"Our pressure was helpful" – Interview by Federal Foreign Minister Steinmeier with the Handelsblatt newspaper

Handelsblatt: Minister, this week the Bundestag will vote on the Lebanon mission. Do you expect any problems?

Steinmeier: Following my recent talks, I'm confident there will be a broad parliamentary majority. My view is that our attempt to make the decision-making process transparent has taken the wind out of many objections.

Wouldn't it be more honest to say that the mission will probably last for longer than one year?

I don't see any lack of honesty here. I can't say today, for all aspects of the Bundeswehr (German armed forces) mission, that they will necessarily be completed in one year. But the German contribution is clearly different from that of other countries. It is expressly based on a request by the Lebanese government. Moreover, the mission is defined in that request as being for a transitional period – until such time as the Lebanese navy is able to take over the surveillance tasks itself. This is why we want to send instructors. It is unclear whether this will be over in a year, but to fix any other period now would be speculation.

In a year's time, when the mandate is extended, will we be discussing ground troops?

Definitely not! Any international request must be decided on the basis of the three criteria "is there a need for German assistance, can the Bundeswehr supply it, and are the risks justifiable?" I prefer a public discussion of military contributions to acceptance without criticism. It is clear that Germany will be asked time and again whether it is able and willing to make certain contributions. But I don't see us making changes to what we have announced, nor will the Bundeswehr be able to take on additional tasks, being stretched to the limit as it is.

The FDP (a political party) accuses you of falsely concentrating on military assistance.

This accusation, i.e. that German foreign policy is becoming militarized, is purely and simply false. It was false with a view to the EU mission in Congo, where the international community has for years been trying to get the civil reconstruction process going after two civil wars – through development assistance, a legislative process and reform of the police force. To shore up this progress we are now using troops to watch over the elections. It is pure polemics to call this militarization!

The Congo mission can't be compared to that in Lebanon, indeed the starting points are quite different. But in Lebanon, too, we began to render humanitarian assistance even while the fighting was still going on while at the same time leading the diplomatic struggle for the UN resolution and the ceasefire.

But what about the calls for a political concept for the Middle East as a whole?

During the first phase the focus was on the Israeli-Lebanese border conflict. Now, as you say, we must broaden our focus and work on a political framework for the entire Middle East – involving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and including difficult partners like Syria. There are more supporters of this position now than there were two or three weeks ago. The Middle East Quartet, in other words the UN, the EU, the US and Russia, must be revived, and it should no longer limit itself, as before, to mediating between Israelis and Palestinians, but should extend its work to the other Middle East issues. It should map out the route which will in the end lead to an international conference. But this route is longer than some people think.

How long do you think it will take?

There's no way of knowing, as without substantial preparation a conference is not a very good idea. But there are already certain positive signs – despite last weekend's setback, the attempt to form a Palestinian government of national unity is a signal of hope which, if implemented, can enable Israel to resume the talks. The preconditions are renunciation of violence and recognition of the State of Israel.

Hasn't the Western boycott of the Hamas government encouraged the escalation?

Quite the contrary! A Hamas government which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and which tolerates terrorism cannot be an interlocutor for the international community, and definitely not for Germany. I think our pressure was helpful. Hamas understood that a certain type of behaviour cannot be accepted and that it has consequences for international financial assistance. Our position helped smooth the path towards a government of national unity.

But you've also talked to the Syrian government, although Damascus doesn't recognize Israel either.

We're not talking to Syria just for the sake of it. Our message is clear – the talks will only get moving again when there are credible signals that Damascus's position has changed. However, we must constantly check whether changes have taken place. By the way, I assume that the Syrians have a fundamental interest in talking to the international community.

So why are the French – unlike yourself – so sceptical?

There are those in the EU who say we must put our contacts with Syria on the backburner. But my fear is that this would cripple any attempt to set a new Middle East peace process in motion. I therefore advocate trying to enter into a dialogue all the same.

Can Germany play any kind of role in the Middle East ?

We're not acting alone but rather as part of a European and international effort. The EU and the Middle East have taken careful note that Germany's aim is to bring stability and peace to the region. They all know about our special relationship with Israel, but I don't have the impression that we are therefore seen as being one-sided defenders of Israeli interests. On the contrary, I think our credibility in the region as a whole has risen because of our actions during the recent crisis.

Let's turn to Iran. How optimistic are you about achieving a solution to the nuclear issue?

After three years' negotiations on Iran you learn to keep your expectations low. The only route to a solution has to be via diplomacy, and the prospects for success are at their highest prior to the initiation of a UN Security Council procedure. I only hope Tehran understands this.

What do you expect from the Iranian President's speech to the UN General Assembly?

Nothing, but let's wait and see. I hope President Ahmadinejad doesn't jeopardize the rapprochement achieved during the talks between EU High Representative Javier Solana and Iranian nuclear negotiator Larijani.

Is there a deadline before the Security Council gets involved?

No, but this process won't drag on for many more weeks if Iran doesn't make a move.

Tehran is clearly hoping to split the Security Council.

There has always been unity on Iran among the countries concerned, also within the Security Council. In 2006 alone fears have been uttered at least five times that this unity would fall apart. It hasn't happened. So Iran shouldn't place its hopes on a split.

Do we need to revisit the problem of uranium enrichment?

We must certainly give this issue further consideration because the task will not be over once the conflict with Iran is resolved. Many countries are thinking of using nuclear energy and are toying with the idea of building their own uranium-enrichment plants. To avoid similar problems to those with Iran in other threshold countries and to strengthen the NPT we need to multilateralize the fuel cycle. There must be international supply guarantees for nuclear fuel. This could stop countries wanting their own enrichment plants.

Russia has already made such offers.

But these weren't successful, perhaps also because countries didn't want to be dependent on a single supplier. Another idea is, therefore, to place this multilateral uranium enrichment under the auspices of the IAEA and its export controls. To that end a third country could provide an exterritorial site for an uranium-enrichment plant, which would have a status similar to that of the UN in New York. The plant could be financed by those countries, who would then have the right to acquire nuclear fuel.

A uranium-enrichment plant on an exterritorial site – aren't you thinking a little too far "out of the box" here ?

Let me remind you that the statutes of the IAEA, which was founded fifty years ago, give that body the option of building and running its own facilities.

The interviewers were Mathias Brüggmann and Andreas Rinke.