US elections, Iraq/Iran, a german perspective.

[Fidel]

Maybe some of you know german neewsmagazine "Der Spiegel". It´s the biggest weekly neewsmag in Europe. They´ve just started a service where they make some of their recent articles available in english on their website. This one´s about the US election, and how the outcome might affect the situation in Iraq/Iran.

US Elections

Fearing Friends

Americans are heading to the polls, and concerns in Germany are rising about the outcome of the election. The problem isn't as simple as you might think. If Kerry wins, Berlin expects stepped up pressure to send troops to Iraq. If Bush wins, it will be easier to say "no," but the war could expand to Iran.

In June, Richard Holbrooke paid a visit to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Berlin. After a short chat with Holbrooke, who is seen as a possible Secretary of State in a John Kerry White House, Schroeder got straight to the point: "What would Kerry do if he were president?"

"The first thing he would do," Bill Clinton's former ambassador to the United Nations said, "would be to invite you and French President Jacques Chirac to the White House." Schroeder could read between the lines. A joint invitation to the Iraq war opponents could only mean one thing -- Kerry would want a military contribution in Iraq.

"That's what I was afraid of," Schroeder replied.

An attempt by a new American president to seek military aid could throw Schroeder into a serious dilemma. If he refused, he would be ruining his chance to kick-start foundering German-American relations. Unlike George W. Bush, with his penchant for going it alone, Kerry has said he would pursue a "multilateral" foreign policy and consult America's allies on important issues. A "no" from Schroeder could be a major and early embarrassment for Kerry. If he agreed, he would be undermining one of the strongest pillars of the pact he made with voters: that German troops wouldn't set foot in Iraq.

Candidate Kerry has been pledging the opposite. He wants to bring as many allies as possible to Iraq -- including Germany's army, the Bundeswehr. "Kerry is taking a big risk," said Gernot Erler, deputy of the parliamentary group of the Social Democrats, before ruling out the possibility Berlin would accept any troop request -- even from a Democratic president.

A Bush win wouldn't leave German politicians breathing any easier. Nor would German voters be any happier, with recent polls showing as many as 74 percent saying they would vote for Kerry if they had the chance. Part of Bush's German problem is style -- the hometown swagger doesn't play well to a German crowd used to more intellectually-oriented leaders. But there is also substance, specifically Iraq, where Bush's unwavering unilateralism has angered Germans and made it easy to stick to a "no troops" mantra. A Bush re-election would make maintaining that firm stance more plausible. Popularity problems aside, Bush comes with even greater baggage than Kerry. The overarching concern in Germany is that he could shift the current row from Iraq to Iran, where evidence is strong that the country has ambitions to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Trouble in Teheran

Since it began its program to produce enriched uranium, Iran has catapulted itself to the top of the list of the world's most dangerous nations. Teheran is building missiles and warheads that can already reach Israel and may, in the future, travel as far as Europe -- and they could soon be tipped with nuclear weapons. Add to that the mullah's decades-long support of terrorist networks in their battle against Israel and it's easy to understand the growing concern.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has given the mullahs until November 25 to cease all nuclear-bomb-related building. But what happens if Teheran doesn't budge? Based on his track record, a re-elected Bush wouldn't wait too long before threatening military strikes. John Kerry has also taken a firm stance against Iran, but he has also said he would offer to sell nuclear fuel to the country so it wouldn't have to enrich its own uranium. The candidate says it's a "test" to determine whether Teheran is pursuing a nuclear program for peaceful purposes.

The language used by the Bush administration today to discuss Iran isn't much different from the vocabulary it used before the Iraq war. "Iran is a country that is not part of the civilized world in terms of its behavior," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday. John Bolton, an undersecretary of state in the State Department, confirms that the Bush administration is "determined" to ensure that Teheran does not become capable of producing nuclear weapons.


The similarities don't stop there. After Bush brought the Iraq case to the UN Security Council in September 2002, western governments bickered for six months over whether a violation of a Security Council resolution automatically justified going to war. Now, in autumn 2004, the fight has been over whether the IAEA should refer Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program to the Security Council for disciplinary action even before the November 25 deadline. Observers in Berlin also believe any US attempt at a resolution would be vetoed by China and Russia.

It's a sequence of events European diplomats have carefully sought to avoid. One year ago, the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Britain got the mullahs to agree to abandon their uranium enrichment efforts. In return, Europe guaranteed it would help technologically deficient Iran develop its civilian nuclear energy program. Even Bush spoke of a "very positive development." But it was an empty victory. In June, Teheran announced it would resume production of centrifuges that can be used in the enrichment process. On Thursay, diplomats from the EU trio are meeting with Iranian negotiators in Vienna, where they will sweeten the pot by offering to help them purchase a civilian reactor from Russia. But this time around, the US has said it would not support the European offer.

