Dutch public broadcasters have launched Net in Nederland. A website where refugees and newcomers to the Netherlands can access on-demand Dutch television programmes and videos. ...In Berlin today (29 April) Foreign Minister Steinmeier issued the following statement concerning yesterday’s attack on a hospital in Aleppo:
Yesterday air strikes hit a hospital in Aleppo which had received funds from the Federal Foreign Office through a partner organisation. Dozens of patients and members of staff were killed.
Ever more serious and brutal violations of the ceasefire, first and foremost by the regime, are being reported almost every day now. Attacks on civilian infrastructure, especially hospitals, doctors and paramedics, infringe fundamental norms of international humanitarian law.
The Syrian Government has to decide whether it wants to participate seriously in the negotiations, or to keep on laying waste to its own country.
This escalation is putting the political process in jeopardy. We now call on all parties to the conflict to adhere to the ceasefire!
Italy's Ministry of the Interior has announced that, from May, the policemen who patrol the Chinatown areas of Rome and Milan will include four Chinese ...
In one of the largest refugee camps in the world, a Syrian refugee called Omaima Hosha teaches her friends, through art, how to escape a ...
It calls itself a "journal of solidarity" which, thanks to its positive content dismantles prejudices on refugees. 'LeBienvenu', this is its name, is massively distributing for ...
The answer is €10.3 billion a year – that is the possible price to pay for Italy if Schengen is suspended or even abolished. The ...Home Office guidance on documentation requirements and processes for the return of immigration offenders to their country of origin.
Enforcement instructions and guidance used by UK Visas and Immigration on how to deal with immigration offenders.
A Federal Foreign Office spokesperson issued the following statement in Berlin today (27 April) in response to reports on alleged plans for an armed OSCE mission to eastern Ukraine:
The OSCE monitoring mission currently in place in eastern Ukraine is a civilian, unarmed mission. This was decided by the 57 participating States of the OSCE, and neither Germany nor France are involved in any agreement about changing the civilian nature of the mission – neither within the OSCE nor in the Normandy format.
It is true that we have, in our capacity as Chair of the OSCE and following consultations within the Normandy format, asked the Secretariat to develop options for improving security at the planned local elections. It is too early to say what the findings will be.
Without wishing to pre‑empt any decision, we can say that we find it difficult at this time to imagine what an armed OSCE mission might look like that had the objective of effectively ensuring the security of the elections in the separatist areas and enhancing the security of OSCE observers.
The OSCE currently has no precedent for an armed mission. On the contrary, being civilian in nature is a particularly important feature of OSCE monitoring missions, which require the consent of conflict parties to operate.
When you take the idea of an armed mission to its logical conclusion, it raises a whole range of difficult legal, political, practical and military issues.
We plan to arrange another meeting in the Normandy format in the foreseeable future, which will include the foreign ministers. A meeting of this kind would be the right opportunity to raise all the issues relating to the OCSE monitoring missions for discussion among the Normandy partners.
A Federal Foreign Office spokesperson issued the following statement in Berlin today (27 April) in response to reports on alleged plans for an armed OSCE mission to eastern Ukraine:
The OSCE monitoring mission currently in place in eastern Ukraine is a civilian, unarmed mission. This was decided by the 57 participating States of the OSCE, and neither Germany nor France are involved in any agreement about changing the civilian nature of the mission – neither within the OSCE nor in the Normandy format.
It is true that we have, in our capacity as Chair of the OSCE and following consultations within the Normandy format, asked the Secretariat to develop options for improving security at the planned local elections. It is too early to say what the findings will be.
Without wishing to pre‑empt any decision, we can say that we find it difficult at this time to imagine what an armed OSCE mission might look like that had the objective of effectively ensuring the security of the elections in the separatist areas and enhancing the security of OSCE observers.
The OSCE currently has no precedent for an armed mission. On the contrary, being civilian in nature is a particularly important feature of OSCE monitoring missions, which require the consent of conflict parties to operate.
When you take the idea of an armed mission to its logical conclusion, it raises a whole range of difficult legal, political, practical and military issues.
We plan to arrange another meeting in the Normandy format in the foreseeable future, which will include the foreign ministers. A meeting of this kind would be the right opportunity to raise all the issues relating to the OCSE monitoring missions for discussion among the Normandy partners.
Commenting on reports of an escalation in the fighting in and around Aleppo and on the air strike on a Civil Defence centre, a Federal Foreign Office Spokesperson issued the following statement in Berlin on 26 April:
For some days we have been observing what appears to be a deliberate military escalation in and around Aleppo. This is the result primarily of the continuing air strikes and artillery attacks by the Syrian army, but Jihadist groups like Jabhat al‑Nusra are also involved.
It appears that a Civil Defence (“White Helmets”) centre in al‑Atarib, west of Aleppo, was completely destroyed by an air strike this morning. Five civil defence workers died. The Federal Government condemns these continuing attacks against the civilian population in the strongest possible terms.
It must be clear to all sides that, in the current situation, this military escalation in Aleppo (and elsewhere) poses an existential threat to the political process. We urgently call on the Syrian regime and all other parties to the conflict to comply across the country with the ceasefire in force since 27 February.
A ceasefire brokered between the opposition and the regime (except the IS and al‑Nusra Front) by the United States and Russia has been in place since 27 February. At first the ceasefire largely held, albeit with a few violations, thus paving the way for the political talks in Geneva. Since the middle of April, however, there has been a clear increase in the number of ceasefire violations, particularly by the Syrian regime. Fighting has broken out again along almost the whole of the front line, and is concentrated in particular on Aleppo and the surrounding area. There have also been repeated attacks on the civilian population.
– Translation of advance text –
Colleagues,
Friends and guests,
Well, I hope those of you seeing the film today for the first time have had a chance to catch your breath again. It will be good to do so before we talk with contemporary witnesses in a minute. First of all, however, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the director, Florian Gallenberger, for being here today, and for such an important and tremendously moving film. Without you, we would not be sitting here today in the Federal Foreign Office Weltsaal. This film provided the incentive even we obviously needed to take another look at the subject of Colonia Dignidad and the role of the German Embassy in Chile.
***
The film we have just watched is not a documentary. Some of it is fiction – like the love story between the characters played by Daniel Brühl and Emma Watson, or the Lufthansa hero at the end. Nonetheless, the film is overwhelmingly true. Which is probably exactly why parts of it are almost unbearable to watch.
In other words, the film is the starting‑point, but we aren’t here to talk about how accurate individual scenes are. We are here to talk about the role of diplomacy and of individuals. This is not easy, as you can imagine. Who among us likes talking about the dark side of our history, particularly when that history is not so very far in the past?
***
No, our handling of Colonia Dignidad is not a glorious chapter in the Federal Foreign Office’s history. For many years, from the sixties right up to the eighties, German diplomats looked away, at best. Certainly they did far too little to protect their fellow Germans in the colony. Later, too, when Colonia Dignidad was dissolved and the people were no longer exposed to the daily torture, the Federal Foreign Office lacked the necessary resolve and transparency to identify its responsibility and learn lessons.
Why this happened is the question we are asking today. But anyone who is expecting easy answers is, I think, likely to be disappointed.
You have just seen pictures of the colony, so I don’t need to say much about that. In the early 1960s an idyllic valley in the Andes became home to a group of Germans from a Baptist congregation. The sect was led by Paul Schäfer, who – and this at least ought to have been known – was being sought by the police in Germany for child abuse. Allegations of unlawful detention, sexual abuse and forced medical treatment were voiced at an early stage, and also later, after he had settled in Chile.
The colony’s upswing came in 1973 with the Chilean military dictatorship under General Pinochet. Colonia Dignidad enjoyed the regime’s favour, supplying it with weapons and letting the DINA secret service set up a torture camp. This is the period Florian Gallenberger’s film looks at.
While Willy Brandt was propagating the policy of détente in Europe, the Cold War was determining concepts of friend and foe around the globe. Pinochet had powerful friends, for whom the regime was not in the first instance a military dictatorship stamping on liberal values; rather it was and was supposed to be primarily a bulwark against the communist threat.
