Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul interviewed by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Question:

Minister, when we conducted our first major interview after you took office, you said: "Deep down, I was never in any doubt that the United States is by our side." Would you still say that after a year in office?

Johann Wadephul:

Yes. I have become well acquainted with the US Administration, in the State Department and in NATO structures. This experience has time and again shown me that the transatlantic alliance is solid.

Question:

This despite the flip-flopping on the Ukraine negotiations, the tariff dispute, the Greenland affair and the Iran war, despite the threats and bluster from Washington?

Johann Wadephul:

Of course, I'm concerned by all that. Some of it really was and is unnecessary. I've been trying to understand it. And I've come to the conclusion that the US is articulating, far more vehemently than it has in the past, the fact that it is pursuing its own interests and prioritising these. At the same time, it is also committed to our Alliance. The Americans continue to view this, correctly, as an Alliance that also benefits them and indeed must benefit them. The state of our cooperation, how good and close it is, will always reflect the extent to which both sides believe it to be beneficial and in their interest. Bismarck considered the pursuit of interests to be the cornerstone of foreign policy. That is exactly right. And it is ultimately the task of diplomacy to find the greatest possible area of congruence between divergent interests. That's what I do every day.

Question:

The Chancellor has talked about the sensation caused by acting with self-respect ("Glück der Selbstachtung"), as illustrated by the first rounds of the Greenland and tariff disputes, which ended without serious consequence. He has also called on Europe to learn to speak the language of power. Is this the language of power?

Johann Wadephul:

Yes, it is. We are able to explain our interests and pursue them. To this end, we need economic, political and security-policy instruments. These start with a stronger Bundeswehr, and encompass everything up to our capability as Europeans to defend our single market.

Question:

But this sensation of self-respect is pretty limited at the moment because we're a long way from security-policy self-sufficiency; does that mean that more has to be done in this field?

Johann Wadephul:

From the outset, NATO has been an alliance in which all participants know they need each other. That is still true. Even the Americans would not be able to assert their interests as they would like, especially vis-à-vis an ascendant China, on their own, without Europe. In the same way, we of course still need the Americans in Europe to defend our interests against an increasingly aggressive Russia. Germany has the special task of preserving this cohesion. Our European partners, especially in northern and eastern Europe, expect us to take on this role as mediator and leader.

Question:

If you realise that this dependence is real, why did the Government decide, after initially being so reticent about the Iran war, to criticise America more strongly, going so far as to claim that this is not our war - which in turn led to criticism from Washington?

Johann Wadephul:

We coordinate with the US very closely as regards our actions and political cooperation. This is reflected in my regular contacts with Secretary Rubio. The Americans have noticed that in politics they can rely on Germany in critical situations. In our talks with Washington, we've been given to understand that they appreciate the role we're playing. However, it remains true that it wasn't us who initiated these hostilities.

Question:

You don't worry that relations between the US and NATO will deteriorate further following the discussions about the Iran war?

Johann Wadephul:

The Iran war has obviously given rise to controversy. But ultimately we share the same interests: we want to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power and threatening not just its neighbourhood but also Europe with its ballistic missile programme. In my opinion, our interests are totally aligned. That is the decisive factor.

Question:

Shouldn't we have complied sooner with the American demands for support in securing the Strait of Hormuz? After all the outrage, we are planning to help now anyway, with minehunters and maritime patrol aircraft.

Johann Wadephul:

We are not participating in the war, that principle still applies. What we were willing to do from the very beginning is to play our part in a post-war scenario in which global interests - interests that are indeed also ours - are secured vis-à-vis Iran. We could perhaps have made that message even clearer to make sure it got through to the entire US Administration.

Question:

When speaking about the negotiations and the Iranian leadership, the Chancellor said that America was being humiliated. The US President immediately responded with outrage and is now threatening to withdraw troops from Germany. That's not great for relations either, is it?

Johann Wadephul:

The Chancellor was clearly warning Iran not to go too far and not to provoke the US yet further. Iran's leadership would in any case be well advised to accept America's offer of negotiations as quickly as possible. Secretary Rubio and I were also in full agreement on that point when we spoke on Wednesday. NATO is the most successful defence alliance in modern history. With the accession of Sweden and Finland, and the 5 % defence investment commitment agreed in The Hague last year, we are now stronger than ever. NATO's inner strength relies on it being a vibrant partnership of democracies - in the awareness of the outstanding importance of the US. It is normal to have differences of opinion within and between open societies; these should not however put the fundamentals in any doubt. We all share responsibility to uphold this practice, especially in times of war and crisis.

Question:

Does that mean, with regard to France, that enhanced cooperation on a nuclear deterrent won't replace the American umbrella?

Johann Wadephul:

No, it will not be possible to replace the American nuclear umbrella in the foreseeable future and, in my opinion, it would not be a desirable aim.

Question:

When Federal President Steinmeier spoke recently at a special event in your ministry, he took a different line from you. He called the Iran war illegal and said that failing to designate it a violation of international law did not make German foreign policy any more persuasive. Why don't you pursue a more persuasive foreign policy, to adopt his terms?

