Five Years After September 11

[Recorded September 8 in Washington DC and Berlin; Aired September 10, 2006]

Melinda Crane: Hello and welcome to this edition of Capital Cities coming to you from Berlin and from Washington. I am Melinda Crane in Berlin, and our topic today is 5 years after September 11th. How has the war on terror changed Germany’s and America’s perceptions of their own and their common security, and how has it changed transatlantic relations. That’s the topic that we want to discuss and our guests are:

Hans Ulrich Klose, is the head of the German Bundestag, the Parliaments Foreign Affairs committee; Hans Georg Wieck is the former director of the German Intelligence Service, the BND and a former Diplomat.

And in Washington, we’re very glad to have Karen Donfried with us. She is the director of policy programs at the German Marshal Fund, and Kurt Volker is the deputy head of the European Bureau at the Department of State.

Welcome to all of you!

And now to my co-anchor in Washington, Rudiger Lentz.

Rudiger Lentz: Thank you, Melinda! And let’s start here in Washington with the question, which is at the moment widely disputed in the U.S. public: Is America safer 5 years after 9/11, Karen?

Karen Donfried: This is an issue of controversy in the United States. President Bush has been giving a series of speeches, trying to refocus the American public on the security agenda, making the argument that Americans are safer, since the Bush Administration has set in place its set of policies to meet the threat of terrorism. But we are not safe yet. The Democrats are countering by saying, for example, Senator John Kerry, presidential candidate last time around, is arguing that the administration has gotten bogged down on Iraq and that has caused it to take its eye off the ball of capturing Osama bin Laden.

Rudiger Lentz: Karen, how is the public reacting? Are they still feeling under siege?

Karen Donfried: There is no question that the attacks of 9/11 have profoundly altered the psyche of the American public, probably most dramatically in New York. But I think you see the echos of 9/11 reverberating still across the nation.

Rudiger Lentz: Kurt Volker, the American President, Karen just mentioned it, tries to sell the war on terror as a huge success story. Will the public buy it? And how are the allies reacting to it?

Kurt Volker: I am not sure that I would say he characterizes it as a huge success story, but a great challenge for our generation, our country and for the world. And one that we have to rise to and meet. I think we are better prepared to face terrorist threats now than we were 5 years ago. I think the fact that there have been terrorist attacks that have been thwarted, like the bombers leaving from London or Germany, is evidence that we are doing a better job at this.

But the threats are there and real, and we have to continue to face them. I think also the President has made clear that this is not just a war on terrorism, not just something you can do by military means; it involves law-enforcement, intelligence, financial sanctions to go after terrorist networks, but it also involves a longer term challenge of promoting democracy, civil society, market economy and a vision for a more stable and secure world. It has to be part of what we promote as well and I think our cooperation with Germany and with European countries on this is excellent right now.

Rudiger Lentz: Germany is an important ally of the United States in the fight against terrorism, so let’s hear what our Berlin colleagues have to say to this problem.

Melinda Crane: Hans Ulrich Klose, in the speech that Karen Donfried referred to, President Bush said that the enemy in the war on terror is "Islamo-fascism". And he said that Osama bin Laden is potentially more dangerous than Hitler. How does that resonate here in Germany?

Hans Ulrich Klose: Well, there is some discussion about the right wording. We feel that, yes, international terrorism of the Jihadi style of Al-Qaida, or the network of Al-Qaida is extremely dangerous and biggest danger is that we have to deal with an enemy that is not really accountable.

Melinda Crane: Is the enemy as monolithic as the term "Islamo-fascism" would suggest?

Hans Ulrich Klose: No, I don’t think so. It’s a loose network. There is some ideological religious leadership coming from Osama bin Laden and some others but the different networks in Europe and in other parts of the world are to a large extent acting on their own.

Melinda Crane: Hans-Georg Wieck, President Bush made it clear that he continues to see the war on terror as war? What do you think: is the military approach working?

Hans-Georg Wieck: I think it is a struggle with or against terrorism, which has various shades, but it is not a struggle against a country or against a nation, or against a religion, but it is the struggle with a small group of fundamentalists, of militant fundamentalists using religious or ethical backgrounds and organizing a kind of coalition against modernization, globalization, in their own Muslim world and in the rest of the world. But it is a struggle against such groups and therefore the means are quite different from those used in general wars.