Respect for political freedoms and human rights on other continents was an issue in political circles and at German universities, but it was not a central focus of foreign policy in Europe – where many European countries were still struggling to deal with the colonial legacy – or in Germany. Perhaps this might help us to understand how in 1977 a member of the German Embassy in Santiago de Chile described conditions in Colonia Dignidad with the words “Clean and tidy, right down to the pigsties”.
So it was that the German Ambassador, Erich Strätling, was formulating public statements honouring the colony while at the same time there were reports of minors who had fled to ask for help from the Embassy in Santiago being sent back to the colony on grounds of custody rights. Among the Chilean public, the name Colonia Dignidad was linked with child abuse, unlawful detention and torture even then.
***
The Federal Foreign Office was very slow to recognise the dimensions of the Colonia Dignidad problem.
The fact that it did eventually do so was thanks not to a political shift in Bonn, but to individuals, colleagues like Dieter Haller, who is sitting here in the front row. Dieter Haller was posted to Chile as a young man in the 1980s. In 1987 he wrote: “The German nationals living in Colonia Dignidad” were most probably “victims of continuing unlawful detention”. After a visit to the colony he noted: “This must be what Theresienstadt was like.”
Dieter Haller and the few who supported him took action. The practice of automatically approving pensions was stopped. But something that seems almost inconceivable to us now was the unbelievable conflict over the introduction of a so‑called “consular consultation”. We may hear more about this shortly. It was a question of how to give the inhabitants of the colony an opportunity to explain their view of the situation, their hardships and mental sufferings, to the Embassy, without Paul Schäfer’s henchmen being present. In return, Dieter Haller had to cope with complaints from the colony’s lawyers.
The German Embassy’s reputation was not looking good. A husband and wife who had escaped from the colony turned up at the Canadian Embassy for help, for fear that the Germans would just send them back again. Dieter Haller hid the couple in an old people’s home in Santiago.
***
We have a group of people here with us today – many of whom know so much more about Colonia Dignidad, which is now called Villa Baviera. I would just like to name Dagmar Müller, Anna Schnellenkamp, Peter Rahl, Esther and Michael Müller, who have spent their entire or a large part of their lives there. Wolfgang Kneese was one of the first to flee the colony, on his third attempt in 1966, and has been fighting since then with his wife alongside Hernan Fernandez, a human rights lawyer from Santiago, whom I would also like to welcome as our guest, to ensure that Colonia Dignidad is fully investigated. In 1977, Dieter Maier published a report on the colony for amnesty international in Frankfurt which attracted much attention. Margarita Romero has been campaigning for many years for the rights of so many Chilean victims and is with us today. A very warm welcome to you, too!
You and others – each in their own way but each with courage and resolve – have done much to ensure that ultimately the truth came to light.
***
Let me try to explain how I see the role of the Federal Foreign Office and its responsibility, and most especially what lessons we want to learn from that. Naturally, we have to resist the temptation to pass judgement lightly.
The Federal Foreign Office is not responsible for the military putsch in Chile and the subsequent 17‑year military dictatorship. It’s not responsible for the crimes which Paul Schäfer and his accomplices committed, in some cases in collusion with the military and dictators.
However, the Federal Foreign Office should have done more to give “Germans advice and assistance according to its due discretion”, as provided for in the Consular Law. And it could have endeavoured at an earlier point in time to exert diplomatic pressure to limit the latitude of the colony’s leadership and to bring about legal action.
The Embassy failed for too long to insist that German nationals – and, after all, that’s what those living in the colony were – be allowed to speak freely with consular officials. It’s clear that the Federal Foreign Office and Embassy lost their way trying to perform a balancing act between protecting the good relations with the host country and protecting human rights.
As a rule, when we think of foreign policy we think of relations among states. But the truth is that diplomacy is not abstract. Foreign policy is set by people. Therefore, it’s not just a state’s compass that matters or how a state defines and weighs up its interests. The compass of each and every individual is important. That’s why our discussion today, indeed the entire Colonia Dignidad case, raises a question which each individual has to answer, namely: how would I have acted? How could this happen? And, how can we prevent similar things happening in future?
These questions are too important to be, as it were, filed away after just one discussion round. Internally, we’ve spent a long time discussing how we should deal with the Colonia Dignidad case in future and use the lessons learned from it.
First of all, we have to ensure greater transparency. By law, the files stored in the Political Archive are not made public for 30 years. That means that the records up until 1985 are already accessible. I’ve decided to shorten this statutory period by ten years. That will make documents from 1986 to 1996 available to academics and the media. In doing this, we must ensure that the victims’ privacy is adequately protected.
The Colonia researcher Dieter Maier once reflected on why German diplomats believed the lies of Schäfer and co. He surmised that they perhaps couldn’t imagine “so much deceit, cruelty and destructiveness”. Perhaps, he stated, “the Federal Foreign Office should send young diplomats off to do an internship in some mafia organisation in order to heighten their vigilance in the face of evil”.
Although I wouldn’t go that far, vigilance is a term which we should perhaps take note of. The Federal Foreign Office wants to learn lessons from how Colonia Dignidad was dealt with. The material in the files will be examined – not simply for the sake of it or to pass judgement on what happened in the past but, rather, to use it for the initial and further training of our young members of staff.
What did we fail to do, what could have been done better? How could similar conflict situations be prevented today? The Colonia Dignidad case study will form the core of a new module at our training centre in Tegel for trainees at all levels of the Foreign Service. The same applies to further training: a discussion about the “inner compass” and the necessary “vigilance”, using the Colonia Dignidad case as an example, will be made a permanent component of the curriculum for our leadership seminars.
The question of ethical standards for our actions isn’t a historical question but, rather, is raised every day anew when we have to weigh up between good relations with the host country and criticism of circumstances which need to be criticised.
There are cases in which acting in line with the law isn’t enough. Cases in which the responsibility we all bear requires us to do more. The absence of instructions from above can never justify us looking the other way or doing nothing. Our hearts and minds, and the courage to act accordingly, should provide us with enough orientation to do what is necessary, and thus what is right.
On that note, I would like to thank you all for this evening. I pay tribute to the victims of Colonia Dignidad, a coercive system. I would like to thank Anna Schnellenkamp and Wolfgang Kneese for being here this evening. And thank you once more to the director. Florian Gallenberger, you can see how important impetus from the world of culture can be for the world of politics, also for foreign policy.
Thank you very much.
Following the murder of two human rights activists in Bangladesh on 25 April, Bärbel Kofler, Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid at the Federal Foreign Office, issued the following statement in Berlin on 26 April:
I was deeply shocked to learn of the murder of the human rights activists Xulhaz Mannan and his partner Mahbub Rabbi Tonoy in their flat in Dhaka.
This is not an isolated case. Since last year, bloggers, publishers, academics and LGBTI activists critical of religious practices in Bangladesh have been the victims of brutal attacks. These are not only attacks against courageous individuals but also against freedom of opinion as a whole in a country which, until now, could be proud of a diverse intellectual life and a dynamic civil society.
I urge the Government of Bangladesh to investigate these murders swiftly and purposefully and to help ensure that the perpetrators receive a just punishment in a trial conducted in accordance with due process of law. I call on the entire country, with which Germany has had special ties since its establishment in 1971, to ensure that violent extremism is not tolerated and to work to ensure that human and civil rights are respected, especially freedom of opinion.
On the evening of 25 April, several youths armed with knives, machetes and pistols forced their way into the flat of the LGBTI activist Xulhaz Mannan and his partner Mahbub Rabbi Tonoy in Dhaka and murdered the two men. Initial eye-witness reports suggest that it may have been an Islamist motivated crime.
Only last weekend, a professor at Rajshahi University in the north-west of the country was murdered in a similar fashion.
The two incidents are the latest in a series of fatal attacks on liberal intellectuals, journalists and publishers during the last few months. There have also been attacks on religious minorities such as Shiites, Ahmadiyya Muslims, Hindus and Christians. None of these crimes have been solved to date by the authorities in Bangladesh.
From the famous Magliana criminal gang, to the Gipsy Queens: 10 Roma women are now conquering the southern suburbs of Rome. Because in the gypsy ...
