UBS Center | Economics. For Society

Insights/Media

"Putin will – to put it sarcastically – help Europe to find itself"

Oct 2023

Direkt zu

Wolfgang Schäuble interview

A German political legend

Quotes

On the German economy

Livestream

Event series

Wolfgang Schäuble interview

He has been involved in politics in Germany for 50 years, and hardly anyone has ever had such extensive experience. In a wide-ranging interview, the 81-year-old looks at the war in the Middle East and Ukraine, the role of Switzerland, and the shift to the right in Europe.

This interview by Dominique Eigenmann and Mario Stäuble was originally published in German in Swiss daily Tages-Anzeiger on 16.10.2023. Translated and edited for layout purposes by the UBS Center.

Mr. Schäuble, we really wanted to talk about upheavals in politics. Suddenly, a new war is raging, this time in the Middle East. Is Hamas’s attack on Israel yet another turning point?

The turning point is primarily a German necessity, because for too long we thought we were “surrounded by friends,” to quote former German President Johannes Rau. The situation in Israel is different. Terrorism by Hamas, Hezbollah, and their accomplices in Tehran and elsewhere is ubiquitous – and, sadly, so is the threat to the existence of Israel as a nation. This became brutally clear on October 7, supported by the actions of Iran. The conflict may escalate into a multi-front war or, worse, into a conflagration.

What is to be done?

This scenario must be prevented by all possible means, if possible, with diplomatic means. To this end, it is right to fight the terrorists resolutely and to increase the American presence in the region in order to send a clear signal that Israel’s security is non-negotiable. I hope that not only those directly involved will understand this, but also the Kremlin.

To what extent does the new conflict challenge Germany?

As both the Chancellor and the leader of the opposition stressed in the German parliament, Germany must support Israel with all the means necessary to this end. Israel’s right to exist is part of the German “reason of state”, or its understanding of its own reason to exist. At the same time, we must not give the impression that aid to Ukraine could suffer as a result.

What does one have to do with the other?

Even if the two wars are not directly related at first sight, they are nevertheless linked by global power structures. This means that we must once again intensify our efforts to defend the free, democratic order governed by the rule of law. And it also means that we must relearn that peace politics is above all also power politics and presupposes the ability to act as real deterrents. Following the catastrophe of the Holocaust, Germany has a special responsibility for the security of the Jewish people and for the existence of the State of Israel. This includes prosecuting all those who support the terror of Hamas and Hezbollah, whether openly or in secret, with the utmost rigor under the rule of law.

In politics, sometimes nothing or not much happens for years. And then the world can change completely within days. Why does politics like to jump ahead in spurts?

In free societies, where people are doing well, there is a great risk that they will resist change. We may complain about everything, but we really want everything to remain as it is, and that is why we need pressure if we want to change something. Crises are therefore opportunities to realize things that could not have been pushed through earlier. If the pressure is strong enough, it can happen quickly if necessary. Last year, because we had to do without Russian natural gas, we built liquefied natural gas terminals on the German coast within a few months. That is not really exciting, but it was sensational for Germany. Russia’s attack on Ukraine has enabled many things that previously seemed unthinkable.

The fact that war is once again reigning in Europe was a larger turning point for Germany than for most countries. Why?

After the catastrophe of Nazism, which was also a moral catastrophe, Germany was effectively destroyed. West Germany then got, as the German-American historian Fritz Stern said, a second chance. That was fantastic for the Federal Republic. We didn’t feel responsible for external security; we had the Americans for that. And coming to terms with the horrors of our own past eventually led to a certain expertise.

Paradoxically, reunification has exacerbated this feeling of not being responsible for one’s own security.

Yes. “Now that you are sovereign again,” our allies told us, “you must, of course, also take on more responsibility.” We did not take that seriously for a long time. Fate finally ironically dictated that a Red-Green government, headed by Gerhard Schröder and Joschka Fischer, had to decide on Germany’s involvement in the war in Kosovo at the end of the 1990s.

What was fateful about it?

