Translated material
"My life in politics"
About culture*
My own attitude towards culture was not at all something that was taken for granted. I had to work hard on myself to gain access to literature, painting and music. At home, we didn’t dream over books and didn’t even know any of the famous composers by name. We listened only to the radio, hits of that time, such as “Fishermen on Capri,” and in our dreams we were carried away with the fishermen into the distant sea. There were no pictures hanging on our walls, and no one talked about philosophy. It was my friends who really introduced me to all this. Cultural evenings at the Chancellor's Office were not held out of obligation - at the call of the heart. People involved in art opened up a world to me that I knew nothing about. Communication with them developed me. And this ultimately made me want to establish the post of Minister of Culture at the federal level. Politicians at the state level opposed it, but this had great implications for the cultural and political climate in the country. Everyone who held this post during my chancellorship had a positive influence on this climate - each in their own way. But everyone will agree with me if I say that it was created by Michael Naumann (journalist and publisher, headed the Ministry of Culture in 1998-2000 - Ed. ).
About September 11
Some experience had accumulated even before the terrorist attack in New York: various incidents occurred that contributed to the beginning of transatlantic alienation. But all our skepticism seemed to be blown away by the wind, all this became just nonsense when September 11, 2001 hit us. This date is imprinted on the hard drive of the world's memory, and nothing can erase it. It was unimaginable that two civilian planes - deliberately and without regard for their passengers - could be directed at the Twin Towers, the trademark of the metropolis of New York, and take thousands more people to death. Blue sky, a wonderful autumn day!.. At 8.45 in the morning a change of eras occurred in New York. From that moment on, uncertainty and pervasive mistrust dominated the feelings of people throughout the world community.
Thursday, September 11th started out completely normal for me. Of course, as required by my position, I was present at the debate, which began at 11 am. At 13.30 I had an appointment with Orbán, the then Hungarian Prime Minister, who arrived in Berlin in connection with the opening of the new Hungarian embassy. We discussed the issues of his country's accession to the European Union. There were no particular problems, since Hungary had already repeatedly confirmed its desire to join the EU. So, business as usual. Just before 3pm I was back in my office working on my budget speech to deliver to the Bundestag the next day. The usual ritual lay ahead: my speech, then the quite expected scathing response from the then opposition leader Friedrich Merz, then the very menacing platitudes of the FDP chairman and the final part - a comedy number from the Bavarian Michael Gloss.
At that moment, the head of my bureau, Sigrid Krampitz, burst into the office. I remember exactly what she said: “Attack on the World Trade Center in New York!”
And immediately - a phone call. It was my wife. Sobbing, she said: “Turn on the TV, it’s terrible!” For her, a journalist who lived in New York, this city was not just a point on the map. He became like family to her. There, like no other city, different cultures coexist, and Manhattan reflects the motley diversity of the blue planet in all its human diversity.
New York for many is a city of freedom and tolerance. For centuries, this city has provided refuge to the oppressed, persecuted and fugitives from all over the world. A symbol of hope, a promise of happiness and a better life. Doris lived in New York for two years. Her daughter Clara was born there and she loves this city.
I turned on the TV. The picture I saw shocked me deeply.
I don’t remember the sequence of shots, but I remember that I saw people jumping out of the windows of skyscrapers in despair. They knew that they would die anyway, but they did not want to suffocate painfully or burn alive. I remember people rushing down the street from the creeping debris of buildings. And I remember that tears flowed from my compassion for these innocents upon whom hell was unleashed. My first reaction was a faint state, followed by an explosion of rage against those who organized all this.
At that moment I had not yet thought about the far-reaching political consequences of this event; I was too deeply shocked. However, one thing was clear: after this attack on America, nothing would remain the same. It was also clear that we in the government should take our own measures. I contacted Foreign Minister Fischer, Interior Minister Schili and Defense Minister Scharping by telephone to request that they report immediately to the Chancellor's Office.
Fischer appeared first, incredibly serious and preoccupied. All participants in that first conference were well aware that the American government must act and it will act. It was important for me that Germany act as unitedly as possible, that is, together with the opposition, and just as unitedly fulfill its allied obligations. And this, in all likelihood, will require the participation of the Bundeswehr in military actions that the Americans will undertake - that’s what clearly loomed before my mind’s eye. It was necessary to convince the cabinet of ministers, the ruling coalition and the opposition of the need for our full solidarity with the United States of America.