Two refugees in the US are revolutionising the world of design. They are using their graphic design talents to make big social issues, which are ...On 24 April, a Federal Foreign Office Spokesperson in Berlin issued the following statement on reports of a ballistic missile test by North Korea:
If the reports on another missile test by North Korea are confirmed, the North Korean regime’s frank disregard for the international community would have reached a new level. We condemn the provocative actions of the Government in Pyongyang in the strongest possible terms. Not only do they infringe internationally binding UN Security Council resolutions; they also put regional security at risk.
We urgently call on North Korea to comply with the relevant Security Council resolutions. Within the EU and in conjunction with all its other partners, Germany will lobby for the international community to take a determined and unambiguous stand against North Korea’s actions.
Since the start of the year, North Korea has already conducted several tests in violation of its obligations under international law. This ballistic missile launch is the latest in a series of such tests. On 6 January, North Korea conducted a nuclear weapon test (the fourth, following earlier ones in 2007, 2009 and 2013), and it has repeatedly tested ballistic missiles over the past few months.
Relevant UN Security Council resolutions (nos. 1695, 1718, 1874, 2087 and 2094) call for the cessation of the North Korean missile and nuclear programme and ban North Korea from using ballistic missile technology. The purpose of the missile launch is immaterial: resolutions 1718 and 1874 prohibit all missile launches by North Korea.
With resolution 2270 (2016), the Security Council imposed new sanctions on North Korea containing among other things substantial elements of an economic embargo (e.g. ban on trade in coal, kerosene, rare earth minerals) and financial and transportation restrictions. The United States, Japan and South Korea have imposed further‑reaching bilateral sanctions. The EU is discussing the possibility of additional sanctions.
A Federal Foreign Office Spokesperson issued the following statement on the terrorist attack on a Shia mosque in Baghdad on 22 April:
The German Government condemns the terrorist attack on a Shia mosque in Baghdad. Our thoughts and heartfelt sympathy are with the injured and the families of those who lost their lives. It is especially barbaric to murder people in the place where they gather to pray.
At this difficult time, we call on all Iraqis to set aside their differences and to stand behind the Government of Prime Minister Al‑Abadi in the fight against terrorism. The Iraqi people can only beat terrorism if it is united. The German Government will continue to support the Iraqi Government’s efforts to defeat IS and to give people there the chance of a brighter future.
They're young graduates, ready to fight but not to die: this is the profile of the typical foreign fighter that emerges from a vast Combating ...
The unavoidable and imminent Islamisation of Europe is a lie as big as a house, just like the numbers and statistics upon which the myth ...
Swimmer Ibrahim al-Hussein, a Syrian refugee with an amputated leg because of the war, will carry the Olympic torch for the next Games in Rio. ...Adelheid Bahr,
Wolfgang Schmidt, Roland Schmidt,
Ladies and gentlemen of the Willy‑Brandt‑Kreis,
Honoured guests and friends,
Thank you for inviting me here today. I think Egon would be very pleased with us and with this symposium, which sees us honouring his legacy not by holding a dreary memorial event but by looking to the future – just as he always did.
And you were right – in the last year of his life, he was extremely worried about the future of Europe’s peaceful order. It was no coincidence that he gave his last major speech in Moscow, a place that symbolises landmark moments not only in his own political career but also in German‑Russian relations.
I myself spent some time with him shortly before that trip to Moscow. He was very worried about relations with Russia and the new east‑west divisions, and rightly so. Our discussions were serious, searching for ways to curb the estrangement reemerging between Germans and Russians. We had arranged to meet again after his Moscow trip. He wanted to pass on his impressions after his talks with Gorbachev and other experienced Russian contacts, as he had so often done in recent years. But it was not to be. And now I miss his voice – as many of you do too.
It’s not just his wise advice that I miss from our talks, though. I miss, for instance, the familiar ritual of our little tobacco time. Every few months, he would announce a visit: “I’ll need one hour precisely!” He’d arrive five minutes ahead of time, sit down in the big armchair on my right, and – whether the topic was to be Moscow, Washington or Kyiv – always started with the same question: “Frank, how’s your wife?” Then he’d dig his cigarettes and lighter out of his coat pocket and wave them under my nose. Always the same ritual. I’d say, “Egon, you know I worked hard to become a non‑smoker.” To which he’d reply, “And you can remain so – but take one. It makes the talk flow better, you’ll see.” And there we’d sit together, smoking and talking the hour away, until he said, “I’m leaving now; you’ve got more important things to do.” And he’d be off again, as punctual as he’d arrived, with his familiar short stride.
Responsibility for the European peace, the legacy of Egon Bahr and Willy Brandt, is ours to shoulder now in these turbulent times. For those two, taking care of the European peace always included looking after relations with Russia, preventing new rifts between east and west.
When the Cold War was at its coldest, Willy Brandt and Egon Bahr dared to launch the new Ostpolitik. It was highly controversial at the time, but its tenets have now becoming nothing less than the guiding principles of our foreign policy. From 1966 on, Egon planned that “change through rapprochement” in minute detail on the Policy Planning Staff at the Federal Foreign Office, and it became a reality under Federal Chancellor Willy Brandt, in the “policy of small steps”, coming to fruition in the Eastern Treaties, the CSCE process and, ultimately, in German reunification and European coalescence. After the Wall fell, the CSCE process led to the establishment of the OSCE, which Germany is chairing this year. Clearly, the European peaceful order for which Willy Brandt and Egon Bahr prepared the ground at the height of the Cold War has proven astonishingly resilient – and these days, responsibility for it is ours!
***
Where do we stand today with the legacy of Brandt’s Ostpolitik and détente?
One key principle of Ostpolitik still stands, for geographical reasons if nothing else (as geography doesn’t exactly change very quickly...): Russia is our largest European neighbour. Or as Egon once put it, “America is indispensable; Russia is immovable.” And that means there can be no lasting security for Europe without, not to mention in conflict with, Russia.
But our Ostpolitik is operating in a different context today. In fact, the prevailing conditions are quite the opposite to what they were.
Egon Bahr and Willy Brandt were seeking to establish connections at a time of great division. They built bridges over the rifts of the Cold War. Today, in contrast, we have enjoyed a period of at least apparent coalescence and are facing new and growing rifts in the European and global order.
In the 1990s and 2000s, many thought it practically inevitable that the world would just keep coalescing. You will remember that, twelve years back, we were still talking about the possibility of Russia joining NATO. Many people – myself included, and many of you as well – were extremely hopeful about Russia’s modernisation and a growing partnership within the structures of a common European peaceful order. If you go back and read the speech Putin gave in the German Bundestag in 2001, you’ll find that hope reflected very clearly on the Russian side too.
Nowadays, however, we are facing the unmistakeable emergence of cracks, division and regression.
The illegal annexation of Crimea and destabilisation of eastern Ukraine was an OSCE participating State, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, openly contesting the sovereignty of another country and massively undermining the principles of the CSCE Final Act. These actions jeopardise the European peaceful order. The sober endeavour of fairly balancing interests on important issues has been replaced by the politics of prestige on Russia’s part, as it seeks to be treated as an equal by the major powers, primarily the United States.
The vision of a shared space from the Atlantic to the Pacific that we worked so long and hard for – and which of course remains the right goal! – is opposed in Russia by nationalist voices and a desire to be distinct from Europe.
Add to this the deep economic crisis in Russia, fed not only by low oil prices but by a lack of structural reform. In this context, I welcome the fact that talks on possible interests in modernisation have at least been resumed between German business and President Putin.
And, wherever we are working for exchange in the arts, sciences and civil society, we must be aware of Russian attempts to control and restrict spaces of social interaction. The question of influence over Russian minorities abroad has become such a matter. In Moscow, I told President Putin and Minister Lavrov very clearly that, if the case of Lisa F. – which the state prosecutor found to be completely without foundation – could see protests held in several cities simultaneously shortly afterwards, some influence must have been exercised – as indeed we were able to observe on social media, with some Russian embassies involved.
I believe that recognising these rifts and describing them as such is realistic and part of what it means to feel responsible for Egon and Willy’s legacy. After all, we have to assume that these factors will affect our relations with Russia for a long time.
***
So what does that mean for our policy? I advocate double dialogue with Russia: not only dialogue about what we have in common and may be able to collaborate on but also frank dialogue about our differences!