Melinda Crane: Germany, for the first time, found two bombs planted in trains here recently; they did not go off. They appeared to have been planted by Lebanese students in Germany. Would you say that mistakes that have been made in the war on terror have made Germans less safe then they were 5 years ago?

Hans Ulrich Klose: No, I don’t think so. Actually I believe that this group of jihadi militants are attacking our western lifestyle and our western values so I think that we are targeted by these people, whether we live in Germany or Britain or Spain or in the United States, and probably this is a struggle, I agree, is better wording. It’s a struggle that will keep us very busy and very much concerned for a long time because this is nothing that you can deal with in a timeframe of weeks or months or years. I guess, this will be a burden that will accompany us for, well, the optimistic version is 20 years, the pessimistic one is 50 years.

Melinda Crane: But let’s take a look first at how people in Germany, in Berlin and in Washington feel about their own security 5 years after September 11^th and what they say about the way that new security precautions are affecting them.

(man-on-the-street interviews: no transcript)

Rudiger Lentz: From what we heard from the people on the street and from what we heard from Berlin it seems that there are still different perceptions about the threat levels and the tools being used in the war on terror. Is the gap widening concerning the fight on terror between Europe and the U.S.?

Karen Donfried: The question about threat perception is interesting and the German Marshall Fund just launched survey results on Wednesday in which we saw that if you ask Germans and Americans about their perceptions of global threats, both of us put international terrorism as the major threat we are facing. In both countries over 90% of Germans and Americans say international terrorism is the number one threat.

Now, I will say, a slightly higher percentage of Americans view that threat as "extremely worrying", so the intensity and the urgency is different, I think, in the United States than in Germany, but I was struck by how similar the numbers were. That said, the question of whether we would support the same means being used is a good question and if you look at the transatlantic reaction that President Bush’s speech, in which he, for the first time admitted the US did have secret prison sights in various parts of the world – I was struck that the German press coverage very much focused on the secret prisons and their existence, and the American press coverage was more focused on the fact that we have 14 high-value terrorists that were being held in those sites. So I do think, when Americans and Germans look at this issue they look at it from slightly different vantage points.

Rudiger Lentz: Kurt Volker, Karen just mentioned the 14 detainees, which are now in Guantanamo. They have been before under observation and interrogation by the CIA. The President also said this alternative interrogation method will stay with the CIA because they were very successful. What does that really mean? Can you interpret that? Is torture the alternative interrogation method?

Kurt Volker: First off, the United States does not torture people. We don’t condone torture; we don’t transport people to other countries where we think they might be tortured. It’s a matter of law; it’s a matter of the U.S. Army Field Manual; it’s a matter of policy, and the administration and we are very serious about that. What he did say, is that there have been rough interrogation methods that were used. They were lawful, they were safe, they did produce useful intelligence and he gave a long list of examples of intelligence that was gathered from detainees that were held by the CIA.

What I think has been missed in a lot of press coverage, however, is the significance of what the President’s speech actually was – which was to say that all of the secret detention sites are closed. All of the detainees that have been there have been transferred to Guantanamo. They have been declared to the International Red Cross; the ICRC has access to them, they are now held by the Defense Department, not by any other government agency. He has gone to the Congress, following the Supreme Court decision, to propose a way of proceeding with military courts that would be legal and authorized under the way the Supreme Court has done this.

Rudiger Lentz: You did not answer my question. Will the secret prisons stay closed?

Kurt Volker: The President made clear in his speech that we have not terminated the CIA program, so the potential for that still exists. But what he has done is to close the sites that were there and transfer the detainees in a transparent manner and say that he wants to have legal means to bring them to trial, and he will bring them to trail. We have a large other population in Guantanamo, as well, where he wants to send them back to the countries where they can be prosecuted in their own countries or kept under surveillance, and we’re working with others to do that. To get to the goal that the President shares, that Angela Merkel asked him to do, what others have asked him to do, which is to close Guantanamo.

Rudiger Lentz: So far to clarification. Now back to Melinda.

