"The Near and Middle East - Considerations from a European Viewpoint" Speech by Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Herzliya Conference, Israel, December 17, 2003

When in July I received the invitation from Uzi Arad to speak at the Herzliya Conference, I was glad to accept, and would like to thank you for inviting me.

It is my great pleasure to be in Israel once again. German-Israeli relations are not in our eyes something to be taken for granted. Germany bears the moral responsibility for the crimes against humanity of the Shoah. This responsibility continues to be incumbent on today's democratic Germany and gives our relations their special character.

For this reason, too, the Federal Republic of Germany will always support the right of existence of the State of Israel and its citizens. This is a vital commitment for us! The same is true of our commitment to fight all forms of anti-Semitism and racism.

Over the decades very good and close relations have developed between Israel and Germany. The firm foundation on which they rest is not just our excellent political and economic ties, but above all a dense web of personal connections, which Israelis and Germans have built up over the years. We are very grateful for that.

Maintaining and enhancing the special quality of German-Israeli relations is one of the central tenets of German foreign policy and will always remain one of our key concerns. It is the moral duty of the German people that stems from the terrible history of the Nazi dictatorship. Our responsibility for this history defines our relationship with the State of Israel.

Because our history has left us with the responsibility to help ensure that the citizens of Israel can live today in peace and security, the situation in the Middle East is a cause of special concern to us. But the security interests of Europe - and thus also of Germany - will in the 21 st century also be crucially influenced by developments in the Middle East.

I would now like to share a few thoughts on the future of peace and security in the Middle East.

Let me begin by looking at the past.

When the Cold War ended in 1989 with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a phase of renewal and hope was ushered in. The confrontation between two dangerously armed superpowers was over. The division of my country, of Germany, of Europe and the world into two opposing ideological systems had been overcome.

People looked to the future with trust and confidence. Peace, security, stability and development around the world suddenly seemed to be within reach. Expectations of the dividends of peace were high.

And indeed, the end of the Cold War opened up the way for the political unification of Europe. This process will be completed with the accession to the European Union of ten countries from southern, central and eastern Europe on 1 May 2004.

This spirit of optimism also seized the Middle East. The Madrid and Oslo accords, and the historical handshake in the White House rose garden, are memorable moments from this time. This optimism unfortunately proved to be no more than a mirage. Instead of peace and stability, terror and violence once again won the upper hand in the Middle East.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
It became increasingly clear that the bipolar world order of the Cold War had been replaced by a new, diffuse conflict structure. The traditional categories used to define security and peace during the Cold War have become obsolete. Today, our security no longer depends on developments made in one central conflict between two superpowers.

In the twenty-first century, the greatest dangers to our regional and global security no longer emanate solely, or even mainly, from states. We are rather faced with numerous new, asymmetrical threats.

Religious hatred, nationalistic confrontations, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism are the elements which give rise to the crises and conflicts of the twenty-first century.

11 September 2001 provided a dramatic illustration of just how much potential for destruction is contained in Islamist terrorism and its totalitarian ideology. Yehuda Bauer named it - and he was right - the third totalitarianism. Since that day at the latest it has been clear that it is our common duty to fight the terrorists, their structures and networks with determination and to eliminate the conditions that allow the roots of terrorism to take hold.

This is the major challenge facing the international community in the twenty-first century. It is a challenge that is not new to Israel.

I am convinced that we will not be able to master this all-embracing threat using military means alone. Our response, too, must be all-embracing. Our endeavours to consolidate peace and security in the twenty-first century are condemned to failure if they do not also take account of social and cultural issues, as well as questions of democracy, the rule of law and good governance.

In this age in which trade, commodities and monetary exchange have been globalized, democracy and the rule of law, and human rights - especially religious tolerance and gender equality - must also be guaranteed around the globe, as must access to social security and progress, above all access to information and education. This positive globalization is the real strategic response to the lethal new totalitarian threat posed by Islamist terrorists.

The Mediterranean region will be of special importance in this regard. More than half of the population on the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea and in the Arab world is below 18 years of age. Positive globalization in this region means giving the young population prospects for a peaceful future.

The Arab Human Development Report demonstrates how crucial this is. It reports a shocking lack of modernization in the Arab world. Many Arab states have almost nothing to offer their young generation to meet their hopes for the future.

Whether the Mediterranean will divide or unite in the 21 st century, whether the region will become an area of confrontation and instability or of cooperation and peace is thus a vital question for European security.

And Europe will be the most important player in achieving these positive alternatives. The European Union will do its part to create prospects for development in this region. For this purpose, the EU initiated the Barcelona process to create a region of cooperation along the Mediterranean coastline.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
following September 11, the international community was quick to reach agreement on a joint and determined response to the brutal attacks on New York and Washington, on the government and the people of the United States.