You know that I call for dialogue with Russia wherever there are realistic areas for cooperation. I seek those conversations not only bilaterally – I was in Moscow as recently as Easter for long talks with Putin, Lavrov and Medvedev – but also within our multilateral frameworks: in the OSCE, between the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union, NATO and Russia’s military and defence apparatus, etc. I want us to make use of Russia’s readiness to cooperate and resolve conflicts jointly whenever it exists. I’m thinking, for instance, of the Iran agreement. Having followed those negotiations for ten years and seen them teeter on the brink of failure more than once, I know how valuable cooperation with Russia was in helping to end that conflict. We now need to carry on unbowed in a similar constellation for Syria, within the ISSG. We need Russia at the negotiating table, just as we need the regional powers: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. There can be no effective political solution for Syria without Russia – and my impression is that Russia does actually want that solution. The setbacks of recent days in Geneva represent an interruption but not, I believe, an end to the process.
The NATO‑Russia Council is another part of that cooperative context. The fact that it convened again yesterday after a long hiatus is something that we advocated strongly and that I expressly welcome. The Council meeting sends out a clear message. Within NATO, however, I have long been arguing for a minimum level of confidence building to be kept up, including at the technical military level, in order to prevent hazards and incidents. And as part of our Chairmanship of the OSCE, we are proposing the introduction of a joint crisis‑response and mediation mechanism.
***
However, the idea of double dialogue does mean talking to Russia just as frankly and sincerely about our differences, as well as areas of cooperation.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung referred to the NATO‑Russia Council rather disparagingly yesterday: “The breach [between the West and Russia] is a reality, and a good conversation won’t make it disappear.”
That is of course true – but it’s not actually what matters. Single conversations don’t often change the world. But talking to one another and gaining clarity about exactly where the fault lines lie can help us overcome them in the long term. Developing a shared understanding of the nature and extent of our differences, of our differing concepts of a common international order, will not iron out those differences. But it can make them less dangerous and less open to misinterpretation and mistakes which could have unintended consequences – at the military, diplomatic and political levels.
Often the problem is that we don’t read one another very well. Either we don’t read one another at all and merely swap stereotypes instead, or we are constantly surprised by what the other side does – while continuing to assume that the messages we want to send are being understood loud and clear. In international affairs, there tends to be more than one message flying around, which often makes it difficult to recognise the “right” one.
And there’s another thing that such a dialogue on difference is good for. It makes it clear to the Russians that our willingness to cooperate in certain areas doesn’t mean that we will turn a blind eye to other things we find unacceptable, like the influencing of Russian minorities or the funding of nationalist parties in other countries. We need to talk about those “other things”, the things that stand between us.
That double dialogue needs to be engaged in at various levels, by the relevant specialists and by politicians. It needs to be a long‑term dialogue, if it is to have a lasting effect. Reaching agreement on things we have in common is complicated enough; agreeing on differences takes a lot more time! I see a particularly key role here for civil society, for the many foundations and associations involved in German‑Russian and European‑Russian relations – the Willy‑Brandt‑Kreis, the Friedrich‑Ebert‑Stiftung and the German‑Russian Forum, to name but a few. Anyone who has access to good channels of communication, as many of you do, should be using them now to talk about what divides us as well as what unites us.
In times of increasing division at the political level, ties between people become all the more vital. We need to counteract the threat of estrangement between our societies. That’s why my Russian counterpart and I have decided to launch a German‑Russian year of youth exchange this summer. We want to expand academic cooperation between Germany and Russia. And in the interests of better understanding Russia, the things we have in common and those that divide us – to improve both sides’ reading skills, so to speak – we will be inaugurating a new research institute for Russia and Eastern Europe in Berlin this year.
***
What does double dialogue ultimately mean for our political cooperation with Russia? I would say it means cooperation where possible and dialogue and awareness of differences where necessary.
In short, there is not such thing as a black and white relationship with Russia.
I remember a NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting, right at the outset of the Ukraine crisis, at which the Canadian Foreign Minister said, “We need to decide now whether Russia is friend or foe, partner or opponent.” I said to him, “You might be able to put it that way in Canada. But there is one thing Russia will always be to Europe: a large neighbour!”
Cooperation where possible and dialogue and awareness of differences where necessary – as a think tank might put it, compartmentalised cooperation. It’s a difficult balancing act, made all the more complex by the blurred lines between foreign affairs and domestic politics and a media landscape that immediately notices, relays and thereby magnifies every move we make in the political sphere. But here too, we should look to the man this symposium is named after, who was himself a journalist in his early career. Egon was not just a cunning negotiator; he was a brilliant communicator too. At the end of 1972, when he had negotiated the Treaty on Basic Relations and the journalists thought the Brandt Government would really milk it as a success, Egon simply said, “We used to have no relationship at all with the GDR. At least now we have a bad one.”
Of course, compartmentalised cooperation is not the ideal state for our relations with Russia to be in. It is simply essential at a time that is too turbulent to lend itself to the establishment of a new international order, as some would propose with their references to 1946, for example, and George Kennan’s long telegram. It remains our long‑term goal to persuade Russia to return to the rules‑based international order founded on the CSCE Final Act and the Charter of Paris, so that cooperation can resume across the board.
Until this can be achieved, however, we will be willing to at least cooperate on those areas where it makes sense and is possible. This approach, I believe, follows in the tradition of Egon Bahr: recognising realities does not mean accepting them. As he put it himself, you need to know what the status quo is before you can overcome it.
I look forward to discussing these matters with you.
Thank you very much.
Speaking in Berlin on 21 April, Foreign Minister Steinmeier issued the following statement on the opening of peace talks in Kuwait between the parties to the conflict in Yemen:
It is good that the parties are finally sitting down at the negotiating table in Kuwait after the long and difficult preparations. All sides are now called upon to participate constructively in the talks and to respect the agreed ceasefire. The direct talks between the Yemeni parties are an important step towards a political solution to the conflict, which has already claimed far too many lives. This is the only way to improve the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the country and to fill the political vacuum.
We will continue to do whatever we can to support the work of UN Special Envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed.
On the third anniversary of the kidnapping of the Syrian archbishops Mor Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim and Boulos Yazigi near Aleppo, Bärbel Kofler, Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid at the Federal Foreign Office, issued the following statement in Berlin:
All too often during the Syria conflict, we hear of the kidnapping of members of religious orders. This is a source of great concern. On the third anniversary of the kidnapping of the archbishops Mor Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim and Boulos Yazigi, I call for their immediate and unconditional release. The conflict in Syria affects everyone: Arabs, Kurds and members of other ethnic groups; Muslims, Christians, Druze and all other religious groups. This makes it all the more important that we create momentum for a successful outcome of the current talks in Geneva between the various Syrian groups to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict.
22 April 2016 marks the third anniversary of the kidnapping of the Syrian-Orthodox archbishop Mor Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim and the Greek-Orthodox archbishop Boulos Yazigi. The bishops were kidnapped near the city of Aleppo. To date, all efforts to ensure the bishops’ release have been unsuccessful.
On average, it takes seven years for a Senegalese person to settle down permanently in France, according to a group of researchers at INED. They ...
Hispanics are the youngest major racial or ethnic group in the United States. In 2014, 60% of U.S. Latinos were under the age of 33, ...Foreign Minister Steinmeier issued the following statement in Berlin today (21 April) on the death of Hans Koschnick:
I am saddened by the news of the death of Hans Koschnick.
We have lost a great North German Social Democrat today.
During the more than 18 years he was in office, Hans Koschnick shaped the fortunes of his hometown of Bremen like few others. As President of the Bremen Senate, he was active far beyond the boundaries of his beloved native city.
His commitment to peace, stability and a more just world remains unforgotten. As EU Administrator for Mostar and subsequently in his performance of important tasks for the Federal Government, he worked effectively to foster peace, understanding and reconciliation in the Balkans in difficult and politically very tense times during the 1990s.
-- Translation of advance text --
Foreign Minister, my dear Witold,
Mr Płóciennik,
Ladies and gentlemen of the Foundation for German-Polish Cooperation,
Ladies and gentlemen of the German-Polish exchange programmes,
And guests of the German-Polish Forum!