The Christian Democrat Helmut Kohl, who had just quit as Chancellor, would not have been able to enact this. If the Social Democrats and the Greens had not been in government, they would have mobilized the streets against such a decision. But even after that, responsibility was still extremely difficult for us. Even if you ask 20-year-old Germans today whether they would also fight with guns to defend their country, you usually get a simple “no” as an anwser. The situation is quite different in Poland, and certainly also in Switzerland. Does every conscript still have his rifle at home in your country?

Yes. But would everyone really be willing to defend Switzerland?

This resolve is still lacking in Germany. We are now slowly learning about it. After all, we have already understood that we must supply Ukraine with arms. We are gradually learning that this war also concerns us. It is not just directed against Ukraine.

What?

Ukraine does not threaten Russia. Not even Vladimir Putin came up with the idea of saying so. What threatens Russia is that, in a country that is not completely dissimilar to Russia in terms of its population and history, the Western model is more successful than Russia’s. People prefer to live in freedom and prosperity. In Germany, we put the example to the test until 1989. If the GDR had not included its people, they would have run away much earlier. Chinese President Xi Jinping feels threatened by Hong Kong and Taiwan for the same reason, and that is why Russia’s war is directed against us. Even Switzerland is now debating whether its understanding of perpetual neutrality is still appropriate for the twenty-first century.

The war has not only shaken Germany’s unwillingness to take responsibility for its own security…

…we prefer to take moral responsibility…

…but also Germany’s special closeness to Russia.

You have to understand that, yes. Particularly in the East, German history tended to tilt toward Russia, often to the detriment of Poland or Ukraine. Moreover, during the decades of partition, many people who lived in the GDR felt more threatened by the West than by the Soviet Union. This is crazy, actually, but that’s how it was. That’s why many people of my generation in East Germany still feel more connected to Russia than to the US.

How far is Germany in the “turn of the times” that Chancellor Olaf Scholz proclaimed after the Russian attack?

When the Chancellor made this speech in the Bundestag and announced a special fund of EUR 100 billion for the Bundeswehr, I thought to myself: 'Thunderstorm! For a Social Democrat! With this coalition!' That was a turning point. Now he has the difficult task of holding on to the path he has begun.

Do you doubt it?

I am not pessimistic. Putin is helping us to some extent, to put it sarcastically. He will help Europe find its own way. We will understand that we can only preserve certain values – peace, freedom, security, prosperity – together, better than anyone alone, especially if we do not want to remain militarily dependent on the United States for time and eternity. Moreover, Switzerland will not escape this development in the end, either.

Scholz has been criticized for Germany supplying too few arms to Ukraine – and too late. He sticks ironically to the pace of the US march, even when the French, Poles, or British pushed. Do you share the criticism?

A German chancellor carries a particularly heavy burden in such a situation. He has to consider carefully. You can never know exactly how Russia reacts – with or without Putin. The responsibility is enormous. I have great respect for that.

Donald Trump can become US President again in 2024. Would Europe be prepared for this?

We do not know whether Trump will be re-elected or what the consequences would be for the transatlantic relationship. What is certain is that if we Europeans make greater contributions to our own security, that will strengthen those forces in the United States that are prepared to stand by Europe.

Can Ukraine survive if America under Trump should drop it?

It won’t be possible for the foreseeable future without the United States. But I don’t think it will be necessary in the short term, Trump or not. Nonetheless, we should use the time between now and the election to strengthen Ukraine as best we can. The sooner Russia realizes that it can’t achieve its objectives militarily, the better.

Even for small countries like Switzerland, the war brings a turning point. Is there a future for an alienated neutrality in the 21st century?

Switzerland has played its specific role in Europe and the world in a very responsible manner. It has not merely remained on the sidelines. It has been involved in many international organizations, and it also uses its role to offer a seat to some of these institutions – which is not to Switzerland’s detriment. That is why I always disagree when neutrality is ridiculed. Whether it still fits into the world of the twenty-first century is another question.

So, does it still fit?

No. In a globalized world, all the major challenges – and not just defense - are collective. There can basically be no neutrality. In response to the war, Sweden gave up its non-aligned status and will join NATO; Finland did so as well. But this is a debate that Switzerland, in its great democratic maturity, will have with itself. It does not need advice.

