Q: I first understood you to say, no unilateral action in Iraq. Then later you seemed to say Germany will not participate in an attack or help pay for one no matter what the U.N. says. Which is it?
A: Let me begin by saying that without a U.N. Security Council mandate, our Constitution would not permit any form of participation. That is quite clear.
But the other arguments that I have cited against an intervention are so important that I would also be against such an intervention if — for whatever reasons and in whatever form — the Security Council of the United Nations were to say “Yes,” which I cannot imagine happening in the present situation.
I have attempted to make clear that it is not just formal considerations that induce me to say that this is the wrong way. I have told you about what harm we would do to the international coalition against terror. I have attempted to make clear that we must prove before the eyes of the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, that participation in the struggle against terror will also bring a peace dividend, and I know of no one who has a real concept for a new order in the Middle East which could shape the region afterward. These are for me weighty arguments that lead me to say: Of course it is important for Germany what resolutions the United Nations adopt, but these arguments — these three — they remain my own, the ones that make me say: Hands off. Especially because, as I said before, the evidence appears to be highly dubious. [ . . . ]
Q: This administration is making lots of difficulties for its friends. Do you think that Sept. 11 has changed America in a way that isn’t a good way?
A: [ . . . ] I would like to answer that question with another: what is the duty of a friend in such a situation? It is the duty of friends to show solidarity, but also to use this tried and true solidarity to bring rational arguments into the political debate. The duty of friends is not just to agree with everything, but to say: We disagree on this point. [ . . . ]
Q: The nasty view is, you’re in a tough campaign and you want to run against Bush, against America, for “peace,” and change the subject from unemployment.
A: [ . . . ] I would never treat this issue as a matter of tactics, because the consequences would catch up with me later. We will win in Germany, and then I will have to stick by this decision, and I know what that means. In this sense it was not a tactical variant in the election campaign. [ . . . ]
Source: “No One Has a Clear Idea about What the Effects Would Be,” Interview with Gerhard Schröder. From The New York Times, © September 5, 2002 The New York Times. All rights reserved. Used by permission and protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States. The printing, copying, redistribution, or retransmission of the Material without express written permission is prohibited. www.nytimes.com.
print version
return to list