Those who cause the damage should pay for it

Along with France, Germany from the beginning strongly opposed unilateral action against Iraq by the U.S. Germany's Ambassador to Indonesia Gerhard Fulda talked with The Jakarta Post's Kornelius Purba about his government's stance on the war. The following is an excerpt of the interview:

Question: Germany voiced its opposition to an invasion of Iraq, but then it reportedly provided some assistance to the U.S.-led coalition. Your comment?

Answer: You must not insinuate that Germany changed (its stance). In fact, our opposition was to war without first exploiting all possible peaceful means to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. We feel that we opposed that and we remain opposed to it. That means this invasion without the legitimation of the United Nations Security Council lacks ... legal grounds.

This means that our position is the same as it was. However, it is true that we sent some soldiers to provide a purely defensive system, the "fuse detection tanks", which are armored cars equipped to protect people against chemical or biological weapons. And this has nothing to do with the war. We are protecting our friends wherever they are, if they are confronted with any illegitimate use of weapons of mass destruction.

So whatever happens there, should Saddam Hussein possess these kinds of weapons, and should he decide to use them, then we feel it is necessary to protect Americans and other troops, and of course also those in the north of Turkey. We feel that Turkey should be protected against any aggression and therefore we are participating with a limited number of soldiers, but purely for defensive purposes. German soldiers are not a part of the U.S.- led team at all and only operate in Kuwait.

There has been criticism that Germany opposes the war because it wants to protect its economic interests in Iraq. Is that true?

I wasn't aware of such critical voices. If anyone says that our position was determined by economic interests, then those critics do not know what they are talking about. In fact, everybody of course is interested in economic development in the Middle East, which guarantees the free flow of oil to the global market.

But we do not have any special interest in oil from Iraq especially. We do not buy oil from Iraq at all. To my knowledge, most of the oil from the UN's oil for food program goes to Russia and to other countries. Germany has long-term suppliers for crude oil, mainly from Libya and from the North Sea. We are not directly involved in this issue.

I do not see any basis for such claims. With regard to the Middle East, we have always been a supplier of technology, equipment and machinery. But over the last several years this has not been very important, because what Iraq earned from the oil for food program had to be spent for food for the population. So in the last years, our economic interests or economic ties with Iraq have been very low.

With strong opposition from France and Germany to the invasion, NATO is divided in its stance. What is your comment?

It is true that member countries of the NATO alliance are divided on this issue, as almost all organizations or regional cooperation are divided; the Arab League is divided and the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is divided too.

If I may return to your earlier question about what prompted us to take this decision (against the war). There are two other reasons, and both are historical reasons. One is mainly that Germany has experienced two world wars. The general attitude toward war is very critical. We feel that war should only be allowed as the very last resort, if all other diplomatic efforts have failed.

Of course, we have another conclusion: when we do not base international actions on the strictest legal principles then we too easily rush into a chaotic situation. Therefore we insist that whatever action should be done on the basis of Chapter VII of the UN Charter and in the framework of the UN.

How about the growing calls to use the euro rather than the U.S. dollar?

This has no direct connection with the question of the Iraq war. Of course, the value of the unified currency has increased over the last weeks, mainly because there are elements of weakness in the dollar. But, indeed, there are some people who feel the dollar should be used more than before ....

It is true that the euro has become stronger and therefore many countries may have a purely economic interest in using the euro for their own reserves and for going about trade. But I think this currency choice does not depend on issues of war and peace. This is purely economic reasoning and therefore it should be discussed here in Indonesia, like in other countries, that it perhaps would be good if the euro played a more important role in the future. But we must not talk about it as a political weapon.

What is your government's position on the reconstruction of Iraq?

It is again two questions. First repairing the (physical) damage and then the reconstruction of social and political structures. These are two very different issues and it will start with humanitarian aid .... The population will need a lot of assistance from abroad ... and we will do anything possible so that the suffering of the civilians will be limited as much as possible.

Germany already announced that it would earmark US$50 million (in) humanitarian assistance. The German government did a lot in the UN when the oil for food program was restarted. And we will certainly not stay idle when it comes to the question of humanitarian aid after the war.

The other issue is who should be responsible and who should be paying for the damage caused. One member of our government has just made a public statement saying that those who caused the damage should pay for it. This is one important remark. Earlier, Germany's policy was mainly to participate by contributing money, not participating directly. This (policy) may have to come to an end.

In general, the feeling we have is that the question of what has to be repaired and who has to pay for it must be resolved once the current situation ends. As long as the war is still going on, we do not think it is very useful to talk about this issue, because we do not even know the size of the problem.

And with regard to the political reconstruction of Iraq, it is even more premature to talk about that. We do not even know so far who will be involved in this effort ... but it will be quite clear that Germany will do anything possible to make sure that this will take place within the UN.

Reconstructing the social and political institutions in Iraq without the legitimacy given by the Security Council would be far more difficult to achieve.