| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Federal Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier talked about his latest visit to the United States, Transatlantic Relations and the Middle East in an interview published in "Der Spiegel" on December 11, 2006. SPIEGEL: Minister, you have just come from an extensive discussion with your colleague, Condoleezza Rice. Do you have the impression that we are going to see a change of direction in America's Iraq policy? Steinmeier: I am very impressed with the open and unreserved way in which the Americans have dealt with the realization that their foreign policy in Iraq has failed. There is now a real chance of taking important corrective measures. My talks in Washington did, however, make clear to me the high levels of scepticism that persist there, particularly in regard to some of the Baker Commission's most important recommendations, such as dialogue with Iran and Syria. Does that mean your hopes have rather been discouraged by these talks? The debate in Washington continues to be intensive and controversial. No decision has yet been taken on a future course of action. President Bush has announced that he will present the future of US involvement, principally in Iraq, by the start of the new year. Those within the CDU who call for greater German involvement in Iraq have been becoming more vocal. Have you made further offers of help? The decisions already made by the previous German Government stand. German soldiers will not be deployed in Iraq. This does not mean, however, that we have been twiddling our thumbs. We have played our part in the areas of debt relief, reconstruction aid and the training of police. Unfortunately, the attempt to improve this devastated country's stability has proved unsuccessful. The security situation prevents our sending civilians to help with reconstruction. Consequently, I can see no way in which we could provide more help at the moment. And politically speaking? Do you have any suggestions to make as to how this conflict may be resolved? For the time being we must concentrate all our efforts on keeping Iraq from disintegrating. Diplomats like to talk about "territorial integrity" which they say must be maintained at all costs. Why exactly do they say that? Would it not be the simplest solution to split the country into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite parts? No, that would be the most dangerous option, because the borders between those various regions would be fiercely contested. Does oil-rich Kirkuk belong to the Kurds or the Sunnis? And Sunnis as well as Shiites live in the greater Baghdad area. Splitting up the country would, I am sure, lead to terrible amounts of bloodshed. We would also have to reckon with neighbouring states looking to involve themselves. Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia have voiced grave concerns. The Baker Commission suggests the withdrawal of US combat forces by spring 2008. Do you consider this a good idea? I got the impression in Washington that the US administration is aware of the dangers of a precipitous withdrawal of troops. In order to bring an end to the civil war, the religious and ethnic groups currently involved in violent clashes in Iraq must be drawn into a national process of reconciliation. What role could Germany play in such a political process? I have agreed that we will make ourselves useful at the political and diplomatic level, insofar as this is possible and wished for. For the time being, however, we must wait for the Americans to decide where they stand. My most recent trip through the Middle East revealed that greater American involvement would be welcomed everywhere. In September, Condoleezza Rice called her planned trip to Damascus a mistake. Does that comment still stand? America's reservations with regard to Syria are well-known. And as far as expectations in Damascus are concerned, Ms Rice and I are of one mind. I do not believe, however, that a refusal to conduct talks should become standard practice when dealing with difficult partners. My trip to Syria before the beginning of Germany's presidency of the EU Council was a deliberate attempt neither to go too far in the eyes of the sceptics within the EU on the one hand, nor to alienate those making the case for greater dialogue with Syria on the other. Our goal must be to create a coherent EU stance on Syria. Did the trip prove worthwhile? It is worthwhile to speak directly with the interested parties in Syria and to leave behind clear messages. If you try to manage that by means of resolutions passed from afar, you are taking the easy way out. We must deal personally with people if we expect them to change their conduct. Did you receive any messages from Damascus in return? President Assad made it clear that Syria no longer wishes to be part of the problem in the Middle East, but rather part of the solution. In answer, I stressed the necessity of taking concrete steps in this regard. Damascus would have to recognize the sovereignty of Lebanon, for example, and commit to the principle of non-interference. Syria will hardly make a move if the US and Europe do not do likewise. That is why I travelled to Damascus: to make it clear to Assad personally that an alternative to current Syrian policy does exist. If words were put into action and Syria actively contributed to enhancing peace and stability in the Middle East, new opportunities would open up for the country. I know that there are those in Syria thinking critically about their dependence on Iran. These people should receive our support. Is Teheran the next totalitarian regime that can look forward to a visit from you? Iran is really the last state which could accuse us of not concerning ourselves with it. If overtures seeking dialogue were made towards any government over the past year, then towards Teheran. Unfortunately without success. The UN Security Council is therefore now no longer thinking about talks, but sanctions. The only question is whether it will ever come to that. I think it will, indeed before Christmas in all probability. After all, the credibility of the international community is at stake. We hope that Tehran will understand the message and see where its real interests lie. The conflict in Iraq led to serious problems in the relationship between Germany and America. Are relations now back to normal? We argued for another approach at the time with reasons which still hold water today. God knows, there was no lack of frankness. However, we have again been engaged in good and trusting cooperation for some years now. That does not exactly sound like a love affair. We all know that that's not the point. Take the war on terror, for example. We work together but, at the same time, indicate clearly where our