INTERVIEW WITH JOSCHKA FISCHER
GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER

GERMAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

August 28, 2002

Deutschlandfunk: Last night's meeting between the US President and the Saudi Ambassador to the United States again made it clear that there is still a lack of external support for the US Administration's tough approach - albeit expressed only verbally - on Iraq. Nor should the increasing opposition within America to such an approach be ignored. Here in Germany, the Federal Government, the Chancellor, the Defence Minister, and recently other Government members, too, have increasingly been warning against military intervention in Iraq and rejecting German involvement. Is this because of the election campaign or because there are signs that President Bush intends to push through his plan even in the face of international criticism?

Fischer: As far as I am concerned this is not a new debate; I have been expressing these arguments - all of which, by the way, are being voiced in the American debate as well, particularly by close colleagues such as Brent Scowcroft, formerly National Security Advisor to President Bush senior, but also by former Secretary of State James Baker and others. We are very worried that if rash steps are taken, if things are not properly thought through, what we will get is not increased peace and security in the Middle East, but the very opposite, and in a highly explosive environment, too. Moreover, the regional conflict in India and Pakistan over Kashmir has in no way been satisfactorily resolved, and in Afghanistan, too, we are facing huge problems that have yet to be solved; so altogether it must be said that if the analysis of the threat from Iraq remains unchanged, a change of regime brought about by military intervention would be highly risky, its repercussions scarcely foreseeable, and that is why we reject such intervention.

Deutschlandfunk: The Americans justify their mistrust and at the same time their determination in relation to Iraq with the concrete threat it poses, particularly the nuclear threat. Do you see this threat, too?

Fischer: Well, Cheney did not say that there is a concrete danger; what he said was that action was needed now while Iraq still has no nuclear potential. I cannot entirely understand that. I think the threat analyses throughout the international community make it clear that containment - it has after all been a policy not of appeasement, but of containment since the Gulf War - has worked. Saddam Hussein's neighbours in the region confirm this. They do not see any heightened danger - and they would be the first who would need to be afraid - and so there is no change to the threat analysis. In addition, Saddam Hussein, his regime, a bloody dictatorship, is obliged to let United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country. Here, too, the international community is in agreement. However, it is not in agreement on the US Administration's position, aimed at removing Saddam Hussein from power through military intervention. This is precisely the difference, the point where opinions are now being formed in the US, and that is where the partners have to take up their positions, because we will be the ones directly affected. If the Middle East reaches crisis point or indeed explodes - Europe being situated where it is - this will have a direct effect on our security.

Deutschlandfunk: One of the participants in the discussion within the US Administration is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Last night he, too, failed to exclude the possibility of a solo run by the US. He says it is more important to do the right thing, alone if necessary, than to reach agreement. At least, that's what he's quoted as saying. How many more slaps does Europe actually need to realize that with regard to Iraq our partnership is not at its best?

Fischer: The United States does have the military power to go it alone. There is no question at all about that. But when I look at the world, at our security situation - and by this I mean the whole of the West - then I see international terrorism as the greatest danger, a threat which certainly cannot be dismissed. Our main concern is that the regional conflicts in Kashmir, the Caucasus, the Middle East, do not combine with international terrorism. The anti-terror coalition is of the utmost importance here. Even the most powerful power cannot be everywhere at once in this fight, cannot hear or see everything, and that is the prime condition for successfully overcoming this deadly danger. Everything must be done to strengthen this coalition. Nothing should be done to weaken it. That is our position. But the United States has the military might to act alone. Yet at the same time it is of course an open society, finding its position, and then a partner's words do carry weight. That is why we express our views, and I am not giving away any secrets when I tell you that I have been unable to see any major differences in this analysis in discussions within the European Union in recent months. To put it ever so diplomatically.

Deutschlandfunk: Let's assume that we, Germany, fail in our endeavours to deflect the Americans from this unilateral military intervention. This would have to have repercussions, not least for transatlantic relations and even for NATO, surely?

Fischer: The transatlantic relationship is a cornerstone for peace and stability in the 21^st century - we must always be clear about that - and indeed for both sides, it is not a one-sided thing. The United States - and here I have no time for anti-Americanism - is indispensable for peace and stability in the world, including in Europe and in many other places, as I have seen in a very concrete way over the past four years. Nonetheless, differences must be discussed. That was how it was in the past, too. But in my view, stability in the transatlantic alliance is crucial, and it can withstand some strain. These are family differences that have to be discussed. An alliance of free democracies is characterized by freedom of speech, but that is not to cast doubt on its foundations, for instance the joint fight against terrorism, our joint engagement in Afghanistan, in many other places, or within the Alliance. Just let me emphasize again that I view these developments, this discussion, with great concern, as what it comes down to is a preventive war, and this preventive war raises a question that I cannot be at all sure has been fully thought through in the US; for if the US goes to Baghdad and removes Saddam Hussein from power (as it has the means to do), then - quite apart from the risks such a war would bring, quite apart from the question of international law - that would mean that the US would bear the entire responsibility for peace and stability in the Middle East, and that would be a very heavy responsibility. It would also mean that the US would have to shoulder this responsibility for years, maybe even for decades, and that is the real point. That would amount to a reorganization of the Middle East, and I am very doubtful that this consequence has been fully thought through and discussed in Washington, in America. And that causes my main worries. We are direct neighbours of the Middle East. To that extent, every rash step in the wrong direction will affect us immediately and directly, over the short and the long term, and that is why we have made our position clear: we reject such false moves and will not participate in them.

Deutschlandfunk: Iraq would be such a rash, false move?

Fischer: In the US this is viewed as America's riskiest decision since Viet Nam. That is the perspective in the US, and if one adopts it and at the same time knows what risks there are, how very dangerous the region is, how little the other problems have been resolved and what risks they still entail, then one reaches a judgement and fixes very different priorities, and we have told the American side this several times. That is our position, our main concern.

Deutschlandfunk: Thank you for talking to us.