"I Don’t Believe in Applying Old Labels To New Geopolitical Developments": Annalena Baerbock, new Germany's Foreign minister (Der Spiegel)

A "chancelera" (no sentido de ministra das relações exteriores) do novo governo alemão, uma Verde, dá uma importante entrevista para o Der Spiegel. A vida não vai ser fácil para o Bozo.

German Foreign Minister-Designate Annalena Baerbock

"I Don’t Believe in Applying Old Labels To New Geopolitical Developments"

Annalena Baerbock of the Green Party is slated to become Germany's first female foreign minister. She spoke to DER SPIEGEL about the policy challenges the country faces abroad and the more immediate crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Interview Conducted by Valerie Höhne, Martin Knobbe und Jonas Schaibl

Der Spiegel, Hamburgo – 30.11.2021

DER SPIEGEL: Ms. Baerbock, you have just spent several weeks negotiating with the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) and the market-oriented Free Democratic Party (FDP) behind you. What have you learned about future chancellor Olaf Scholz?

Baerbock: When you sit together day and night, you also get to know each other as people. And I can say: The later the hour, the more humorous the conversations.

DER SPIEGEL: And the FDP? It’s often viewed by your party as being neoliberal, right-wing and frivolous.

Baerbock: We often have different points of view, but they can really enrich debates. It is precisely the considerable common ground between the Greens and the FDP in social policy that is reflected in the coalition agreement.

DER SPIEGEL: FDP head Christian Lindner said at the presentation of the coalition agreement that the three parties are united by the fact that they want to overcome the status quo. During the negotiations, though, voices from the Green Party frequently said that the FDP had proven to be a status quo party. Which is true?

Baerbock: Probably both.

DER SPIEGEL: Can you please explain?

Baerbock: It's not that complicated. In Germany, you still have to go to City Hall with paper documents. In such instances, the FDP says clearly: Things can’t continue the way they are. We agree. In other policy areas, we have different ideas about whether something needs to change and what. With financial market regulations, for example, we would have liked to see more change.

DER SPIEGEL: What is the main message of this coalition agreement?

Baerbock: That we can really make a difference. Our aim is to bring politics up to date with reality and to break the stalemates that exist in our country regarding major, future-oriented projects. In digitalization, climate protection and societal cohesion.

DER SPIEGEL: The reality is that the coalition is already facing a major crisis. Olaf Scholz has finally presented the new coalition government’s coronavirus containment policy, but he hasn’t even uttered the word "lockdown." Is the new government acting with as little foresight as the old one?

Baerbock: Everyone is very conscious of the dramatic nature of the situation. We must now do everything in our power to ensure that hospital care remains secure and doesn’t collapse. To that end, we have jointly presented a catalog of seven acute measures. It is good that, in the future, there will be a crisis unit in the Chancellery with representatives from the federal government and from the states. In addition, there will finally be a scientific advisory board that will evaluate the situation on a daily basis.

DER SPIEGEL: Even without a scientific advisory board, you can conclude that the seven points won’t be enough to prevent disaster.

Baerbock: What we have to do now is consistently enforce the protective measures, including 2G and 2G-plus in broad areas and 3G at the workplace and on public transport and in rail transport. (Ed’s: 2G means people have to either be vaccinated or have recently recovered from a coronavirus infection in order to participate in certain aspects of public life, while 2G-plus means they must recently have tested negative on top of that. With 3G, a person has to either be vaccinated, have recovered from corona recently or have undergone a same-day corona test.) The council of experts is reviewing whether that goes far enough. If necessary, we will take further action.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you rule out the possibility of another lockdown?

Baerbock: I do not rule out the possibility that further steps will be needed, possibly sweeping measures. That’s why it is so important to use the next few days to get an honest picture.

DER SPIEGEL: If you’re aiming for a certain centralization of pandemic control, isn't the recent decision to let a law expire that granted the federal government sweeping powers in implementing virus containment measures counterproductive? Instead, the center of power has been shifted back to parliament, which reacts more slowly.

Baerbock: Parliament has shown that it is capable of acting very quickly. We changed the legal basis, not the fight against the pandemic. We have re-enforced those efforts with other measures, such as the 3G rule in the workplace. And, I reiterate: If necessary, we will tighten the rules as quickly as possible.

DER SPIEGEL: Does it make sense to introduce a general vaccination requirement now?

Baerbock: We are not ruling out a general vaccination requirement. But that will not help slow the fourth wave we are seeing right now. Part of the uncertainty among the population also stems from the fact that things are too often announced that aren’t carried out in the end. Before a general vaccination requirement could be adopted, it is necessary to clarify the legal basis and what conditions must be met. Vaccine doses must be available immediately and in sufficient quantities, and vaccination facilities must be available everywhere. It is also important to me that, in parallel to booster vaccinations and compulsory vaccination in sensitive areas such as nursing or in day-care centers and schools, logistical preparations for child vaccinations absolutely need to be made. Adults can stand in line for hours for a vaccination if need be. But you can’t do that with children.