Melinda Crane: Hans-Ulrich Klose, there has been a great deal of concern here in Germany about the covert flights, the covert prisons, and especially about Guantanamo. The Chancellor has asked the President to close the prison. What’s the reaction of the government and, in general, in Germany to the announcements this week?

Hans Ulrich Klose: Well, I have not heard a reaction of – an official reaction – of the government. I would say in Parliament we were not really surprised, because there was a good guess that there was something going on that was on the heavy discussion, not only in Germany but all over Europe; and actually I believe that this whole affair, including the announcements the President just made, did not really help to improve the American image. And I believe, when we talk about the struggle against terrorism, we must win public. Win public in our own countries and especially in Muslim countries, and I believe that actually all of this did some damage, and I am pretty sure that our American friends know about it.

Melinda Crane: Interestingly enough, as Karen Donfried pointed out, the German media covered a very different aspect of the story. They said a lot less about the new protections being afforded to prisoners than they did about the fact that these prisons do exist. Does it make sense to leave Guantanamo open?

Hans-Georg Wieck: I don’t think that it makes sense, but a period for transition the course of the struggle in Afghanistan. Many of them have been in prison for many years. I think if we talk about the war on terror, we certainly can’t leave out the situation in Afghanistan, although it tends to get neglected. How satisfied are you, Hans Ulrich Klose, with how things are developing there?

Hans Ulrich Klose: Well, let me first say that we were on the side of the United States when the war in Afghanistan started. I like to remind you that after the attacks on New York and Washington, Federal Chancellor Schroeder said that Germany would show unlimited solidarity with the United States, and our majority leader in parliament, Peter Struck, said, "Now we are all Americans". And I believe, both of them meant what they said.

I kind of regret when I go through the history of all of this that the war in Afghanistan was not organized by NATO – it would have been, I think, a big advantage to make it a NATO affair, because NATO would have changed it’s character immediately. And the second thing I regret is that the war in Afghanistan was not really finished. And before it was finished, it’s still going on, we had a new war in Iraq, and this probably was not helpful and made things more difficult. In this respect, there are still some different judgments on both sides of the Atlantic.

Melinda Crane: On Friday, of course, a number of U.S. soldiers were killed in an attack in Afghanistan. Let’s go back to Washington now to hear about reactions.

Rudiger Lentz: Thank you, Melinda and I just want to refer to what Ulrich Klose just said about the miserable image of America abroad. Is that a direct result of the war in Iraq and the war on terror and many say, the anti-Islamist stance of American Foreign Policy? And how can you change that, Kurt?

Kurt Volker: I think it’s related to all those things that you mentioned, as a matter of perception. I would not say that that it is a matter of reality, and I think that it is partly our job, and our function, to explain American policy as it relates to the values that we share with Germany and with other democratic societies. I think we have not done the best job at that in the past, and I think we need to do far better. One of them, for example, is he says that the perception of America is that America has an anti-Islamist foreign policy, which is a misperception by any stretch, and I think you can take it any number of ways. First off, what we focus on and what the President was referring to in his speech was a small group of people who exploit Islam for political and ideological reasons to impose the vision of the world in other places, and we are trying to stop that. The way to stop that – the only way to stop that – is to support modern Islamic communities and countries throughout the world so that they can build strong societies that provide opportunities for the people so that the message of hatred and extremism do not appeal.

Rudiger Lentz: Karen, about perceptions. Many critics say that the war in Iraq fueled instead of stopping terrorism. It fueled new terrorism. New terrorist cells sprung up in Western Europe and other places. Is there a relation or correlation between the two?

Karen Donfried: I think it’s hard to make the argument that the terrorist cells we saw in Europe or Al-Qaida as a phenomenon are a result of Iraq. Clearly those things predated a lot. And I think one thing that has been interesting over the past 5 years, if you are talking about transatlantic perception, is that what Hans Ulrich Klose was talking about this incredible solidarity right after the attacks of 9/11. He even had the headline of "We are all Americans". I think in 2001 it was an outpouring of sympathy. Today what you see is Europeans feeling the same threat, feeling the same vulnerability, and I think that shared public perception is a much, much harder basis for common policies going forward.

Rudiger Lentz: We heard a lot about public concerns from the people on the streets in Berlin and Washington. We asked them also about how the war on terror can be won.

