Sonia Phalnikar interviewed Gerhart Baum |
www.dw-world.de | © Deutsche Welle.
"We Need Proof That the German State is Capable of Mercy"
Is it time for Germans to pack away the memories of the RAF?
Gerhart Baum, interior minister during the height of left-wing terror group RAF's bloody campaign, spoke with DW-WORLD.DE about why two former terrorists should be released from prison.
Nearly 30 years after left-wing radical group, RAF (Red Army Faction) terrorized West Germany, federal prosecutors have filed a request for the release of Brigitte Mohnhaupt, a leading RAF member who was sentenced to life in prison in 1985 for her role in a series of prominent murders. Separately, German President Horst Köhler is considering a pardon for Mohnhaupt's former colleague, Christian Klar who is serving a life sentence for at least 11 killings.
The moves have sparked a furious debate in Germany pitting outraged relatives of the RAF's victims against politicians who say the killers have done their time and no longer pose a threat to society.
DW-WORLD.DE spoke with Gerhart Baum, former interior minister of Germany and ex-member of the free-market liberal FDP party. Baum is a prominent advocate of releasing the prisoners.
DW-WORLD.DE: Why are you in favor of releasing Mohnhaupt and Klar from prison?Gerhart Baum: That's because I respect the principles of our constitutional state and believe they must be applied to the RAF terrorists too. They should not be given any special status, either in the negative or positive sense. At the time (of their arrest) we refused to treat them as prisoners of the war as they wanted. The RAF terrorists are criminals and murderers and must be treated like any other criminals in a comparable case.
We also need to make a distinction between the two. In Mohnhaupt's case, it's about releasing her on parole. With Christian Klar, it's about him being pardoned by the German president. Both cases are being reviewed by the authorities who will eventually make a decision.
Christian Klar was given a triple life sentence. Can you explain what "life imprisonment" means in a strictly legal sense in Germany?(Christian Klar is in prison for nine killings and 11 counts of attempted murder)
It does not mean literally for life. There is no life-long imprisonment in practice unless the perpetrators are deemed dangerous and remain dangerous. According to our laws, a life sentence is reviewed after 15 years for the first time. And one of the fundamental principles of our legal system -- which has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the country's highest court -- is that human dignity, as it is laid down in the constitution, also means that a person who is sentenced to life imprisonment must be given a perspective for freedom.
Those who oppose releasing Mohnhaupt and Klar say the two have neither shown any remorse nor contributed towards clearing up a series of unsolved murders.That's precisely why Mohnhaupt and Klar have been punished so severely. Their sentences represent the toughest legal verdicts ever passed for RAF terrorists. They didn't show any remorse and they didn't cooperate in solving crimes.
But we have to be clear on the point that according to German law, remorse isn't demanded. It's desirable, but it isn't necessary. In the case of Christian Klar, who has appealed to the German president for clemency, it's a different matter. There I expect Klar to distance himself from his crimes. He has apparently done that. But that's for the German president to decide.
You were Germany's interior minister from 1978 to 1982 and thus a key player in the German state's long battle with the RAF. How do you look back on your role today?In addition to using important police and legal resources -- which we managed to implement successfully to defeat the RAF -- I especially tried to highlight flawed developments in our society at that time. The aim was not to play down the RAF, but rather to draw attention to the social environment in which those turbulent events took place.
And let's not forget, they are an issue until today. Just recently a double book edition was published with articles from some 60 scientists who analyzed that period because the RAF is a radical byproduct of the disintegration of the left-wing protest movement. At that time, we tried to sway those who harbored sympathy for the RAF and win them over to the rule of law. And we were successful with that.
You were also responsible for passing several harsh anti-terror laws at the time. Do you regret any? What would you do differently today?The anti-terror measures were a necessary reaction. We had to strengthen our police services which weren't in good shape then. We also had to adapt our courts and legal systems to deal with new criminal behavioral patterns by making changes to our penal code as well as legal procedural code.
I admit that some of this partly went too far. To an extent, there was also a political overreaction to the RAF threat. But we did then dilute some of the measures. When I took office in 1978, I also abolished some of the measures used by the police to hunt down RAF suspects -- a procedure which also hugely affected unsuspecting citizens. So we did draw certain consequences to deal with the threat of that time.
At the same time, it has to be said that since the RAF, anti-terror legislation has been continually beefed up, particularly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. We're practically living in a state of permanent emergency where the balance between freedom and security has been damaged and ended up putting curbs on freedom.
What lessons do you think Germany can draw from the RAF era in fighting terrorism today?The most important thing is to maintain calm and not give in to hysteria and populist fear. Politicians should not be allowed to hijack security and turn it into an election topic. Instead the government has to tell the population that we must learn to live with risks. Germany must keep its cool, remain sober and pragmatic and only pass security measures that make real sense instead of symbolic gestures which are passed off as enhanced security for the population but which in reality only curb freedom.
Nearly 30 years after the RAF terrorized West Germany, the topic remains highly emotional and sparks strong reactions in Germany. Why is that?That whole period -- the reform movements, the struggle for democratic reforms in the political parties, the left-wing protest movement, that whole turbulence and feeling of new beginnings of 1968, the new policy towards the Soviet Union -- is a fascinating one. Even the people suddenly lived differently at the time, they had a different relationship to sexuality, and art was in a heady heyday. All that does still fascinate or interest today's young generation. A year ago an RAF exhibition took place in Berlin where artists reacted to the RAF. I promoted the exhibition at the time and it saw a record 50,000 visitors, most of them young people.
But that is not to be mistaken as a fascination with the RAF, which is only limited. It's more an interest in the political spirit of a highly exciting time. I don't think that the RAF has turned into a myth. We have to remember that they were murderers, though they were politically motivated.
But the majority of the German population is against the release of Mohnhaupt and Klar. How do you explain that?If you follow a simple question pattern -- are you for or against the release -- then I think you could very quickly even have a situation where the population will be in favor of the death penalty. This is where a democratic constitutional state has to show some nerve, keep its calm and hold fast to the fundamental principles of the constitution.
In the 1980s when German President Richard von Weizsäcker pardoned RAF terrorists, it was considered an important gesture. That is not the case today because the RAF and its group of sympathizers no longer exist. What we need is renewed proof that the German constitutional state is capable of showing mercy.
Do you think Germany will finally close the RAF chapter once its last remaining former members are released from prison?No, not in any way. We still don't know the murderers of a whole series of victims after 1985 -- for example those of Alfred Herrhausen (former Deutsche Bank chief) or Detlev Karsten Rohwedder (leader of the post-reunification government-owned Treuhand organization which was responsible for privatizing East German companies.)
And not only do we not know the identity of the perpetrators who are still being hunted, but the interest in the period around 1967 and 1968 still remains very high. So there is no way the debate will come to an end after the last RAF members are released.
Link
