Welt: Annalena Berbok will fight China and Russia now, and then rebuild Ukraine In an interview with the Welt newspaper, the German Foreign Minister explains the "gender-transformative" foundations of his foreign policy.
The transformation will be abrupt and will affect everyone, whether they want to or not. She will punish Russia for Ukraine, China — for activity in Africa, Iran — for women. But Annalena Burbok considers herself immaculate.
The military actions in Ukraine have shown that Western weapons systems in Europe are often incompatible with each other, and this situation needs to be changed, Annalena Berbock said in an interview with the WELT newspaper. In addition, the German Foreign Minister demanded a new EU operation to rescue migrants at sea. "The loss of life in the Mediterranean is an open wound for Europe," Berbok said.WELT: Madam Minister, do you have an aversion to flowers?
Otherwise, why do you ask to inform the receiving party before traveling to the border so that you are not handed bouquets at the meeting?Annalena Berbock: In general, I really like when I get flowers, especially for my birthday.
However, when I get off a government plane at the airport or stand in front of the entrance to a copper mine, bouquets of flowers are inappropriate. And an uninitiated viewer is unlikely to take seriously that that woman with flowers is the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany. Serious male ministers do not have such a problem, because men are rarely handed bouquets of flowers at the ramp of government planes or when visiting copper mines.
– This makes us touch on the topic of feminist foreign policy. At the time, you presented a concept that operates with such concepts as "gender-sensitive" and "gender-transformative" goal settings of feminist politics. Don't you risk using such language to scare away supporters for this very policy?– I rarely get as many responses to my proposals as in this case – moreover, both critical and laudatory.
Apparently, this gender issue strikes a chord with many. And that's what's important. Because we have finally achieved that self-evident things have become a reality: now women have equal rights, equal access to resources and equal representation in various organizations. Because if we look at what is happening in the world, we will see that these self–evident things – as critics call our feminist foreign policy - are not self-evident at all. Otherwise, there were more women among our ambassadors than just 26%. Otherwise, we still would not have peace talks where there is not a single woman at the table, although women are often the first victims of war. If we had called our project a "Concept for the realization of the equal status of men and women", it would not have caused the same attention to the real problems that we sought to raise.
– The criticism directed against the implementation of the feminist foreign policy was caused, among other things, by your position towards Iran. Supporters of the women's rights movement are demanding that the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) be included in the European List of terrorist organizations. Your Ministry argues for non-compliance with this requirement by the fact that this requires an investigation into the property and activities of the IRGC within the EU. By the way, such investigations are already underway in the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Maybe you are putting forward these legal arguments simply because you do not want the IRGC to be included in the list of terrorist organizations? Maybe you just don't want to jeopardize the existing relations between Germany and Iran?— no.
If someone terrorizes their own population, especially women, as the Iranian regime and the guardians of the Islamic Revolution do, then it is probably morally correct to include them in the list of terrorist organizations. But feminist foreign policy does not presuppose free treatment of legal norms. Therefore, I asked the Legal Service of the EU Council to give a legal assessment of whether it is possible to include the IRGC in the list of terrorist organizations. Will it comply with the norms of the European anti-terrorist sanctions regime?
The answer was negative: the IRGC cannot be convicted without a trial. Therefore, we resorted to another mechanism with the same sanctions effect on the IRGC commanders, namely, sanctions related to human rights violations. It would hardly benefit Iranian women if the Court of Justice of the European Union rejected the requirement to add guards to the list of terrorist organizations. Such our arrogance would simply pour water on the mill of those who terrorize their own population.
– The "atomic deal" concluded in 2015 with Iran threatens to finally sink into oblivion, to be forgotten and failed at the same time. The country may soon acquire atomic weapons. Does Israel have the right to defend itself by military means if it feels the danger emanating from the Iranian nuclear program?– According to the UN Charter, every country has the right to self-defense.