DER SPIEGEL: You were your party’s chancellor candidate, but now you won’t even be vice chancellor. Does that bother you?

Baerbock: I am looking ahead. Our government will likely be taking office in the midst of the most serious health-care crisis this country has ever seen. We have big tasks to tackle. That is where I am currently focusing my energies.

DER SPIEGEL: Has the internal power struggle in your party between centrists and the left wing over cabinet posts hurt the incoming coalition?

Baerbock: No. Debates are part of inner-party democracy. It’s never easy when there are a lot of smart people, but only a limited number of ministries. But the national committee was unanimous in its nominations. Now it’s full steam ahead for the vote in parliament that will put the Green Party back in government after 16 years.

DER SPIEGEL: During the election campaign, you repeatedly said that this would be the last federal government that would still be able to influence the climate crisis. Is the coalition in a position to stop current developments?

Baerbock: We must do everything we can to at least slow down further global warming. Globally, we are currently on track for a temperature increase of 3 degrees Celsius. Of that, 1.2 degrees are already irreversible. That is why these actually are the decisive years for turning things around. Four years isn’t enough to do it, but we can and must get started.

DER SPIEGEL: What precisely does the coalition plan on doing?

Baerbock: The measures needed for our country to contribute to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius are contained in the agreement.

DER SPIEGEL: That’s an ambitious promise. The coalition agreement still states that the coal phase-out should "ideally" be brought forward to 2030. Where is the leverage for starting a real turnaround?

Baerbock: With a CO2 price in European emissions trading of 60 euros per ton, coal-fired power plants will no longer be profitable by the end of the decade, especially with renewable energies continuing to get cheaper. A CO2 certificate currently costs as much as 70 euros, and the price is likely to grow more expensive. However, if the European market price falls, we will introduce a national minimum threshold of 60 euros, that has been agreed. That gives industry planning security. Companies that switch to climate-neutral cement or steel can be sure that they are not throwing their investments out the window.

DER SPIEGEL: You are saying that the use of the word "ideally" in the coalition agreement in lieu of a firm commitment is irrelevant?

Baerbock: Yes, that only means: as soon as the supply of renewable energies is sufficient to replace coal. Of course, we will still need reliable electricity in 2029, whether at three o'clock in the morning or at minus 7 degrees. That is why, logically, the coal phase-out is linked to the expansion of renewable energies, which will entail the greatest effort.

DER SPIEGEL: Again: Where are the binding rules?

Baerbock: The crucial thing is that it was agreed in the coalition deal that the expansion of renewable energies will be defined as a public interest in the future. Which was always the case with mining law – coal mining came first. Now, it’s renewable energies. And we need them not only for the electricity sector, but also for the transport sector and industry. Green power plants will have priority in planning processes and we will provide the state with the appropriate enforcement rights. That may sound technical, but it is a small revolution.  It means that on balance, the importance of renewable energy and infrastructure is increasing. In this way, we are accelerating the planning and approval processes.

DER SPIEGEL: Many experts have called for a higher CO2 price for transport and heat. Why hasn’t that happened?

Baerbock: In light of exploding energy prices, an additional price increase right now wouldn’t be good for social reasons. And we’ve always said that you can’t rely on price alone. Otherwise, the richest people in the country will buy their way out, and everyone else will be left out in the cold. That’s why we now have a good mix of a price effect, regulatory law and subsidy policy.

DER SPIEGEL: Contrary to expectations, the Greens didn’t get the Transport Ministry. Will FDP control of the ministry slow down the transportation revolution?

Baerbock: In terms of content, we have anchored strong guardrails in the treaty. The coalition is committed to supporting the Europe-wide phaseout of the internal combustion engine by 2035. It will also ensure that there are 15 million fully electric cars by 2030, and that the charging point infrastructure will be expanded. Together, this will mean that only zero-emission cars will be newly registered in Germany at the beginning of the next decade.

DER SPIEGEL: How painful is it for you that you had to forego the Transport Ministry?

Baerbock: You can’t have it all, and in the coalition agreement, we fought for the foundations of the transformation in drive systems. We will be responsible for three key transformative portfolios: economy, environment and agriculture. Working together, we can really make a difference, especially if the economy and the environment are no longer played off against each other.

DER SPIEGEL: But aren’t you running the risk of losing the interpretive battle right from the get-go if there’s no high CO2 price, you don't have control of the Transport Ministry and you’ve already given up on imposing a mandatory speed limit on autobahns?

Baerbock: I would, of course, preferred to see the diesel subsidy abolished, for example. But more crucial is the fact that, over the next few years, we’ll be building thousands of wind turbines and power lines and expanding charging point infrastructure. The coalition agreement provides a very solid basis for this.

DER SPIEGEL: Will your critics at the environmental organizations or Fridays for Future see it that way, too?

