| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
"Our contribution is respected" Interview with Federal Foreign Minister Steinmeier in the Frankfurter Rundschau on NATO, Germany's EU Presidency, Afghanistan, the Middle East and Africa 28 November 2006 Question: Mr Steinmeier, does Germany's most popular minister have the toughest job of all next year? Answer: During the first six months of next year, when we Germans hold the European Union Council Presidency, we will be faced with an extraordinary array of international conflicts on which the EU will have to come up with more than just an opinion. Either it will be already engaged or it will have to present its own proposals for defusing the situation. Add to this the constitutional issue, on which the EU has to overcome one of the most profound internal crises in its history. The authority of the United Nations is waning, the EU is wrestling with its constitutional problems, US foreign policy is gridlocked: are the usual instruments now failing to deliver? On one point – the United Nations – I totally disagree with your analysis. Currently the United Nations is globally engaged to such an extent that the problem is more one of overstretching than of waning authority. What we are about to see, I fully believe, is a renaissance of multilateralism, for the fact is that other approaches to resolving international conflicts have simply not worked. What kind of role can Germany play in the light of its EU and G8 Presidency? Our role does not really depend on what formal status we have. We have certainly not shirked our responsibilitiesin the past when critical situations required a response from the international community and therefore Germany, too. That was the case in Afghanistan, that is the case with the stabilization mission in the Congo and it is very definitely the case in the Middle East, possibly the most dangerous conflict so far this year. The NATO Summit is due to begin this Tuesday evening in Riga. According to Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Alliance ought to be the central forum for strategic transatlantic dialogue. Is that what we are going to see in the Latvian capital? We saw that already in the run-up to the Summit, at the recent meeting of NATO foreign ministers. It was there that the initiative was taken to develop NATO's engagement in Afghanistan further by strengthening its civilian component. In NATO bodies we do have substantive discussions – even if they do not always hit the headlines. But there are also arguments over whether the Germans in Afghanistan are trying to keep out of harm's way. Does that not go to show how little discussion of these military operations there has been and how quickly NATO partners can be pitted against one another? Recent newspaper reports and perhaps what one or the other speaker said at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Canada are one thing. But in the course of my preparations for the NATO Summit in Riga I have spoken personally to many of my foreign minister colleagues and what I hear from them is a very different story from the opinions currently being aired. That there are moves afoot to make Germany some kind of scapegoat is something I cannot see at all. Our contribution is respected. Our philosophy that military engagement must always be matched with a corresponding civilian engagement is – and I say this with due pride – the right approach. Does this German forward line of defence not imply that others tend to think in purely military terms? Let me point out first of all that this is not a defence – that, in my view, is quite uncalled for. Our basic philosophy, the combined civilian-military approach that has guided our engagement in Afghanistan from the start, sets a course that others are now keen to follow as well. Also in the south of the country we are going to see a new approach, with so-called islands of security providing a base from which reconstruction can start in earnest. Obviously we must give the Afghan people visible proof that this is really happening. Is this what has been lacking so far in the south? One might take that view and there are reasons to do so. On account of the security situation but also because military security and civilian reconstruction have not always been perceived as parallel tasks to be tackled together. Admittedly, the going has been easier in the north, but we have to manage it in other parts of the country, too. In the west we are well on track. In the south and east we need movement in the right direction. The central conflict, as we are once again seeing, is the one in the Middle East. How reliable is the latest ceasefire? Despite initial difficulties, I detect on both sides the good will needed to achieve a permanent ceasefire. I hope this will pave the way for direct talks between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas and also lead to progress at last in the case of the Israeli soldier captured in the Gaza Strip. Had it not been for third party meddling, I believe the two sides would be closer to resolving this issue than they are at the current time. On one thing everyone agrees: the goal can only be an internationally guaranteed peace. Why do you not support the proposals put forward by some EU countries for a peace conference that would pave the way for such an outcome? At the moment what we have in the Middle East is at best stagnation and everyone agrees that new momentum is urgently needed. But do not misinterpret my reservations about wholeheartedly endorsing the Spanish and French proposal for a peace conference. The fact that it was rejected outright by both sides to the conflict shows how important it is to proceed sensitively in this area. We should avoid giving the impression the Middle East can be helped by constantly coming up with new catchwords. In the existing peace plan, the