A ticking time bomb

If Iran continues with its nuclear program, one German diplomat told DER SPIEGEL, the "clock will start ticking" towards a US military attack. If Washington doesn't strike, then Israel likely will.

Just as certain as the possibility of a US or Israeli strike is the expectation of a counter strike from the Iranians. In fact, they've promised one. "We're not going to wait with tied hands for someone to do something to us," Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned. In Berlin, officials fear retaliation could pull Iran's crisis-plagued neighbors into the crisis, causing the entire Middle East and Central Asia to erupt.

As happened in the run-up to Iraq, the issue could again divide America's allies, who will this time ask more probing questions. How far are we allowed to go in our fight against rogue states? And which poses a greater danger for world peace: weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Islamic terrorist states or an arrogant US superpower that goes to war unilaterally wherever and whenever it wants?

Of course, with over 1,000 soldiers already dead in the Iraq war and the US military already stretched thin with missions in the Persian Gulf, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, it's unlikely Washington could create a new battlefront. But would those considerations stop it from engaging in targeted strikes against Iranian nuclear installations and from prompting Teheran to retaliate?

Whether the winner is John Kerry or George W. Bush, fears are growing in Germany about its friends across the Atlantic.

[Fidel]

And an interview with german foreign minister Joschka Fischer.

Interview

"We Opposed War in Iraq for Good Reasons"

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer discusses the possible deployment of German troops in Iraq, unclear weapons export guidelines, and Turkey's proposed acceptance into the EU.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Minister, members of the red-green coalition have voiced their astonishment at statements made by your fellow cabinet member, Peter Struck, who has said that he can only rule out Germany's sending troops to Iraq "for now, but not forever." What prompted him to say this?

Fischer: I think Peter Struck has since made it clear that his comments did not justify the flurry of headlines they generated. The federal government has not changed its position: There are no German troops in Iraq now, and there will be no German troops in Iraq in the future.

SPIEGEL: The Chancellor has made similar statements, but has nevertheless been unable to stop his defense minister from issuing these kinds of statements about now and forever.

Fischer: These issues are beyond the scope of the federal government; they are the business of churches and religious communities. The big problem, as I see it, is that our options in Iraq are being reduced.

I do not consider simply exchanging Western troops in Iraq to be a constructive option! In my view, that is simply thinking in the wrong direction.

SPIEGEL: Does this strict rejection on the issue of troop deployment also apply if there is a change in the US administration? The Democratic candidate, John Kerry, has already announced that he intends to return to multilateral approaches to resolving conflicts.

Fischer: I will not speculate on a potential new political majority situation in the United States. My comments relate exclusively to what is necessary in Iraq.

After all, we opposed the war in Iraq for good reasons. And now the debate surrounding the original justification for the war has only confirmed our skepticism. My position, and that of the federal government, remains unchanged in this regard.

SPIEGEL: Then let us turn to the matter of Turkey. You seem to have been won over by the progress the Turks have made on the subject of reform. The country has only recently been deemed ready for negotiations to join the EU, and yet it is already being treated as a suitable candidate for shipments of German combat tanks.

Fischer: There have been no requests in this regard. Incidentally, we have clear standards, under which weapons cooperation with EU and NATO partners is generally considered acceptable. In Turkey, the realities in the southeastern portion of the country, as well as the human rights situation, have prompted us to adapt a cautious approach. If these realities change, however, our position will have to be reevaluated to reflect such changes.

SPIEGEL: How will you respond if the reform process begins to stagnate again? Would you ask them to return the tanks?

Fischer: There is no request on the table, nor is the reform process stagnating. So why speculate?

SPIEGEL: That's not a very satisfactory response. Perhaps you could also explain why we are supplying Iraq with the "Fuchs" armored transport vehicle. After all, we decided not to sell the Israelis the same equipment, to prevent it from being used against Palestinian civilians.

Fischer: That's not a fair comparison. In Iraq, we have an interest in seeing the political process succeed. This includes the development of Iraqi security structures. Our contribution to this effort does not consist solely in providing training outside Iraq, but also in supplying them with the "Fuchs" transport vehicles. This is necessary to keep the country together.

SPIEGEL: Is exporting weapons to all kinds of countries a consequence of the end of the German post-war period proclaimed by the chancellor?