Immediately after the first meeting, I spoke by telephone with the President of the Bundestag Wolfgang Thierse, with the Chairman of the SPD faction Peter Struck and with the chairmen of other parliamentary parties and factions and invited them to discuss the situation at the Chancellor's Office at 20.00. The German Security Council convened at 17.00. Before the Security Council meeting, I spoke by telephone with President Johannes Rau. And in this conversation it was exclusively about solidarity with the United States of America, and we were united in our opinion on this issue.
I made a brief official statement at the Security Council. In particular, I said: “This is a declaration of war on the entire civilized world. Anyone who provides assistance or protection to terrorists encroaches on the fundamental values on which the coexistence of peoples and their connection with each other is based.” Just before the Security Council meeting, I sent a telegram to George W. Bush. In between meetings, I spoke by telephone with President Chirac, Prime Minister Blair and President Putin. Conversations with colleagues from Europe and beyond proceeded in the same vein. Everyone expressed their deep indignation at these criminal actions and their intention to support the Americans.
In the evening, immediately after the meeting with the chairmen of parties and factions, I made the following statement to the press: “Since this concerns not only intra-German solidarity, but also the solidarity of Europe and many other countries, I spoke by phone with French President Jacques Chirac, with the Prime Minister Minister Tony Blair and Russian President Putin. We are all united in our assessment of events and are of the same opinion that now, in the face of this attack on the civilized world, we must show solidarity with the United States of America. I will try to contact the Belgian Prime Minister - he is not in the country - who is currently President of the Council of Europe, in order to, if possible, schedule a meeting of European Foreign Ministers for tomorrow and thus organize further actions of pan-European solidarity. I think this is necessary, and for everyone with whom I have been able to talk, this also seems to be a given.”
On the night of September 11-12, there was nothing to think about sleep. I was working on the text of my speech tomorrow in the Bundestag. Discussion of the budget, of course, was postponed. Just as the decisions on Kosovo were made, we found ourselves faced with events for which no one was prepared, and everyone secretly cherished the hope that our generation would not have to endure something similar. Once again we had to grope our way through an oppressive situation that threatened to cast a dark shadow over the whole world. As I thought through and refined the outline of my speech, I asked myself many questions again and again. What should we, as US allies, prepare for? Perhaps we too will find ourselves in the crosshairs of some terrorist organization? But how to protect yourself from an invisible enemy? And one more thing: what consequences will all this entail for domestic and international law and order? I discussed such and similar questions this night with the Security Council of the Federal Republic of Germany and with my trusted representatives.
The next morning I addressed the German Bundestag with a government statement: “Yesterday, September 11, 2001, will go down in history as a black day for all of us. And today we are full of indignation at the unprecedented act of terror, which encroaches on the very foundations of our world.
We do not yet know who is behind this declaration of war on the civilized community of peoples. We do not even know how many thousands of innocent people fell victim to these terrorist acts. But we know and are fully aware that now it is a question of showing our sympathy and solidarity: solidarity with the people of the United States of America, namely, the solidarity of all who stand for peace and freedom in Germany, in Europe and throughout the world. Two thousand people, in a spontaneous outburst of compassion, gathered last night in the Berlin Dom Cathedral, where a service was held. Immediately after the end of this meeting of the German Bundestag, a funeral ecumenical service will take place in the Cathedral of St. Hedwig. The Association of German Trade Unions and the Federal Association of German Employers called for a five-minute work stoppage at ten o'clock on Thursday morning. The Federal Government will follow this call to all federal institutions. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the entire German people, I expressed my deepest condolences to the American President. I also assured him of Germany's boundless—I emphasize limitless—solidarity. I am sure that mentally we are all now with them, the victims of this tragedy and their loved ones. We are with them in our sympathy and participation. Here, in the presence of the new American Ambassador, Dan Coats, I want to emphasize once again: we are entirely on the side of the United States of America in this difficult hour. (At this point, the protocol recorded applause from the entire hall.) Of course, we offer the citizens and authorities of the United States of America any assistance, including, of course, assistance in detecting and prosecuting the behind-the-scenes leaders of these vile terrorist attacks and their perpetrators.
In the conversation that I had last night with the chairmen of parties and factions, there was complete unanimity that this emergency situation requires unity from all democrats. Yesterday's attacks on New York and Washington are an attack not only on the United States of America, but a declaration of war on the entire civilized world. Terrorist violence of this kind, in which innocent people are indiscriminately killed, calls into question the fundamental principles of our civilization. This poses a direct threat to the principles of freedom and security of human society, to everything that has been achieved through the efforts of generations. United, we will not allow our values to be destroyed - whether in America, in Europe or anywhere on earth. In fact - and this is increasingly obvious - we are already a single world. Therefore, attacks on New York, the headquarters of the United Nations, and on Washington are aimed at all of us. Yesterday's terrorist attack once again demonstrated that the security of our world is indivisible. Security can only be ensured if we come together even more closely and defend our values even more firmly. We must now take the most effective measures as quickly as possible to deprive terrorism throughout the world of its breeding ground. Last night I had conversations with French President Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin, with British Prime Minister Blair and with Russian President Putin. We are united in our assessment: these acts of terror mean a declaration of war on the free world.”