Baerbock: A strong civil society has to put its finger on the weak spots. I have no problem with that. The task now is now that of building a complete climate infrastructure in the country, which is extremely difficult, especially considering that so little has happened in recent years. But there is no way around it. We have the opportunity and the obligation to bring our industrialized country into an era without fossil energies and to secure prosperity for future generations. It is clear that the 1.5-degree path can only be achieved if European and international partners join in. That is why we need an active foreign policy element for dealing with climate change. The technologies we develop in Germany over the next few years must be exported to the world.

DER SPIEGEL: That will be your job, too. You are about to become Germany’s first female foreign minister. What does that mean to you?

Baerbock: At the beginning of the 1960s, women had to protest in front of the entrance to the Chancellery to finally get a female minister into the cabinet. There was strong resistance to overcome. But women before me did it. I am grateful to these women.

DER SPIEGEL: You said in a television interview before the election that if you became chancellor, your first trip abroad would be to Brussels. Will the same apply to a Foreign Minister Baerbock?

Baerbock: First, our party members have to vote on the coalition agreement and the tableau of cabinet appointments. Regardless: A strong German foreign policy can only be a European one. It is urgent that the Weimar Triangle be revived – Warsaw, Berlin and Paris are crucial to Europe. And even though we have several points of controversy with the Polish government, it is clear: We need close cooperation with our Eastern European partners.

DER SPIEGEL: You have spoken out against putting the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany into operation. What is your plan here?

Baerbock: My criticism of the gas pipeline is well known, for geostrategic and energy policy reasons. At the moment, the pipeline can’t be put into operation anyway. The Federal Network Agency just suspended certification.

DER SPIEGEL: Once you are sworn in, you will immediately have to address a significant developing conflict. Russia is mobilizing troops on its border with Ukraine and it is supplying less gas to Europe. In Belarus, refugees are being smuggled to the border. Is this a hybrid attack by Russia against the EU?

Baerbock: These are anything but easy times. We are experiencing a double blackmail by Lukashenko. On the one hand, refugees are being abused to divide Europe. On the other, the government wants to be recognized by the Europeans as negotiating partner, even though it is suppressing the opposition. You cannot allow yourself to be blackmailed by dictators. The EU must stand together as a community of values. That is why it is right to tighten sanctions and continue to put pressure on the Lukashenko regime. At the same time, diplomacy always means seeking dialogue.

DER SPIEGEL: So, unlike your fellow party members, you have no problem with the fact that Chancellor Angela Merkel called Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko?

Baerbock: You cannot pursue foreign policy without dialogue. We are also talking to the Taliban to get people to safety, after all. But it did not need to be the chancellor calling Lukashenko.

DER SPIEGEL: Poland isn’t letting migrants and refugees into the country at the EU’s external border. Is this the right way to handle the conflict?

Baerbock: Poland needs European solidarity. But of course international law must also be respected at Europe’s external borders, that is clear.

DER SPIEGEL: What might a solution look like?

Baerbock: There is no simple solution. But it is important that Germany, the EU and Poland act together. Even if, from my point of view, providing for the refugees – also on Polish, i.e., EU territory – must be the top priority.

DER SPIEGEL: Are we in a new Cold War with Russia and China?

Baerbock: I don’t believe in simply applying old categories to new geopolitical developments. We are in a systemic rivalry with authoritarian regimes and must make every effort to defend the international rules-based order. It is a matter of protecting the principles of international law, human rights and the international peace order. For several years, it has not only been a matter of military threats, but also of hybrid aggression.

"It is good that the evacuation mission in Afghanistan will be dealt with in a parliamentary committee of inquiry."

DER SPIEGEL: You personally rejected Germany’s participation in NATO’s atomic deterrent, but now nuclear sharing is in the coalition agreement. Do you have to go against your beliefs?

Baerbock: In a coalition, each partner has to move a bit so that we can make progress together. The coalition agreement contains a commitment to nuclear sharing. At the same time, we reaffirmed our common goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and a Germany free of nuclear weapons. Germany will advocate nuclear disarmament as an observer at the Meeting of States Parties to the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We have always emphasized that these efforts are only possible in close consultation with our European and international partners.

DER SPIEGEL: Thousands of local hires who worked for Germany – who saved the lives of German troops – are still stranded in Afghanistan. What will your message to them be once you are sworn in as foreign minister?

Baerbock: It is good that the evacuation mission in Afghanistan will be dealt with in a parliamentary committee of inquiry. We must learn our lessons for future missions. And, of course, every effort must continue to be made to protect and welcome people who are at risk because they worked with us in the past.

DER SPIEGEL: Ms. Baerbock, we thank you for this interview.

 

“I Have Eliminated 'the West’ from My Vocabulary” - Christoph Heusgen, Merkel's Foreign Policy Advisor (Der Spiegel)

 French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Merkel and foreign policy adviser Christoph Heusgen in 2017 during a flight from Triest to Paris.

Foto: Energistyrelsen / Bundesregierung / Guido Bergmann / action press

Interview with Merkel’s Former Foreign Policy Adviser “I Have Eliminated 'the West’ from My Vocabulary”

Christoph Heusgen served for 12 years as Angela Merkel’s top foreign policy adviser. In an interview, he speaks about the chancellor’s successes, mistakes, the amateurish nature of Donald Trump’s government and the right approach to an ascendant China.