values differ, such as in the case of Guantanamo Bay. We tell the Americans explicitly what we do and do not see as justifiable under international law. Both sides are after all aware that we will depend on each other perhaps even more in the future than we have done in the past. Why is that? Looking at the number of conflicts in the world today, you realize that, although we left Cold-War bipolarity behind more than 15 years ago, we are still looking for a new world order. What we need is a stabilizing power, but no one state can take on that role. The Americans have also realized this. And the example of the Middle East has shown that the Europeans are being called on more and more often. That would require America and Europe to have somewhat the same concept of what a new world order should look like. But that is certainly not the case. Precisely that must be made a subject of transatlantic debate. The world has become multi-polar and it will remain so. For this reason and as an important country within Europe, Germany too must address all current conflicts. Whether we want to or not, we cannot shirk this responsibility, be it in the Congo, in Afghanistan or in Lebanon. On top of this, we must develop ideas of how the world could look in 25 years' time, which new players will enter the field and which conflicts will affect us. That sounds great. But what will the world look like in 25 years' time? Regions like Central Asia or the Maghreb, in which I have travelled, may not seem as exciting today as Lebanon or Iraq, but they are extremely important to the future of Europe – not only as neighbours in whose stability we have an interest, but, naturally, as providers of raw materials and trading partners as well. I call that foreign policy with foresight. You seem, in your travels, to have a penchant for sinister despots, like Niyazov of Turkmenistan or Gaddafi of Libya, who horrify the Americans. As Foreign Minister, I would rather have a lot of Switzerlands and Luxemburgs to deal with, too! But the UN has 192 member states. A scant half of them meet our standards in terms of democracy and the rule of law. Should we therefore speak only with half of all states even though the causes of international problems lie with the other half? The United States places great store by democracy, freedom and human rights, while you talk more about stability and the rule of law. Is that a fundamental difference? Democracy and the rule of law are not mutually exclusive. But perhaps Americans and Europeans emphasize differing aspects of our common values when we seek to implement them in other areas of the world. In 1776, America was founded as an already democratic state, while we Europeans first had the rule of law followed only much later by democracy. This history affects our policy. Our historical experience leads us to favour a process by which the establishment of rule-of-law structures leads in turn to democratization. The Americans, thanks to their historical experience, would much prefer to achieve both at once. In Russia, both democracy and the rule of law seem to be in decline at present. We really must remove ideology from this rather strained debate about Russia. We have a fundamental interest in Russia progressing irreversibly towards Europe, more pluralism and more rule of law. This will not be possible without our involvement. That is why to withdraw would be the wrong course of action. We do need Russian gas and oil, after all. There too, I would call for calm. We are not powerless dependents relying on the energy supplies of mighty Russia. The EU is a large domestic market with 500 million consumers. We have the power of demand, which we can and may bring to bear in international relations. I sometimes fail to understand why we do not go into such talks with greater self-confidence. We must make sure that our relations are marked by reliability, durability and transparency. That is why I urge that this sort of thing should be arranged contractually. But Russia is not keen to ratify the Energy Charter which would arrange exactly that. Russia has refused to do so, and rightly point out that Norway has done the same. In such a situation, there is no point in harping on about principles. We should rather negotiate comparable mechanisms for the mediation of supply-line disputes in the next Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Russia. You make very cool and calculated arguments. There is no sign of the emotion with which the former Chancellor showed in his relation with Russia. As Federal Chancellery Chief-of-Staff and later as Foreign Minister, I have never been Vladimir Putin's opposite number. Angela Merkel wants more of America and less of Russia, because we have far less in common with the Russians than we do with the Americans in terms of values. I think very little of comparisons which make this look like a question of either-or. It is after all impossible to compare our historical relations with America to those with Russia. Our goal must be to increase the values we have in common with Russia, through inclusion and close cooperation. It is an integral part of this process to point out deficits in democracy and the rule of law and to discuss their elimination. More and more people are wondering whether Russia is even trying to come closer to the West any more. What we are talking about, as usual in Russia, is a contradictory process which cannot be gauged on a day-to-day basis. I therefore strongly recommend that we adhere to our strategic involvement with Russia. We have to work to keep Russia from drifting away from us. Is that also true of Europe's other important partner, Turkey? We Europeans have a vested interest in drawing this big country into the European system of values, as a bridge between the Christian West and the Arab-Islamic world. We knew from the beginning that this was never going to be easy. We must therefore ensure that the process does not break down. There is currently a real threat of just that happening, as Turkey continues to refuse to fully recognize Cyprus, an EU member state. Yes, but I urge that the European reaction be governed by a sense of proportion and responsibility. We must avoid any overreaction which would lead to the rapprochement which has taken us so many years to achieve collapsing within a week. Angela Merkel has spoken in favour of taking a tougher approach to Turkey. That is your interpretation. Have you and the Chancellor discussed the issue within the last few days? Yes, and I put forward arguments against a disproportionate reaction. Turkey turning away from Europe would constitute a severe strategic setback for the EU. Minister, thank you for taking the time to speak to us. Links
|
|
 Newsletters
 Printer-Friendly
Page
Email This Article |
||
|
|||||
|
|||||
