QUESTION: You have just come back from Bosnia, Professor Garton Ash. Is the area developing towards multi-ethnic states?
GARTON ASH: The return of nationalism is one of the great cliches of the 1990s. There are 57 different varieties of nationalism. What is true is that in the Balkans we have seen the late triumph of a post-communist version of the 19th century ethnic and linguistic nationalism which demands that each ethnic and linguistic group should try to form its own state. And the reductio ad absurdum of that is Bosnia, where the Muslim population is being forced to create its own fragile, mini-version - almost a parody of a national state because everyone around them is forming theirs.
STURMER: I agree that there are many varieties on the theme of nationalism, but I do not really think we are going backs to the 19th century. What is happening in the Balkans is a continuation of the 19th century. Where I think we have to put in much more intellectual hard work is to find a balance between the need, which is very strong at least in the countries around Germany, for the conservation of some national identity, and the equally strong need to pool our resources, our national interests, and arrive at something that is more than simply the addition of our national egos.
GARTON ASH: I don't think that the formation of more smaller states and fewer multinational states is in itself a catastrophe. The crucial question is what kind of states will they be? Will they respect human rights and minority rights internally and how will they behave in the international community?
I agree that the crucial question is what would be the nature of the coexistence of this much larger community of largely national nation-states in Europe? My great worry is that on one end of Europe we have Bosnia, which brings us back to atrocities which we haven't seen since the Second World War, and at the other end, we have the enterprise of monetary union, which is a high risk gamble and not the best way to bring this larger community of European states into some form of civilised coexistence.
QUESTION: Europe has been important historically in offering many examples of nationalism and ethnic prejudices. We seem to be hobbling towards some sort of unity. Do you see this happening?
GARTON ASH: I think that the chances are worse than 50-50 for the success of monetary union. That is why I'm so concerned that we should have some other enterprise in Europe besides the monetary union, and I believe this other large enterprise should lie in the field of security.
STURMER: The great vision of Europe band its driving force should be to establish Europe as a provider of security in a world which pays no attention to the national idiosyncrasies of any European nation. While we are all too small to be terribly important, I believe we have a mental, dialectical condition. We are forced all the time to engage in global or very large systems. Twenty-four-hour banking, worldwide communication, worldwide events - it is really a global village.
At the same time, people still have many stone age instincts. They want to feel that somewhere is safe, somewhere where they recognise themselves. Unless we are able to combine this global approach with a local familiarity, I think we are going into a crazy world. It's a question of balance. Reassurance is essential.
QUESTION: The historian Paul Kennedy says that the nation-state remains the primary locus of identity for most people. Would you agree?
STURMER: Yes. The problem for the Germans is that after the Second World War we went into Europe enthusiastically,, but also driven by a desire to shed as much of our national history as possible. At the same time, Germany was rebuilt on the assumption that one day there would be a reunification. The prevailing vision was that one day the nation-states would be overcome and Europe would be a big family.
Now the monetary union has become a sort of iron frame that should force all of us into thinking in a European mode rather than a national mode and in fact it will be very tough. Maybe the German idea is being shared by others that the next intergovernmental conference should work for a more substantial and effective common security policy. But the chances are that this is not so.
QUESTION: Security is a primary need? Do you see a sort of European security force?
GARTON ASH: I think that security, like charity, begins at home. Over the last five years, Europe as a political actor has failed to supply security even to Europe the continent. Bosnia is the great proof of that.
The representatives of the European Union wandering around Bosnia dressed, like cricketers are the symbol of European failure - plus the fact that the future of Bosnia is now being negotiated in Dayton, Ohio.
There are two lessons that we can draw. One is that we still need the Americans, and the second is that it is absolutely vital that the major powers of the European Union should get their act together for the next Bosnia. Common foreign security policy should be the top priority of the next intergovernmental conference, together with the agenda for enlargement to East and Central. Europe, which in itself is an integral part of European security policy.