Interview Conducted by Christiane Hoffmann und Christoph Schult

Der Spiegel, 23.09.2021, 12.45 Uhr

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/interview-with-merkel-s-former-foreign-policy-adviser-i-have-eliminated-the-west-from-my-vocabulary-a-e3ab1e9d-998f-4d56-9b17-ab950cef5334?sara_ecid=nl_upd_1jtzCCtmxpVo9GAZr2b4X8GquyeAc9&nlid=bfjpqhxz

About Christoph Heusgen

Foto: Luiz Rampelotto / dpa

Christoph Heusgen, 66, served as foreign policy adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel from 2005 to 2017. After studying economics in St. Gallen and at the Sorbonne, he joined the foreign service in 1980. From 1999 to 2006, he headed the staff of EU High Representative for Foreign Policy Javier Solana in Brussels. After leaving the Chancellery, he represented Germany as its permanent representative to the United Nations in New York until summer 2021. Heusgen comes from the city of Neuss, Germany, and is a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union party.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Heusgen, you served as a foreign policy adviser to Angela Merkel from the time she took office in 2005 until 2017. Merkel is considered a major proponent of realpolitik, especially when it comes to foreign policy. What explanation can you offer regarding the degree to which Berlin was taken by surprise by the reality on the ground in Afghanistan?

Heusgen: It wasn’t just in German foreign policy circles – everyone was surprised by the dynamics that developed in Afghanistan.

DER SPIEGEL: Shouldn’t we have been able to predict that the Taliban was going to seize power in the country again?

Heusgen: Hindsight is always 20/20. As a matter of principle, it was right for us to be engaged in Afghanistan, both militarily and in terms of development policy. But we made the mistake of not forcing good governance on Afghan leaders. We should have attached much stricter conditions to our aid. Having seen how Afghan politicians thought first and foremost about themselves and their clans, it is not surprising in retrospect that this government had no standing with the population or with the security forces. When things got serious, everyone ran for the hills. This could have been foreseen with a little common sense.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you think the West could have succeeded in Afghanistan if things had been done differently?

Heusgen: Personally, I think we should have stayed longer in Afghanistan, just as the Americans did for decades in Japan, South Korea and Germany. The key difference was the that the governments there helped in building democracy and institutions, and they also had the backing of the people.

DER SPIEGEL: What bothered you more: the negotiations with the Taliban under former U.S. President Donald Trump or the unconditional withdrawal under Joe Biden?

Heusgen: Excuse me, but the Trump administration was an amateurish, diplomatic mess. It was a grave mistake to forge an agreement with the Taliban and sideline an Afghan government that had been receiving support for years. Biden’s decision was logical and consistent. He knows how incredibly expensive the deployment is and how unpopular it is in the U.S. But I still wish he would have decided differently.

DER SPIEGEL: What does the defeat in Afghanistan mean for current and future deployments? How, for example, can we prevent a similar situation from arising in Mali, where the German armed forces are also deployed?

Heusgen: The lesson is that we need to set clearer conditions. We cannot have a transitional president who refuses to move forward with the transition to civilian rule. We need to be clear: Either you implement good governance reforms, or we will end our support. If the government doesn’t look after the welfare of its people, the terrorists will continue to gain ground. Foreign troops can’t do anything to change that.

DER SPIEGEL: But you also then have to carry through with it.

Heusgen: Yes, then you have to get out.

"When the Chinese wake up in the morning, the first things they are thinking about is not how they can strengthen the international legal order."

DER SPIEGEL: Was Afghanistan a defeat for the West?

Heusgen: I have actually eliminated the term "the West" from my vocabulary.

DER SPIEGEL: Why?

Heusgen: From my point of view, it is no longer about a dispute between the West and the East today, but between states that adhere to a rules-based international order, to the United Nations Charter, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and those that do not. These principles are not Western, but universal. The West has become a negative fighting word that the Russians and Chinese use against us, along the lines of: The West is yesterday’s news.

DER SPIEGEL: What’s your assessment of foreign policy in the Merkel era?

Heusgen: Over the past four years in New York (where Heusgen was Germany’s ambassador to the United Nations), I have seen that Germany has an excellent reputation, thanks in part to its chancellor. When I then return to Germany, I can only shake my head at my nagging compatriots, who complain about so many things here. People are always envious of us in New York, as an example of a country that works well and of a chancellor with foresight who, for 16 years, has ensured reliability, stability and balanced crisis management – in the euro and financial crises, the Ukraine crisis and the refugee crisis. When it comes to the refugee crisis, especially, perceptions in Germany and abroad diverge widely. My American colleague Susan Rice told me at the time that the refugee policy had permanently changed her view of Germany. Opening the border to Syrian refugees in 2015 was a great thing for our country’s reputation.

DER SPIEGEL: Crisis management is indeed considered to be Merkel’s legacy. But shouldn't the aim of successful foreign policy be to avoid crises, to pursue forward-looking policies? The refugee crisis, in particular, could have been avoided if the migrants in Syria’s neighboring countries had been dealt with at an early stage.