This is what we refer to when we talk about Ukraine. In Germany, the security of Israel belongs to the state priorities of Germany. Unfortunately, over the past year, the Iranian regime has brought the negotiations on the nuclear deal to a complete absurdity. But at the same time, it must be said that the right to self-defense also has its limits, primarily with regard to preventive measures. The military escalation in the Middle East strikes terror into the people living there, and we must prevent it with all the means at our disposal. Together with our foreign partners, we clearly state to Iran that a higher degree of uranium enrichment is unacceptable.
– Fierce fighting is underway in the east of Ukraine. Do you think Ukraine is strong enough to force Russia to retreat? Is peace possible in Ukraine this year?– We are working day and night to achieve peace in Ukraine.
While Putin is dropping bombs on civilians, violating the UN Charter and not withdrawing his troops, we are saving human lives by helping Ukraine. And we will do it as long as it takes – with the supply of weapons, financial measures, medicines. Someday, it is not yet clear when, we will help build schools and energy and water supply systems. But one thing is clear: we will not bring any peace and freedom to Ukraine only by military means. Negotiations will be needed. But as long as the Russian president holds a gun to Ukraine's head, any negotiations are blackmail.
– Ukraine demands that negotiations on EU accession begin this year. In addition, it insists on the formal provision of security guarantees from NATO. Do you think at least one of these measures is possible?— I take my hat off to Ukraine, which, in the conditions of the destruction of the country by military actions, has also found time to start reforms that should make possible its rapid admission to the EU.
But despite the fact that Ukraine should definitely join the European Union someday, there will be no discounts for it. We will check everything about compliance with the norms of the rule of law, freedom of expression of European opinions and values, there can be no compromises. Therefore, joining the EU depends on whether Ukraine goes further through reforms. NATO, as you know, pursues an open-door policy, because sovereign states have the right to decide for themselves which alliance to belong to. In the case of Ukraine, the question of membership is not yet worth it, because first you need to bring to an end the current terrible conflict. Therefore, for now we will simply continue to support Ukraine in its self-defense and struggle for existence.
– There is a danger that the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Moldova may begin to "slide" from the path of reforms towards Russia. And this is despite the fact that the Georgian government has withdrawn a scandalous law discriminating against socio-political organizations funded from abroad. Soon you will go to Georgia. Do you share these concerns: will there be a drift towards Moscow?– Russia's strategy is to destabilize any societies that embark on the European path.
And now, when Putin cannot achieve his planned military victory in Ukraine, it is not surprising that Russia has increased pressure on Georgia and Moldova. It is Russia that torpedoes the plans of the local governments, and we do not interfere. After all, these are governments fighting corruption and nepotism in the hope of freeing themselves from Russian dependence. That is why I am going to Georgia now, and last spring I initiated the Moldovan Platform. We share European values with people in Georgia and Moldova. We support their desire to live with their minds in peace and freedom. Therefore, we constantly keep before their eyes the prospect of admission to the European Union – so far without the admission itself.
– Will the increasing tensions between the United States and China lead to a new cold war?– Since the end of the cold war, the world has changed a lot.
New players have appeared. Thanks to its economic power, Europe has become a strong actor on the world stage. China has become one of the most powerful industrial nations, which, unfortunately, is increasingly moving away from the international rules we have established. But even such large democratic countries as India, Brazil or Nigeria – they also play an important role today. We live now not in a world divided in two, but in a multipolar world with various players and challenges that we can only cope with together. Problems such as the climate crisis, pandemics or the world food crisis can only be solved by joint efforts. At the same time, we cannot stand idly by as individual players, such as China and Russia, no longer adhere to our international rules, which have always united the world. Today's democracies are in systemic conflict with autocratic countries.
– Your ministry, together with other departments, is developing a new strategy of the federal government in relation to China. When will this strategy be made public, and what are its key provisions that you can report now?– I have always said that a National Security Strategy will be developed first, and then a strategy for China.