The joint efforts of the international community in Afghanistan are based on the awareness that in the twenty-first century security is, to a very high degree, dependent on participation and progress, democracy and the rule of law. Germany is actively contributing to these efforts. A few days ago, the Loya Jirga convened in Kabul to finalize an Afghan constitution; democratic elections will follow next year.

When the community of states considered the steps to be taken against Iraq, however, a conflict emerged over the assessment of the causes of war. Our concern in Germany was also related to the consequences the war might have on the fight against international terrorism and on regional stability. We are concerned that it will be extremely difficult - if not impossible - to control the long-term consequences of the war.

But we are where we are today. We must now all look ahead. Regardless of past differences of opinion, it is now crucial that we work together to win the peace. Indeed, we all agree on two goals: the Coalition must not fail in Iraq, and the forces of violence and terror must not prevail.

We are convinced that it is vital for the future of Iraq to be placed quickly in the hands of the Iraqis and for the United Nations to be given a political key role in assisting democratic reconstruction. We thus welcome the acceleration of the transition process as an important step in the right direction.

It is my firm conviction that Iraq can only be successfully stabilized as part of a stable Wider Middle East. Our efforts to help achieve a solution to the pressing conflicts throughout the region must not be broken off. I therefore warmly welcome the fact that the United States and the European Union have begun an intensive dialogue on the shape that a peaceful and stable "Wider Middle East" might assume.

The successful modernization of Turkey on its road towards Europe, a democratic transition in Iran, the transformation and stabilization of Afghanistan and Iraq must be part of a wider strategy for the Near and Middle East.

Likewise, the future of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, of Syria and Lebanon will also be of great significance. Nor should we neglect the conflicts in the Caucasus and in Kashmir.

Permit me to say a few words about Iran. Germany and its partners in the European Union take very seriously Israel's concerns about Iran's nuclear programme. It would be a nightmare not just for Israel, but also for the whole region and indeed Europe, if the Middle East were to acquire nuclear capabilities and thus face a nuclear arms race.

The Iranian efforts to master the entire fuel cycle are extremely disquieting. We have, from the very beginning, made it unmistakably clear to the Iranian side that the West will under no circumstances tolerate such a development. This position is based not least on concern for the security of Israel.

Looking at things that way, the question has to be answered: What can we do? In response to this, the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France and Germany have, following thorough preparation, launched an initiative.

This European initiative, which is based on realism, transparency and verification, not on good faith, has, together with the resolution adopted by the IAEA Board of Governors and Iran's willingness to cooperate constructively with the IAEA, opened up a way of resolving the problem within the IAEA framework. But I assure you: the only thing that counts for us are verifiable facts. And let me add: The European Union has also always - most recently at the European Councils at Thessaloniki and Brussels - called upon Iran to stop supporting terrorism.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
in my eyes the key to a peaceful and secure Wider Middle East remains the solution of the Middle East conflict in all of its aspects. It is of overarching strategic importance. Without striking a peaceful and enduring balance between Israeli and Palestinian interests real progress will be difficult to achieve, of that I am sure. A sustainable peace between Israel and Palestine, between Israel and all its Arab neighbours, is the building block for stability and security throughout the Near and Middle East.

The crucial condition on which this peace depends was stated once again in very clear terms by President Bush in his speech at Aqaba this June: "All here today now share a goal: The Holy Land must be shared between the state of Palestine and the state of Israel living at peace with each other and with every nation of the Middle East."

President Bush clearly marked out the road to peace in his trailblazing speech. It is this road in particular that must be built on today.

With the road map, the United States, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the parties concerned committed themselves to a political process leading back to the negotiation table. The goal: the emergence of two independent democratic states living side by side in peace and security and internationally recognized safe borders.

The United States will continue to have to play the vital role in the implementation of the road map. Without its resolute commitment it will hardly be possible to end the conflict. When he was in London in November, President Bush again emphasized how serious he is about achieving a settlement to the Middle East conflict. He also reminded everybody that there can be no military end to the conflict - the solution can only be a political one.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
the road map is an ambitious project, as its implementation requires both parties to take brave and courageous steps. I am aware just how hard these steps are for Israel in particular.

One thing is quite clear to me: after so many set-backs, after years of violence and terror, distrust and fear are rampant on both sides.

Following the collapse of the Camp David process and the return of terror and violence, trust has almost entirely vanished. Between Israel and the Palestinians, it might indeed currently be the scarcest resource.

Israel is suffering under the terrorism, and has every reason not to put up with it. And I will repeat here the words I said after the deadly terror attack on the Dolphinarium: The Palestinian side must take vigorous action to stop the terror and must credibly and lastingly dismantle the terrorists' infrastructure.

On the Palestinian side, too, innocent people are dying. The Palestinians are suffering under the ongoing occupation, considerably worsening living conditions and the encroaching loss of territory caused by the construction of settlements.

To this is added the mistrust of both parties that the other side is pursuing a second, only cursorily hidden agenda:
On the Israeli side, there are fears of the use of demographics as politics, intended to undermine Israel's existence in the long term.

