Speech by Foreign Minister Steinmeier in the German Bundestag in Berlin, 14 December 2005

Frank-Walter Steinmeier

Ladies and gentlemen,

To my mind, two fundamental decisions have shaped our relations with the United States in recent years. We pledged unreserved solidarity and support in the fight against terrorism after 11 September 2001 and the German Government, this brings me to the second decision, spoke out against military intervention in Iraq in 2003 not despite, rather because of our joint fight against international terrorism.

If some today try to create some kind of contradiction between these two decisions or to play one decision out against the other, then I'm afraid I have to put things straight once and for all.

The two decisions are based on the same principle of responsibility, responsibility for the security of the people in our country and for the security of our friends and partners. The two decisions are rooted in our responsibility for a global system that remains committed to international law. And precisely because so much has been written on this in the last few days, these were not decisions taken in some shadowy realm of anonymity. Rather these decisions were and are ones that required much soul-searching, readiness to shoulder responsibility and personal courage.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, you will say this is what politics is all about. But let me tell you, yes there are the less glamorous aspects of power, far removed from media events and talk shows. To be quite honest, I have experienced such situations more often than I wanted to in the last seven years, situations in which a telephone call, the rules of procedure and the round table have fallen short as the ritualized form of conflict resolution.

My term of office as Head of the Federal Chancellery began with the Hofer case in Iran, my term of office as Foreign Minister regrettably with the hostage-taking in Iraq. In between we had kidnappings in Algeria and in the Philippines, uncertain security situations after 11 September 2001, the anthrax hysteria, the thwarted attack on the Strasbourg Christmas Market and the far-reaching question of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. None of these situations was solved through wordy resolutions. Rather, responsible and resolute action was the order of the day, along with moderation and good sense. Our approach was always based on the experience and professional expertise of crisis units, the Federal Criminal Police Office and, let me say quite clearly, also the services.

In the past, we have always been lucky and have been spared disaster. We were able to protect our people from injury. Just as important, ladies and gentlemen, was that where politicians were called upon to act, the decisions were never easy, rarely without risk and sometimes only possible using all the legal scope at our disposal. But we should be thankful that no matter what has come our way we have never ended up in such borderline situations as previous crisis units for example in 1977 – the names Schleyer and Mogadishu spring to mind. I certainly never had to take a decision that pitted life against life or where protecting the life and health of German citizens meant we were pushed to the furthest reaches of our legal system or even beyond.

I am saying this with a view to all the irresponsible speculation and suspicions directed at me or other members of the previous Government concerning the so-called al-Masri case. Let me make clear: The Federal Government, the Federal Intelligence Service, the Federal Criminal Police Office and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution were not an accessory to the rendition of the German al-Masri. Let me be just as plain in repeating that the former Interior Minister and the former Foreign Minister just like myself only learnt of the rendition after his release.

While it is necessary to give this assurance, let me go a step further and add that I have been very taken aback by some of the statements of the last few days, to put it mildly. I'm talking about statements that more or less openly suggest that if we Germans are not allowed to torture an Islamist suspect ourselves, then we'll give others the information they need so they can pick him up and beat the truth out of him. I ask you, how dreadful and gross do you have to be to bring such accusations against those who, I feel, kept this country on a path of civility and the rule of law also in difficult times.

This path did not and does not mean oblivious tranquillity, ignoring all the threats and afflictions of global terrorism which has taken on a new dimension. We also faced the brutal realization with and following 11 September that bloody attacks on this scale were not planned and organized far from our shores, rather that the perpetrators, or at least some of them, had be living in our midst.

It was our job, indeed I would take it further and say our duty and responsibility, to prevent this being repeated and do all we could to protect our German citizens from falling victim to such attacks. Let me be quite plain: without detailed knowledge of the Islamist scene this would have been impossible.

I myself insisted in our daily, and then weekly, security meetings that we systematically examine the structure of this scene in Germany following 11 September – and I stand by that. In this project, the federal security authorities worked together with a view to gaining an insight into the hotspots of the German Islamist scene, identifying the leading figures, observing transfer between the centres and finding out about the underlying networks. I believe this project to this day provides the essential basis for the work of the security authorities. That is why it is being continued and updated. Its main message above all else is that we have to presume a high level of mobility – whether national or international.

Yet some feel we should have kept such findings to ourselves. Others say that with the knowledge we have today at least the Americans ought to have had no share in our findings and that the very exchange of information equates to aiding and abetting wrongful action. This is a view to which I certainly do not subscribe. I would turn the question around and ask whether it would have been responsible, given the terrorist groups in New York, Washington, Madrid, Riyadh, Djerba, Bali or London, not to have exchanged available knowledge with partners. Would refusing access to our own knowledge have been responsible given the price we would have paid, that is that others would not have included us in the exchange on the movements on the international terror scene?

From my point of view, the decisive question is how the debate would have been after an attack in Germany when it became clear that we had refused international cooperation on fighting terrorism.

Those criticizing me and others – whether from the previous or the current Government – for exchanging information with Britain, France, Italy, Spain or also with the United States have to ask and indeed answer these questions.

Evidently, let us be just as plain, the exchange of information never means some kind of consent to or even justification for the rendition of German citizens.

On the contrary, the Federal Government has always emphasized that cooperation has to be conducted on the basis of the law.

This is also and indeed especially true of the al-Masri case. It is unclear whether and, if so, to what extent, information and findings from Germany were used by foreign authorities. But let me say after all reasonable research that we have conducted, there are no indications that information on al-Masri was passed on by the federal security authorities.

