Keynote Address:

“The Reconstruction of Iraq and its Implications for the Middle East”

Politics is very often a question of lack of knowledge or of misinterpretation.

When former US-President Jimmy Carter visited Syria's President Assad in Damascus, the two had the opportunity of looking at a picture in Assad's office portraying the battle of Hattin 1187. Carter told Assad that he was aware Saladin defeated the crusaders there. Assad answered, No, that was the victory of Arabia over the West. Carter hesitated a bit, then asking “Wasn't Saladin a Kurd?”

On 1 May 2003, six weeks after the beginning of the war on Iraq, US President George W. Bush announced the end of major combat operations. In his speech on board the aircraft carrier “USS Abraham Lincoln”, he also declared that the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime was, and I quote, “one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001”. However, the problems facing both the people of Iraq and the American troops there have not diminished since then. On the contrary, there are still reports almost every day of assaults and attacks on US troops and demonstrations by discontented Iraqis.

The problems in Iraq are diverse. On the one hand, democratic structures must be created, while on the other, economic hardship needs to be tackled. However, all of this will only succeed if, at the same time, the Middle East as a whole reaches calmer waters. It will only be possible to stabilise Iraq, both politically and economically, if the entire region achieves economic and political stability, and, of course, vice versa.

The USA bears the main burden of freeing Iraq from Saddam Hussein's regime of terror, and of eliminating the threat posed by Iraq. American and allied soldiers have lost their lives in seeking to ensure this. It is, therefore, understandable that the USA and the UK want to assume a central role in the phase of Iraqi political reform and economic reconstruction. However, the EU Commission and others are also already committed to the reconstruction of Iraq. The unfortunate lack of a credible concept of the current Federal Government led by Chancellor Schröder has been criticised on several occasions by the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, which has also called for this deficiency to be remedied.

Germany has a great deal of expertise in state reform and reconstruction, rebuilding infrastructure and developing central and decentralised institutions. In our opinion the Federal Government's stance to date has been contrary to Germany's interest in vigorous transatlantic relations, to which my country in particular must contribute its own ideas.

It is in Europe's interest that, following the coalition's victory in Iraq, the country is quickly stabilised, made secure and set on the route towards a pluralist, secular order which respects human rights. The agreement in the UN Security Council in mid-May was an important step which indicated a return to reason on all sides.

It is clear to the policy-makers in Washington that the United States' military victory can swiftly turn to political defeat if the reconstruction process in Iraq fails. The aim of the American reconstruction plans is to secure lasting peace, which can only be achieved by promoting freedom, justice and prosperity. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America published in September 2002 made clear that the Bush administration views long-term security policy as a mixture of military, political and economic factors. President Bush considers the establishment of democracy in Iraq to be the most important long-term aim of American policy, sending a signal to the whole of the Middle East.

The CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag has explicitly called on the Federal Government to immediately elaborate, with its partner states in the European Union, a credible joint concept for Iraq's fresh political start and reconstruction, and to advocate that all EU Member States unanimously support this concept in the international deliberations.

In this context, particular consideration should be given to the following points:

1. The political and economic reconstruction should be carried out under participation of the United Nations, which requires a clear mandate from the UN Security Council.
2. With regard to military stabilisation, multinational forces along the lines of ISAF could be commissioned, with Arab countries participating. The lead function should/could be assumed by NATO. Soldiers from the Bundeswehr, too, could participate in the military stabilisation, within the framework of their capabilities.
3. The territorial integrity of Iraq must be maintained. Its religions, traditions and customs must be respected and its rich cultural assets preserved.
4. An interim administration should coordinate humanitarian aid and reconstruction efforts.
5. The interim administration should, as soon as possible, convene a sufficiently representative assembly of the various Iraqi tribes, clans and population groups to agree on an interim government and a constituent assembly. The aim should be a federal, constitutional, pluralist system which safeguards the rights of minorities.
6. The Iraqi forces must be scaled down and restructured, and defence expenditure clearly reduced.
7. With international support, an administration, police and justice system acting in accordance with rule-of-law principles should be created, the emergence of an open and democratic civil society encouraged and the education system reformed.
8. UNMOVIC and the IAEA - backed up by the American forces - should be responsible for locating, securing and destroying the weapons of mass destruction, and for monitoring expert knowledge on the Iraqi side.
9. An international conference should draw up a financial plan for the economic reconstruction of Iraq and draft new arrangements for Iraqi debt repayments and reparations, taking into account possible Iraqi oil revenues.
10. Political and economic reconstruction of Iraq should be accompanied by a process of regional stabilisation. A stable and pluralistic Iraq could generate decisive momentum for the resolution of the Middle East conflict, and thus for the pacification of the whole region.