so-called road map process, the Middle East Quartett – that is, the US, the UN, the EU and Russia – have developed all the elements crucial to achieving new stability. There is no point in rewriting that again every day. What is complicated are the initial steps down this long road. We must help Israel and Palestine to get talking and keep on talking and we must clear away obstacles that are hindering the peace process. Through prisoner exchanges, for example. I do not rule out that later on we may also need an international conference. But paving the way is crucial. What else needs to be done? The current situation is the most explosive we have had for years. That calls for very ambitious diplomacy with a focus on the whole region. Syria, for instance, remains a complicated, difficult partner. Owing to the unacceptable position taken by the Syrian Government immediately after the Security Council's adoption of its most recent resolution 1701 on Lebanon, I had to call off my planned visit there. But the fact remains that peace in the Middle East can ultimately be achieved only by working with and not against Syria. Despite all the difficulties, we must continue trying to get Syria to enter a constructive dialogue with us. It is up to Damascus, however, to muster the necessary will to escape from its self-imposed isolation. If there are signs that is what it wants, do you intend to go there soon? Cancelling my visit did not mean breaking off contact. On Middle East policy, what is the first small step EU Council Chairman Steinmeier plans to take? On the Palestinian side we now need a government of national unity. On the Israeli side a willingness to talk to such a government. If the EU Council Presidency can be of assistance here, I will gladly do whatever I can. We are also setting our sights on reactivating the Middle East Quartett. What are the chances – after the elections – of the US going along with that? Without the US we will not get any meaningful progress in the Middle East. The Quartett did in fact meet on the margins of the UN General Assembly in September – but that alone is not sufficient. All concerned need to demonstrate that their commitment to the region is serious. I firmly believe this is Washington's view, too. What kind of signals are you now getting from Washington? We will offer our partnership in resolving conflicts that concern us both. And my impression is that recently US foreign policy has been increasingly keen to work in partnership with us. That was already clear from the far from easy yet productive discussions we had over Iran's nuclear weapons programme. To prepare for our EU and G8 Presidency, I myself will be meeting Secretary of State Rice for in-depth talks on 8 December. What kind of partnership will we be offering in Iraq? The situation remains unchanged: Our soldiers will not be going to Iraq. We are making a very substantial contribution to the reconstruction effort in the form of debt cancellation and nearly five billion euro in funding. Whether the security situation will permit any civilian engagement beyond that we will have to wait and see. What is the yardstick of success for the EU Presidency stint? Whether it is a success will be judged by our partners, the public and the media once it is over. The programme we have to get through is ambitious: the Berlin Declaration on 24 March, taking forward the constitutional process, energy and neighbourhood policy. In addition we will have to deal with old conflicts in a new guise. Once a decision has been taken on the status of Kosovo, we will have to play our part in ensuring it is accepted by all parties and, as a consequence, the conditions are in place for the biggest civilian mission ever undertaken by the European Union. The military contingents, too, will have to remain for some time to come. But the goal is to prepare Kosovo to take over responsibility for its own security. Is there going to be a debate about sending German soldiers to Darfur? When we talk about Africa, what I expect first of all is that our Congo mission can be ended and our soldiers brought back home by the end of the year. The situation in Darfur remains alarming. That is why in the past we have provided substantial assistance in the form of emergency and development aid as well as logistic support by the Federal Armed Forces. This we should continue to do and – if so requested by the African Union or the UN – we should do what we can to further increase our assistance in these areas. How do you view what is happening there? Is it genocide? It is certainly the most appalling suffering, murder and rape on a shocking scale, a well-nigh intolerable situation. That is why the African Union's efforts to separate the warring parties have our political backing. Further efforts are needed, but under the circumstances this will require first and foremost more African troops. I cannot see European combat forces being sent to Darfur: that only they could manage what African forces have so far failed to achieve is a dangerous and, I believe, also arrogant illusion. In Schröder's time foreign policy was also an election campaign issue. Will that be the case also once the Red-Black years are over? That is a horizon I am not concerned about right now. I find, however, that people are increasingly interested in and eager to understand this ever more complex world we inhabit. For most of them it is hard to make sense of today's conflicts, their causes, dynamics and implications for the future. Yet despite this we need to get involved. But as a result of these developments, interest in foreign policy has rarely been as high. So as foreign minister my job at home could perhaps best be summed up as "minister for explaining things". Interviewers: Knut Pries and Richard Meng
November 28, 2006
|
|
 Newsletters
 Printer-Friendly
Page
Email This Article |
||
|
|||||
|
|||||
