Speech by
Federal Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer
to the German Bundestag

October 11, 2001

Mr President,
Ladies and gentlemen,

The events of 11 September forced upon us a fight which none of us wanted, not the American people, not the US Administration, not the NATO leadership, not the Federal Government and people in Germany. 11 September was an attack on the people of New York and on the US Administration. It was an attack on our most important Alliance partner. It therefore goes with saying that we did not hesitate to offer our solidarity, full and undivided solidarity. It was also an attack on the open society, an attack on our democracy. It is therefore our vital interests which compel us to withstand, indeed to put up resistance.

We are faced with a murderous, a totalitarian challenge. Anyone who watched new mass murders being announced on television yesterday - and who knows that this was no longer
mere rhetoric - will no longer ask for evidence, which is actually available. Everything points in that direction. There are no alternative findings, not only not in our country but in the entire Alliance and by other intelligence services. Following the prepared statements by Bin Laden and yesterday's call for renewed mass murders, it is crystal clear that we are faced with an international totalitarian challenge which is abusing Islam, which is abusing people's religious sentiments to accomplish its totalitarian objectives through mass murder. And this challenge must not be allowed to succeed, ladies and gentlemen. The fight against terrorism is not a clash of civilizations. To make such an assumption would be the biggest mistake we could make, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy. However, it is about conflicting values. The fundamental values of democracy, of human rights are being called into question here - in a murderous fashion. That is why this is about defending these fundamental values and not about calling them into question. As the Chancellor made clear in his - I believe, excellent - speech this morning, our policy must be: steadfastness and circumspection, determination in the fight against terrorism, as well as determination in the defense of our open society, of democracy, as well as - and I would like to emphasize this - the multicultural character of our open society.

I believe that this deserves our full support.
The response to terrorism must be broad-based. Military means are now very much to the fore. I can only repeat here what the Chancellor said in his policy statement: our response must be directed towards solving economic and political problems and will urgently require a cultural dialogue. After all, our one world is not always a Sunday school picnic. Rather, it is also full of conflicts and full of dangers.

However, this one world is our future. The plurality of cultures needs intercultural dialogue at the center of international politics, not cultural confrontation.

We are talking here about nothing less than a draft peace policy for the 21st century. In contrast to the Cold War era, peace policy in the one world of the 21st century involves an international regulatory policy in the fight against international terrorism. In other words, our task is to create a world order which no longer permits zones of disorder, let alone the complete breakdown of political order found today in many corners of the world. I am not only saying this in view of the threats which zones of disorder could pose for us. Rather, the real danger lies in the suffering of the civilian population in question. That is the decisive point.

To be self-critical, the single biggest mistake we all made recently in connection with the creation of a world order was perhaps that we succumbed too much to the illusion of a peaceful world. This applies less to Europeans because the Balkans are so near - but only for that reason! If you agree with that, then I would like to move on - quite unpolemically - to the question as to whether, in the face of the new challenges, the goal of a low-taxation state should not be discussed again in a new light. I would like for once to discuss in all seriousness the question as to whether our new commitment to a world order based on plurality, which requires increased security both internally and externally, which requires greater commitment in foreign policy, in peace policy and in development policy, is still compatible with the idea of a low-taxation state to which we have all subscribed.

Although creating a world order which holds out the prospect of full participation to all peoples sounds very ambitious, it is merely the consequence of a successful fight against terrorism. Let there be no mistake: multilateralism and not unilateralism will define the world in the 21st century. That, too, is a key consequence of what we have witnessed.

The United Nations will take on an altogether new meaning in this process. Despite all the tragedies which have happened, we must not overlook the positive aspects: the fact that the Security Council is now presenting a united front, the fact that international law will be further developed and in a very robust and proactive manner, as has always been called for. Let me remind you of all the disagreements on deployments in the Balkans. Now the Security Council is united.