Fischer: Why the polemics? As far as requests are concerned, we examine each individual case carefully and strictly on the basis of the political principles of our weapons export guidelines and the EU code of conduct. In this process, we arrive at both positive and negative decisions, but I am not in a position to discuss individual cases with you.

SPIEGEL: Well, there are some differences of opinion, with respect to China, for example. The chancellor would like to lift the restrictions, while his deputy remains reticent on the matter.

Fischer: There are currently no indications of consensus within the European Union on this issue. Some especially critical issues include Beijing's willingness to settle its dispute with Taiwan peacefully, as well as to improve its human rights situation. We do see progress, but also some deficits. I addressed this quite openly during my visit to Beijing...

SPIEGEL: ... while keeping one eye focused on German economic interests?

Fischer: The two things are not mutually exclusive. An issue, by the way, that I find very disconcerting is that the United States, our most important ally outside Europe and fast becoming an important partner to China, is increasingly structuring its relationships in the form of rivalries. Yet another reason for the EU to make headway with export guidelines. We are completely committed to this issue.

SPIEGEL: Despite the risk that this will certainly result in violation of our previous guidelines on exporting weapons?

Fischer: No, on the contrary. This will not affect our restrictive national export guidelines in the least.

SPIEGEL: Doesn't the foreign minister find it disturbing that Gerhard Schröder is increasingly being accused of cultivating an inappropriately close relationship with President Vladimir Putin?

Fischer: You are being unfair to the chancellor. It is a great mistake to assume that he is keeping a low profile when discussing the issue of Chechnya with Putin, which you are clearly implying. He is simply attempting to move things forward on the basis of trust, instead of relying on demonstrative action. I believe that he deserves our full support in this respect.

SPIEGEL: The head of your party, Reinhard Bütikofer, has a completely different opinion.

Fischer: I have never discussed the issue with him. He may have different priorities, but that certainly does not justify this digging for signs of dissent.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Bütikofer gave it to you and everyone else in writing, so to speak, in an open letter:

In his view, the West's policies toward Russia have failed.

Fischer: I have taken a close look at the letter and have been unable to find any mention of an alternative.

SPIEGEL: Spoken like a true champion of realpolitik. But even champions make mistakes. Nowadays, you are one of Turkey's strongest supporters. But just three years ago, you showed up in Brussels and did your best, behind the scenes, that is, to make sure that the negotiations surrounding Turkey's application for EU membership would fail on a procedural basis.

Fischer: You certainly must be suffering from hallucinations.

SPIEGEL: You weren't against it?

Fischer: Admittedly, I was 51 percent in favor and 49 percent against Turkey's joining the EU. Back then, before Sept. 11, I felt differently than I do today about the issue of Turkey's borders with Iraq, Iran and Syria. After the terrible events in the United States, it became clear where European security will be defined in the future. It'll be the Near East and the Middle East, a region in which, in my view, Iran's nuclear program and the development of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are as much a cause for concern as the situation in Iraq. Add to that the factor of terrorism.

SPIEGEL: And you now believe that EU membership for Turkey could help control this pandemonium?

Fischer: In terms of its policy toward Turkey, this administration has maintained continuity with all of its precursor administrations, from Adenauer to Kohl. Speaking of Turkey, I remember a promise that was given to Ankara more than 40 years ago. Why has the West, Konrad Adenauer's administration, and in fact all German administrations since then held fast to his promise? Should I tell you? The reasons lie in strategic interests during the Cold War.

In the post-Cold War period, these interests have not disappeared. In fact, they have become even more pronounced.

SPIEGEL: The fate of Europe -- and perhaps the rest of the word -- will be decided on the Bosporus?

Fischer: No. Please stop exaggerating. I'm talking about something else. The key issue will be whether we can successfully reconcile a large Muslim country with the concepts of a market economy, fundamental western principles of enlightenment, human rights and democracy, in short, with a strong civil society. I believe that even those who are against launching the negotiations for EU membership share this basic assumption.

SPIEGEL: And such hopes cannot be realized with anything but Turkey's full integration into the EU?

Fischer: If we were being dealt a completely new hand today, I would have more understanding for one argument or the other. Nowadays, however, any other solution, including the privileged partnership proposed by the CDU, amounts to nothing but a bureaucratic rejection.

SPIEGEL: In many of your statements about the EU, you have consistently talked about political union. Instead, we have now arrived at a partnership based on security concerns, a completely different approach.

Fischer: Not in the least. After all, I do not rule out political union.

