As the world braces for war, Germany has been actively seen as applying the brakes o­n the US war machine that is revving to go. Malaysiakini talks to German ambassador Jurgen Staks o­n Feb 21, for a closer perspective of the German position.

Malaysiakini: Can you explain why Germany is not convinced with the evidence presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council recently?

Staks:

Our conviction is that the evidence forwarded by our allies in the United States is not enough for the time being to justify military action, a war against Iraq, a war more or less targeted at Saddam Hussein.

We don't consider the information and material that were presented by Powell to the members of the Security Council enough.

Therefore, we insist that we get the evidence by the unit that has been tasked by the Security Council in order to bring this about - the inspectors. What we have to do is to wait for more information, more evidence, more statements from the chief inspector Hans Blix and a decision, be it pro or con, will be made based o­n that.

How long is your country willing to wait before it is actually satisfied that Saddam has complied with Resolution 1441?

This is very difficult to say. I cannot give a concrete state. What we have to do right now is quite clear; we have to take care that, o­n the request of the inspectors themselves that they have the time which they consider necessary in order to make a final report.

As long as Blix says, "I need two more weeks in order to get the evidence...I hope I will be able to collect the weapons in Iraq", then you'll have to grant him the time. If after two weeks, he comes and says "no, we need two more weeks", then we need to give him two more weeks.

Just imagine a war with all the tragic and terrible consequences. We cannot suddenly start (a war) when the chief inspector has said there wasn't enough evidence for us to do that. It would be the wrong decision.

Of course you may have the feeling that Saddam Hussein is cheating you, you have the feeling that he has weapons of mass destruction, but until we get clear evidence, in either direction, we can't go to war.

What does your country's intelligence believe? Do you really think that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

(The possibility) cannot be excluded. We do not have proof. With regard to the inspectors' reports which were in (Iraq) a few years ago after the Gulf War, they found a lot of these things...materials by which you could produce weapons of mass destruction...instruments...all were there. And these materials are no longer there anymore, or at least the inspectors have not found them so far.

We have to get clear proof by the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein whether they have destroyed the weapons and if they have not, where are they?

What is clear evidence to you?

Clear evidence is when you really get the conviction - the inspectors get the clear and undoubted conviction that the weapons of mass destructions are not there anymore.

There are two possibilities. In the past years, the inspection teams have destroyed quite a lot of weapons of mass destruction or at least instruments and materials that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction. This has been listed clearly, item per item by the inspection team.

But there is this feeling - a relatively convincing o­ne - that while the inspection team was not there, Saddam Hussein may have produced, collected or bought new weapons. This doubt, everybody has - including my government. Still, we have no choice but to wait for the inspection team.

It is said that if the US pushes for war without the UN resolution, the German and the French government would eventually fall in line, as they cannot afford to severe ties with the US. Can you comment?

We strongly look forward to getting into line with all concerned in order to get a common agreement that really sticks to the respective resolution of the UN. We have the resolution of the UN - Resolution 1441 - and there is a clear mandate of what we have to do before any military action is taken. We have not fully explored the steps that we need to take before considering using force.

There are a lot of interpretations and actions that could be done in order to fulfill 1441 before we can say that we have to use the last possible means (war) and that military action is justified. We have not reached there yet.

So, just yesterday my minister, home minister, said that we are definitely against any military action; against a war. And the justification for the statement is that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.

But because we still have mental reservation o­n Iraq's real situation, we feel Blix has to be given more time to be really sure about that.

There are reports alleging that the Germans are against the war because of some business interest in Iraq. Is this true?

May I express myself rather undiplomatically right now that the allegation is pure nonsense. Pure nonsense! We do not have any oil dealings in Iraq or interest in Iraq.

What we want is that Iraq becomes a really responsible member of the international community and consequentially lift the sanctions and to take care of the people in Iraq and to take care, of course, of all productions of developing this country to bring it back to prosperity and development.

All this is impossible for the time being because of the sanctions and because of Saddam Hussein. He is the reason for all of that.

There is fear that the disagreement o­n war would affect the trade relations between the Germans and the US. Do you think there will be real damage here?

UN is the important body that has been tasked by the international community and all its members to take care of this crisis situation and conflict. So if the UN, from the support of those in the Security Council, issues a resolution like Resolution 1441 o­n the others, then it is our responsibility to see that this resolution is really implemented, 100 percent.

I would say that there are of course in international bodies - and this applies to the UN, Nato and the EU as well - that there are different opinions.

This is quite a natural situation in an international body. If you would see the daily web of the EU, now we have 15 members for the time being and it is a very difficult task for the president of the EU to get a unanimous decision o­n any topic or issue.

But in order to bring this about, we have the secretary-general of UN, and those with respective responsibilities within the EU and Nato.

But of course there are occasions where the difference of opinions becomes too conflicting and too controversial. We have to go o­n (working) to get a resolution that we need.

I wouldn't say that just because of Iraq, the US and the UN would have problems with each other. It is just a difference of opinion how to tackle the matter. That is all.

Why are the Germans deadset against providing military assistance to Turkey?

The question is obsolete. We have said this in the last meeting of Nato and we agreed that whenever we have to protect Turkey o­n the premise of defence, we will do and this has been accepted by all the members of Nato, including the US, Germany, Belgium and France.

