Foreign Minister Wadephul in an interview with the “Tagesspiegel” newspaper

Question:

Mr Wadephul, they say you should always leave on a high note. As a Foreign Minister from Schleswig-Holstein, you have just orchestrated a submarine deal on behalf of the German Government that is important internationally for NATO and locally for the Kiel-based company TKMS. So should we expect your resignation any day now?

Foreign Minister Wadephul:

For the record, I'm just getting started and most certainly not planning to rest on my laurels! But of course you are right. Canada's announcement that it has accepted the German-Norwegian offer to build 12 submarines for its fleet is truly out of the ordinary and a huge success for the north and our entire country.

Question:

What do you expect of these submarines?

Wadephul:

We are playing our part in providing deterrence in the North Atlantic and the Arctic, which is becoming ever more important geopolitically as a result of climate change. We now have a submarine class that we can use together. We can swap crews and share replacement parts. This takes the transatlantic relationship with Canada to a whole new level. And it is also a gamechanger for industry and technology that will be of benefit not only to Kiel, but also to Wismar and the entire coast, where good and secure jobs will be created. My constituents will certainly be happy about that!

Question:

You have just returned from the NATO Summit. Can you explain the new reality to us, where Donald Trump first hurls abuse at his Allies only to agree with their decisions later on the same day?

Wadephul:

Objectively, the reality is that we have a highly successful defence alliance. We pledged a further 140 billion euro to Ukraine for its self-defence. I suggested this just a few weeks ago at the meeting in Helsingborg with my NATO counterparts - and it is now already part of the Ankara Summit package. This sends a clear message to Putin that Ukraine has greater staying power than Russia does, in part thanks to our support, and that Russia must now finally start negotiating. At the Summit in Ankara, we also looked at how we are doing as regards the pledge to invest five percent of GDP in security and defence. Some countries are performing even better than Germany, particularly those that border Russia. The further countries are from Russia, however, the lower the percentage of GDP they spend on defence. We will need to achieve a better balance in the coming years.

Question:

Shortly before his departure for Ankara, Trump described these amounts of expenditure as "ridiculous".

Wadephul:

I cannot deny that confusing comments were made. But to reiterate, the substance of what we discussed and agreed at the Summit is truly impressive. During the Summit talks, I experienced the US delegation and President as very constructive and focused on the future. We spoke about arms cooperation in the coming decades - one decision taken was that Germany will procure US Tomahawk missiles for its defence. I am confident that NATO will become stronger than ever before.

Question:

You talk about decades, but Trump actually had to be convinced about NATO once again at the second summit in a row, and it took significant diplomatic and financial effort to do so. How long can things go on like this?

Wadephul:

Many of his predecessors had already criticised the unequal burden sharing in NATO. Regardless of whether I find his comments appropriate or not, Trump is factually right in what he says. Germany sat back for too long. Now we are taking on greater responsibility for our future. That is good for our country.

[…]

Question:

Rearming makes Europe somewhat less dependent on the United States. When will the US withdraw completely and only come back if there is a crisis?

Wadephul:

That is not our aim, and nor is it what the US wants. It is obvious that the US needs to focus more on the Indo-Pacific, simply because of China. At the same time, we will take on greater responsibility for and in Europe. The US has promised to liaise closely with us on its planned troop drawdown so that there will be no unpleasant surprises. We will need to think about which US military capabilities we will replace and about where and how we will do so.

Question:

So all of the troops will be withdrawn?

Wadephul:

No. The Americans know that it is crucial for their security architecture to keep a foot on the ground in Europe. Just think about major hubs such as Ramstein. They cannot give up these bases, and nor do they want to do so.

Question:

For the time being, Europe will remain dependent on the US, not least because of the nuclear umbrella. Reading between the lines, this is always hinted at as a reason when the German Government does not take a clear stance on actions that are at best legally questionable, such as in Venezuela or Iran. How much longer do we have to pretend?

Wadephul:

We do not have to pretend. I am a legal expert, but nevertheless foreign policy is not only comprised of international law. Moreover, when we form an opinion on events, we should all look at them in greater detail and use the same benchmarks.

Question:

What exactly do you mean by that?