The first steps on the long journey towards German-Polish friendship were taken barefoot.
More than a thousand years ago, Holy Roman Emperor Otto III made his way from Rome to Gniezno. He wanted to visit the grave of his friend and mentor, Adalbert of Prague. Just behind the Bohemian border, on the banks of the river Bóbr, he was met by Duke Bolesław of Poland. Recognising him as his peer, Otto placed his own imperial crown on Bolesław’s head as a mark of friendship. Bolesław then escorted the emperor to Gniezno with plenty of pomp and circumstance. On the last leg of the journey, however, Otto took off his shoes. He entered the city of his new friend and approached the grave of his mentor not as a ruler but as a simple pilgrim – as a human being. So began the long, chequered history of German-Polish relations. It was and remains not a primarily political journey – governments come and governments go – but the journey of two peoples.
***
Our journey through the centuries certainly did not lead through sunny uplands; it was to take us into the darkest of vales and to the absolute nadir that were the crimes against humanity carried out by Germans in and against Poland. As we look back on our history here in Warsaw today – on the anniversary of the Ghetto Uprising – we will remember those times too.
It is all the more astonishing – actually nigh‑on miraculous – to see where that journey has got to a thousand years after those first steps: to a firm friendship within a united Europe. The 25th anniversary of the German-Polish Treaty on Good-Neighbourliness is certainly cause for celebration – particularly for your cooperative foundation, which has contributed so much to that friendship over the years! And we needn’t feel guilty if our anniversary celebrations this summer seem a bit lavish – back at the Congress of Gniezno a thousand years ago, they sealed their friendship with a feast that lasted several days and which the latest research tells us was extremely rich... let’s just say it wasn’t vegetarian...
***
As the German-Polish journey has always been a people’s journey, we should mark this anniversary year together as people too; we should approach one another in frank honesty, without political frills – barefoot, if you will. Don’t worry, I’m not about to take my shoes off.
And if we’re honest with one another, we have to admit that, while the 25th anniversary is indeed cause for celebration, it falls in extremely dangerous times. Many Poles feel themselves to be in danger, and so do many Germans. Sadly, there are plenty of reasons to feel threatened:
- International crises are coming at us thick and fast, in Syria, Iraq, Libya – and here, right next door to Poland, in Ukraine.
- The crises are not only creeping closer to Europe, they have arrived among us, represented by the thousands of people seeking refuge from war and violence.
- The inhuman terrorism of “Islamic State” is not only a scourge on the Middle East but has also struck at the heart of Europe.
- Increasing globalisation, the sense that boundaries are dissolving and even European integration – many people in Poland and Germany see these things not as promising developments but as threats.
- The peaceful order painstakingly established in Europe on the basis of the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris has been called into question by Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea.
All of these things instil fear in many Poles and Germans. Most of these fears are common to Poles and Germans, and we have to deal with them all at once. Differences of geography and history sometimes mean we weight these fears somewhat differently. Where this is the case, as it has sometimes been in the matter of how to deal with Russia, we need to talk about it. The important thing is that we take one another seriously. Neither sides’ perception of a threat is more or less justified than the other’s. The only question is how we should respond.
***
Ladies and gentlemen,
There’s something else happening just now too. Times in which we feel under threat are times when identity politics comes into its own. People fall back on existential questions: who counts as “us”? And who counts as “them”? Particularly at a time when refugees and new arrivals abound, people ask questions like “What does it mean to be Polish?” “Or German?” “Or European?” Naturally, differences come to light at such times, not least with regard to what we expect of Europe. These are times without make‑up. To stick with our metaphor, we are standing here barefoot.
This 25th anniversary is therefore not just a time for celebration. It’s also a test for the German-Polish friendship. A lot depends on our answers. German-Polish relations have not only scaled great heights; they also have a long way to fall – with consequences not only for our two countries but also for Europe as a whole. That’s why I speak of a “German-Polish community of shared responsibility”. People look to politics expecting it to furnish answers, and not just technical answers, measures to take and policies to enact, but also a sense of identity, a touchstone and source of reassurance. And again, we face the question of how to respond.
***
Some people have very simple answers ready: pull up the drawbridge, shut them out, keep ourselves to ourselves! That’s the easiest way of cementing your own identity – stirring up distrust of outsiders and painting them as the enemy. Such voices do exist, and, sadly, we hear them in Germany and in Poland too. They can also be heard among our neighbours in Europe and in America, where Mr Trump holds forth.
I can only warn them against pursuing a politics of fear. Fear may be an important human reflex, but it is not a good political guide. It is as poor an ally in politics as it is in life.
***
I would like instead to remind you of a different sentence, a very simple one, which has particular resonance in Poland: “Do not be afraid!”
That was Karol Wojtyła’s motto when he became pope nearly forty years ago. Shortly afterwards, he visited his native Poland. He spoke here in Warsaw, in Piłsudski Square, just a stone’s throw from this room. And he spoke in Gniezno, the town where the German-Polish friendship was born. It was perhaps no coincidence that he celebrated Mass in Gniezno on Pentecost Sunday – a message of understanding and community as opposed to exclusion and fear.
In his Pentecost homily, John Paul II spoke about the meeting between Otto the German and Bolesław the Pole at the grave of Adalbert, who was Czech. He talked about Gniezno being made an archbishopric and about monks arriving from Italy and Ireland. What he was saying was that Poland’s origins are inextricably bound up with the origins of Europe. The Polish identity you are looking for, he said, has been a European identity from the very start.
Today, at a time when people are asking questions about identities – their own, other people’s and shared identities – there is fresh awareness of these long histories. I am therefore particularly glad that an important joint project has just passed its first big milestone. Volume I of the German-Polish history textbook is finished! As I hear, volume I takes us to the end of the 15th century, so pupils in Poland and Germany will hopefully soon be able to check that I haven’t been talking rubbish about imperial footwear. They will also learn that our Bolesław was none other than the son of Mieszko, whose christening was commemorated here is Poland – very festively, I hear – just a few days ago. In other words, the origins of Poland are inextricably linked with the birth of the German-Polish friendship.
***
Ladies and gentlemen,
The Europe we know today is of course very different from that of John Paul II, not to mention Bolesław and Otto III: it is larger, more open, more diverse and certainly no longer purely Christian.
But we needn’t be frightened by that. On the contrary, today’s Europe is undergoing turbulent times and needs Poland to be strong and active. By the same token, we – Germany and Poland – need one another too. We should take heart from Wojtyła’s “Do not be afraid!” and let it spur us on, particularly at times when we find ourselves barefoot!
Our German-Polish community of shared responsibility has plenty to do in many areas:
- In our neighbourhood to the east, in Ukraine, especially now that a new government is having to embark on urgently needed reform;
- In our neighbourhood to the south, with joint projects to deliver humanitarian aid and help stabilise the trouble spots of the Middle East;
- And of course in the realm of security policy, particularly as we prepare the upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw.
***
When it comes to these matters, and the many other issues Witold and I will be discussing today, Europe needs Poland! Throughout history, Poland has often been a courageous torchbearer.
In 1791, for example, the Sejm gave the country the first liberal constitution in Europe. This was an inspiration to many, not least the German freedom fighters of the 19th century. It also – the current climate prompted me to read up on this recently – contains the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers. I think this shows that these are deep-seated Polish and European constitutional principles, and they should remain so!
Later, John Paul II visited Poland and reignited the spark of freedom that would set not only Poland but the whole of Europe alight. One year after the papal visit, Lech Wałęsa signed the agreement founding Solidarność – with Pope John Paul’s likeness adorning his biro. I personally was well and truly shaken awake by that moment. I was a student at the time, and being pro-Solidarność generated, at least in my political camp, a good deal of turbulence and heated debate which, for me, even broke apart certain political friendships.
Something had come unstuck in East Germany, too. Dietmar Woidke, our Coordinator of German-Polish Intersocietal and Cross-Border Cooperation, unfortunately cannot be with us today. He was doing his national service in the National People’s Army when martial law was declared in Poland in 1981 and his battalion was deployed to back up the Warsaw regime. One night, the siren went. In pitch darkness, Kalashnikov at the ready, he sped with his convoy through the woods of Brandenburg towards the Polish border – and in that moment, Dietmar tells me, the GDR died for him.