SPIEGEL: Isn't it true, though, that you have long since abandoned your original idea that Europe, following the inclusion of the eastern European countries, will become a counterweight to the American and Asian spheres of influence? Instead, the key issues nowadays are of a geo-strategic nature. The first illusion is now being followed by the second one -- that is, the idea of surrounding half the orient in the interest of security.

Fischer: Who is accusing me of that?

SPIEGEL: The historian Heinrich August Winkler.

Fischer: I have a lot of respect for Mr. Winkler - but not as a politician. In the meantime, we have been thrown into a situation that no one, not even Mr. Winkler and SPIEGEL, can ignore. Anything but a pledge to begin negotiations with Turkey will be interpreted as a rejection in Ankara. That's a simple fact.

SPIEGEL: So you are saying that something like automatic accession does exist?

Fischer: No. A decision will be reached in the end. That probably means in about 10 to 15 years, and Turkey is aware of this. It is an open process, as far as procedures and final assessment are concerned. What is not open, however, is the objective, that is, accession to the EU. This objective is the subject of negotiations. There is another relevant question, although it is one that I can answer in the affirmative: When the time comes, will the EU be able to cope with such a large country joining its ranks? Whether the Mediterranean region -- which adjoins the Near East -- is to become a region of cooperation or confrontation is the decisive issue for us, an issue that is just as important today as that of West Berlin's security was during the Cold War.

SPIEGEL: We would like a more specific answer: May the EU say no or not?

Fischer: That depends on the results. This is the way it's stated in the recommendations. Incidentally, my take on this is as follows: ultimately, the answer will be yes.

Link.

[capitalcity]

Thanks for the insight Fidel.

[MavKikiNYC]

So these passages seem to make John Kerry look like a fool for thinking he would be able to persuade a European ally like Germany into supporting the liberation of Iraq with troop support.

Interesting. And not surprising.

[quote]
SPIEGEL: Mr. Minister, members of the red-green coalition have voiced their astonishment at statements made by your fellow cabinet member, Peter Struck, who has said that he can only rule out Germany's sending troops to Iraq "for now, but not forever." What prompted him to say this?

Fischer: I think Peter Struck has since made it clear that his comments did not justify the flurry of headlines they generated. The federal government has not changed its position: There are no German troops in Iraq now, and there will be no German troops in Iraq in the future.

SPIEGEL: The Chancellor has made similar statements, but has nevertheless been unable to stop his defense minister from issuing these kinds of statements about now and forever.

Fischer: These issues are beyond the scope of the federal government; they are the business of churches and religious communities. The big problem, as I see it, is that our options in Iraq are being reduced.

I do not consider simply exchanging Western troops in Iraq to be a constructive option! In my view, that is simply thinking in the wrong direction.

SPIEGEL: Does this strict rejection on the issue of troop deployment also apply if there is a change in the US administration? The Democratic candidate, John Kerry, has already announced that he intends to return to multilateral approaches to resolving conflicts.

Fischer: I will not speculate on a potential new political majority situation in the United States. My comments relate exclusively to what is necessary in Iraq.

After all, we opposed the war in Iraq for good reasons. And now the debate surrounding the original justification for the war has only confirmed our skepticism. My position, and that of the federal government, remains unchanged in this regard.[/b]

[Drbio]

Which is proof positive that Kerry is blowing smoke up everyones ass about his euro support. The same thing is being said in france.

[FishForLunch]

But Skerry has Plan, the details are secret but be assured he has a plan just trust him.

[XERXES]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't want to overgeneralize or confuse France and Germany) But, this articles states nothing of Germany's backdoor business dealings when Iraq was under UN sanctions. This, my friends, is a business. Germany and France don't want to attack one of their best customers...regardless of who is in the White House.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by: XERXES
Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't want to overgeneralize or confuse France and Germany) But, this articles states nothing of Germany's backdoor business dealings when Iraq was under UN sanctions. This, my friends, is a business. Germany and France don't want to attack one of their best customers...regardless of who is in the White House.

Millions of dollars of US oil business with Iraq are being channelled discreetly through European and other companies, in a practice that has highlighted the double standards now dominating relations between Baghdad and Washington after a decade of crippling sanctions.

Though legal, leading US oil service companies such as Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Schlumberger, Flowserve, Fisher-Rosemount and others, have used subsidiaries and joint venture companies for this lucrative business, so as to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardising their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government in Baghdad.

By submitting their contracts to the UN via mainly French subsidiaries, many of which do little more than lend their name to the transaction, the companies are treated as European, rather than US or Japanese, applicants.

