| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Speech by Joschka Fischer, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Almost ten years ago to the day, the Berlin Wall came down, the wall that had come to symbolize the division of Germany, which had lasted for 40 years. Thus ended an entire era that had been characterized by the battle of the systems between East and West, the division of Europe, and the Cold War between the US and its allied democracies on the one side, and the Soviet Union and its satellite states on the other. The Americans were the first to recognize the impact of this historic collapse of a whole world order and without hesitation they did all they could to help bring about the reunification of Germany and of Europe. Without the support of the US, from the Berlin airlift to German unification, Germany would not have been able, after World War II, to develop into the peaceful and stable democracy that it is today, as a reunified country. We will never forget what the Americans have done for us. 10 years after the fall of the wall and the end of the East-West conflict we should not be focusing all our attention back on the day when the wall came down, but should rather be looking at an issue that is today of greater relevance than ever, namely the future of transatlantic relations. The world has not only undergone dramatic and fundamental changes in the past decade, but will continue to do so in the years ahead. The old saying according to which if you don't go forwards you go backwards, and that you have to change what you want to keep, is truer than ever in times of radical upheaval. And it applies just as much to transatlantic relations as it does to everything else. Europe is growing ever closer together, has created a single currency and stands on the threshold of EU enlargement to the East and South-east. It is making great efforts towards deepening political integration and is developing its own security and defence identity. Europe is on the rise as a political power, whereas the political might of the US is a reality that will not be attained by any other nation. The US is the only remaining global power at the beginning of the twenty-first century - politically, militarily, economically and culturally. The US bears the responsibility of world leadership and has worldwide interests. Furthermore, the external pressure which levelled out some of the past contradictions within the transatlantic alliance has now gone. No wonder then that US domestic politics has more of a bearing on its foreign relations now than it did during the Cold War. In the age of globalization, economic interests are of ever greater significance in international politics. Europe and the US all too often meet as opponents in this field, and this can lead to friction. Many observers on both sides of the Atlantic are therefore already talking about an "end to the habit of taking each other for granted", or even a "continental drift". We all know that differences exist as regards trade issues, sanctions and the death penalty. There is no cause to belittle these issues. Nevertheless, I believe that it is untrue to say that the Atlantic has grown wider. Without a doubt our relationship is undergoing a sea change and this we must handle constructively as partners. I am glad to be able to discuss this matter with you today. Ladies and gentlemen, what have we not heard in the past years about the new "Pacific era" and "Asian values", about the lessened significance of the Atlantic for the US! Today, after the Asian crisis and the Kosovo conflict, we are able to state that when things get serious, it is only Europe and the US that share the same basic values and who are deep down convinced that these values - individual liberty, the rule of democracy and law, and a functioning market economy - are absolutely indispensable. An analysis of transatlantic relations must therefore begin by stating that Americans and Europeans are still, following the end of the Cold War, linked together now and for the future by firm ties: Firstly, by our common origin, history and values. Both the American and European ideas of democracy stem from the admirable tradition of the Enlightenment, in which the roots of our shared values are to be found to this day. The fact that the list of human rights contained in the French constitution of 1789 is very similar to the Virginia constitution of 1776 is no coincidence; rather it is one of the many pieces of evidence showing just how far back the shared roots of our political systems and fundamental beliefs go. Secondly, we are linked by common challenges such as the defusing of violent conflicts, the security of Eastern Europe and in the Middle East, the integration of Russia and China into a new stable world order, containing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and global warming, and creating an open and sustainable world economy. These challenges are ones that no country can master on its own - not Germany, not Europe, and not even the US. It is clearly true that the US is the "indispensable nation", in that its contribution is essential to resolving international issues. But even America needs friends and allies in order to implement its aims. Europe is America's indispensable partner. Thirdly, we are linked by a shared vision of how the world should look in the twenty-first century, a vision based on freedom and human rights, democracy and prosperity. As already mentioned, the US and Europe are heirs to the Enlightenment, and share the conviction that only the universal observance of these values can bring about lasting world peace. Together we are responsible for working toward this goal. Our action in Kosovo is an impressive demonstration of this. Transatlantic debates therefore revolve less around the substance of our political goals and more around how they should be implemented. But for all our similarities, it is also true that both partners, the US on one side, and Germany and Europe on the other, have undergone significant changes with the transition from a bipolar world to an era of globalization. The US is today the only remaining power capable of bringing its interests to bear worldwide. Its economic power, cultural influence and its self-confidence have never been greater. Germany on the other hand has, following reunification, remained a medium-sized European power, but with greater responsibility in the wake of unity. We are aware of the heightened expectations placed upon