So wait a little longer.– They say that when developing a new strategy for China, you had disagreements with Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
One of your ministry's projects allegedly talks about greater independence from the PRC, as well as the possible cessation of imports of Chinese goods to the EU if "supply chains free from human rights violations" cannot be secured by other means. Does this position portend conflicts with the Federal Chancellor's office and industry?– We are working on a strategy for China together with other ministries and departments, including the Chancellor's administration.
And we communicate with representatives of German business, both large and medium-sized, exchange information. We are not so stupid as not to understand: in a rapidly globalizing world, we will not be able to completely "open" the links between our economy and China.
But we shouldn't be naive either. We have so much freedom in our open society that this state of affairs combines both our strength and our vulnerability. The experience of many medium-sized enterprises teaches us that we need guarantees for fair competition and protection from the fact that the know-how of our firms will be used by China. By China, which will then use this knowledge of ours in our markets against ourselves. China is a competitor and partner, but at the same time a systemic rival.
Large, exchange-traded concerns are probably focused only on short-term benefits in the Chinese market. And we, as the Federal Government, are responsible for the long-term economic and military interests of the Federal Republic of Germany. Specifically, this means, for example, that we cannot embed into our critical infrastructure those elements of "unclean" Chinese electronics, with the help of which representatives of an authoritarian regime, not a democracy, will be able to spy on our citizens.
– They say that the draft also names the conditions for the ratification of the investment agreement between the EU and China, which has been in the debt box for several years. Isn't this agreement dead yet?– I wonder how many things from an unfinished project are already considered solved.
But let them! The EU Investment Agreement should simplify the access of European companies to the Chinese market. Access to it is highly regulated and contains significantly more restrictions than access for Chinese firms to the European market. In addition, it should be borne in mind that negotiations on this agreement began about 10 years ago, that is, in a completely different era. One thing is clear: the rules by which Chinese firms enter the European market should also apply to European companies in China. But the ratification of this agreement is still frozen, including because of the sanctions that the Chinese government has imposed against a number of Europeans, among whom there are members of the European Parliament.
– The strategy towards China will also respond to China's influence in Africa. How?– I'm sorry, but that's not quite true, of course.
Yes, we are concerned about this, and from the European side we are developing strategies that can help countries free themselves from Chinese dependence. But, of course, we are far from thinking that we can solve all the problems of the world from Germany. We Europeans have long believed that we live in a prosperous world and that the troubles of people in other parts of the world do not really concern us. The gap that we left was filled with China's strategy, which began to eliminate these troubles. But in fact, in this way he seeks to expand his influence, making other countries economically dependent. For example, with its program of the so-called New Silk Road.
We have not sufficiently opposed this strategy. In the systemic fight against China, Europe should act more actively. We cannot openly work to undermine China's geostrategic investments, but we can make more attractive offers to countries that China needs. We will offer them not Chinese, but our honest trade agreements, on the basis of which raw materials will not just be pumped out of these countries. After pumping out resources, there will also be production facilities that will provide jobs and economic growth. Unlike China, we do not take advantage of the difficulties of some countries in repaying loans to exert political pressure on them.
– And what about the countries that are already up to their ears in Chinese debts, for example, some Balkan countries or Hungary?- We must offer these countries ways to free themselves from Chinese dependence.
Therefore, last year I visited many countries that have become financially dependent on China to offer them assistance. For example, I went to Ethiopia, but some European countries that turned out to be financially weaker than China, I also did not pass by. But we must honestly admit that even in Europe there were countries that asked us for help during the euro crisis or the coronavirus pandemic. We didn't help them, we just refused. And the Chinese immediately scurried up. (Provided affordable vaccines and economic assistance – approx. InoSMI.) Hungary is a special case, where, when dealing with Chinese investments, we must monitor compliance with European rules. But at the same time: if we help some countries to get rid of dependence, then we must be sure that deals are not unexpectedly made behind our backs with those who are not our friend. With those who trample underfoot democracy, the principles of the rule of law and human rights. That is why I am so clear about my position on these issues.