Johann Wadephul:

I leave it to others to judge the quality of my foreign policy. However, I want to say clearly that we are not avoiding taking a stance on the war's legality under international law. Far from it. We are examining the arguments carefully and applying them to the facts available to us. We are talking to the US to get more details, to be better able to assess them. At the same time, we share common interests with the US as regards the Iranian regime. This regime not only oppresses its own people. It also spreads fear and terror across the region. And, above all, it is conducting a nuclear programme that has no civilian justification, as the International Atomic Energy Agency has determined. Iran is thus a threat to the international community and its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is blackmail. This is something we must respond to, we want to respond to - and we are responding to it, for example by imposing sanctions. This is the difficult context in which practical foreign policy must be defined. We have to deal with the real world as it is, and yet we have principles to which we adhere.

Question:

Is it part of this practical foreign policy that you are preparing to have further dealings with the Iranian regime? You've had a telephone conversation with the foreign minister and the German Government has already said it would ease some of the sanctions if Iran budges.

Johann Wadephul:

At no time have we deluded ourselves as to the dreadful nature of this regime. I personally have never been under any such illusions. We have imposed sanctions that hurt the regime. I myself advocated successfully for the Revolutionary Guard to be subjected to EU anti-terrorism sanctions. But, of course, a pragmatic foreign policy requires us to have some basic contact with even this regime. Anything else would be inconsistent with our interests, which we communicate clearly to the regime with no scope for misunderstanding.

Question:

The ceasefire in Lebanon is fragile, and members of the UN mission, UNIFIL, have been killed. To what extent do you have sympathy for Israel's actions? You have urged the Israelis to refrain from taking any steps that go beyond necessary self-defence.

Johann Wadephul:

It was necessary to speak up, because the fighting there has claimed far too many victims. My aim was in particular to help bring about direct peace talks between Israel and Lebanon, which the Americans are facilitating in the US. These talks are a watershed. We should do everything we can to ensure that the talks continue, including at higher level, and that they produce good, robust results.

Question:

Since you took office, you have always had to combine expressions of solidarity with Israel with calls for restraint, be it regarding actions in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip or the settlement policy in the West Bank. How frustrated are you with the Netanyahu Government?

Johann Wadephul:

As Foreign Minister, I do not permit myself such emotions. Notwithstanding the plain speaking that I consider necessary at times for political reasons, I know that Germany has a true friend in Israel. We have a responsibility for Israel and its security. That means, on the one hand, that we stand up for Israel time and again. And on the other hand, it means that we advise and criticise in a spirit of friendship, whenever we believe this to be warranted.

Question:

Does it also mean blocking efforts in the EU to impose sanctions on the Israeli Government, as you recently did when an attempt was made to suspend the Association Agreement with Israel?

Johann Wadephul:

In the current political circumstances, yes, it definitely does. Such proposals are, I believe, inappropriate, precisely because we need frank and direct dialogue with Israel at all levels. We must work to ensure that we maintain an intact relationship with this democracy, which shares many values with us in Europe. Even so, we have a responsibility to speak up clearly when our opinions differ.

Question:

Isn't it true that the language of power also involves speaking for yourself and not letting others talk and negotiate for you? Should Europe find its own way to talk directly to Russia and then, in conjunction with Ukraine, negotiate an end to the war?

Johann Wadephul:

Of course, we are willing to talk, the issue is what would we talk about and how. It's the subject matter that's the issue. There is little point talking to a Russia that makes impossible demands, such as handing over the Donbas, parts of which it has so far failed to take by force. A Russia that isn't even prepared to agree a ceasefire before starting negotiations. We Europeans must definitely play a role in the resolution of this conflict, for the key issues at stake include Europe and security on our continent, as well as Ukraine's EU accession perspective and security guarantees. Sooner or later we will be fully involved in the negotiations. But it only makes sense to talk to Russia when Russia proves that it is willing to negotiate at all on matters of substance.

Question:

Ukraine wants the EU to fix a date for its accession, but the German Government and others have rejected this idea. Would some other form of membership be conceivable?

Johann Wadephul:

It's clear to us that Ukraine must have a credible prospect of accession. We support that. And yet it is also true that the EU's accession criteria have to be met. A number of interim phases could be agreed to bridge the gap, if Ukraine were willing. When the Ukrainian President was last in Berlin, I understood him as saying that he wants full accession as quickly as possible. In that case, it is up to Ukraine to launch and implement the necessary reforms with significantly more energy and speed than to date. We will support Ukraine in this endeavour as a close partner.

Question:

You're thinking of corruption and the rule of law?

Johann Wadephul:

Work is needed in many areas. In the end, we must be able to convince all member states to vote for Ukraine's accession. That will not be easy, but it will be worthwhile.

Question:

In our first interview after you took office a year ago, you said, in the context of negotiations with Russia, that Putin must know that his position is likely to be weakened in the near future. But Washington hasn't stepped up the pressure, and China continues to support Moscow...

Johann Wadephul:

... Peking has still not taken the line with Moscow that we had hoped, that is true. But we will not cease in our efforts to persuade China to rethink, since this a key European interest that is at stake.

Question:

... and Moscow persists in making its maximum demands. So do you still stand by your assessment?

Johann Wadephul:

Yes. This past year, hundreds if not thousands of people have died in battle every day. Many months, Russia has lost well over 30,000 soldiers. And still its territorial gains have been small. The Russian economy looks far from rosy. This past year has thus been a terrible year for Russia as a country, and for its people, another year of failure. That's why I stand by my words: Putin must know that his position will only weaken further.

Interview conducted by Matthias Wyssuwa