In 1998 the UN passed a resolution allowing Iraq, the world's sixth largest oil producer, to buy spare parts for its dilapidated oil industry.

Since then, only two of the 3,058 contracts for oil industry parts that have been submitted to the UN have officially come from US companies. But the facts behind these figures tell a very different story.

US companies have in fact submitted contracts worth at least $100m to the UN for approval to supply Iraq with oil industry spare parts, through their foreign subsidiaries. Some informed estimates put that value as high as $170m.

They have used, or allowed, associated companies, mainly in France, but also in Belgium, Germany, India, Switzerland, Bahrain, Egypt and the Netherlands, to put the contracts through.

"It is a wonderful example of how ludicrous sanctions have become," says Raad Alkadiri, analyst at the Petroleum Finance Company, a Washington-based consulting firm.

"On the one hand you have the Americans, who do not want to be seen trading with Iraq, despite the fact that it is above board and legitimate, because that would contradict their image of being tough towards Iraq. On the other hand you have the Iraqis, who on the technocratic level would like to buy the best stuff on the market - in many cases that comes from the US - but politically have to be able to say they are refusing to deal with US companies," he said.

Halliburton, the largest US oil services company, is among a significant number of US companies that have sold oil industry equipment to Iraq since the UN relaxed sanctions two years ago.

From 1995 until August this year Halliburton's chief executive officer was Dick Cheney, US secretary of defense during the Gulf war and now Republican vice-presidential running mate of George W.Bush.

From September 1998 until it sold its stake last February, Halliburton owned 51 per cent of Dresser-Rand. It also owned 49 per cent of Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, until its sale in December 1999. During the time of the joint ventures, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump submitted more than $23.8m worth of contracts for the sale of oil industry parts and equipment to Iraq. Their combined total amounted to more than any other US company; the vast majority was approved by the sanctions committee.

Mr Cheney is not the only Washington heavyweight to have been affiliated with a company trading with Iraq. John Deutch, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, is a member of the board of Schlumberger, the second largest US oil services company.

Schlumberger has submitted at least three contracts for well-logging equipment and geological software via a French subsidiary, Services Petroliers Schlumberger, and through Schlumberger Gulf Services of Bahrain.

Some of the companies, such as General Electric and Dresser-Rand, say that not only political considerations shape their decision to do business through their European offices.

"It is customary for GE to do its business for the Middle East out of its European offices," says Louise Binns, a GE spokeswoman, who acknowledged that GE does business with Iraq. Other companies the FT contacted admitted doing business with Iraq, either directly or through their subsidiaries.

US companies that use foreign associates can also reduce the risk of their contracts being blocked by France and Russia in retaliation for blocks by the US.

The US is behind nearly all the $289m of contracts delayed by the sanctions committee, which has received $1.7bn of contracts. These delays were ostensibly intended to prevent transfer to Iraq of dual-use technology that could be adapted for military purposes.

"Washington doesn't want to enable the Iraqi economy to recover, therefore it keeps the infrastructure very weak," a UN diplomat said.

However, Iraq is the US's second biggest Middle Eastern oil supplier after Saudi Arabia, making Washington uneasily dependent on Iraq's steady oil flow. Using this influence as an oil provider, as well as the ties it has developed with US business, Iraq has tried to acquire lobbying power in the US.

Despite the US business ties to Iraq, however, fear of official US disapproval of contacts with Baghdad has also prompted one US ally - Japan - to do its trade through third parties.

Tomen, the Japanese company supplying industrial transport equipment to Iraq, submits its contracts through its French subsidiary, Tomen France.

US companies have themselves been among those which have suffered from the US practice of blocking contracts. But they have an edge when it comes to arguing for the approval of their contracts, diplomats say.

By temporarily dropping their guise as European companies, they have managed to reverse the blocks by going directly to US officials, rather than having their case argued by the European mission on behalf of their subsidiary.

At least two US companies have recently managed to reverse Washington's objections over their contracts. In an exchange of letters between company officials and one UN mission, seen by the FT, it became clear the US companies had resolved its case directly with Washington. Few non-US companies have been able to exercise similar influence.

[XERXES]

Exactly. It's one thing to be willing to go to war against a Nation that you do business with (under UN supervision). It's another thing for business relationships to get in the way of doing the right thing.

[Chiwas]

If Kerry wins, Berlin expects stepped up pressure to send troops to Iraq. If Bush wins, it will be easier to say "no," but the war could expand to Iran.

Isn't the world a little crazy lately?