Interview
Deutsche Welle am 01.02.03
German
Political Leaders Square Off over Iraq support a possible
U.S.-led war against Iraq, DW-WORLD talks to two leading
German politicians at opposite ends of the debate.
Winfried
Hermann, a member of the federal parliament from the
Green Party, the junior partner in Chancellor Gerhard
Schröder's coalition government, shot into the news
when he voted against deploying German troops in Kosovo
in 2001-- a move that sparked a major crisis for Schröder's
government coalition.
Mr.
Hermann, are you happy with Chancellor Schröder's Iraq
policy? And do you think he's making his stance clear?
I'm
quite happy that the chancellor and the whole German
government have had quite a clear position for months.
We agree that the problem with Iraq is a serious one,
and we think that the only way to solve it is through
the U.N. Security Council, which can get Saddam Hussein
to disarm.
Over
the last 12 years, the U.N. has had lots of problems
with Iraq, but they were generally successful in getting
most of the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons
destroyed and the programs stopped. Of course, there
are still some left and what remains may be dangerous.
But those remains still account for just a small percentage.
The U.N. realized at the beginning of the 1990s that
most of the weapons were really destroyed.
To
go to war now with Iraq would be very harmful to the
people of Iraq, destabilize the area and lead to a chaotic
situation. A war would also indirectly help terrorists
because, in the Arab world and in many poor countries,
there is a feeling that the western world, especially
the United States is opportunistic, makes indiscriminate
use of resources around the world, forces the rest of
the world to toe their line, props up government regimes
around the world and then wages war against them whenever
it likes.
Thus,
the poorer countries feel they are the victims of a
U.S. imperialist policy and incite young people there
to fight against this imperialist power. That's why
we think it'll be very counterproductive to wage a war
against Iraq.
Do
you think the chancellor is doing enough to avoid a
war?
Both
the chancellor and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer
are busy trying to avoid this war and are trying to
find partners in this endeavor. They have already found
a strong partner in France because French President
Jacques Chirac is very important in the Security Council
-- more so than Germany because of France's veto power.
Germany
is also trying to find allies in the Arab world.
But
I don't think we are a strong player in this game. The
strongest are the United States and Russia and China
and all the other veto powers, and they are the ones
who have a chance to stop this war and maybe they will
do it.
Of course, as a member of the peace movement, I think
they have to do more, though I agree that some of them
have begun diplomatic measures.
But
the real problem will arise if the Americans decide
to wage a war without the authorization of the U.N.
Security Council.
In
Germany we are bound by the constitution not to participate
in any aggressive war that isn't sanctioned by the United
Nations. If the U.S. does decide to go ahead without
U.N. authorization, it stands in violation of international
law, and then Germany has a huge problem on its hands.
After all, how can Germany tell its oldest brother and
friend that it has violated international law and hence
cannot use German bases anymore? That's more than just
a diplomatic problem.
There
have been heated debates within Germany on how far it
should go in offering support to the U.S. in a military
strike against Iraq. How do things stand now?
The
Americans have now realized that it's smarter to work
together with the U.N. Security Council on the issue
of Iraq, though they want the Council to adhere to their
point of view. The German position is clearly against
a resolution that says "yes" to a war.
But
I'm worried that members of the Security Council could
draw up a resolution that wouldn't clearly state "yes"
or "no" to war, but rather simply condemn Iraq. That
would then be an open situation which could allow the
Americans to go to war without worrying about violating
international law. It's important that the Security
Council makes a decision based on facts and the information
at hand. The U.S., I believe, is not cooperating with
the U.N. Security Council, since it still hasn't furnished
any of the incriminating proof that of Iraq's nuclear
and biological programs it claims to possess.
Germany
has been in a difficult situation as far as offering
limited support to the U.S. in a war against Iraq. Though
Germany wants to be a friend of America's, it's been
convinced that America is on the wrong path.
Germany wants to remain friends and not make enemies
with America, and it has made clear that it will uphold
important partnerships such as NATO with the U.S. That
means that Germany will under no circumstances reduce
its soldiers in an AWACS (surveillance plane) as long
as the AWACS is in NATO territory. But if an AWACS flies
over the NATO borders into Iraq, then German soldiers
can no longer be part of such an operation.
