VZCZCXRO1230
RR RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHRL #1654/01 1670941
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 160941Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3711
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUCNFRG/FRG COLLECTIVE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 BERLIN 001654 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/08/2021 
TAGS: PGOV SOCI KISL GM
SUBJECT: GERMAN INTERIOR MINISTRY TO OPEN DIALOGUE WITH 
ISLAM 
 
REF: (A) BERLIN 1069 (B) BERLIN 1070 
 
Classified By: Acting PolCouns John Lister.  Reason: 1.4(b) an (d) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary.  After weeks of media attention on 
immigration and integration policy, German Interior Minister 
Schaeuble has decided to organize a conference and meet 
directly with representatives of a number of Islamic 
organizations.  The decision represents a significant policy 
shift for the German government, which in the past has 
rejected such direct dialogue.  The conference, planned for 
September, would start a 2-to-3 year dialogue meant to lead 
to conclusion of an agreement between the state and the 
organizations on the role of organized Islam in Germany. 
Among the participants will be the "Islamic Community Mili 
Goerus," previously seen as unacceptably fundamentalist and 
potentially subversive, for which reason Schaeuble will 
reportedly not meet directly with them.  Also taking part 
will be Ditib, the Turkish government-linked organization 
that previously had rejected dialogue with other Islamic 
organizations.  Interior Ministry and some Islamic contacts 
believe the Minister's step, taken on his own authority, is a 
breakthrough in state-Islam relations in Germany.  End 
Summary. 
 
Background 
---------- 
 
¶2. (C) Germany's relations with its primarily Turkish 
immigrant Muslim community have been marked by a lack of 
official contact between the government (at state and federal 
levels) and Muslim organizations, especially since 9/11/2001. 
 Partly due to security concerns (many Muslim organizations 
are under observation by federal and state Offices for the 
Protection of the Constitution (OPC) as at least potentially 
subversive), partly for German bureaucratic reasons, and 
partly due to cultural-political reasons, politicians and 
officials have generally avoided dialogue with Muslim groups. 
 Government contacts generally cite the lack of a single 
umbrella organization with whom the government could speak as 
a reason for rejecting dialogue with any one group.  As 
recently as May 10, Heidrun Tempel, responsible for religious 
affairs in the Chancellery, repeated all of these arguments 
for Poloff in explaining why Muslim organizations were 
unlikely to be invited to the so-called "Integration Summit" 
planned by the Chancellor before the summer break.  However, 
other contacts have indicated discomfort at the lack of 
direct dialogue.  Maximilian Mueller-Haerlin, Office Director 
for Federal Integration Commissioner Boehmer indicated in 
April that the Embassy's dialogue with Muslim groups could be 
a positive example for the government.  In a similar vein, 
Muslim leaders last fall commented that it surprised them 
that, although they had attended U.S.-hosted Iftaar dinners 
(in some cases, more than once) in Germany, they had never 
been invited to, or even heard of, a German government-hosted 
Iftaar dinner. 
 
¶3. (C) According to Interior Ministry A/S for Immigration and 
Integration Lehnguth, the view that no dialogue was possible 
with Muslim groups remains fairly widespread.  Within the 
Interior Ministry family, both the Federal Office of Criminal 
Investigation (BKA) and OPC were against dialogue with groups 
they consider subversive, even if non-violent.  Schaeuble 
simply overruled them, Lehnguth reported.  Rainer Krappen, on 
the Minister's staff, confirmed that the decision was the 
Minister's.  Lehnguth also dismissed opposition from CDU/CSU 
members of parliament -- some of whom have argued that no 
Muslim group in Germany is an acceptable dialogue partner. 
 
Schaeuble's Plan 
---------------- 
 
¶4. (C) According to Lehnguth, Schaeuble plans a first 
"plenary" session of the dialogue in September.  Participants 
will be drawn from government, Muslim organizations, and from 
among independent experts/NGOs.  He mentioned specifically 
Ditib, the Islamic Council, and the Central Council of 
Muslims as invitees among Muslim organizations.  Central 
Council Spokesman Mounir Azzaoui told us other invitees might 
include the Association of Islamic Cultural Centers, and the 
Alaouite and the Ahmadiniya organizations.  As experts, 
Lehnguth mentioned several Muslim politicians, some 
individuals who also have leading roles in Moslem groups, and 
others, including author and Islam-critic Necla Kelek.  After 
the plenary, the dialogue would break into three working 
groups - one each on work, ethics/values, and business as a 
bridge to integration. Krappen clarified that the Ministry 
saw a role for Mili Goerus in the working groups, but not in 
the plenary, and that Mili Goerus would have no direct 
contact with Schaeuble.  (Note: Mili Goerus advocates the 
eventual, peaceful introduction of Sharia into Germany.) 
 