Wadephul:

Here's one example. If someone expects the Federal Foreign Office to provide a detailed legal assessment of the capture of former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, then I also expect something from them. They could now criticise Iran's latest attacks on civilian ships in the Strait of Hormuz - but suddenly many people have nothing so say about that. I also think that people are getting the categories involved mixed up. Because of the hundreds of thousands of deaths it has caused, the war of aggression against Ukraine is of a totally different dimension to the capture of an individual who was not democratically elected and who blatantly violated human rights in his country. That is part of the big picture.

Question:

It has been just over a month since Germany lost the vote for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Since then, there has been a lot of talk about Germany's late candidacy and its stance on Venezuela and the Middle East, which cost us votes. With greater distance, what lessons do you see here?

Wadephul:

Firstly, in hindsight it actually became very clear that we should have announced our candidacy earlier. Since the election, numerous friendly countries have expressed their regret that they could not vote for us because they had pledged their support to Austria and Portugal early on. Secondly, we must recognise that the United Nations has become a home to harsh power politics. Behind the scenes, some countries opposed us in ways that I could not previously have imagined. In the future, we will take a tougher stance in New York and focus more on our interests.

Question:

Isn't that what the new German Government planned to do anyway?

Wadephul:

Yes. We now have much closer global partnerships than those we previously had. This started with India and Singapore and is now continuing in Latin American with Mercosur countries such as Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, which I just visited.

Question:

To what extent is Germany's early exit from the World Cup a topic for you as Foreign Minister? Does it harm Germany's reputation beyond the world of sport?

Wadephul:

No, you just need to show sportsmanship. The first thing I did during my visit to Paraguay was to congratulate the President. He was happy with that. That was the end of the matter, and we then discussed politics and our trade relations.

Question:

There will be one more important European meeting before the summer break, namely the Franco-German Council of Ministers, which will be held in Germany next Friday. What will be decided there? What will be on the new "arms agenda", which is supposed to gloss over the collapse of the FCAS fighter jet project?

Wadephul:

I don't want to pre-empt Defence Minister Pistorius, who is responsible for this matter. However, we should not overstate the FCAS decision. We are not ending our entire cooperation. Only the aircraft part will end, but we are continuing work on the technology behind it to join up manned and unmanned systems. And naturally we will develop further initiatives with the French Government encompassing the entire spectrum of our relations.

Question:

What will this entail?

Wadephul:

To give you just two examples from my own portfolio, we want to launch joint initiatives with France to make Europe more capable of taking foreign policy action. This means, for example, resolving the confusion about competencies in EU foreign policy, with which we put obstacles in our own way. And we want to draw up a joint policy on Lebanon with France, with the aim of increasing the chances for peace in the Near and Middle East.

Question:

What about nuclear cooperation, which stems in part from the concern that Germany could find itself without nuclear deterrence some day? How will it continue? Talks, inspections and exercises have been announced.
Wadephul:

This matter is highly classified, so I cannot comment on the details. I can say, however, that it involves a process that will span at least ten years. That means that we have only just completed the first year.

Question:

A rather mean-spirited question now: can you head off on a carefree summer break after the Franco-German Council of Ministers considering that all peace efforts in Ukraine and Iran have been in vain and diplomacy currently can't achieve anything anyway?

Wadephul:

On the contrary, I have justified grounds for hope in both conflicts that there is a chance of moving towards a solution.

Question:

Although hostilities have visibly increased in recent days in both theatres of war?

Wadephul:

There is also the military phenomenon of a last gasp before one starts to negotiate. I can well imagine that we are seeing this now, as the latest attacks by Russia and Iran around the time of the NATO Summit were certainly not coincidental; the aim was to demonstrate a putative strength.

Question:

That means that now would be a good time for talks?

Wadephul:

We should now make a very serious attempt to resolve both conflicts. Neither will be decided on the battlefield, but rather at the negotiating table. The sooner that happens, the better for the people.

Question:

Do you already have a concrete plan for this in the coming weeks?

Wadephul:

For the coming weeks, so far I actually do have holiday plans, but I know that a Foreign Minister's holiday plans can change at any time.

Question:

How frustrating is it to miss out on a holiday because of a crisis?

Wadephul:

I don't feel any real sense of frustration in my job. I find it very fulfilling because there is always a chance to make things better. However, I find it very regrettable that the conflict in the Sudan has been pretty much swept under the carpet in the German media. At our conference in Berlin, we laid important groundwork for negotiations. And yet I see that international interest in the largest humanitarian disaster in the world is very limited. This means that more people are dying, being tortured, killed or raped. Children are starving. It is a dreadful tragedy, and we must not close our eyes to it.