it in the mantle of salvation – this we know from our religious wars of the 16th century; nationalism and related conflicts – as we experienced in the late 19th and early 20th century. Add to this weapons of mass destruction – the situation after World War II. And fourthly, the asymmetric threat of terrorism – that is, as Timothy Garten Ash said, the beginning of the 21st century.

Q: Where does such a threat already exist?
A: Most clearly in the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan. All aspects of the potential nightmare scenario are in place there – religious hatred, national hatred, thermonuclear weapons and asymmetric triggering causes.

Q: What role do economic and social factors play in this scenario?
A: We know of other forms of totalitarianism which emerged when countries experienced a deep-seated modernization crisis. Material impoverishment can be a factor. The crisis that gave birth to totalitarianism in Europe after World War I was however also a spiritual crisis, a consequence of the war and of the uprooting of countless people by the industrial revolution. Many factors are at work.
Q: Arundhati Roy, the Indian author, has said that the leaders of the capitalist western world bear a good measure of the blame for this state of affairs.
A: We must be careful to differentiate here. Of course the Europeans and above all the Germans bear a crucial part of the blame for the beginnings of the Middle East conflict. And of course the legacy of colonialism is a heavy burden for the Indian subcontinent. But if we look at the current confrontation over Kashmir, I do not know what the Americans or Europeans have done wrong there. And the difficulties that the Arab Islamic world is having in adapting to modern life? There, too, "the West" has certainly made mistakes. But there are also countries which have turned their backs on the West......Libya, Iran...and I rather doubt that that is the better alternative.

Q: Even American intellectuals have looked at the rubble of Ground Zero and asked: "Why do they hate us so much?"
A: To answer with another question: why do the Hindus and Muslims hate each other so much? That's not the West's fault! The escalation of this conflict must be viewed against the background of the defeat of the Taliban. Following that, terrorism put a match to the fuse, metaphorically speaking, with attacks on the parliaments in Srinagar and Delhi. If this crisis had not been contained, we would have faced a catastrophe: a confrontation between two nuclear powers. We thus need a strategy to prevent the four elements combining. This can only be done by setting priorities: firstly, suppressing terrorism, and secondly, containing regional conflicts to ensure at least that they do not forge links with terrorism. This is the lesson that 9-11 has taught us – do not permit forgotten conflicts to fester!

Q: Suppressing terrorism does not automatically mean suppressing it by military means?
A: No, on the contrary. I know of no parallels to Afghanistan as Al Quaeda's base. We are now dealing with a network that no longer has state backing, but which survives underground. This means that the task is predominantly one for the intelligence agencies, with the international coalition being the crucial level. For event the strongest power cannot see and hear everything, everywhere. Individual strikes will be made by the military or the police, as appropriate.

Q: And where should one start to contain regional conflicts?
A: First and foremost in the Middle East. The conflict there is not just between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the cumulation of instabilities and conflict areas in a number of states, most of which have relatively new borders. The Israeli-Arab conflict is however the key issue. We are glad that the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living in peaceful coexistence, is now also accepted by the majority of the Arab world – as shown by the latest initiative launched by Saudi Arabia. This contains the tacit offer to gradually embrace renewal and modernization.

Q: What role does Iraq play in this strategy?
A: An important one. Saddam Hussein is dangerous and cynical. But the policy of containment has had its successes. It is not appeasement. Saddam must allow the UN inspectors back into the country. The big question is of course whether a war against Iraq is the best means of imposing a new order in the Middle East from outside – or whether it would be more sensible to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians before tackling other problems. This would create regional stability without running the risk of destabilizing the region. It would generate regional support and legitimacy for further steps. This is what I consider to be the benchmark: no regional instability, no unrequested action from outside that might bear the taint of neo-colonialism.

Q: Are we not further than ever from such a peace?
A: No. The situation on the ground is still difficult, but we have made considerable progress, as shown by the Saudi initiative. If only that had been on the table at the Camp David negotiations two years ago, those negotiations would not have failed. The situation today would be completely different, also as regards Iraq. After all, what is so fatal is that the problems of adapting to the modern world give rise to an inferiority complex, compounded by mounting economic pressure and very rapid population growth. If one wants to get rid of such hate-inducing complexes, an Islamic path towards modernization must be found. As was written in an editorial in Pakistan, the jihad of today is not about hijacking airplanes, but about building airplanes.

Q: Would an attack on Iraq destroy any such developments?
A: I have not yet heard any answer to the crucial question of whether the threat analyses justify taking upon ourselves a risk of an entirely new magnitude and assuming responsibility for peace and stability in the region for years, maybe even decades – through external intervention. If regional support is not forthcoming, the risks would increase exponentially. The US has the wherewithal – leaving aside for the moment the issue of international law – to act on its own. Nobody can stop it from overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But then it faces the questions which ten years ago made the current President's father decide not to march on Baghdad. What will become of the coalition? And above all, what will follow? I've often heard the response that this is "a very powerful question". That is not an answer. In practice, it would mean assuming the task of establishing a new order in the Middle East – but by means of confrontation, not cooperation, without the support of the moderate neighboring states. Would that enable a solution to be found to the key Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Would such a solution be found fair by the Arabs? Is there a majority in the US in favor of lasting engagement? And, finally, what new order would you choose?

Q: Donald Rumsfeld would reply that he heard such misgivings before going into Afghanistan.
A: Not from me. I thought that we had to go in there. I am no dove of peace, I am a realist.

Q: What is the alternative in the case of Saddam Hussein?
A: Firstly, there is no evidence of a link between Saddam and Al Quaeda. Saddam is no Islamist. He is an awful dictator, but his spiritual roots are in the Baath Party, an Arab nationalist organization. We would be tackling a new problem without having solved the old ones. And those are, as the terrorist attacks in Kabul and on President Karzai's life show, still highly dangerous. Going after Saddam could only be justified by an altered threat, which I do not see. Saddam is a risk, but so far a risk we can handle. Therefore my question – if the US does go in, will it stay until the job of establishing a new order is finished? Because due to our geopolitical location, we are guaranteed to be affected. No, our strategy must be to keep the risk elements separate – religious and nationalist hatred, access to weapons of mass destruction, terrorism – and above all to give the regional powers positive incentives by resolving an old, tragic regional conflict. A diplomatic breakthrough in the Israeli-Arab dispute would make Saddam's situation extremely uncomfortable and would enable the formation of new coalitions. I understand the concerns after 9-11. But nevertheless, I call upon everyone to be realistic.

published: 9/11/2002

Advanced Search    Help

Statements & Speeches

Subscribe Here You can also read the current issues here.

Printer-Friendly Page