us and are ready to do them justice by means of a more active foreign and security policy. We have proven this, politically and militarily, first in Bosnia and then in Kosovo. The most important change however concerns the European Union. Following the completion of economic integration with the introduction of the single currency, Europe has also taken a significant step toward political union this year in the face of the war in Kosovo. The development of a European Security and Defence Policy and the decision to make Javier Solana the voice and face of European Foreign and Security Policy, as well as the start made to the next integration project, namely a common judicial area, are important stages on this path. Ladies and gentlemen, What do these changes mean for the future of transatlantic relations? Is European integration - as is often asked in the US - an opportunity or a risk for the United States? We are aware that the European integration process is not always easy to understand from the other side of the Atlantic. This can lead to misunderstandings, ambivalence and criticism, for example of the Europeans' (still) limited ability to act externally, of the slow pace of EU enlargement or of the EU's reluctance to bear its share of burdens. Some of this criticism may be justified, but nobody should underestimate the dynamism and impact of the European integration process. Given our history it is a huge mental leap for Europeans to give up those national sovereign rights that were so hard to come by, particularly in the fields of finance and defence. We should therefore think in the long term, for we have to be careful to carry our citizens along with us in this process. The American Union too needed decades to be developed and completed. In the coming years we in the EU will surely experience a development whose substance and importance will be eminently comparable with the major constitutional debate of the time of the Federalist Papers. There will of course be differences, as you can see for yourselves. The integrated Europe is already a reality as regards its role as a major global economic player, and indeed not as a challenger and rival of the US, but primarily as its partner. I am consciously stating this at a time when headlines repeatedly predict future trade disputes that could dynamite the transatlantic bridge. The facts however tell another story: our trade and investment relations are more closely interwoven than ever before. They are developing at great speed and are based at their core on parallel interests, which may of course conflict in individual cases. The introduction of the euro brings with it far more opportunities than risks for America. It opens the way to greater worldwide monetary stability and will give European business a powerful impulse to modernization. A prospering, open Europe with dynamic markets is also of vital interest to the US. The insight that European integration is in the US's interest has from the very beginning guided American policy. There is - in my opinion - no reason to re-evaluate now that the EU is on the point of becoming a political subject. Only a Europe that vigorously pursues the road to integration will be a peaceful and prospering Europe. Any other option would raise the spectre of a new fragmentation of Europe - with well-known consequences, even for the US. The conviction that Europe must grow together in the domain of foreign and security policy was strengthened by the Kosovo war. It brought home to us once again the central purpose of European integration, namely the establishment of a lasting order for peace in Europe. This insight puts into perspective national interests, which have in the past determined the stance taken by European countries as regards the Balkans, and makes us all the more inclined to enhance the ability of the EU to act throughout Europe on foreign, security and defence policy issues. We want to render the EU capable of acting early and effectively, if crises in Europe so require, across the entire spectrum of conflict prevention and crisis management. The US has always urged the Europeans to play a bigger role in the Alliance. The development of a European Security and Defence Policy - ESDP - will fill this gap. For only an EU that can act in this area as well is capable of easing the US's burden effectively. In this context I would like to emphasize that the ESDP is not an exclusive and opaque European initiative ultimately designed to loosen our transatlantic links. On the contrary, it increases Europe's ability to act as a partner of the US. We neither want to act outside of NATO nor to duplicate NATO structures. But we Europeans must in the medium term be capable of independently ensuring security on our own continent. We know that many years will pass before the necessary common European capabilities are established. But ten years ago we could not even have seriously discussed the idea. Important though the ESDP may be, NATO will continue in the twenty-first century to be the core security mechanism in the transatlantic area. The century that is now closing contained an extremely bloody, and hopefully unforgettable, lesson for both America and Europe: America's security is crucially decided in Europe, and Europe is dependent on the US for its internal and external security. The political and military presence of the US in Europe will also in the future remain decisive for safeguarding security in Europe. The US had to intervene militarily in Europe in order to guarantee its own security and the security and freedom of Europe four times this century - most recently in Kosovo - because we Europeans found ourselves unable to do so on our own. This lesson taught by history must also be heeded for the future, particularly since a someday-united Europe will, due to its geopolitical situation, always have to rely on transatlantic aid as a last resort. Ladies and gentlemen, in the twenty-first century large countries and regional arrangements will have to take on special responsibility - in addition to America these will include the European Union, China, Japan, and also Russia and India. The major problems of the future - the population explosion, underdevelopment, environmental disasters, climate protection, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the drug trade and terrorism - increasingly call for international solutions. The future world will be multipolar and its problems only soluble multilaterally. This requires us all to play