***
Nowadays, a whole new generation is discovering the spark that lies at the heart of our relations – a generation who only know the scars of our history from the memories of other people. More than two and a half million young people have taken part in the German-Polish youth exchange programme since the Good-Neighbourliness Treaty was signed. We couldn’t fit them all into this room today, but I am happy to have two of them as our guests: Franziska and Paul from Dillenburg in Hesse.
Franziska, you have said that you were pretty excited to arrive at your Polish exchange home. You thought it would take a while to settle in. But your host family embraced you in welcome straight away, and the settling in was done. Soon afterwards, you sat in a group of classmates one night and talked in depth about refugee policy. Though I don’t know if you were actually barefoot at the time, you were discussing precisely those existential questions that occupy not only us oldies but your own generation too.
I hope that you – Franziska, Paul and your friends here in Poland – will keep these links to one another alive. In politically difficult times, ties between people become all the more vital. Precisely because Poles and Germans are crucial to Europe, we must be honest and sincere with one another. If we walk our shared road barefoot, we won’t step on each other’s toes. We will clear away the stones that lie in our path.
Thank you very much.
– check against delivery –
Ladies and gentlemen,
The motto of our conference is “People on the Move”. And if what I hear is true, then last night at the Tresor nightclub there must have been lots of people on the move....
The last three days’ debates and workshops have shown how many individuals and institutions are enthusiastically, energetically and creatively shaping our cultural and educational landscape. For this, I would first and foremost like to thank everyone who opened their institutions’ doors for us – which in turn opened the hearts, eyes and ears of all participants! The list of venues ranged from the Games Museum and the Haus der Kulturen der Welt to the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, from the Gorki Theatre to Berlin Festival and Savvy Contemporary. There are many more – and I would like for us all to give them, including Andreas Görgen and his team, a big round of applause!
***
Ladies and gentlemen,
“People on the Move” was already the title of our fora in 2006 and 2008. I would like to highlight one initiative in particular that was created through these meetings, an initiative that has moved countless people: the partner school initiative. During my first tenure as Foreign Minister, we redesigned and expanded our cultural and educational work abroad. The goal we set ourselves at that time, starting with schoolchildren, was to help create connections through cultural diversity and mutual respect. We wanted to give better access to our language and culture, also in places where children and parents did not have access to, or did not want, the full curriculum of our country.
During my most recent trip to Mozambique, we met with a graduate of Escolia Comercial de Maputo, one of two partner schools there. What this young woman said I take with me wherever I go: “Deutsch ist mein Partner geworden” – “German has become my partner”. She learned German and found a job in a German company that plans infrastructural facilities in Mozambique. Now, she will most likely be travelling to Germany as part of the dual system of vocational training, so that she can learn even more and make an even better contribution to her country’s growth and development. It is true: thanks to the partner school initiative, Germany did become her partner.
That is not just the case for this young woman: We have extended our reach from some 400 German schools abroad to an additional 1,800 partner schools. Several hundred of our partner school students, including many of their teachers and representatives from the education sector, are present here today. I am very pleased about this. A very warm welcome to you all!
***
Ladies and gentlemen,
“People on the Move”. That is not just the motto of this conference. It also describes our foreign policy as a whole.
I am convinced that we must rethink the connections between national and foreign, between the events inside and outside of our national borders. Today more than ever, at a time when Germany is more globally interconnected than almost any other country. Today more than ever, at a time when work to promote peace is only feasible and achievable on a global scale. Most importantly: today more than ever, when we are witnessing more vehement and frequent crises and conflicts than ever before.
Why is culture and education so important, particularly in these crisis-stricken times? What does this have to do with foreign policy? Why are we investing so much energy into completely renewing the cultural profile of our foreign policy?
***
I will begin with an example.
Dear Hiba Jaafil, I am delighted you are here today.
Ms Jaafil trains Lebanon’s national women’s football team. The parents of many of the women in her team were anything but pleased about what they were doing: “Football! That’s not a women’s sport! Not my daughter!” they said. Still, the girls joined up. And in Jaafil’s team, these young women played alongside team-mates from a range of different backgrounds. Shiites, Sunnis, Druze, and Christians. On the field, they formed and competed as a team. What is more, they succeeded!
You should know that, before last year, Lebanon had never won an international football competition. But then along came Jaafil and her girls. They won the Arab Women’s Cup! It was a triumph for her players. A triumph that certainly made proud even the most sceptical parents. Above all, it showed how culture and sport can help call into question social taboos, overcome differences, and create new ties – through cultural diversity.
That is precisely what we are working to achieve. I want to share with you some thoughts on these ties and their overall context.
***
Up until 1989 and 1990, we lived in a world of apparent certainties. The globe was dominated by two large systems. One part was controlled by Washington, the other by Moscow. The confrontation between these blocs came to an end – and luckily so! But no new order took the old one’s place. The world is seeking a new order. The struggle for influence and dominance, for control of various regions, far too often leads to violence. All too frequently, we witness how these conflicts are fought under the mantle of cultural and religious struggles – how ideologies take over, turning differences into bad blood.
I want to say that the only way to fight the rise of ideology is differentiation. The only weapon against this development is enlightenment.
And enlightenment means adopting a position. It means understanding and identifying differences. It means looking for and finding what we have in common. Wherever possible, we must create a basis for the dialogue that is needed, even if this is still a distant reality in many countries.
That highlights the importance of our joint cultural activities, and of ensuring access to education and culture, both here in our country and together with our partners in the world. But we should be under no illusion! If we succeed in doing this, then we’ve only created an opportunity, with no guarantees. There is no causal link between culture and education, on the one hand, and peace, on the other hand. Artists, philosophers and poets have upheld the greatest ideals, but they have also incited others to commit the worst crimes. The ties between culture and peace remain fragile. We Germans are probably more keenly aware of this than others.
But I will also say that, in Germany, it was only during the days of Martin Luther and the Enlightenment that the idea originated about how culture and education are essential to living a self-determined life. For decades, we were under the impression that fundamental tenets such as this would prevail – that it was only a matter of time. Today, taking into account local history, tradition and philosophy in many parts of the world, we realise: The entire world no longer looks towards European guidance. Democracy and human rights are by far not universally considered the ultimate aim of social development. In this environment, in which such tenets no longer exist and in which we are competing with other models of society, we must again learn to explain ourselves and to stand up for the principles of the European Enlightenment with poise and conviction.
It is about nurturing humanity through culture and education. It is about a cultural relations policy that creates the conditions for this. We need a cultural relations policy that is fully convinced about, and that strengthens, culture’s power in society.
***
I would like to introduce you to the pupil Ilya Pondin. Dear Ilja, thank you for being here today. Ilya goes to School 106 in Volgograd. It is one of our partner schools. Ilya won the PASCH.net competition to uncover traces of the Second World War, with his presentation on places of remembrance in Volgograd.
I was in Volgograd myself last year, to commemorate the end of the Second World War 70 years ago. Several thousand veterans attended the commemoration. Together, we recalled the pain and suffering that has marked our history, the history of Germans and Russians. Bearing these scars, we are today working towards reconciliation.
You, too, Ilya, have closely examined these issues. And your project has shown how important it is to deal with both foreign and national history. By doing so, you come to understand both yourself and others. Our partner school initiative has paved the way for this – and is having an impact far beyond schools.
***
Dear Ms Fless, Dear Mr Parzinger,
I want to point out your joint efforts as a further example of how engagement in the fields of culture and education are working to build a more peaceful and humane world.
You have entitled your project for rebuilding Syria “zero hour”. It has a broad focus, ranging from specific restoration work to plans for rebuilding urban areas. The question you have asked is how we can best help to rebuild the cultural identity of the wonderfully diverse country of Syria, how we can give people the opportunity to reclaim and nurture their cultural heritage. For this, I would like to thank you very much.
Concerning Syria, I want to make two more points:
The first is related to Alaa Kanaieh, one of many young Syrian women who have come to us in recent months.
Ms Kanaieh is in her late twenties. She is from Damascus. For several months now, she has been studying Software Systems Engineering at RWTH Aachen University, with a scholarship of the German Academic Exchange Service.
