Question:

Donald Trump is back in the White House. Does this raise any hope in you that his announcement will come true and the war in Ukraine will come to an end, Minister?

Annalena Baerbock:

Peace returning to Europe is absolutely in the transatlantic interest. The fact that this turned out to be more complex and cannot be solved by a deal in the span of 24 hours has now been made clear by the new US Administration. A realistic approach will be necessary to ensure a lasting peace.

Question:

No hope for a quick peace?

Annalena Baerbock:

Of course, after these terrible three years the best thing would be for the war to end tomorrow. Russian President Putin alone can make this happen. From a purely rational standpoint, now would be the moment for Putin to finally recognise that he cannot win the war against Ukraine. The signs are clear: with the end of Assad’s regime in Syria, Russia has suffered a heavy geopolitical defeat. Putin’s closest partner, Iran, is on the defensive. Unfortunately however, the last three years have also shown that Putin’s Russia no longer follows conventional logic but is ideologically driven and fully committed to destruction.

Question:

With regard to the ceasefire in the Middle East, Donald Trump is taking credit for it by claiming that his forceful words from America made it happen. This is more than many politicians achieved with their visits. You visited the region often. Is he right?

Annalena Baerbock:

Some people just love to pat themselves on the back. This is not how I do politics. This ceasefire was something we, our Arabic partners and Washington worked on for months. Indeed, there was a breakthrough because, fortunately, the new US Administration ultimately decided to support the plan originally put forward by then-President Biden.

Question:

In an internal document, Germany’s ambassador in Washington, Andreas Michaelis, warned of Donald Trump’s plans for vengeance. Could those plans also affect us?

Annalena Baerbock:

In these turbulent times, it is especially important for us to work closely with our American partners. The USA is not only our closest ally in NATO, but cooperating economically also makes a great deal of sense for both sides. We have to keep in mind the influence that China wants to exert on the global economy. At the same time, we Europeans must not be naive. That is why it was so important for me to finally establish a comprehensive National Security Strategy for Germany – one that strengthens Europe’s unity and ensures we are not squeezed between China and the USA. As the EU, we are the world's largest internal market. We should use this strength strategically, collaboratively and with confidence. Especially now.

Question:

If we want to continue cooperating well with Washington, is it helpful that Germany’s ambassador, even in an internal document, presents such a threat scenario right at the start of Trump’s second term in office?

Annalena Baerbock:

An ambassador’s task is to inform not only the Federal Foreign Office, but the entire Federal Government of developments in their host country. This is standard procedure and is confidential. That is precisely why it is anything but helpful that someone has now broken this confidentiality.

Question:

Trump’s claims to Greenland and the Panama Canal have caused a great deal of commotion in Berlin. Federal Chancellor Scholz publicly expressed criticism. How do you view Trump’s demands?

Annalena Baerbock:

We Europeans must not let ourselves be rattled or jump at every provocation. And we have to make it clear where we stand. It is not about how President Trump says something, but why he says it – and which interests lie behind it.

Question:

So do you understand Trump’s strategic interest in the Panama Canal?

Annalena Baerbock:

Securing free trade routes is central to our security and prosperity. China is buying into ports around the world – including our own. That is why it is so important for states to keep control over their own infrastructure. In spite of this – or rather precisely for this reason – we do not threaten our neighbours with invasion.

Question:

US foreign policy has always been far more driven by national interests than our own. This tendency will increase under Trump. Does your values-driven – including feminist – foreign policy still have a place in this environment, or is that a naive approach in the face of Trump’s America and Xi Jinping’s China?

Annalena Baerbock:

Values and interests are not at odds with each other – on the contrary. Realpolitik is the capacity to pursue both at once. We live in a world where democracies are being challenged by autocracies and dictatorships. Now more than ever, it is imperative to stand up confidently for our fundamental democratic values – which naturally include not just men, but also women and children – for our free market economy, for the territorial integrity of each and every state and for the global trade order. After all, this is in our own best interest. And yes, it also means security policy. Women’s rights, in this context, are a measure of how free a society truly is. If half of the population is excluded or unsafe, then nobody is safe in that country. It is also economically disastrous. That is why my fellow foreign ministers in the Gulf states and I have made this very clear to Syria’s new rulers.

Question:

Let’s take a small detour. Does feminist foreign policy include holding background briefings to which only female journalists are invited? What does this mean for gender justice?

Annalena Baerbock:

I am quite conservative about this. You shouldn’t break with a good tradition.

Question:

What would you say if Friedrich Merz held sessions exclusively for men?

Annalena Baerbock:

Have fun!

Question:

Do you also intend to talk about feminism with Donald Trump? So far, he hasn’t exactly been blazing a trail for women’s rights.

Annalena Baerbock:

It does not take a new US President to prove that some people just aren't interested in feminism – at times, I find such views reflected in your paper, as well. But in today’s world, people who are easily triggered shouldn’t be in the business of foreign and security policy. Especially in difficult times like these, you have to be able to use the full diplomatic toolkit – that is, to know when and with whom to speak softly or to raise your voice. What some will put down as soft power has actually proven to be hard power, especially regarding my efforts around the world to rally support for our cause of securing peace here in Europe – because BRICS countries that are important for us, like South Africa or Brazil, are not automatically on our side. That makes pursuing an integrated approach to security so essential. An approach that, in the context of Russia’s war of aggression, gives equal consideration to women’s rights, climate foreign policy and increased military spending – especially regarding Ukraine.

