German Business’s Holocaust Denial… Denial

German trade with Iran is booming. According to official statistics, German exports to Iran increased 10.5% over the first eleven months of 2008, reaching a total volume of some Û3.6 billion. This works out to nearly Û4 billion extrapolated over a full year. At this rate, Germany should have easily maintained its position as Iran’s second most important supplier in strict value terms and undoubtedly its most important when qualitative considerations are taken into account. German exports largely consist of machine goods that are crucial to Iranian industry. (It should be noted, moreover, that the number one spot in monetary terms is held by the United Arab Emirates, which is widely believed to serve as a transit country for Iranian imports originating elsewhere, including in Germany.) 

How do German business representatives deal with the obviously delicate issue of Germany, the nation that perpetrated the Holocaust, serving as the main strategic supplier of a country whose President has been well known to promote Holocaust denial? Well, apparently by engaging in some denial themselves: not of the Holocaust, needless to say, but rather of Iran’s Holocaust denial.

Last month, Uwe Westphal of the German public radio Hessischer Rundfunk spoke with Helene Rang, the managing director of the Near and Middle East Association of German enterprises. (German audio is available here). The Honorary Chair of Ms. Rang’s organization is none other than former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. (See here.) 

Ms. Rang was adamant that Germany should not let itself be “bound” by any new sanctions vis-à-vis Iran: “such that we as Germans would, in the end, be in a position of having to wait again, perhaps respecting sanctions, while other countries quickly and efficiently have already begun deals or have prepared deals in a way that we Germans have not yet done.”

Asked by Westphal if German businesses did not have at least to take into account issues such as “Iran’s possible pursuit of a nuclear weapon, human rights, the Holocaust denial,” Ms. Rang dismissed the concerns as an “interpretation.” 

“If you use such formulations…,” she continued.

“Which?” Westphal asked, interrupting her. 

“Like the way in which one gives the impression that one wants to deny the Holocaust. Certainly verbal statements were made there that are unacceptable. But it is also certain that there were many misinterpretations and that one has to see the whole thing in its context.”

When Westphal tried to insist that Tehran’s denial of the Holocaust and threats against Israel at least represent a “moral dilemma,” Ms. Rang shot back: “You have again repeated a claim, because you say denial is occurring [es wird geleugnet]. There are precise translations of what was said there, but that is again a political question.” In grammatically tortured remarks that followed, she then appeared to suggest that the full political “context” in which the Iranian behavior should be judged includes presumptive Israeli misdeeds. “It’s certainly true that things were attacked that are… – or not ‘attacked,’ let’s say: that are constantly brought up and emphasized in the entire Arab world. Like, for instance, what is also the substance of the conflict between Gaza and Israel. Which means that it is not right to see this in a one-sided fashion as a conflict that is only related to Iran.” 

Ms. Rang then beat a hasty retreat from the political front, in order to resume her economic argument, again raising the specter of Germany losing Iranian market share to other countries: notably, America. Even under the Bush administration, she pointed out, American trade with Iran increased dramatically. This appears to be an allusion to a highly publicized Associated Press report from last July, which claimed that US exports to Iran increased more than tenfold between 2001 and 2007, reaching some $146 million in 2007 (or Û115 million at current exchange rates). The American goods were exported under special licenses issued for companies wanting to do business with countries under US sanctions. Note that even at the cited volume of American exports for 2007, German exports to Iran would still represent a volume some 35 times greater. Moreover, as the AP article itself makes clear, the American goods consisted of consumer items like cigarettes and bras or agricultural commodities like “bull semen.” Unlike Germany’s high-tech industrial exports, this is hardly the sort of stuff that could have military significance.

As concerns that alleged tenfold increase, by the way, the AP article appears simply to have been wrong. The AP cites American exports to Iran of a mere $8.3 million dollars in 2001. According to the official Iranian customs statistics, however, the level of American exports to Iran in 2001 was $75 million. Perhaps the AP forgot a zero.