The accusation against Switzerland is that those who do not support Ukraine ultimately help Putin.

I agree with that. We are in a global struggle between autocracies and dictatorships on the one hand and democracies on the other. Liberal societies must stand together in order to preserve their freedom. It is no wonder that we do not see migration to China, although there is also prosperity there, but to Europe. Things cannot be that bad here.

Let’s talk about the political mood in Europe. Many countries, including Switzerland, are currently leaning to the right: the SVP could win the autumn elections, and in Germany the AfD is hitting record numbers. What do you see as the reasons for this?

The pendulum always swings a little bit back and forth. For a long time, a form of political correctness dominated public debate and the media, and now there is a countermovement. Then there is the problem of irregular migration to Europe. If the free-liberal state no longer feels that it can control these movements, it loses popular support. We now recognize this problem. The good thing is that once a problem is properly recognized, we are on the right track.

What should the other parties do now?

They should not talk so much, but instead solve problems. To counter the resentment, you have to limit immigration, whether you like it or not. Former German President Joachim Gauck recently said that we need to discover leeway that we initially did not like, “because it sounds inhumane.” This is the moral dilemma: we cannot do at all what we would really like to do – to offer sanctuary to all people. And if we overstretch ourselves, we lose trust.

How could migration be reasonably limited?

When it came to the issue of the Syrian refugees in Budapest in 2015, I said that we must take these people in – but at the same time make it clear that this remains an exception. We have not succeeded in doing so. That is why we must now make it clear that, no, the route across the Mediterranean does not lead to Europe, it only leads back. For that, we need agreements with transit countries, and we need to bring back the people who are in Europe illegally. Of course, then we will no longer be as good people as we would like to be, but there is no way around it.

Awareness of the crisis is needed, you said, in order to initiate major changes in politics. Why are we doing so, so badly with the climate crisis? Is it to do with the fact that the pressure is creeping up?

The destruction of ecological livelihoods is progressing faster than even pessimistic scientists predicted. Switzerland is no exception. I always feel sad when I fly over the Alps and hardly see any white underneath. In a few years, skiing may not be a particularly attractive sport.

Yet governments are not acting with the urgency they need.

First of all, people must be persuaded that every country, large or small, must play its part. Then, in Europe, we will soon have a different debate on nuclear energy than we did before, and the German phase-out will certainly not command a majority. The debate on a realistic CO₂ price is finally getting under way. As you can see, things are changing – and perhaps more quickly than we feared.

Does climate activism help politics or mobilize resistance?

I have a lot of respect for Fridays for Future, and I love what Greta has done around the world. Chapeau! It also shows what individuals can do. The last generation of activists, on the other hand, are exaggerating and damaging their cause: there is more debate about whether to protest this way than about what to do.

Joe Biden is the same age as you are, born in 1942, and is seeking re-election as US President next year. You, on the other hand, have announced that 2025 is over for good. How do you end a political career wisely?

My wife always said: 'Ms. Merkel will decide for herself when she will stop. You men cannot do it!' She was right.

And you?

In 2017, I had the opportunity to become President of the Bundestag, which I found very fitting. And now, as an “simple” Member of Parliament, I have come full circle. In fact, I am more credited with the role of an “Elder Statesman.” But 2025 “isch dann over”, to use a famous phrase.

Will you have a hard time letting go?

No. Everybody has their own path, their own destiny. I’ve been in a wheelchair for 33 years, and that’s another story. And when you get older, are no longer as healthy as you once were. So, I’m not going to have a hard time, on the contrary. I actually find it beautiful and exciting to watch myself say goodbye, so to speak.

So, what do you see?

I’m trying to put my memories on paper right now, and I hope I can still do that. Then you can read it.

He has been involved in politics in Germany for 50 years, and hardly anyone has ever had such extensive experience. In a wide-ranging interview, the 81-year-old looks at the war in the Middle East and Ukraine, the role of Switzerland, and the shift to the right in Europe.