Heusgen: It is true that more could have been done. We have learned from that. Today, Germany is the second-largest financial contributor to the United Nations. We provide massive support to the World Food Program and UNICEF.

DER SPIEGEL: Could we not have predicted the Ukraine crisis? It was becoming clear, after all, that Russia was not going to accept the country’s orientation toward the West. Did Germany fail to prevent Ukraine from getting pushed into this conflict?

Heusgen: No, the chancellor had that in mind. We did not want to promote that conflict. That is why, against strong opposition from the United States, she prevented Ukraine from being granted the prospect of joining NATO; nor did the Association Agreement with the European Union open up any prospect of membership. She always kept in mind what was tolerable for Russia. But then, overnight, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych said: No, I'm not going to do this thing with the EU.

Chancellor Merkel, adviser Heusgen: "Germany has to do more."

DER SPIEGEL: Because Russia had placed massive pressure on him.

Heusgen: But we could not have known that Russia was planning an invasion. U.S. Senator John McCain, however, felt it could have been foreseen. From the moment when President Obama stood by and watched as Assad cross his red line in Syria in 2013 and deployed poison gas against the civilian population. McCain felt Putin saw this as a sign of weakness and believed that the Americans would not intervene in Ukraine either. But we still couldn’t tell the Ukrainians: Sorry, because of your geographical position, there can be no Association Agreement.

DER SPIEGEL: In your opinion, is Germany having a particularly hard time coming up with a forward-looking, strategic foreign policy?

Heusgen: I believe that Germany is still in the process of taking the step from being a divided nation to a reunified country that also parlays its economic strength into political strength. We have to get away from always looking first at what others want and think. Leadership is expected from Germany. This, of course, includes crisis prevention. We do that, too – in the Balkans or in Libya, for example. When it came to military intervention in Libya in 2011, Germany had the foresight to recognize that there was no upside, and it abstained at the UN Security Council.

DER SPIEGEL: The decision was not considered far-sighted, but rather typical of the Germans' reticence when it comes to military missions.

Heusgen: In retrospect, the decision has given us great credibility in Libya and in the region; it provides the foundation for our mediation in the country. I see this as part of a forward-looking policy to try to keep the EU’s backyard stable. This also includes our engagement in Africa, which has been a central focus of the chancellor in recent years.

DER SPIEGEL: Is Germany properly positioned for a leadership role in foreign policy?

Heusgen: No one else seems interested. The U.S. is pulling back, and you can see it everywhere. China has developed in a very nationalistic manner. When the Chinese wake up in the morning, the first thing they are thinking about is not how to strengthen the international legal order. So, Germany has to do more.

"If the chancellor then makes a decision, you have to accept it."

DER SPIEGEL: The election platforms of the center-left Christian Democrats and the business-friendly Free Democrats call for Germany to establish a National Security council along the lines of the one in the U.S. The Greens have similar ambitions. Is this a good idea?

Heusgen: A National Security Council would be good for a unified foreign policy. So that, for example, the Chancellery and the Foreign Ministry aren’t working at cross purposes. But that is difficult in a country that has coalition governments. The Chancellery, where central decisions are made, must coordinate closely with the ministries in order to implement them.

DER SPIEGEL: Are there issues where you say today: I should have been more persistent, even with the chancellor. It is said that you have always had a more critical stance about, for example, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline under the Baltic Sea.

Heusgen: Let me answer that on principle. My role in the Chancellery was that of foreign policy adviser. However, decisions very often also have economic or domestic policy dimensions that the chancellor must take into account. If the chancellor then makes a decision, you have to accept it. She’s the politician, I am the civil servant. If you can’t deal with that, then you should find another job or go into politics yourself.

DER SPIEGEL: You were known for making some striking statements during your time on the UN Security Council. Did it feel good to drop the diplomatic restraint at times?

Heusgen: Those are two completely different roles. As adviser to the chancellor, it isn’t your job to be in the public eye, but when you sit on the Security Council, you speak for Germany. In a situation in which Russia, China and Trump’s America had trampled on the international order, I saw it as my duty to stand up for international law from morning until night – especially in light of Germany’s history. I have indeed often taken a very clear stand on this, and many other countries have thanked me for it. Even my Russian counterpart says that things are no longer as interesting without me there.

"The Trump administration was an amateurish, diplomatic mess."

Foto: CHRISTIAN HARTMANN / AFP

DER SPIEGEL: You once asked China and Russia how their presidents could still look in the mirror after they cut off 500,000 children in Syria from humanitarian aid. Was that statement coordinated with Berlin?

Heusgen: I think about formulations like that while I am jogging. If something is crying out to the heavens, you need to consider how to express it in a way that it will be heard. On important issues, you have to seek polarization.

DER SPIEGEL: The chancellor has been accused of being too naive in her dealings with China.