STURMER: I couldn't agree more. I think that we've played the conclusion' of the Balkan War in 1913 in an absurd way and we haven't got to 1914 - and we have no desire to. But it is a farce what we have produced, and some European nations have a greater responsibility than others. We could have intervened at a very early stage. Now it is a cancer for Europe. In fact we need American initiative in order to have some hope that we can contain the crisis and bring peace to the Balkans, that some of the refugees can return to their homes and that there is a chance of reconstructing an important part of Europe.
QUESTION: The first Czech president, Tomas Garrigue Masaryk's, definition of Central Europe included Turkey and Greece but not Germany or Austria. What could be Germany's role in Central Europe?
STURMER: Whether we are included or knot in Central Europe, the challenge remains the same to reorganise Europe after the Cold War, including Germany. We have a very strong interest in saving Central Europe and the land east of Central Europe, but we have no desire to do it alone. Germans are heavily engaged in Eastern Europe, but at the same time we want to strengthen the Western ties. Otherwise people will say: "For God's sake, what are the Germans up to in Central Europe?" It is better for the psychology of our eastern neighbours that Germany takes part in it, but certainly not alone. We do not always have to be the model student. Others may take up their burden.
GARTON ASH: I'm quite optimistic about Central Europe. You mention Masaryk, and it is of course the case that for most of the century the term Central Europe has stood for a political programme, a German political programme, a Slav programme as with Masaryk, an East European political programme as with Milan Kundera. I think we actually have the prospect that in 10 or 20 years' time when Germans or Poles or Czechs say Central Europe, they'll actually mean the same thing - a geographical area with a certain common cultural identity in the same political Europe. What is crucial is enlargement of the EU and Nato.
Sturmer: Before we enlarge Nato and the EU, we need to widen the strategic and, economic space in order to really create security and stability. The Russians also need to feel reassured that this is not against them.
QUESTION: if you had to pinpoint problem spots where nationalism could get out of hand in the near future, where would, they be?
GARTON ASH: The communist multiethnic states have a tendency to fall apart violently. This has happened in former Yugoslavia and in Transcaucasia. But if I had to guess where the next Bosnia was going to come in terms of an immediate security challenge to the European Union, the answer would have to be Algeria.
Sturmer: The Balkan problems, including the ambitions Serbia, are by no means solved. There are also old problems that are dangerous, such as the conflict between Greece and Turkey. But security question number one I would say is the problem of Ukraine, but I would warn against simply calling it nationalism. It's a horrible mixture of problems. Ukraine lives across many historical, cultural fault lines.
Remember that Crimea was made part of Ukraine only 40 years ago. Other dividing lines go back to the Middle Ages. The country is in a terrible state. Reforms have not been realised. Inflation is rampant. This cannot last for long. The country makes Russia look very good. I can't imagine that this will all be very peaceful. Serbia has shown the world that violence pays.
QUESTION: How can Europe react faced with the problems in Algeria?
GARTON ASH: One of the things that went most wrong in our handling of former Yugoslavia was that major European powers had different national policies without any significant difference of national interest. This should be avoided when it comes to a policy towards Algeria. We have to get in place an institutional arrangement for coalitions of action. There should be a commitment from a minority of member states of the EU or Nato.
STURMER: So far, concerning Algeria we haven't been very imaginative. Why don't we share analysis or co-ordinate policies? The overriding European interest vis a vis Algeria is to try and stabilise the country or stop a civil war. It is not likely that there will be a huge explosion like in Iran, but it can't go on for five or 10 more years.
We should co-ordinate our approaches. It's no good if leaders of the FIS (Islamic Salvation Front) are regarded as public enemy number one in France and given shelter in neighbouring countries.
We should try and give any encouragement we can to those forces that understand that there has to be some compromise.
We've seen this so far as a spectator sport that is some day going to explode in our faces. Europeans felt that this was France's chasse gardee.
But as much as we feel we have a vital, interest in Central Europe, the French and the Spaniards, the Italians and Portuguese have a vital interest in the South. We must overcome this geographical division of national influences. Europe being a single security space, we must surely share the fundamental analysis and act in concert.