About Bush and his fear of God
Our hopes that the United States would make a similar assessment of the current situation were greatly dashed when President George W. Bush spoke on January 29, 2002. In this speech, he declared that he wanted to carry out further military strikes on Iraq, Iran and North Korea: the “axis of evil,” as he called these countries in almost biblical language. We in our government Security Council quickly came to a consensus: this statement represents a completely different scale of confrontation than the suppression of terrorism based on religious fundamentalism. We looked in vain for any connection with September 11 of the previous year and with al-Qaeda. A new dish called “rogue states” was served on the world stage from the strategic kitchen of neoconservatives, that is, a group of countries in which, actually or supposedly, national programs for the creation of weapons of mass destruction were developed.
After Bush's speech, I tried to play in the opposite direction in domestic policy, noting that “Germany will not participate in adventures” - but we do not expect adventures, at least from America. In general, this was a very serious remark. It was addressed primarily to the population of Germany, but not only. Then, already in February, at the Munich Security Conference, very alarming signals came from the American delegation. They were the first to reflect Washington's ideas about the second stage of the war on terror.
Then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the black knights** of the Bush administration, assisting the influential Senator John McCain, made it clear to the European participants of the conference that the United States did not intend to make its further actions in the fight against terror dependent on the consent of its allies. Coalitions - this was stated bluntly and with a clear overestimation of military successes in Afghanistan - are not important in themselves. Each specific mission in the future will require a suitable ad hoc alliance, which, they say, will be created. And if necessary, you can achieve your goals alone. But no one in Munich could even imagine that this was an exact diagram of the upcoming actions of the Americans when entering the war with Iraq.
So, on January 31, 2002, with some mixed feelings, I flew to Washington for a short visit to discuss the situation with President Bush. Of course, I primarily spoke about the new US strategy. I made it clear to the American President that the same thing applies to Iraq as it does to Afghanistan: if we are talking about actions within the framework of the UN Security Council decision, according to which no country harboring, protecting or otherwise in a way that promotes terrorists should not escape response. In this, and only in this case, we will side with the United States. Bush assured that this issue had not yet been resolved and that, of course, allies would be consulted before any decision was made.
However, returning back, we were not sure how the situation in Washington would develop. It was impossible not to notice that, compared with the time when the United States sought protection from the international community after September 11, the psychological mood in America had changed. According to our preliminary analysis: the American allies, after initial successes in Afghanistan and reassured of Pakistan's alliance, were again full of strength and confidence in their political and military capacity.
At the end of May 2002, George W. Bush was expected to visit Berlin. By this time, one could already feel how the population's sympathy for President Bush was sharply declining. Less than a year has passed since the massive Berlin demonstration of solidarity and our common mourning for those killed on September 11, and Bush's current visit has already been accompanied by protests in connection with the impending reorientation of US foreign policy. More than one hundred thousand demonstrators took part in a variety of anti-Bush demonstrations. We were forced to take the strictest precautions. Half of Berlin was cordoned off. This, of course, also did not contribute to changing the attitude of our population towards the US President in a positive direction.
But Bush's speech to the German Bundestag was surprisingly restrained. And in the conversations that took place between us, there was not a hint that the milestones of the upcoming war had already been set. I emphasized that my position of “boundless solidarity” in the struggle against terrorism remains in force and is fully supported by the German government. If it turns out that Iraq is similarly to Afghanistan in fact that al-Qaeda fighters on its territory are refuge, we will perform on the side of the United States. However, there is no evidence at present. We assured the president in their readiness for the closest cooperation in the exchange of information and remained under the impression that the previous, quite unambiguous course towards Washington’s tough confrontation, regarding Iraq, underwent changes.
Our clear and firm position in the struggle against terror was further strengthened a few weeks before Bush’s visit: after a terrible terrorist attack on Jerb Island in Tunisia. On April 12, 2002, a terrorist-self-killer blew up a fuel tank in front of the al-Griba synagogue. At the same time, nineteen people died, mostly tourists, of which fourteen are Germans. Of the forty -three people who were present in the temple during the explosion, only thirteen were not injured. All the rest were either killed, or with heavy burns were taken to local hospitals. Thus, in our general conviction, terror also affected our country.