Melinda Crane: Hans-Georg Wieck, those Germans seemed relatively unconcerned still. Are they perhaps misreading the situation?

Hans-Georg Wieck: I don’t think so. I think Germans are concerned about the security and threat from fundamentalists or religiously motivated terrorism, but they are of the opinion, if not conviction, that the answer is by segregating the members from these groups from the mainstream. And the mainstream is our ally. The mainstream in the nations, peoples, and states and Islamic forces are the allies of the Europeans in seeking a new perspective for the region which, unfortunately, at this moment burns in various places and has the potential for an act of moving to an aggravating situation. So the counterforce is that of seeking support for a settlement on compromises. Not by submission. By segregating the dangerous parts of the populists.

Melinda Crane: You referred to "in these regions", but some experts say that the greatest jihadist threat may now actually be from minority populations within Western Europe. Hans Ulrich Klose, is that something that the German government is worrying about?

Hans Ulrich Klose: Well, I think all European governments are concerned about that because we have a lot of immigration coming from Muslim countries, especially Britain, especially France and also Germany, and it seems that even the second or the third generation is not really integrated in Western society. Taking responsibilities for the welfare of society. One big difference, if you refer to immigration between the U.S. and the Europeans is that normally people from these countries are not coming to Europe to become Europeans, to become citizens, but they just want to live here for a while but live their way of life. Introduce their way of life, and that makes it extremely difficult.

Melinda Crane: I am afraid that is all we have time for here at our end in Berlin, back to you now, in Washington.

Rudiger Lentz: Thank you and let me just touch for a second an aspect of the whole debate which we have not touched yet. Many people here think that more security means less civil liberty. Is there a correlation between the two? Aand is that fear of the people a serious concern?

Karen Donfried: There is a raging debate in the United States about where you draw the lines between protecting civil liberties and protecting our homeland and national security issues. And you see this playing out right now in the U.S. congress. President Bush is using this offensive, these speeches, to try to push the U.S. congress on legislation concerning both, how you treat detainees, military tribunals and also the whole issue of wiretaps without warrants. And we are seeing a series of speeches in the context of 9/11 and the 5-year anniversary, but we also need to see them in the context of midterm elections in our congress this November. And it will be interesting to see in the next few weeks how this plays out in congress. But to suggest that Americans decided they are comfortable with throwing civil liberties out the window to make themselves secure against terrorism, that does not capture the political reality in the United States today.

Rudiger Lentz: So you are optimistic that this problem will be tackled and not affect the public in the way some critics fear.

Karen Donfried: I think these are hard issues. I think Americans are struggling with them. I think Germans are struggling with them, and I would argue that values on which we are having this debateare much more similar across the Atlantic than they are divergent.

Rudiger Lentz: Kurt Volker, let’s come back for a moment to Iraq, which is so much intertwined with the war on terror. The vision before America started the war in Iraq, was to create a democratic and stable Middle East. What we have now is a series of crises, and series of extensive terrorist attacks. So was that policy a failure? Do you have to change course?

Kurt Volker: First off, part of what’s underneath your question, it seems that the Middle East was perfect before the war in Iraq, which was far from the case. And we’ve had a lot of problems in the Middle East over decades. Whether it’s the Arab-Israeli conflict or Saddam Hussein or the Iran-Iraqi war and on and on – and you innumerate lot’s of problems – so this is not something caused by the war in Iraq, per se. That said, the war in Iraq had an impact in the Middle East, of course. It has inflamed angers and passions and has become a place where terrorists have gone to fight on that battleground, and it is partly because of what we are exactly are trying to do, as you said, which is to say that the pattern of supporting stability and authoritarian governments and a lack of freedom in the region in exchange for some stability proved to be illusive. We have to stay the course in advancing freedom and democracy, market economy, social integration, security in the region.

Rudiger Lentz: Thank you. I think we have to leave it here and thank you to both of you for this very interesting discussion. I’m Rudiger Lentz and now back to Melinda in Berlin.

Melinda Crane: Thank you to our guests here in Berlin, to our guests in Washington as well and to our viewers. Thanks for joining us for this edition of Capital Cities. See you next time.