Dear Ms Kanaieh, I am delighted you are here today. You have summed up the time you have spent in Germany as follows: “The main thing is to make the best of the opportunities of our scholarship programme. We want to get to work as soon as possible and build our country’s future, whether in or outside of Syria.”
By saying so, you, Ms Kanaieh, make perfectly clear why it is so important to think about and focus on “inside” and “outside” at the same time.
Together with the German Academic Exchange Service, dear Prof. Wintermantel, we last year increased the number of scholarships for Syrian refugees from some 20 to more than 200. This gives them the opportunity to be educated here in Germany – so that later, in their home country, they can again assume responsibility.
The Philipp Schwartz Initiative, which we established together with the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, has the same aim, dear Professor Schwarz.
Academics who have faced persecution, so-called “scholars at risk”, are able to freely continue their research in Germany. They can continue to play an active role in the international academic and scientific community.
The initiative is named after Philipp Schwartz, who himself was forced to flee Germany during the 1930s, to escape the Nazis. It is therefore absolutely right for us today to be helping persecuted academics. For this, I want to expressly thank all of you, and all of the foundations involved in the project!
***
Ladies and gentlemen,
By promoting culture and education, we want to contribute to a humane society – particularly in regions that are currently faced with crises.
We are doing so by creating opportunities for, and by nurturing, open discussion. Spaces in which social topics can be addressed and described, also through images and sound. Where views can be exchanged about the dreams and traumatic experiences of societies.
When we speak of spaces, you can take this quite literally! Because what we need first of all is the cultural infrastructure of the Goethe-Institutes and the schools abroad, as well as the academic and cultural institutions.
Infrastructure is essential, but it is not the key prerequisite for successful interculteral exchange.
Leaving aside the domestic political controversy over Jan Böhmermann’s poem, the debate does show how strongly our cultural identities and sensibilities diverge, and how differently we respond to cultural statements that involve irony and satire.
Although we must not ignore differences, we must be willing to discuss, and if necessary argue about, those differences, what they are based on, and why they may be justified. This is important not only at the level of state politics, but especially when our societies interact, when civil society and cultural representatives are working to promote mutual knowledge and understanding.
A more peaceful world order will not be created on a drawing board by state representatives, in the sealed-off conference rooms of red-carpeted hotels. The world’s search for new order is a constant struggle that runs much deeper: It is a struggle to find truths, with the realisation that there is often more than one truth, and with a clear understanding that very different perceptions exist of one and the same reality. We must take all this into account if we want to remain in a position to promote peace in the world. In other words: We must get a better idea of the underlying narratives: We must think about the traditional stories, images and narratives that have formed, and continue to form, the actual foundation of the political, religious and social structures that are visible in our world. Although they normally do not cause political power struggles, they do play an overarching role. If you are not aware of them, or if you ignore them, you will fail time and again when trying to resolve such conflicts.
Politics must try hard to gain a clear picture. For politics is called on to act, and it does so often with great might and heavy equipment. So the danger is all the greater if action is based on false premises!
There’s a wonderful story from Mozambique that I heard a few weeks ago when I was in Africa and which illustrates all this perfectly.
A monkey, the fable has it, was walking along the side of a river when it saw a fish in the water. The monkey said to itself, “The poor thing’s underwater. It will drown. I must rescue it!” The monkey snatched the fish out of the water and the fish began to flap around in its hands. Then the monkey said, “Look how happy it is now!”
But of course the fish died out of water. Then the monkey said, “Oh, how sad. If only I’d got here a bit sooner, I’d have been able to save it.”
So you can see: A perfect example of someone starting from completely false premises.
That is why we need culture. For culture sharpens one’s perception, and good perception is where all diplomacy begins. That’s why, to my mind, “cultural relations policy” is not just a policy of cultural relations, but also a culture of politics.
***
Dear Mr Bonaventure and dear Hermann Parzinger, in your workshops yesterday, you addressed two very different aspects of how our perceptions can vary. Yet I have been told that, in the end, a strong unifying element emerged. Bonaventure called it “unlearning the given”. The need to question, from an outside perspective, one’s own fundamental assumptions.
It is true: we must not close our eyes to the fact that what we consider to be proper order may be viewed as disorderly in other countries and continents. True dialogue can only come about if we recognise and admit this fact – and I say so referring not only to our own colonial past.
I say it also regarding Germany as a country of immigration. Already prior to the current waves of refugees, we had a higher percentage of people in Germany migrant origin than the classic country of immigration, the United States of America. When I mentioned that in the States, at first people looked at me disbelievingly, and then they wanted to see the statistics ....
But it is true! All of these people have come to a democratic country, a country with an open society, a country that is assuming its international responsibility. And together with them, we want to ensure that it stays that way.
This includes seeing to it that people who have just arrived in our country can make it their home. We must help with that. Specifically through our efforts in the cultural field, and by giving people access to education and training. I am sure the experience you all have gained in cultural relations and education policy will be a big help.
***
Ladies and gentlemen,
During the coming weeks and months, we will be focusing on Europe, also in terms of cultural relations policy. We will begin in only a few weeks, at the European Writers’ Conference in Berlin.
More than three years ago, Nicol Ljubic, Mely Kiyak, Antje Rávic Strubel, Tilman Spengler and I talked about Europe, over a glass of red wine. What is it that still binds Europe together? What can today be described as the core of the European idea? Has Europe been reduced to a mere technocratic project, or does it remain a desirable ideal, in terms of its culture and civilisation?
We decided to continue our discussion – not merely between the five of us around a kitchen table, but at a European Writers’ Conference. Tilman Spengler later put it in a nutshell: “What we are aiming for is not really a conference, but an ongoing conversation between authors, a conversation that will seemingly never end.”
In a couple of weeks, in early May, we will continue the conversation – this time under the heading of “WritingAwayBorders”.
This motto has multiple meanings. It is an invitation to identify all things that currently divide the people of Europe – whether they be barriers or barbed wire at the borders, or distrust and intolerance in people’s minds. However, I believe it also refers to a fundamental European experience: Although it may at times be difficult, and resistance and setbacks will occur, borders can be overcome, spiritually, culturally – also in politics!
The conference is being prepared and accompanied by many other meetings, especially in the countries of the so-called Eastern Partnership. In connection with this, I want to mention a special event: The literature festival in Odessa, about which one newspaper wrote last year: “This literature festival has changed Ukraine”.
Because it was through the authors’ exchanges, readings and discussions at this event that it became clear what actual interests need to be balanced, and how this could be done. That is precisely the kind of essential cultural work literature can do, which Günter Grass described in “The Meeting at Telgte” and that guides our efforts to this very day.
However, we will only succeed – and here I am thinking primarily of you, friends from the world of culture – if we continue to write European stories. I am convinced that, particularly these days, the voices of European authors carry a special weight in and for Europe. A Europe that continues to break down borders, a Europe that does not rebuild borders that have already been done away with.
***
Ladies and gentlemen,
Today, we have presented our report on cultural relations policy. It gives you an idea of the work that is under way.
Namely, creating and maintaining access to and opportunities for education and culture, so that these may thrive.
Above all, we are working hard to convince partners around the world not to feel threatened by things that are foreign, as well as to be open for, and to enable, exchange.
Nevertheless, responsible cultural relations policy must make decisions about whether or not to provide funding, and what we will fund. We cannot support everything, and what we support must be useful. Overall, we are doing more, especially compared to several years ago, when the debate focused on how many Goethe-Institutes must close down, and how many excavation sites the German Archaeological Institute must abandon. Yes, that is why we are working hard to obtain funding, also within the Federal Government. Travelling, giving speeches, as well as doing the maths are everyday aspects of cultural relations policy. And yes, infrastructure costs money. According to a statistics website, building only one kilometre of motorway in Germany costs some ten million euro. That is certainly money well spent.
At the same time, we provide some 1.6 billion euro annually to Goethe-Institutes, schools, language instruction programmes, university projects, exhibitions and archaeology. Basically, in support of all cultural infrastructure everywhere in the world outside of Germany. In terms of German motorways, this is merely equivalent to the motorway that links Berlin and Leipzig!
I think that, in a country the future of which will be influenced by events in as far away places as America and China, or Moscow and Johannesburg, that is not too much money. Rather, we want to and must maintain and expand this cultural infrastructure.
