Vice-Chancellor, you will be addressing the Munich Conference on Security Policy, (…) where you will be explaining why the meeting of the six foreign ministers to discuss the Iranian nuclear programme was a step forward?

Among other things. Of course, Iran's nuclear programme will be one of the dominant themes in Munich. The decisive step which would enable us to rule out the threat of uranium enrichment by Iran has yet to be taken. But perhaps the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will publish a report in the next few days which portrays Iran's cooperation in clarifying the unresolved issues regarding the Iranian nuclear programme in a rather more favourable light.

Be honest, haven't international efforts actually lost steam since the report from the US intelligence services was published?

No. That's why it was so important that the five veto powers and Germany demonstrated their unity of purpose. The draft for a new Security Council resolution is undoubtedly a reflection of this unity. The US report has shown that we are no longer under quite so much time pressure. But it has confirmed that Iran was working on a nuclear weapons programme up to 2003. That is why we cannot afford to slacken our efforts to resolve the problem and eliminate any threats posed to Iran's neighbours and above all to Israel.

Isn't the price of this unity of purpose the fact that the real goal has been lost from sight?If Iran has mastered uranium enrichment by 2009, it will maybe already have achieved its primary goal.

To do that the country would have to make the leap to industrial enrichment. Unlike last year, we no longer fear that they will be so advanced by 2009.

German business is becoming increasingly outspoken in its criticism of sanctions, which it claims are hitting it hard.

I said two years ago that economic consequences would be unavoidable if we failed to find a political solution. The sanctions are not hitting German companies any harder than firms in other European countries.

But President of the Federation of German Industries Jürgen Thumann claims that sanctions are absolutely the wrong way to go about achieving political compromise.

We get the impression that the Iranians are feeling the economic squeeze in certain areas. This hasn't prompted the political leaders to rethink. But it has sparked discussion in Iran on whether it might after all be better to enter into negotiations. I am banking on these forces becoming stronger.

Business representatives also criticize a contradiction in Germany's Iran policy. On the one hand the Federal Government constantly emphasizes the need for international unity of purpose, on the other hand it does not help companies in the face of unilateral US sanctions.

Particularly those companies that operate on the US market make their own decisions. They don't ask us what they should do.

Then there is the gripe that the Federal Foreign Office is one of the worst culprits for dragging its feet.

I don't believe that's the case. At least, I know of no decision that has not been taken in consensus with the Federal Ministry of Economics and, where necessary, in consultation with the Federal Chancellery. But I would like to come back to the Conference on Security Policy. The issue of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction does not centre solely on Iran.

Who else is involved then?

I share the concerns of a number of former US Secretaries of State such as Henry Kissinger, who are worried about the increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons. We therefore have to inject more momentum into the topic of disarmament again. But that will only work if the nuclear-weapon powers, too, finally fulfil the obligations they have pledged to honour under the relevant treaties and begin to disarm. Otherwise the next attempt to revise the Non-Proliferation Regime will also come to naught. At the Conference on Security Policy, I will warn participants that NATO also has responsibility on the issue of disarmament. The transatlantic alliance needs to remind itself of its fundamental tasks. They certainly include support and military defence capabilities. But they also include striving for disarmament. Security is not established solely through the use of arms, but also by the creation of trust. We need more effort to be channelled into talks on disarmament and dialogue along the lines of the CSCE.

. . .