by the same rules. We must therefore strengthen the multilateral institutions, above all the United Nations. The growing criticism in the US of multilateral action has not escaped our attention in Europe. But unilateralism cannot be the solution. The United Nations was a magnificent and historic idea of one of America's greatest Presidents this century, Franklin D. Roosevelt. The UN was brought into existence by the US after World War II, in order to prevent new wars and new suffering by establishing universal rules. Not only is this idea still valid today, it will only prove its real worth in the twenty-first century with a world population of more than 6 billion. We need a global platform for common action in order to be able to meet effectively the challenges of a globalized world. No one will be able to solve tomorrow's problems on its own, we all need partners. And furthermore, history shows that unilateral action by major powers invites imitation, or even the formation of opposing powers, and thus ultimately has a destabilizing effect that brings with it increased danger not least for the original actor. This is where Europe's particular value for the US lies. Europe must develop: not in order to decouple itself from the US, but in order to give the US a reliable partner. I would like to mention here, as an example, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. In this field in particular very much indeed depends on the stance of the US, the biggest nuclear power. If the US rejects this vital core element of nuclear disarmament, how can we persuade other states - India, Pakistan, North Korea - to sign the treaty, or not to overstep the nuclear threshold? The US, as the sole global leader, will very soon have to make a crucial make or break decision for the future of our world - and that is a huge responsibility. Should nuclear disarmament and arms control fail at the hands of the biggest and most important power, then we all will have to pay a very high price in the twenty-first century, and so will international security. The CTBT is a central building block of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament around the world. If we embark upon the course in the wrong way, there is a serious danger the entire edifice of international disarmament and arms-control regime could crumble and a new, highly dangerous nuclear arms race could begin in crisis regions. Even the US could not control such a development; the result of which could instead be nuclear anarchy. The internal instability of nuclear powers such as Pakistan dramatically demonstrates the kinds of risk we have to contend with. I therefore hope that those responsible in the US Senate will reconsider their decision. We must not carelessly throw away everything that has taken us decades of hard work to achieve. This also applies to the ABM Treaty, which is a crucial pillar of the nuclear disarmament, arms control and verification regime. The basic question whether unipolar or multipolar action is more appropriate needs to be asked in other areas as well. We must be careful not to let any fundamental asymmetry emerge between Europeans and Americans. Germany advocates a strategy of multilateralism, because of its history, because of our good experience with such a strategy in the last decades, but primarily because we believe that strengthening multilateralism, the effectiveness of the United Nations and the rule of law worldwide is the only viable way of making our world a safer and more hospitable place for more and more people. Ladies and gentlemen, a multipolar world does not mean that all actors maintain an equal distance from one another. The links between Europe and America will always be far closer than those to other regions of the world. The transatlantic partnership has its rationale not just in the history books but also in the future tasks facing us, two of which I would like to mention now: Firstly, the EU must continue to work together with the US to ensure that security and stability prevail in Europe. The Middle East, a region neighbouring Europe, also deserves our joint attention. The European Union has made a decisive contribution to transatlantic burden-sharing by agreeing to meet three quarters of the cost of the internal transfer payments to Eastern and South-eastern Europe as well as half the share of reconstruction in the Palestinian territories, not to mention its enlargement policy. In all likelihood the European Council in Helsinki will decide to open negotiations in the coming year with all remaining candidate countries, and will hopefully also grant Turkey candidate status. Moreover, the EU will, in the framework of the Stability Pact for South-eastern Europe, take on the lion's share of what it takes to stabilize the region. Secondly, the European Union is prepared to bear international responsibility along with America, and to this end to make a unique European contribution in the relevant multilateral fora - the United Nations, the G7/G8, the World Bank, IMF and WTO. Our priorities are working for human rights and democratization around the world, effective conflict prevention and the securing of peace as well as just and sustainable development. In order to be able to achieve our common goals, we have to revitalize the transatlantic partnership and broaden its foundations. Within this partnership the EU will become increasingly important as the main European actor. Our aim is to be partners and not rivals of the US, linked by common interests and values. Ladies and gentlemen, the decision taken by wise statesmen in Washington to maintain a presence in Western Europe after World War II with America's whole might and to rely on the installation of democracy and market economies there has proven a great stroke of luck for Europe and the US, but most of all for Germany. The other decision, taken by equally wise statesmen in France and West Germany, to end the centuries of confrontation between our peoples and to push for integration, led to the creation of the EU and was a second stroke of luck. It must now be the task of today's statesmen and women to revitalize transatlantic relations in the twenty-first century in a way that will guarantee lasting peace, security and prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic. Their performance will be judged against their predecessors' strategic farsightedness and success - and so it should be. |
|
 Newsletters
 Printer-Friendly
Page
Email This Article |
||
|
|||||
|
|||||