This interview by Dominique Eigenmann and Mario Stäuble was originally published in German in Swiss daily Tages-Anzeiger on 16.10.2023. Translated and edited for layout purposes by the UBS Center.

Mr. Schäuble, we really wanted to talk about upheavals in politics. Suddenly, a new war is raging, this time in the Middle East. Is Hamas’s attack on Israel yet another turning point?

"Aber 2025 isch dann over": Born in 1942, Schäuble became politicized in the Bundestag in 1972. © Deutscher Bundestag / Felix Zahn / photothek

In 1990, as West German Interior Minister, Schäuble negotiated the treaty that brought West and East Germany together. © Sue Ream / Wikimedia Commons

A German political legend

He originally wanted to become a lawyer – but then a political career took off at the Young CDU that would catapult Wolfgang Schäuble into the highest spheres of German politics. Born in 1942, he grew up near Freiburg im Breisgau, and was elected to the German parliament, the Bundestag, in 1972. He still sits in Parliament today. During his political career, he was Minister of the Interior and Finance, President of the Bundestag, and Chairman of the CDU. In 1990, a mentally ill man fired two shots at him at an election campaign event, seriously injuring him. Since then, Schäuble has been paralyzed from the waist down. The 81-year-old gave this interview ahead of a lecture on the future of democracy at the UBS Center for Economics in Society at the University of Zurich on 24 October. (ms)

Wolfgang Schäuble during his speech at Universität Zürich © Ueli Christoffel / UBS Center

On the German economy

Mr. Schäuble, Germany’s economy is suffering from the effects of the pandemic, war, and inflation more than that of most major countries. Is there a turning point here, too, that is, the end of a successful business model?

In my view, inflation is not so much a consequence of these crises as of the idea that the state can finance everything through debt. You are now talking to this man who has become known as the finance minister of the “black zero”, or the balanced budget. I still believe that a sustainable financial policy offers much better conditions for sustainable growth than the opposite. At the moment, we in Germany are suffering from an evil that we have always feared: stagflation, high inflation, but without growth. That is where we are now. People often approach me and say, 'We would like to thank you for the black zero. You have ensured that things have gone up economically.'

However, there are also many people who accuse you of Germany having invested far too little in infrastructure, energy transition or defense during your term of office.

That is true, financial or budgetary policy was not to blame. The problem was that the funds we made available for investment did not were not used. We were, and are, infinitely slow in terms of bureaucracy, planning and approval procedures. Take the two additional tracks on the Rhine valley line between Karlsruhe and Basel as an example: Germany signed an agreement with Switzerland in 1996 to improve rail transport across the Alps. Switzerland – and Italy, for that matter – have long since completed their tunnels and rails. Germany’s Rhine valley line will not be completed until 2040 at the earliest.

Why is Germany so slow?

I am a lawyer myself, but unfortunately, I have to say that legal perfectionism is certainly to blame for this. Like the giant Gulliver, we are tied up, with excessive requirements and cumbersome procedures. Now we have to unleash ourselves, but that comes at a price: if we want to speed up planning and approval, we also have to reduce the possibilities for the public to appeal to a certain extent. Given our tendency to be legalistic right down to the last resort, this will not work otherwise. Here too, the mentality has to change. This is just beginning, and people are realizing that we cannot continue as we are now.

We have just seen how delicate this is in Switzerland’s attempt to build solar installations more quickly. The people of Valais rejected the acceleration that would have gone hand in hand with a restriction on the right of appeal.

People should be able to say what they think. But at some point, a decision has to be made.

Event series

Democracies around the globe are increasingly under threat. In many countries, populists are gaining ground, polarization is increasing, and voters often fail to vote. Public intellectuals are debating the prospects for post-democratic politics. At the same time, authoritarian regimes are seeing a resurgence. What is driving these trends? And what can be done to reverse them? This is the main topic of our series, which consists of three events, beginning with a lecture by Wolfgang Schäuble (in German), who provides a political-historical framework of the topic, followed by a talk by experimental psychologist Steven Pinker, who discusses the role of rationality for democratic societies. We will conclude with our annual Forum for Economic Dialogue, where experts from various fields will discuss the topic from both a political and an economic perspective.