The publication of the roadmap for peace in the Middle East is also part of this process. The European partners should take the USA at its word and support America in its project, which in terms of its aims is in accordance with European interests.

For Iraq's neighbours, particularly Iran, a wholly new situation has arisen. The results of the war against Iraq are not without paradox for Iran: the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime has liberated Iran from the most significant regional threat, yet it was Iran's strongest enemy, the USA, still viewed by some in Iran as the "great Satan", which played the role of liberator. The Iranian leadership's greatest fear has been realised: Iran is now "encircled" by American troops. The USA is no longer a superpower on the other side of the Atlantic, but Iran's next-door neighbour.

American pressure on Iran has increased even further since the end of the Iraq war. This also represents a challenge for the Europeans' policy on Iran. The EU's ability to maintain its involvement in Iran is something which the Greek Foreign Minister, George Papandreou, whose country until recently held the presidency of the European Union Council, believes is now facing an important test. It remains to be seen how the USA will behave towards Iran. For the Europeans, one thing is clear, though: in their policy towards Iran they must now, more than ever, succeed in walking a tightrope between internal developments in Iran on the one hand and the US-Iran relationship on the other.

An important factor for the reconstruction of Iraq is a functioning transatlantic partnership. This is also in the interests of the countries in the Middle East, because stable transatlantic relations not only help ensure that political and economic structures are built up in line with clear objectives. Together, the Western states are also in a much better position to exert their influence on the neighbours in the region, thus contributing to stabilisation of the whole region. Unfortunately, there is a wide gap between expectations and reality, for which the German government in particular is responsible.

The balance between a European focus and the Atlantic connection, which has been maintained by every German chancellor from Adenauer to Brandt and Kohl, has vanished from German foreign policy in recent months. The following quotation from Joseph Nye, printed in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, on 23 April 2003, clearly illustrates the fatally misguided path being pursued by Schröder's foreign policy:

"In the past, Germany has always based its politics on two "legs": one Atlantic one European. Last year, the Schröder Government apparently decided to hack away one of the legs".

Yet the transatlantic community can only live up to its own expectations if it faces up to the changing circumstances and challenges. In the 21st Century, Europe's security is no longer challenged from within the European security area; instead, the threat comes from outside. So far, Europe has been reluctant to recognise this reality. It must be more willing to accept a share of the responsibility for solving security problems outside Europe. The G8-Foreign-Ministers's recommendations before the Evianmeeting are promising. The issues on the joint global agenda are: combating international terrorism, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, responding to asymmetrical threats, stabilising the Middle East and supporting the peace process, dialogue with the Islamic world, along with many other topics. Europe's first task is to develop specific proposals on the current issues from its own perspective and reflecting its own interests, and open them up to debate. Only then can it influence the American debate.

Beyond the issue of Iraq, the transatlantic partners must not lose sight of the need to complete other tasks. Afghanistan continues to require a substantial long-term commitment. Unfortunately, the Riyadh and Casablanca attacks confirmed the fact that the fight against international terrorism must go on. The growing tensions between Columbia and Venezuela deserve deeper concern.

Europeans and Americans must develop a strategy showing how failed states marked by internal conflicts can be stabilised more effectively than before and how conflict areas where law and order have broken down, which offer a haven for terrorists and a breeding ground for their inhuman fanaticism, can be eliminated. This must also include programmes to prevent children and young people from being inculcated with hatred and fanaticism.

Coming just back from a three day visit to Israel and the West Banks I had to realize that the cease fire process is very fragile. It's failure will have disastrous impacts on a peaceful development in the region and our security.

Middle Easterners, Americans and Europeans together should be aware of that.