Heusgen: The chancellor had China's growing strength on her radar from the very beginning. She knew early on that the country would be a world power. That’s why she has traveled to China every year since 2006 and started government consultations. This intensive attention paid to China was far-sighted and correct.

DER SPIEGEL: Many thought she was too optimistic about the potential for change created by trade.

Heusgen: I don't agree. I also think the EU's investment agreement with China, which Merkel pushed forward, is right. We must meet China at eye level. The chancellor has never been naive. She has raised human rights concerns with Chinese leaders, she has been critical of the situation of the Uighurs and Tibetans, and she has helped get dissidents out of the country. She has constantly addressed the difficult points, but in a way that kept the discussion going. Of course, we shouldn’t have any illusions. China has become a totalitarian state under Xi Jinping. This will not change in the foreseeable future. We have to remain in dialogue with China and also do business with the country, but in doing so, we must clearly defend our principles and prevent the world from being run according to Chinese rules in the future.

Heusgen on the eyebrow-raising statements he made as Germany's ambassador to the UN: "I think about formulations like that while I am jogging."

Foto: Andreas Chudowski

DER SPIEGEL: The Chinese UN ambassador said goodbye to you by saying that he was glad to be rid of you. What was your experience with the Chinese at the UN?

Heusgen: My experience in New York was that you can work with the Chinese if you do it from a position of strength. It is very important that we do not turn a blind eye, because that won’t get us anywhere. The Chinese will interpret it as weakness. I was given such a "warm” farewell by the Chinese UN ambassador because I was a source of discomfort and clearly addressed the shortcomings: the military threats in the South China Sea, the suppression of democracy in Hong Kong and the treatment of the Uighurs. And we must act together with other countries. We should not breathe a sigh of relief when Beijing goes after other countries like Canada or Australia. We have to stand together – that impresses the Chinese.

DER SPIEGEL: Can you give an example of where that has worked?

Heusgen: I experienced that last year, when the annual declaration of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations was discussed, in which the situation of the Uighurs in Xinyang was condemned. In previous years, Britain and the U.S. were in charge, but last year we Germans took over. Instead of 23, 39 countries joined the declaration. That was an earthquake from the perspective of the Chinese. According to reports, a department head in Beijing had to resign as a result.

DER SPIEGEL: Is that also the way to confront Putin?

Heusgen: In contrast to Russia, China actually does care about its reputation abroad. The Russians don’t care if a resolution is passed against them in the General Assembly by a vote of 120 to five. The Chinese do care – they don't want to lose, and they will try to prevent losing by all means. They blackmail countries. When it comes to an issue that China cares deeply about, you sometimes see African ambassadors reading from Chinese talking points. It’s pretty brutal.

DER SPIEGEL: On the one hand, you are pleading for toughness, but on the other, you are sticking firmly to dialogue. Can that work in the long run?

Heusgen: Name an alternative.

DER SPIEGEL: The U.S. no longer sees China as a partner and competitor, but exclusively as a systemic rival.

Heusgen: The Americans call this "decoupling," but the policy doesn’t work. America’s trade with China may stagnate, but it will not decrease significantly. The economies are far too intertwined for that, and the economic losses would be too high. Furthermore, the Americans are not decoupling entirely. They still want to cooperate with China on climate policy.

DER SPIEGEL: Before Merkel brought you into the Chancellery, you served as chief of staff to Javier Solana, the EU’s first high representative for common foreign and security policy. Are you disappointed by how little has happened in EU foreign policy over the past 20 years?

Heusgen: Those were the golden days of European foreign policy. Solana had previously served as NATO secretary general and could speak on equal footing with EU heads of state and government. No such heavyweight has been appointed to the post of high representative since. Most countries are not prepared to hand more competencies over to Brussels. A first step would be if a former head of state or government were finally appointed to this office.

DER SPIEGEL: What about Angela Merkel?

Heusgen: I don't think she will seek a task like that after the end of her term as chancellor.

DER SPIEGEL: You are a member of the Christian Democratic Union. What distinguishes a Christian Democratic foreign policy from that of the business-friendly Free Democrats, the environmentalist Greens or the center-left Social Democrats?

Heusgen: As a Catholic and a Christian Democrat, the focus for me is on people. Human rights have always very much driven my foreign policy thinking and actions. There is definitely overlap with other parties.

DER SPIEGEL: Is it your hope that Armin Laschet will become chancellor?

Heusgen: Yes.

DER SPIEGEL: What's next for you personally? Is it true that you are likely to succeed Wolfgang Ischinger as chair of the Munich Security Conference?

Heusgen: As chairman of the circle of benefactors of the Munich Security Conference, I will now play an even greater role there and work together with my long-time colleague Wolfgang Ischinger. Apart from that, I have taken on a teaching position at my old university in Sankt Gallen, and I am very pleased about that.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Heusgen, we thank you for this interview.