I also fully agree with Frau Merkel - we have already underscored this - that this coalition of states must not forget our common basic values: human rights violations are human rights violations, even if they are committed by coalition partners; support for terrorism is support for terrorism, even if it is granted by coalition partners. Important thought it may be that we continue to be steadfast in this conflict, we must also ensure the protection of human rights if we are to win this fight.

Allow me to bring up another point which is discussed in many speeches - especially on Sundays - although I know that many colleagues have achieved a great deal in this sphere during the week, too: what are the objectives of Islamist terrorism? The aim is to free the Islamic world of external - and that currently means especially US - influence. However, another goal - and this is one of the most important objectives - is to destroy Israel. We are called upon to take action here if all the cross-party statements which we have delivered, and which I have always taken seriously, were meant seriously. Here we have a special, indeed a historical, responsibility and obligation. A policy aimed at destroying Israel through terrorism and mass murder must be vigorously resisted by us with all means at our disposal. We must condemn terror against Israel in the strongest possible terms, regardless of whether it is committed by Bin Laden, the Hamas, an Islamic jihad, the Hizbollah or anyone else. We will not accept terrorism against Israel. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the State of Israel and its people.

We want to expressly emphasize once more Israel's right to exist, within secure borders and in peace. As a friend of Israel, I would also like to stress that because we seek to safeguard Israel's right to exist, we want the peace process and will do everything in our power to further it. This also includes taking into account the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people; it includes its right to self-determination and the option to establish its own state, as was affirmed in the European Union's Berlin Declaration during the German Presidency, provided, however, that Israel's right to exist and its security interests are upheld.
...
I believe it was important to make that clear, for people in Israel do look very closely to see how united our position on this point is. I am not concerned here about scoring petty points against other parties. What we, all parties, say, do or do not do here in Germany in relation to Israel is observed particularly closely there due to our tragic historical relations. I experience that as Foreign Minister. I therefore know how vital it is that we have cross-party consensus on this in the Bundestag.

For me, ladies and gentlemen, there is another crucial point in addition to resolving regional conflicts: resolving the Middle East conflict will be of key importance in defeating terrorism, not due to a direct connection but, rather, because the feelings of millions of people in the region could be abused. Other regional conflicts, for example in Central Asia or in the
southern Caucasus, also play a role, as does the Maghreb. These are all regions which are not in the direct vicinity of Germany but of Europe.

Allow me to mention a development here which I have been following with some concern. We are currently witnessing the shifting of the central axes of international politics. Russia will fundamentally redefine its position. That is in our interests. Russia's serious intention to open up which, as President Putin stated in his speech in this House, will be reflected in a change of Russian's policies, is in German and European interests. If we are not careful, that could have unforeseen consequences. I do not believe it is right to negatively assess a development which is in our interests and is actually positive. However, if we look at it in national terms, harking back instead of looking forward, i.e. if we take part in this beauty contest of European nation-states without realizing how short-sighted it is, and verbally attack the European Union or even adopt an arrogant attitude towards it because it is not yet as far-advanced as it should be, we will run the risk of succumbing to a historical and strategic error. We must realize that in the world of the 21st century, in which the central axes are shifting, only an integrated Europe matters, not Germans, the French or the British.

It is therefore of key importance that we now strengthen our commitment to Europe. We will have less time to do so as many of you or I previously thought, because the world is now changing dramatically. That is another reason why Germany must not stand on the sidelines. We are too big and too important within Europe. This is not about beauty contests but about solidarity and, even more importantly, about respect for humanity, human rights and a new commitment in a global world. All of this can only have a future if we advance European integration with all our country's weight in foreign and security policy and with the creation of a European democracy. If we were to continue to think in national terms now, we would
be committing a great error.

Ladies and gentlemen, the fight against terrorism therefore not only requires us to support a new, more humane, world order and to make a new commitment which will entail making more contributions and shouldering more risks. Regional conflicts must also be resolved and intercultural dialogues conducted. Above all, it will also require us to advance European integration. If we remain separate, Europeans will be marginalized in the new world order.

Thank you.

Advanced Search    Help

Statements & Speeches

Subscribe Here You can also read the current issues here.

Printer-Friendly Page