The Palestinians fear that there will be no viable Palestinian state on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, but ultimately the annexation of East Jerusalem and further parts of the West Bank by Israel.

It is my firm conviction that Israel, that the situation in these countries in the region has now reached a historic fork in the road, possibly the most significant one since its founding in 1948. At stake is the two-state solution that is set out in the road map, as well as - and this is my great concern as a close friend of Israel - the Jewish character of the State of Israel.

Therefore the crucial question is: what is the alternative to a peaceful coexistence of Israelis and Palestinians in two neighbouring democratic and independent states?

I follow with great interest the discussion in Israel that focuses on the question whether in a few years time, Israel could be faced with two alternatives: two states, with a Jewish majority in Israel; or a de facto bi-national state with an Arab majority. And one fact is clear: a Western democratic state cannot in the long run deny a majority of its population equal political rights.

We must therefore join efforts to do everything we can to keep the road open to a two-state solution. And two states means two viable democratic states.

To achieve this, we need courage, imagination and creativity. For this reason, I welcome the Geneva Initiative, as it offers a ray of hope. I know how complicated this initiative is, especially for a government. But its merit lies in stating unmistakably that a peaceful solution demands that both sides give up their maximum positions and make concessions that will without a doubt be painful.

Of course, the real progress must be made and enforced by the two Governments. The road map process must now be resumed. Everything must be done to ensure that there is once again a chance of achieving peace at the negotiation table. I call upon you all, on both sides: lasting progress can only be achieved within the framework of the road map.

The following concrete steps could mark the beginning of such a fresh start: A cease-fire and effective cooperation regarding security questions could bring new dynamics to the process.

Another very important, maybe decisive factor will be whether or not substantial progress can be achieved in dismantling terrorist structures on the Palestinian side. Nothing can justify terror against men, women and children in Israel. Israel rightly expects the new Palestinian government to send out clear messages, clear signals and to assume concrete steps here.

A resumption of the political process should include withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, the beginning of reconstruction in the Palestinian territories - this is very important for the international community and their contributions, guaranteeing freedom of movement and dismantling illegal settlements.

To state it plainly: nobody in Europe or the international community contests Israel's right to guarantee the security of its citizens and to stop terrorism for ever. If Israel believes that it needs a security fence, that cannot be criticized, as long as this fence follows the course of the Green Line. The present course of the fence is however barely understandable from a security point of view. It is precisely this fact that attracts very serious criticism, not just in Israel, but also in Europe and the United States.

Let me however clearly and unmistakably repeat one thing: no one questions Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism and any threat. The European Union, and Germany in particular, unconditionally support the right of Israeli citizens to live within secure borders, and to live an normal life, to live free of fear, free of terror and free of violence.

That is why, to the best of our ability and above all in cooperation with our partners in the European Union, Germany will continue to help ensure the road map is implemented, so the citizens of Israel can live in peace and without fear.

Together with its partners in the Quartet, the European Union is already one of the important players in the region. And the role of the European Union will grow even larger in the future. We cannot avoid the developments in the Middle East having an immediate effect on us in the European Union. Cyprus will on 1 May 2004, in six months, become a member of the European Union. And if Turkey were to join the Union, the EU would directly border the Middle East.

It is therefore also crucial that relations between Israel and the EU improve. The enlarged European single market of more than 450 million people will be even more important to the Israeli economy in future.

I know that there is much criticism in Israel of the EU's Middle East policy. Due to our special relationship with Israel, Germany has always promoted Israel's legitimate interests in Brussels, and I can promise you, we will continue to do so.

However, if there is serious concern in Israel and in the international Jewish community about a renewed increase in anti-Semitism in Europe, we must take this very seriously and take vigorous action to counter it. This is one of the reasons why Germany is organizing an OSCE conference on anti-Semitism in Berlin next spring.

But let me return to my analysis of the Middle East conflict. The European Security Strategy that was approved by the European Council only a few days ago in Brussels also takes the close connection between the European Union and the Middle East into account. In this document, we agreed on making the creation of a zone of stability and security in Europe's neighbouring regions one of the strategic goals of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy.

What we need in the long term is a security structure for the Wider Middle East that relies on both the local forces and the international community.

A peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict is the central challenge on which the future of the entire region hangs, not solely and exclusively but, nevertheless, to a large extent.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Allow me to conclude by confessing something. I have become an incurable optimist when it comes to the Middle East. The situation today seems to be more difficult than ever. And peace and a lasting settlement seem more out of reach than ever. But it is especially important now that we have the courage to think and to do the impossible.

And as an incurable optimist I am firmly convinced that peace is possible in the Middle East. The chance that now presents itself must not be missed!

Thank you very much!

Advanced Search    Help

Statements & Speeches

Subscribe Here You can also read the current issues here.

Printer-Friendly Page