Related Article

• The Era of Missed Opportunities: A First Look at Angela Merkel's Legacy By Dirk Kurbjuweit
  

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken interviewed by René Pfister (Der Spiegel)

 Der Spiegel, Hamburgo – 26.6.2021

Interview with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken

"We Need To Stand for Freedom and Openness – And Do It Together"

In an interview with DER SPIEGEL, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken discusses the simmering dispute with Germany over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, provocations from Moscow, the trade dispute with Beijing and America’s role in the fight against autocrats.

Interview Conducted By René Pfister

 

Antony Blinken, 59, is one of U.S. President Joe Biden’s closest confidants. He first worked for Biden as a Senate staffer and then rose to become deputy national security adviser and deputy secretary of state in Barack Obama’s administration. Blinken is considered a proponent of an active U.S. foreign policy and believes his country has a mandate to strengthen multilateral organizations and defend democracies against authoritarian regimes like Russia or China.

The dispute over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline currently being built between Russia and Germany overshadowed his visit to Berlin this week. In an interview with DER SPIEGEL, Blinken makes it clear that sanctions relating to the project aren’t off the table yet.

 

DER SPIEGEL: Secretary Blinken, many German and European politicians appreciate the fact that the U.S. is returning to the world stage, but there is also great concern that Donald Trump or a similar populist will take over the White House in 2025. Do you share the concern that U.S. democracy is still in a fragile condition and that Europe should, therefore, try to stand on its own two feet?

Blinken: I think we all have to deal with the here and now and the challenges – both the problems and opportunities – that our citizens are facing together around the world. And what I have seen in just the last few months as we have been working closely with Germany, with other allies and partners, is that we are producing meaningful results for our own people and for people around the world. Ultimately, that's what matters. If we continue to do that, if we demonstrate that our democracies can deliver effectively for people, then I think the approach that we're taking will be sustained. Our obligation is to actually deliver results.

What we've seen, working together – at the G-7, the NATO summit and the U.S.‑EU summit – is exactly that. At the G-7, with our commitments together to deliver a billion doses of the COVID vaccine, with more on top of that; the commitment to stop financing coal‑fired plants so that we can really get at climate change – it's the single biggest source of emissions; the program to, as we call it, "Build Back Better" for the world, investments we're making together in infrastructure, in low‑ and mid‑income countries, with a race to the top in terms of the standards of investment; the work that we did at the U.S.‑EU summit to end or at least put on pause trade disputes that had been lingering for years, in the case of Airbus and Boeing for 17 years; the steel tariffs; working together on trade and technology, setting standards, setting norms. All of these things are concrete manifestations of the proposition that we not only can, but have to work together to deal with the challenges that are actually having an impact on the lives of our people.

Again, if we do that, if we show success, I think people will sustain that approach to policy and to international collaboration.

DER SPIEGEL: The most difficult issue between Berlin and Washington at the moment is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. President Biden has made it clear that he opposes the project, yet his administration has waived sanctions against Nord Stream’s operating company as well as its CEO. Why?

Blinken: First, as you know, construction on the pipeline began in 2018. By the time we took office in January of this year, the physical construction of the pipeline was more than 90 percent complete. We went ahead and sanctioned more entities under our law than had ever been sanctioned before, but the reality of the physical completion of the pipeline was such that we looked to see, can we make something out of a very bad hand that we inherited? Because, yes, President Biden has long said that the pipeline is a bad idea, that it will potentially be a tool of Russian economic coercion and strategic coercion, a tool that can be used not only against Ukraine but indeed Europe as a whole to the extent it increases dependence on Russian gas. But the question before us is what to actually do to mitigate or prevent the damage that the pipeline could do if used in the wrong way by President Putin and by Russia, and that's exactly the conversation we're now engaged in with Germany. It is going to be very important to show by concrete actions that we will agree together – and potentially with others – that we can prevent or mitigate damage that can be done by the pipeline.

DER SPIEGEL: You are paying a big political price domestically for not imposing sanctions on Nord Stream 2. What does the U.S. government expect from the German government in return?

Blinken: We are in very active discussions with the German government right now, looking at a series of possible steps, actions and measures that we can take to make sure that the pipeline is not used for negative purposes, as a tool of coercion or blackmail, and that the interests of countries like Ukraine are protected, both economically and strategically. There are a series of very practical things that we are talking about, and my expectation is that we will agree on important measures that, again, can mitigate any damage that could be done.

The sanctions that we waived, those waivers can be rescinded. We have to report again to our Congress in about a month's time. So I ho pe and expect that we will show real results from these conversations.

DER SPIEGEL: If you look at the Ukraine crisis, it is very clear that the Normandy Format talks, which include France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia, have brought little to no progress at all. Was it a mistake on the part of former U.S. President Barack Obama to basically leave the conflict to the Europeans?

Blinken: The U.S. was very engaged in Ukraine in 2015 and 2016. We respected the proposition that the Normandy Format would be the central vehicle for trying to advance the Minsk process – the agreements that were reached, which unfortunately have largely not been implemented by Russia over many years – and that this was the best way forward. But we were working as well to try to advance that process. President Biden discussed this with President Putin and, of course, he has discussed it with Chancellor Merkel, with President Macron and others. And what we have said is: Look, if Russia is serious about implementing Minsk and we can be helpful, we are fully prepared to do that, but it really starts with the basic question of whether Russia is serious about it or not or whether it prefers this frozen conflict where it can turn up the heat whenever it feels like it, as it did recently by amassing the largest number of troops on Ukraine's border since 2014. The real test is whether Russia is serious or not.