Germany
has also refused the American request for weapons. But
of course we cannot do the same with the question of
security for American soldiers. For instance, in the
case of a terrorist attack, the German government will
naturally help protect American soldiers and bases.
Germany will uphold all the pacts and treaties that
it has signed with America and fulfill its responsibilities
when the need arises. But nothing more and nothing less.
However,
one crucial point here is that if America carries out
a war in violation of international law, the German
chancellor will face a dilemma on providing support
to the U.S., because the German Constitution will not
allow it.
How will Chancellor Schröder's stance affect Germany's
international standing and the transatlantic relationship
in the long run?
There's
a taboo in international thinking that one mustn't strongly
oppose one's own partner. But sometimes there are exceptions
when you have to oppose your friends if you see that
your friends are making big mistakes.
I
think the political class in America and the mass media
in the Anglo-Saxon world are unfortunately unable to
analyze Germany's actions positively. But, at the same
time, there are people who recognize that the German
government has the courage to say "no" and not blindly
go along with America.
What
happens in the long run to the transatlantic relationship
depends on developments in America. We shouldn't forget
that President Bush is just one American president,
he's been in power for two years and obviously stands
for a new international American policy, which in my
opinion is dangerous. This kind of policy justifies
the Americans looking out for their own political and
economic interests in the world. I don't think Bush
will be very successful with this policy in the long
run. In a few years from now, this period will be looked
upon in America as a phase when the U.S. tried to become
the greatest power in the world, but in reality that's
when its power began to decrease.
History
teaches us that all superpowers come to the point where
they flex their powers too much and incite resistance
all over the world against them.
Bush,
after all, won with only a thousand voters more than
Gore, and it's a pity that such a nominal sum of voters
will lay the course of history. I hope that American
society will revert to a more civil-oriented international
policy.
Do
you think there's any personal animosity between Chancellor
Schröder and President Bush which has led to the present
souring of relations?
Yes,
there is some truth to that. I think that the American
security and intelligence services are huge, the CIA
alone gets twice the money that the regular German army
gets!
They
have networks all over the world and don't even hesitate
to listen in on their own friends. That's why I believe
the American administration is well-informed about what
we're thinking and saying about them. President Bush
is so angry with the Germans because he knows through
his intelligence services what the Germans really think
about him!
Do
you think American hostility has also to do with the
fact that the U.S. believed that Chancellor Schröder
used the Iraq issue as an election ploy last September
to gain more pacifist votes?
The
general public may have perceived it that way, but as
someone who was involved in the process, I can tell
you that Chancellor Schröder made it clear right from
the time that Germany decided to assist the U.S. in
Afghanistan and participate in the international coalition
against terrorism, that he believed in using military
means to fight terror. But that didn't mean extending
those means to other cases such as a war against Iraq.
Afghanistan
was a special case. The chancellor made it clear long
before the election and long before the beginning of
the war in Afghanistan, that Germany would not be on
the U.S. side in a war against Iraq. At that time it
wasn't clear what America would really do. Now I know
that the American government had told the Germans as
early as September 2001 that they were planning to fight
against Iraq. And, as parliamentarians, our reaction
was, "Why are they talking about Iraq? This is about
Afghanistan!" I really don't think Iraq has anything
to do with the terror issue.
We
know from information gathered by German intelligence
services as well as international agencies that Iraq's
is a national problem -- they terrorize their own people,
but they are not international terrorists, they're not
part of the international network of terror.
How
much of a role does the Green Party's pacifist ideology
play in Schröder's Iraq policy?
Well,
of course, the Green Party is historically a peace movement
party, and we do play a big role in the chancellor's
stance (as his junior coalition partner). But, at the
same time, there is no big difference between the Social
Democrats and the Greens on this point.
Both
agree that the risks of waging a war against Iraq are
too high, and in both parties there is a big majority
that is against a war. The chancellor has also learned
from past experience that it is dangerous to go in for
a vote of confidence on this point a second time.
zurück...
|