The Federal Chancellery and the Federal Foreign Office were first informed in a letter from Mr al-Masri's lawyer on 8 June 2004. In this letter, he emphasized that before the media be involved, the statement of his client should be examined and the knowledge and information secured in such a way that they can be assessed.

That is precisely what the Federal Government did. With a view to examining the information presented by Mr al-Masri and to secure findings that could be used in a court of law, the Government involved the investigative authorities immediately and without hesitation. It supported the latter in their work without, let me add, being able to replace their work. Conducting investigations is the job of the police and the Public Prosecution Office.

But immediately after receiving this letter, the Federal Government contacted the liaison officers in the ministries to ask the intelligence services, the police authorities at federal and Land level as well as diplomatic missions to play their part in resolving the case. Furthermore, given the potential accusations, the case immediately was the focus of talks in our intelligence services meeting in the Federal Chancellery.

Thanks to this approach, the Federal Criminal Police Office informed the local police authorities on 10 June – just two days later, so you know how quickly everything happened. The Federal Public Prosecutor General was notified on 14 June and an investigation was opened immediately in which Mr al-Masri testified as early as on 17 and 18 June. The Munich Public Prosecution Office took over the case in July 2004. My staff in the Federal Chancellery established direct oral contact with the lawyer on 30 June 2004 to inform him about the first written report.

The Federal Government supported those leading the investigation, that is the Public Prosecution Office and the police, in many different ways in their efforts to resolve the case and above all to procure solid information. This is true on the one hand for establishing the route of Mr al-Masri. This is linked above all to the identity of "Sam" whose name keeps appearing in newspaper reports although we have not been able to establish any connection to German security authorities.

The services, the Federal Criminal Police Office as well as the diplomatic missions of the Federal Republic of Germany were involved in these inquiries. We investigated in all countries involved in the case: in Albania, Afghanistan but also in the United States and of course in Macedonia.

Let me give you a potted version of the efforts at federal level. In the first four months, there were way over 30 individual efforts by half a dozen federal authorities to help the investigating Land authorities as far as possible. These efforts, let us be clear, have not waned. To cite one example, the Federal Criminal Police Office alone inquired about half a dozen times from between September 2004 and January 2005 with the competent agencies in the United States, pushed for answers and issued reminders. The case was addressed at the intelligence services meeting on several occasions and according to reporting in the United States in January was also brought up on several occasions in the competent Parliamentary Control Panel. The Federal Government issued requests for assistance to Macedonia, Albania and the United States, lodged oral and written inquiries with the authorities of the Länder concerned and undertook diplomatic efforts.

I am outlining some of these efforts because it proves what a state based on the rule of law can achieve and, be assured, to my mind should achieve if there is reason to suspect a citizen has been a victim of crime.

It is not for me to report on the current state of investigations. That is the job of the investigating authorities. But what I can do is provide feedback on the efforts of the Federal Government and the efforts at the level of diplomacy, the intelligence services and the police. As all Länder and services in question are aware, the situation is that Germany wanted and wants the case to be resolved. We took al-Masri's statements seriously.

Former Federal Interior Minister Schily called upon the American side on several occasions to give clear information to the German investigating authorities. Following inquiries by the Federal Government, it was made known for the first time in November 2005 that the case was being dealt with by the competent authorities. That is only an introduction to the next sentence turning to the most recent developments. What is new is that after Mr al-Masri was refused entry to the United States the week before last, Ms Rice last week gave the assurance that he will be allowed to enter and that he can seek legal protection with his lawyer on American soil.

CIA flights and supposed secret prisons have led to great controversy in recent weeks – confirmed by my experience at the NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting – everywhere in Europe, and as you have read, of course also in the United States. We saw this morning in the Committee on Foreign Affairs that there are many open questions. You know the efforts of the Council of Europe. We are actively involved in these efforts because we too want the case resolved. In my talks with the American Secretary of State and the National Security Council, these topics played a major role. After this series of talks, I have the impression that the American Administration increasingly recognizes it cannot make light of the concerns of its European partners.

I am the first to admit that not every security authority operation can be discussed and assessed in public. But this makes it all the more important to maintain the shared basis of trust. In other words, we have to be able to rely on our American partners to respect bilateral agreements and the rules of international law and human rights.

I therefore expressly welcome the American Secretary of State's reiteration of this assurance, even more so the clarification that the anti-torture convention applies in its entirety to all detainees. Yet turning to something else addressed this morning in the Committee, I am also concerned that different conclusions are being drawn for the legal foundation given the threat posed by international terrorism in Europe and the United States. The most recent debate in America on the interpretation of the ban on torture is a case in point.

I hope very much that this debate will end with a decision not to let Europe and the United States drift apart on this fundamental question of our legal system. Similarly, I hope very much that Europe and the United States will continue to be bound by rule of law principles.

We know that one of the terrorists' central goals is to destroy the rule of law and the civility of our open societies. They must not succeed!

Respect for law and justice is the cement that holds our societies together and is the basis for our superiority over all enemies of freedom. This is also true for the sphere of the security authorities. Respect for law and justice was the yardstick governing my action in recent years.

Ladies and gentlemen, on some of these questions, different conclusions can be drawn. That's as may be. Yet I stand by the decisions taken in my capacity as Head of the Federal Chancellery and Commissioner for the Federal Intelligence Services. I stand by the decisions, taken in due respect for law and justice and for the security of the people in our country.

Thank you very much.

December 19, 2005

Advanced Search    Help

Statements & Speeches

Subscribe Here You can also read the current issues here.

Printer-Friendly Page