Irrespective of that, we are committed to Ukraine's sovereignty, its territorial integrity, its independence and to making sure that it has the means to defend itself from Russian aggression as well as supporting its efforts to deal with the internal aggression posed by corruption and other democratic deficiencies. So, we are there for Ukraine.

My hope would be that Russia would actually be serious about the Minsk process. In that case, I think Normandy can continue to play a central role. We are also prepared to be engaged and to try to move it forward. But the question is really with Moscow.

"We are committed to Ukraine's sovereignty, its territorial integrity, its independence and to making sure that it has the means to defend itself from Russian aggression."

DER SPIEGEL: Are you considering naming a special envoy for Ukraine?

Blinken: We will look to see how we can best be helpful if there is actually work to be done and whether that is through an envoy, whether that is through the very experienced and very senior team that we are putting together, including people who have deep experience with Ukraine. For example, one of our most senior officials – Victoria Nuland, our under secretary of state for political affairs – is someone who has deep experience in Ukraine. Our incoming assistant secretary of state for Europe, when approved by Congress, is also someone with deep experience. So, how we do it matters less than whether there is an opportunity to really help move something forward and do it in very close collaboration with Germany, with France, with our partners.

DER SPIEGEL: Just before Joe Biden took office, the EU and China agreed on a trade deal that should create new investment opportunities for European companies in China. Did you consider to be an unfriendly gesture on the part of the EU?

Blinken: Look, we are not on trying to contain China or holding China back. We are focused on trying to hold up the free and open rules-based international system that the U.S. and Germany have helped build together and have invested so much in over so many decades. If different aspects of that free and open rules-based system are being challenged by anyone, whether it is China or any other country, then we think it is important to stand up and defend what we built because it has delivered very important results for all of our citizens and can continue to do so. That is the basic approach.

We also recognize that we all have very complicated relationships with China that cannot be summed up in one word or, as we like to say, on a bumper sticker. There are adversarial aspects, competitive ones, cooperative ones, but whether it is any of those three, our proposition is that we are much better off engaging China together. We are going to be much more effective in any of those areas if we are doing it together. That is what we are looking toward.

We want to make sure in any of our engagements with China that we are upholding the basic norms and standards that bring us together, that if we are in a race, it is a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. That goes for the commercial relationship. That goes for the relationship on political and diplomatic issues and so on.

When it comes to something like the agreement that was reached – no, the question is not a hostile action. We just want to make sure that we all have in mind some of the potential challenges that China poses; for example, when it comes to information technology that is so significant in all our lives. Unfortunately, if you are doing business with a so‑called "private company" from China, there is actually no distinction between private and the government. The government has the ability to control and to elicit information from any of these companies. And, unfortunately, right now, when it comes to norms and standards of human rights, of privacy, of intellectual property, the government in Beijing does not meet the standards that we have all set. I think we have to be careful. That is all that we are saying.

I think we are seeing – especially if you look at the last two weeks – a convergence of views on the best ways to engage China. The last time the G-7 leaders met in 2018, China was not even mentioned in the communiqué. In this case, the leaders agreed to important things when it comes to dealing with China. A similar thing happened at NATO just a couple of days later. The last time NATO wrote a Strategic Concept back in 2010, China was not mentioned. Now, there is focus on China in NATO as well. And when we got to the U.S.‑EU summit, agreed to establish a trade and technology council between the United States and the EU that is going to make sure that when it comes to trade and technology, we are working together on the norms, on the standards, on the rules in ways that reflect our values. We reestablished the U.S.‑EU dialogue on China that had been dormant.

So, what I am increasingly seeing is a shared viewpoint, but one that recognizes the complexity of the relationships, the fact that they are consequential for all of us, and we are not asking people to choose between the United States and China. We are simply saying we have a common set of values and interests that have helped shape the international system for almost eight decades, and we need to continue to stand for freedom and for openness when it comes to that system and to do it together.

DER SPIEGEL: As of a few days ago, American citizens are allowed to travel to Europe, but the travel ban for people who want to travel to the U.S. is still in place. Can you give us a timeline for when the ban will be lifted? And why aren’t Europeans who have been vaccinated allowed to travel to the U.S.?

Blinken: We are following the science and the recommendations of our health authorities, principally the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). That is where we are looking for the best information possible upon which to make policy decisions. We are very anxious to have travel resume as robustly, as completely, as possible. We have a working group with the European Union right now on this. I can't put a date on it. I can tell you we are working very, very actively on it because we would like nothing better than to see travel pick up. We have to all be deliberate about it and, again, make these decisions based on our best assessment of the science, our best assessment of health conditions. That is what we are doing, but we are doing it with the EU.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Secretary, we thank you for this interview.