***
For this, we need strong and independent partners, partners that we do our utmost to support, as we have already done for the Goethe-Institutes and the German schools abroad in this legislative term, and as we will do next year for our research and academic relations policy, with its flagship organisations the German Academic Exchange Service, the German Archaeological Institute and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
We have significantly expanded the focus of this group of partners. In the long run, we want to move from a foreign policy of nations to a foreign policy of societies. The founder of our modern cultural relations and education policy, Ralf Dahrendorf, engraved this notion in all our minds, and we want to do an even better job of putting it into practice.
That is why we have refocused our policy, and the special funding we are providing ranges from funds for building civil society in the countries of the Eastern Partnership to expanding the international reach of the Federal Agency for Civic Education and establishing a strategic dialogue with the political foundations. I am deeply grateful to everyone involved in these efforts.
***
Ladies and gentlemen,
Culture and education give people hope that they can participate and play a shaping role. They offer the promise of freedom and humanity. We want to fulfil these hopes and keep these promises. We are convinced that strengthening the social power of culture and education is the best way to achieve a more peaceful world. A world in which differences do not generate misunderstandings, misunderstandings do not lead to conflicts, and conflicts do not turn into wars.
If we want to get an idea of how exactly this can work, then we need not look very far. We must only take a glance around this room. Living proof of successful cultural and educational work is right here in our midst.
People like the Syrian fellow Alaa Kanaieh, the Russian pupil Ilya Pondin, the Lebanese women’s football coach Hiba Jaafil, and so many others who are here today. You are people who are making a difference.
You are people on the move.
Thank you so much, and have a good evening!
Not even Sergio Leone could have imagined that a refugee camp could be set up in The High Chaparral. This theme park, which realistically evokes ...
Catching the moment to describe the personal tragedy of each refuge. It’s thanks to this ability that The New York Times and reuters Agency have ...
“Don't fall in love with a foreigner” - the Chinese government is using this slogan in a big public awareness campaign against mixed marriages. It ...
The 28 Member States of the European Union (EU) granted protection status to 333,350 asylum seekers in 2015, an increase of 72% compared with 2014. ...After the meeting of the NATO–Russia Council on 20 April, Foreign Minister Steinmeier made the following statement in Berlin:
It is good that the NATO–Russia Council met today for the first time in nearly two years. I myself was a proponent – also during the difficult escalation of the situation in Ukraine – of us keeping open the channels of communication with Russia.
We expected this would not be an entirely easy meeting in a harmonious atmosphere – also because the ambassadors discussed several controversial issues, such as Ukraine and military activities.
However, it is precisely because there are many difficult issues that this dialogue is inherently valuable and should be continued. That is the only way for us to develop a common understanding of problems and the necessary solutions.
As recent incidents in the Baltic Sea have shown, it is particularly important for us to reduce the risk of unintentional escalation, as well as work to increase transparency and build trust.
After the meeting of the NATO–Russia Council on 20 April, Foreign Minister Steinmeier made the following statement in Berlin:
It is good that the NATO–Russia Council met today for the first time in nearly two years. I myself was a proponent – also during the difficult escalation of the situation in Ukraine – of us keeping open the channels of communication with Russia.
We expected this would not be an entirely easy meeting in a harmonious atmosphere – also because the ambassadors discussed several controversial issues, such as Ukraine and military activities.
However, it is precisely because there are many difficult issues that this dialogue is inherently valuable and should be continued. That is the only way for us to develop a common understanding of problems and the necessary solutions.
As recent incidents in the Baltic Sea have shown, it is particularly important for us to reduce the risk of unintentional escalation, as well as work to increase transparency and build trust.
A Muslim pastry chef has been chosen to make the cake to celebrate the 90th birthday of Elizabeth II on 21 April. A 31-year-old of ...
In Denmark just 4,2% of refugees of a working age who received a residence permit in 2013 had found a regular job, while 5,3% were ...A Federal Foreign Office spokesperson issued the following statement in Berlin on 19 April following the bombing in Kabul which, according to media reports, has claimed at least 28 lives and left hundreds of people injured:
We are deeply outraged at the bombing in Kabul city centre, which has claimed many lives and left hundreds injured. This is an attack on the people of Afghanistan, who are longing to live in peace and security. Our heartfelt sympathy goes out to those who have lost loved ones, and we wish all those injured a speedy recovery.
The bloodshed in Afghanistan must cease. To bring that about, we urgently need a political solution. Germany will continue to do all it can to support Afghanistan in that endeavour. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Afghanistan.
-- check against delivery --
Director Link,
Witold Waszczykowski,
Staff members of ODIHR,
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure to be with you here today in my capacity as Chairperson-in-Office of the OSCE. And I am particularly pleased to be here for the celebrations marking the 25th anniversary of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.
Twenty-five years ago, in 1990, when the participating States established the Office for Free Elections in the Charter of Paris, they chose Warsaw as its seat.
That was no coincidence.
Like many of you here, I vividly remember the summer of 1989 when the first democratic elections were held in Poland. That groundbreaking vote took place at a time when other countries of the former Warsaw Pact were still ruled with an iron fist.
In Poland, the elections were a landslide victory for Solidarność and a defeat of the ruling Communist Party. Tadeusz Mazowiecki became the first non-Communist Polish Prime Minister since 1947 – and Europe held its breath.
It was the start of great change in Europe, change that also affected the dynamics of what was then the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The new Polish Government had been at the forefront of these changes on our continent and so it was Warsaw that managed to attract the CSCE’s first institution – the Office for Free Elections.
***
Today, ODIHR has become the largest autonomous institution within the OSCE.
To many, ODHIR is best known for its election observation missions in OSCE participating States. These missions have indeed become a real trademark of the entire organisation.
Over the past 25 years, more than 300 successful observation missions have been conducted - using ODIHR’s recognised and well-tested methodology.
I would like to compliment all those involved in this outstanding work! Thank you. I am well aware that you have a demanding year ahead of you.
***
I would also like to highlight ODIHR’s outstanding work in its other crucial areas: In helping governments and civil society to strengthen democratic institutions and to promote respect for human rights, tolerance and nondiscrimination, and the rule of law. We all know that this is anything but easy!
Of course, the commitments made by OSCE States in the many documents since the Charter of Paris are all clearly laid out on paper. However, their meaning is all too often called into question and their implementation unsatisfactory.
This is where ODIHR comes in.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is where you come in. You are the chief promoters of the OSCE’s principles and commitments and also their chief defenders. It is your job to convince all participating States that implementing our principles can enhance our security in the long run.
I want to assure you that I understand the difficulty of your task – especially in these uncertain times. It is a task requiring high-end diplomacy!
***
To succeed in your important work, you need the support of all OSCE States. You need a reliable budget. And I saw for myself at the end of last year just how difficult that can be.
But there is something else that is crucial to ODHIR’s success: its people. Here in Warsaw, 150 staff from 34 OSCE States form a diverse and dedicated team. I am delighted that almost 60 percent of the ODIHR team are women; three out of five departments are headed by women.
And I have been told that there are at least three people here in this room today who can remember their very first day at the Office for Free Elections 25 years ago! I am impressed! That certainly speaks for ODHIR as a reliable employer. But it also speaks for you as dedicated staff.
Let me assure you that Germany will continue to support you.
***
Ladies and gentlemen,
Throughout its history, ODIHR has been at the forefront when it comes to dealing with crucial human rights issues. I would like to highlight just one of them here.
More than 20 years ago, in 1992, the first ever Human Dimension Seminar on tolerance and non-discrimination took place. Today, the importance of these topics could not be greater. I say this also with a view to the current migration and refugee flows that will have a lasting effect on our societies. That is exactly why we put tolerance and non-discrimination so high up on our Chairmanship agenda. I look forward to a series of events on these questions – including a conference in Berlin in October.
Director Link,
staff members of ODIHR,
let me compliment you and thank you once again for your crucial work. You were a great support when we were drawing up our Chairmanship agenda.
And we are very grateful to have such a strong team here at ODHIR today to help us implement it!
You can be sure that you have Germany’s support in 2016 and beyond.
Thank you.