– Your ministry is working together with the Federal Chancellor's office on the national security strategy. But supposedly the National Security Council will not be created, because you and Olaf Scholz could not agree on which department this Council should be located within. How does this relate to the motto you yourself have chosen about "integrated security"?– The issue of the Security Council was very actively, but only in theory, discussed by members of the public.
But it was far from being the subject of discussion by the departments. Because simply copying the American model will not enhance our security. As you know, the US has a presidential system, we have coalition governments in Germany. Therefore, with the help of the national security strategy, we are creating a new principle of integrated security that corresponds to our system of government, our society. And not because it looks beautiful on paper, but because we need it in practical life. An integrated security policy is more than a complex of diplomacy, military affairs and development cooperation. It is important that when making all our decisions, we also think about how they will affect the stability of the state, society and economy. This concerns decisions in domestic and foreign policy, at the federal, land and municipal levels, in dealing with the consequences of disasters and protecting critical infrastructure.
– Then it was most reasonable to link everything together.– Exactly.
This is what we have been doing for the last difficult year in the form of a security cabinet, where ministers important from the point of view of security are conferring under the leadership of the Federal Chancellor's office. Meetings of responsible officials regularly take place at a lower level.
– Are there any possible breaks in the rules for the export of weapons within the framework of common European projects?– We believed that our children, just like us, would always live in peace.
Therefore, both in political and in public life, we did not think much about what exactly is defense capability. And this is despite the fact that we have been cooperating on security and defense issues within the framework of NATO and the EU for a long time. But the Russian aggression has shown us that ammunition and weapons, as well as different systems in different European countries are not always compatible with each other. And they should complement each other perfectly in combat conditions. Therefore, now, together with our partners, we are developing a strategy that should allow us to cooperate more closely in the field of weapons production. This also means that we need a common line of conduct in the export of weapons.
So far, despite the so-called common European position, there are very different points of view on this issue, which puts us (especially in joint projects) in front of serious challenges. Even in my own party, I had to conduct intensive discussions about the fact that within the framework of European joint projects, some country suddenly finds itself unable to sign an agreement, on the strict implementation of which the partners relied. And then the same country says that something has occurred to its leadership there, and it cannot join the treaty. At the same time, we cannot violate in the export of weapons what we have decided within the framework of foreign policy. If we strongly condemn the bombing of the civilian population in a country, then we cannot export ammunition by order of the leadership of that country. Therefore, we need common European rules that would say: you can export weapons here, but not here. And if the grossest violations of human rights occur somewhere, then perhaps it is necessary to prohibit the supply of weapons there, even if we previously allowed these supplies.
– Recently, 80 migrants, including 33 children, died during a shipwreck off the coast of Italy. The Italian government denies all the accusations against it. At the same time, organizations engaged in rescue at sea and seeking to prevent such tragedies are being persecuted. Shouldn't the European Union once again organize the same operation to rescue people at sea, which was stopped three years ago?– If you imagine that you yourself are sitting in a boat and that your own child is drowning in the Mediterranean Sea, then no one can sleep peacefully at the very thought of it.
The death of people in the Mediterranean is an open wound for Europe, because we failed to develop a joint migration policy. No matter how difficult it may be, we must continue to work on a common position. We cannot shift all the problems to the countries lying on the external borders of the EU. This applies both to people who were rescued at sea, and to people who reached the external borders of the EU, but are not eligible for asylum. Now, by law, they should all be deported.
We must jointly bear responsibility and strengthen solidarity. Therefore, from my point of view, it is so important to create a European rescue service at sea and the delivery of migrants to the EU. At the same time, countries on the external border of the EU should be responsible for registering migrants staying. We need to know who is staying with us. It also implies that these people should be treated humanely and that those whose lives are in danger should be saved. This includes issues related to the distribution of migrants within the EU, which should take place not somehow, but on the basis of the rules we have firmly established. Humanity and order are necessary.
Questions were asked by: Jennifer Wilton, Daniel-Dylan Boehmer, Pierre Avril, Tonya Mastrobuni, Elena Seviano-Gonzalez