On the second, final, day of visit to Berlin, in honor of the American delegation, lunch was arranged in the office of the Chancellor. Bush with their delegation and my team sat at the common tables and were in a good mood. We practically did not affect important political topics. At this time, the world's championship was just held, and Bush asked what chances the German team has? I evaluated its possibilities as not too encouraging, which was brilliantly refuted by the participation of our team in the final - in the match with the Brazilians.
Despite the pleasant general atmosphere, I was disturbed and, to a certain extent, was alarmed by one thing: in our previous conversations with the eye of the face, and then, during the official visit, President Bush now showed his own “God -fearing”, and it was clear that he was clear that he He perceives himself in accordance with this, the highest authority for him. I quite understand that a person can be very religious and lead his private life in constant communication with God - in the form of prayer. But the problem that I see in such a position begins where the impression is created and imposes that political decisions are the result of conversations with God. Those who legitimize their political decisions in this way cannot allow them to be criticized or changed in the process of exchange of opinions with other people, or are called into question. After all, allowing this, he would have sinned against God's will, which opened in his prayer. These claims to the absolute truth, which in 2002 I constantly noted not only in conversations with the American president, but also in his speeches before the public, strengthened my political skepticism - despite my personal sympathies to America and its president. I often watched George W. Bush at international conferences. Undoubtedly, he is conservative. But he has never seen me as a fanatic in a non -conservative sense. The demonization of George W. Bush, in my opinion, is more likely to distract from the need for a critical approach to the search for political unions in the United States. Here is what I consider to be a problem for peace and America: a union of neoconservative intellectuals with Christian fundamentalists, which had and has a significant impact on the policy of the United States and their president.
Secularization, separation of the state from religion, I consider a huge step in the progress of civilization. After all, by the way, by the way, on the right and with the full basis, we criticize such a state in most Islamic states, when the role of religion in society and the secular nature of the law enforcement is not divided with proper distinctness. Nevertheless, people are not ready to admit that in the USA, Christian fundamentalists and their interpretation of the Bible have similar trends. If both sides begin to claim the undivided possession of the universal and absolute truth, then we are unlikely to have a space for maneuver and chances for the peaceful resolution of conflicts.
About Putin
And now - about the third in our Union, about Vladimir Putin. His modesty is striking. He does not need luxury, shine and chic. Of course, communication with him is facilitated by the fact that he speaks very well in German. He is generally unusually well informed about Germany. He reads German newspapers, monitors political news and messages on German television. Arriving home to Lyudmila and Vladimir Putin, you enjoy true hospitality. They do everything so that you have good for you. It very rarely happened to me that my wife and I, getting acquainted with the families of heads of states, could so quickly establish such easy and direct relationships as with the Putin family. Their daughters, today they are already twenty and twenty-one years old, very intellectual young women, they also speak German freely. They are both students, and lead - as far as possible with the necessary security measures - a completely normal life.
Having met with Putin for the first time, I noted, along with his clear mind, his excellent physical shape. At that time, everyone was already aware that he is the owner of a black belt in judo. But, perhaps, it is not so widely known that he is a tireless swimmer and a very good rider. Unlike his predecessors, he is rather ascetic. This is especially true for his attitude to drinks. Fitness and self -discipline are absolutely necessary to lead such a giant country. Russia includes eleven out of twenty -four temporary lands. This means: you can quickly get from Germany to New York than President Putin from Moscow to the remote corners of Russia. This person has one of the most difficult posts that are only in the world.
My assessment of Putin took shape in the process of many and long conversations, in which we both did not avoid any topics and no painful conflicts. He sees his task in reconstructing and reconstructing Russia as a world power that negotiates, speaks and acts on equal terms with the United States. He knows that Russia should build more and more close relations with Europe to achieve this strategic goal. Putin decisively intends to start moving in this direction and, how much it will be possible to make the process irreversible. In this, he hopes for the aid of Europe and, above all, to support Germany. And both of our countries on this path act not only in their own interests, but also in the interests of Europe.
I am worried that German-Russian relations can again get an ideological coloring and that already overcome anti-Russian prejudices associated with the communist past of this country may be revived again. The prejudices, incited in the interests of America-with its foreign policy under the leadership of Bush, as well as because of the historically established antipathy of Poland to their Russian neighbors. Such a development of events would be destructive-and not only for German-Russian relations.
Formation*of the title of sections are given by the editors
Femory ** Black Knights (English) - black knights.
Formation *** Ad hoc (lat.) - Legal term: "In this case."