BERLIN 00001654  002 OF 003 
 
 
 
¶5. (C) A two-to-three years process of dialogue on issues of 
concern, such as Islamic instruction in German schools, would 
ensue.  The goal of the dialogue would be the conclusion of 
an agreement between the groups (who might by them be 
represented by a single umbrella organization) and the state 
on Islam's role in the state, similar to agreements the two 
major churches and the Jewish community have with the state. 
Partially walking back previous German government views, 
Lehnguth indicated considerable realism about the chances of 
bringing the fissiparous Muslim community under a single 
umbrella.  Lehnguth indicated such an outcome would be 
welcome, but that it was not essential to a successful 
outcome. 
 
Many Questions, But Overall Welcomed by Muslims 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶6. (C) Asked his view of the dialogue plan, Ditib General 
Secretary Yildirim said "dialogue is always better" than 
 
SIPDIS 
isolation, but said he had no information on the specifics 
and that Ditib had not yet received an invitation.  He 
speculated that Interior Minister Schaeuble may be leading 
the dialogue because the Chancellery did not believe it 
possible to include Muslim groups in its "Integration 
Summit."  Yildirim was unwilling to give a view on the 
participation of Mili Goerus or other groups absent a 
decision by the Ditib Board on participation. 
 
¶7. (C) Central Council Spokesman Azzaoui, who appeared quite 
well-informed about the Ministry's plans, broadly welcomed 
the dialogue, which he believed would also make a positive 
contribution toward the establishment of an umbrella 
organization representing most Muslim organizations.  It was 
particularly important, he said, that the Interior Ministry 
was willing to invite Mili Goerus, because that was an 
effective lever to ensure the participation of Ditib in the 
dialogue.  Ditib, by far the largest single Muslim 
organization, has in the past generally rejected a broad 
dialogue because of its size and quasi-official status. 
Azzaoui, whose organization hopes to gain influence in an 
umbrella organization, speculated that the Ministry might try 
to steer the dialogue in that direction.  He was concerned, 
however, at Ministry plans to include a large number of 
organizationally unaffiliated "experts" among the "Muslim" 
participants in the dialogue.  He asked what role 
non-representative experts can play if the goal of the 
dialogue is to reach an agreement between the government and 
the Muslim organizations. 
 
¶8. (C) Christian Hoffman, Director of the Muslim Academy, a 
forum for unofficial dialogue, said he welcomed the 
Minister's "statement that he will meet" with Muslim groups, 
but was unhappy that the Ministry had not consulted with his 
group.  He said he was only aware of what had been in the 
press and could not therefore comment more substantively, but 
he also signaled some skepticism about whether the dialogue 
would actually take place. 
 
Working Level in Chancellery and Bundestag Not Informed 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
¶9. (C) Schaeuble's step was apparently not coordinated in 
advance within the government - at least not below the 
cabinet level.  According to Heidrun Tempel, Chancellery 
Office Director for Religious Affairs, she only knew what she 
had read in the papers.  She stressed that Ministers in 
Germany have the authority to act within their own field, so 
Schaeuble's step was not a problem.  She did note that some 
confusion had arisen between the Interior Ministry plans and 
Chancellery plans for an "Integration Summit" in June.  The 
two, she stressed, were entirely separate and she foresaw no 
specifically religious element in the Chancellery effort. 
Michael Guentner, Office Director of CDU/CSU Caucus Chairman 
Kauder, confirmed that Schaeuble's decision had also not been 
made after consultation with the party caucus in the 
Bundestag and that the question of the suitability of Islamic 
groups for dialogues remains open in party ranks.  "We still 
have to get used to dialogue," he explained. 
 
Comment: More Than Meets the Eye 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶10. (C) The details of Schaeuble's plan indicate a new 
beginning mixed with a large measure of caution.  In 
particular, the Ministry's concern is evident in the decision 
to keep Mili Goerus at arm's length and the inclusion of 
non-representative "experts," many of whom may have a 
liberal/secularist orientation, which the Ministry could use 
to balance views it may find objectionable from Muslim 
organizations  The plenary/3 working group set-up and the 
 
BERLIN 00001654  003 OF 003 
 
 
diversity of Islamic interlocutors will make for a 
complicated process.  However, the specifics of the plan 
should not obscure the significance of the move.  Barbara 
John, former Berlin Commissioner for Migration and 
Integration, described it as the culmination of a too-long 
but essential process of recognizing that the struggle 
against terrorism can not be successful if non-violent (even 
if conservative) Muslim groups are marginalized.  And that 
has been the political status of Muslim organizations until 
Schaeuble's move, many observers agree.  Until now, while 
cities and states have had varying degrees of formal and 
informal interaction with Muslim groups, the federal 
government has lacked routine and even symbolic processes 
(e.g., participation in annual public ceremonies) of 
political engagement between organized Islam and the federal 
state.  The national political class, starting this fall, is 
to begin to talk with, rather than just about, its Muslim 
citizenry and population.  End Comment. 
TIMKEN