Thursday, 10. May 2007
One evening with Joschka Fischer
Last Tuesday Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister and Vice Chancellor in the government of Gerhard Schröder from 1998 to 2005, who was a youth activist back in the 1960s and then the leading figure in the German Green Party and for many years the most popular politician, Now he is teaching in Princeton. “He went to the East, I went to the West,” commented Fischer on the aftermath of their days in power.
The topic of his two-hour talk was Europe, Germany and the conflict in the Middle East. What was it about in particular? Firstly, he admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a very decision because now there is no way out: retreating might end up in civil war, staying doesn’t make any more sense. It was a trap. I liked his idea that democracy cannot be brought about at gunpoint. And does the U.S. really want democracy in Iraq? The majority rule brings Shias to power, but that will make Iraq closer and closer to Iran. As a matter of fact, for Fischer, Iran with its nuclear ambitions seemed to be the major threat in the region. I wasn’t convinced. But Simon and Negar (good to have a member of the Iranian democratic opposition at Brandeis) proved why a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran would be disastrous: for Simon, the most important consequence is further nuclear ambitions of other states in the region, especially the Saudis, who will not be able to control this power and the deadly weapon might end up in the hands of some terrorists; for Negar, the reasons for opposing Iran’s nuclear ambitions have more to do with its internal policies and the consolidation of the regime in power, which she is fighting against. Negar was the first one to ask Fisher a question about Iran and the use of economic sanctions against Ahmadinejad’s regime. She was concerned that the sanctions will be projected to the population, as has happened in other cases. But Fischer was firm. He proposed active diplomacy (such as Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria), generous offers to Tehran (just like in North Korea) and, if these attempts fail, stopping all money transactions in the oil market with Iran.
More than anything, Fischer seemed to me very pragmatic, not what I really had expected from the Green leader. He went on to stress the importance of Turkey, which has been falling back since Europe turned away from it. Turkey, for him, is a strategic ally and an example that democracy and Islam can go together, therefore, it can’t be let to fail. Even when one senior Armenian asked him about the issue of the Armenian genocide, Fisher replied that the recognition of its past mistakes will come as a consequence of Turkey’s modernization. And it being predominantly Muslim does not mean the doors of the EU are shut for Ankara.
And then there was the question of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Fischer wasn’t as brave to talk about this conflict as President Jimmy Carter was. Maybe because of the audience, that is, in front of Brandeis community. Or maybe because he is German and as German he simply cannot say anything against Israel. This is a new axiom in German policies towards the Middle East. He did not denounce the wall and did not talk about the apartheid. At that time I was sitting next to a very old Jewish professor, retired from CUNY, who happened to be a student of Margaret Mead. And this gentleman was much more sober in relation to the issue. He said that he never approved occupation of Palestinian territories and keeps telling his other Jewish friends that Israelis are doing to the Palestinians the same that the British did to Israelis living in Tel Aviv back in 1930s. That’s isolation. I think Fischer lacked firm stance towards this conflict.
And I also don’t approve of his attitude towards Russia. When I asked him about German foreign policy towards Kremlin, he – very pragmatically – argued that getting gas from Russia is the only possibility and Germany needs gas. He simply saw Russia as a better option than the Middle East. And, even though in the end he showed a little concern with the authoritarian tendencies in Russia, he finished by stating that he prefers having Russia as a friend and not an enemy. After my question people have been asking whether I am Russian But, in fact, one thing I liked in his response. He said that maybe the West is somehow guilty for what is happening in Russia because when in the middle of 1990s it opened itself to the world, the world did not really welcome the democratic Russia… and so it went back… it’s own way…
Fischer talked for two hours, then we had the official dinner.
He believes in Europe much more than in the U.S. He was patient with the questions. Some say, he was arrogant. I think, pragmatic. But in some cases really short-sighted.
The topic of his two-hour talk was Europe, Germany and the conflict in the Middle East. What was it about in particular? Firstly, he admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a very decision because now there is no way out: retreating might end up in civil war, staying doesn’t make any more sense. It was a trap. I liked his idea that democracy cannot be brought about at gunpoint. And does the U.S. really want democracy in Iraq? The majority rule brings Shias to power, but that will make Iraq closer and closer to Iran. As a matter of fact, for Fischer, Iran with its nuclear ambitions seemed to be the major threat in the region. I wasn’t convinced. But Simon and Negar (good to have a member of the Iranian democratic opposition at Brandeis) proved why a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran would be disastrous: for Simon, the most important consequence is further nuclear ambitions of other states in the region, especially the Saudis, who will not be able to control this power and the deadly weapon might end up in the hands of some terrorists; for Negar, the reasons for opposing Iran’s nuclear ambitions have more to do with its internal policies and the consolidation of the regime in power, which she is fighting against. Negar was the first one to ask Fisher a question about Iran and the use of economic sanctions against Ahmadinejad’s regime. She was concerned that the sanctions will be projected to the population, as has happened in other cases. But Fischer was firm. He proposed active diplomacy (such as Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria), generous offers to Tehran (just like in North Korea) and, if these attempts fail, stopping all money transactions in the oil market with Iran.
More than anything, Fischer seemed to me very pragmatic, not what I really had expected from the Green leader. He went on to stress the importance of Turkey, which has been falling back since Europe turned away from it. Turkey, for him, is a strategic ally and an example that democracy and Islam can go together, therefore, it can’t be let to fail. Even when one senior Armenian asked him about the issue of the Armenian genocide, Fisher replied that the recognition of its past mistakes will come as a consequence of Turkey’s modernization. And it being predominantly Muslim does not mean the doors of the EU are shut for Ankara.
And then there was the question of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Fischer wasn’t as brave to talk about this conflict as President Jimmy Carter was. Maybe because of the audience, that is, in front of Brandeis community. Or maybe because he is German and as German he simply cannot say anything against Israel. This is a new axiom in German policies towards the Middle East. He did not denounce the wall and did not talk about the apartheid. At that time I was sitting next to a very old Jewish professor, retired from CUNY, who happened to be a student of Margaret Mead. And this gentleman was much more sober in relation to the issue. He said that he never approved occupation of Palestinian territories and keeps telling his other Jewish friends that Israelis are doing to the Palestinians the same that the British did to Israelis living in Tel Aviv back in 1930s. That’s isolation. I think Fischer lacked firm stance towards this conflict.
And I also don’t approve of his attitude towards Russia. When I asked him about German foreign policy towards Kremlin, he – very pragmatically – argued that getting gas from Russia is the only possibility and Germany needs gas. He simply saw Russia as a better option than the Middle East. And, even though in the end he showed a little concern with the authoritarian tendencies in Russia, he finished by stating that he prefers having Russia as a friend and not an enemy. After my question people have been asking whether I am Russian But, in fact, one thing I liked in his response. He said that maybe the West is somehow guilty for what is happening in Russia because when in the middle of 1990s it opened itself to the world, the world did not really welcome the democratic Russia… and so it went back… it’s own way…
Fischer talked for two hours, then we had the official dinner.
He believes in Europe much more than in the U.S. He was patient with the questions. Some say, he was arrogant. I think, pragmatic. But in some cases really short-sighted.
ieva jusionyte, 15:05h
... comment