Question:

Despite all of the assistance that’s been provided, in particular by the United States, efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine have not yet been successful. Must Putin fear the destruction of his rule to make him stop?

Annalena Baerbock:

Obviously, Putin is prepared to sacrifice his own country. More than 1500 Russian men, some of them still teenagers, are severely wounded or die on the front lines in Ukraine every day. After nearly three years of war, many hundreds of thousands of lives have been destroyed. Unfortunately, attempting to negotiate in a friendly tone will not help. The only option is to pursue a clear‑cut security policy that deters him from making further advances in Europe.

Question:

So do we need to scare Putin first? And can Trump instil this fear in him?

Annalena Baerbock:

The more pressure that’s imposed and the greater the Russian President’s fear is that his interests are threatened, the greater the effect will be. That’s what’s behind my intensive diplomatic efforts around the globe for humanitarian, military and political support for Ukraine. At the same time, we cannot ignore it if China is on the brink of providing direct support for Putin’s war against the peaceful order in Europe. Here, plain words vis‑à‑vis Beijing can help. Because, after all, Xi wants to present himself to many countries in Africa as a trustworthy peacemaker. And he’ll prefer to steer clear of anything that puts this at risk.

Question:

What security guarantees can we give Ukraine that are below the threshold of NATO membership?

Annalena Baerbock:

We see that our memberships in the EU and in NATO are our life insurance policy. That’s why I considered one of my most important tasks during the last three years to be the advancement of the EU enlargement process, not only for Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova, but also for the Western Balkans. At the NATO Summit in Washington, we made it clear that Ukraine’s future is in NATO – as is already the case for so many Western Balkan countries that have themselves experienced war. Moreover, we Europeans must be collectively strong enough to secure our own peace. After Russia’s attack on our neighbour, we cannot continue to view the world through rose-tinted glasses – as we did in the past, thinking the Americans will somehow take care of things for us. This also means that, when it comes to peace talks, we in Europe must take responsibility for our own security.

Question:

So does this mean that Germany should send soldiers to secure a ceasefire?

Annalena Baerbock:

For a lasting and just peace, we need more than “peace” in name only. That’s why I am engaged with important European partners and Ukraine to map out the various elements of a plan for securing a stable peace. Before Christmas, my colleagues visited me in Berlin to discuss this, in addition to the trips I made to Warsaw and Paris. A peacekeeping mission could be an element for which we Europeans would of course be needed, along with others. Because we know that the more international engagement there is, the more stable peace missions are. In this case, this would be enhanced by also involving countries outside of Europe that Putin is interested in maintaining good relations with. In this respect, our own engagement on other continents is extremely important, be it in the spheres of development or security policy.

Question:

In your opinion, is Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz reverting to the old way of thinking in the SPD, given that he has so far refused to back the three billion euro increase in military aid for Ukraine as extrabudgetary expenditure that you and Defence Minister Boris Pistorius are calling for?

Annalena Baerbock:

I do not get involved in the SPD party’s internal discussions. What I’m interested in is Germany, and peace at home, in Europe. It was dramatic to see how, during my first months in office, I had to rebuild so much shattered trust with our neighbours, trust that the Grand Coalition had gambled away with its naïve policy on Russia and ignorant appeasement towards the Eastern Europeans. Thanks to our Zeitenwende, our epochal shift, and to our clear‑cut policy on Ukraine, we’ve made clear over the last three years that Europe can rely on Germany. And what’s key now is to maintain this trust that Europe has in Germany.

Question:

But isn’t the fact that there’s a debate about the three billion euro destroying our Eastern European partners’ trust again regarding our dependability?

Annalena Baerbock:

That’s why I’m campaigning so strongly for keeping our word and committing to peace in Europe. Aid for Ukraine is the best way to protect ourselves. And it’s essential with regard to preventing more potential flows of migrants from coming to Germany.

[…]

Question:

We must not only support Ukraine, but also swiftly build up our defence capability. Trump is calling for 5% defence expenditure, whereas your party’s candidate for chancellor Robert Habeck is proposing 3.5%. What do you say to that?

Annalena Baerbock:

The more we invest in our security, the better. Currently, however, we’ve only reached a little over 2%. That is why I believe the debate is oversimplifying things if it focuses only on percentages of GDP and takes a purely national perspective. Instead, the focus should be on: Do we, as Europeans, have adequate air defence? Do we have the most modern systems, and especially the most modern drones? And are all of these capabilities finally fully interoperable? The focus needs to be on joint procurement and joint production, as well as on fully integrating our systems, so that we can create a true European Defence Union.

Question:

However, it’s not just stating percentages that is oversimplifying things, but also making vague campaign statements on how this expenditure should be funded. So where will the money come from?

Annalena Baerbock:

Already at last year’s Munich Security Conference, I made clear that we need a new and this time truly comprehensive special fund, or measures within the debt brake – which is a mechanism that we need to modernise anyway. Considering that infrastructure modernisation is long overdue and that we must take measures to safeguard our peace in the wake of Russia’s war of aggression, it is truly outdated. Moreover, since 24 February 2022, we must finally take a European approach when it comes to funding our peacekeeping efforts. I’m calling for a European financial pact for securing peace in Europe.

[…]

Interview: Eckart Lohse and Matthias Wyssuwa

www.faz.net