But it is said the denial of military aid to Turkey is in breach of the foundation of Nato's defence agreement.

Well in very simple terms, the Nato treaty said that whenever a member country, which is an ally of Nato, is attacked, we would immediately use force to rescue the affected country.

Remember after Sept 11? When the tragedy took place, US reported to Nato which agreed that it was our case as well and we would give US unconditional support to fight international terrorism. It was a clear situation.

When Turkey was asking for this kind of support, we feel that by sending troops to Turkey, it would mean we are contributing to the military action against Iraq.

But at the same time we have clearly indicated that in case Turkey is attacked by Iraq, then it is a case of defence and for this purpose we would send anything that is necessary.

The US administration claimed that the war against Iraq would solve the o­ngoing conflict between Palestine and Israel.

I don't see how the war is going to contribute a solution to the conflict between Palestine and Israel. If they were to topple Saddam, how would that affect the Palestine-Israel conflict?

Would Germany consider playing a more proactive role to promote peace between Palestine and Israel?

It has been done so intensively, not over the years. We have done far better political efforts in order to bring goodwill between the two.

Recently our Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer toured the Middle East, talked to the people and the government responsible to give a new push for the peace process between Israel and Palestine.

We are intensively engaged in the efforts to bring about the much needed peace and the German government will continue to be dedicated and devoted to the solution with the other friends including the US.

How effective is the counter proposal suggested by France and Germany?

We don't want any military action. Germany is clear in not sending any soldier or equipment to the Middle East to prepare for any war. We did this together with France. And by reaffirming this position time and again, we made it clear that this war is not the right means in order to fulfill Resolution 1441.

We have the conviction that the German and the French position together with the worldwide strong and overwhelming demonstrations against the war at least reached the US administration and call them to at least respect these demonstrations.

Of course they were not very happy with the strong position by the French and German governments, but we are sticking to that. We think we have to take this position because 1441 has not been exploited as it should be exploited and I would say that is the position that we would

continue to take o­n.

Of course, we are absolutely against the possession of any weapons of mass destruction by anybody. We firmly believe that any existence of such weapons (would have to be dealt with by disposal).

The people's demonstration clearly showed that while they object to any possession of weapons of mass destruction, they are also against the war.

We have the same opinion: We want to get rid of these weapons but it does not necessarily mean we have to do it through war.

Would the disagreement between countries decrease the effectiveness of Nato or cause serious damage to it in any way?

This is the position that has been intensively reported by the media and heavily criticised by US. I do not see Nato being affected by the differences of opinion.

I recently talked to o­ne of the new Nato members and he clearly emphasised that there are many good reasons including historic reasons why they joined the group of eight (eight countries in the European Union) and supported US in their position for war.

These were indeed historic positions, which formed most of the countries' relationship with US.

The United States had indeed helped many countries in the Eastern (Europe) bloc to overcome communism and recover from their difficult past before they were integrated into Nato.

We have conflicting positions but it is our task to get a unanimous position with the Nato, EU and hopefully UN as well. Of course we were not happy when this letter was suddenly written to the UN, the members of the EU and Nato supporting the US, but this would not lead to the break up of Nato.

Let me say that EU and Nato are very solid organisations and this had been proven in the past many, many times. As far as we are concerned we are positive that we would overcome the present irritation as well.

What is your response to those who call the Germans "ingrates" for going against the US who had helped them overcome Nazism in World War II?

This is definitely not the general case. A large majority of the US citizens have the friendliest relationship o­ne can imagine with the Germans. Our cooperation in economy, culture, etc. is intensive.

Nobody can accuse the Germans of being ingrates or that we are not grateful to the US for helping Germany and Europe rebuild our prosperity and stability.

We know what the US has done, we appreciate it, we are very thankful to them and this (sentiment) prevails today and will prevail in the future. I am sure those who called us ingrates are a small minority. It is definitely not the opinion of the people and administration of the US.

But US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield was reported to have given many, what Germans have called, "unfriendly remarks".

You would find this kind of remarks here. It is very easy to argue that if we don't do what they want, then we are very ungrateful. People might say to us: Don't you remember what we have done in the past? We liberated you from fascism, etc.

But again, I don't think this is the case with the US and (that is why) we can live with that (statement). We would counter this argument whenever necessary but we think it is better we don't say anything offensive because they are already contradicting themselves by saying this.

What is your comment o­n the o­ngoing global protest against the war?

(They are) peaceful demonstrations by individuals, organisations, and governments (including from) this country and we heavily support it. The demonstrations and the signature campaign in this country went peacefully in an almost charming and friendly way. The message that they carry is the same as ours: peace.

The demonstration in Berlin saw hundreds of thousands rising and it is the same throughout the world. Political leaders, including those from the US, cannot just ignore that. They must see how many thousands are willing to go to the streets to forward the call for peace.

The peace message is the message of the people, not just individuals. If the politicians are not able to listen to that, then they are misguided.

Are you saying the US administration is misguided since there are reports claiming that Bush had ignored the global protest against war?

No, I am not am saying that. What I meant was that any average politician should know what is going o­n in his constituency and if his constituency in a state of majority opposes a war, he is well advised to inform your superiors, parties of administration about what is going o­n the street.

Being aware of the global sentiment might just give us fight to a positive direction from war to a more peaceful solution.