Question:

Minister, during your recent trip to Africa, you repeatedly paid tribute to the United Nations and to multilateralism, stating that there was no need for a new Board of Peace because the UN Security Council already existed. And then US President Donald Trump apparently made significant progress towards ending the Ukraine war – entirely without the Security Council. Does the future perhaps belong to deal-makers, not institutions, after all?

Johann Wadephul:

Deals and deal-makers have always existed and will always exist. There’s nothing wrong with that. And we’re talking here about two veto powers in the Security Council – the US and Russia – who are among those holding negotiations. If it came to fleshing out and implementing such agreements later on, the Security Council would be needed again. This applies all the more to the many conflicts around the world that receive less attention than Russia’s violation of international law in its war of aggression against Ukraine. The current development therefore doesn’t suggest at all that the UN is obsolete. On the contrary, deals alone aren’t enough to ensure that ceasefires aren’t a respite for the preparation of new wars. Agreements have to be reliable. Such reliability is only guaranteed by the international order that we have established since the end of the Second World War, with the UN at its heart. Strengthening this order is the number-one priority right now. Germany has always been committed to this and will continue to promote this cause with even greater resolve – including within the framework of our application for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council for the 2027-2028 term.

Question:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says that the US has offered Kyiv sufficient security guarantees. The coalition of the willing, which the Federal Republic of Germany belongs to, has also offered such guarantees. Is there a more concrete idea of what Germany’s contribution, including its military contribution, to what is now emerging might look like?

Johann Wadephul:

President Zelensky will only be able to persuade Ukrainians to accept a compromise with Russia, the aggressor, if he receives reliable security guarantees in return. There now appears to be an initial agreement with the US. We’re looking at this carefully – and also at what contribution we can make. At the beginning of the year, I visited the soldiers attached to our brigade in Lithuania. So a scenario involving the deployment of forces capable of repelling Russia, if it comes down to it, isn’t entirely new to us.

Question:

So far, it sounded as if Germany would be stationing soldiers in neighbouring countries of Ukraine. Is a deployment on Ukrainian soil also conceivable now?

Johann Wadephul:

As the Federal Chancellor stated at the meeting in Paris, we’re not ruling anything out at this time, and that continues to be the case. Nevertheless, the essential model that we prefer and which lies at the heart of our considerations is one that focuses on the neighbouring countries. Whether and how it might be expanded remains to be seen. And anyway, everything we do presupposes an agreement with Russia and, therefore, also Russia’s consent to all the security measures taken for Ukraine.

Question:

There seems to be even more movement with respect to Greenland. Has the dispute between the US and its European NATO partners really already been resolved?

Johann Wadephul:

All concrete questions concerning Greenland must be addressed in the trilateral talks between Greenland, Denmark and the US. Furthermore, serious negotiations must take place within NATO on what we can do to address the legitimate demand for greater security in the Arctic region. I returned from the US last week with the impression that these security concerns were at the heart of the matter and that all other issues did not have the urgency they sometimes had here in the public eye. So I’m not entirely surprised by the whole development. I advise us all to concentrate on what matters within the NATO alliance, namely our defence capability vis-à-vis Russia. In particular, we in Europe shouldn’t start discussions about the end of this Alliance, which are not being held in Washington at all. The US has stood by Germany’s side since the Second World War, and we owe the country an immense debt of gratitude. At the same time, we shouldn’t downplay what we have achieved. When the US invoked NATO’s Article 5 for the only time in history after 11 September 2001, we naturally came to the aid of our US allies. Fifty-nine German soldiers died in Afghanistan while exercising our duty to provide mutual assistance. They are heroes, just like the American, British, Canadian, Danish and French, as well as soldiers from other countries who gave their lives to defend our Alliance. Our bond is rock solid – and the five percent of GDP that Germany and the other Europeans have pledged to NATO strengthens it still further.

Question:

What contribution can Germany make to security measures in the Arctic?

Johann Wadephul:

Clarifying this is essentially the task of the defence ministry, but they’re already working on it. It’s obvious to me that we can get involved in maritime surveillance, for example. The most important thing we can and must do, however, is present a united European front. No one can put us under pressure if we bring our influence to bear decisively and confidently. Last week was a case in point here at the end of the day.

Question:

You’ve just returned from a trip to Africa. Russia and China’s influence there has grown in recent years, and European countries are on the defensive. What are democracies getting wrong?

Johann Wadephul:

What do you mean by wrong? It goes without saying that any democracy founded on the rule of law has more complicated procedures than an autocracy. On the other hand, it provides legal certainty and reliability. That’s why I strongly advise that we stick to our model, which is, above all, much better suited to the interests of the general population in our partner countries. I firmly believe that this approach will be more successful in the long term. At the same time, it’s clear that we must continue to develop. We should focus more strongly on our interests and ensure that our instruments can be deployed more swiftly. The political will to do this has been lacking to date because we have not properly recognised the opportunities and potential offered by sub-Saharan Africa. I would like to help ensure that we do so now.

Question:

In Kenya, you visited a German company, among other things, that trains young Kenyans in line with the German dual system – in some cases also for the labour market in Germany. This came about thanks to the recruitment agreement that the previous Federal Government concluded with Kenya in 2024. How does this sit with the migration debate in Germany?

Johann Wadephul:

The migration debate that we’re having focuses on preventing illegal migration and facilitating legal migration. That’s why this coalition has agreed to set up a Work-and-Stay-Agency, which is intended to help integrate people who are willing to work into our society and into our work process. What I see in this context are wonderful young people who are learning our language, who are open-minded and hard-working. These are exactly the kind of people we need in our work process, because the reality, after all, is that we have an acute labour shortage. We in the Federal Government are therefore in complete agreement that we must manage migration in such a way that it meets the interests and needs of our country. If we continue to meet with success here, then I will be less concerned about social stability and acceptance.

Question:

Africa is not only a continent of opportunities, but also of crises. In mid-April, Berlin plans to host an international conference seeking to find a solution to the conflict in the Sudan. The Federal Republic of Germany has close ties to a number of parties indirectly involved in the conflict – the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, each of which supports different parties to the conflict.

Johann Wadephul:

The task at hand now is to involve not only the parties to the conflict in the Sudan itself, but also those who can influence them from outside. Our objective is to bring them to Berlin, thereby helping to put an end to the world’s biggest humanitarian disaster at long last.

Question:

The terror perpetrated by the Islamist group Al-Shabaab in Kenya’s neighbour Somalia also played a role on your trip. You said that the militia poses a threat to Germany, too. How?

Johann Wadephul:

The threat to Germany posed by terrorist groups such as Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram in Nigeria has to do in particular with the fact that they destabilise their home countries. They force people to flee their homes, and these people migrate to places where they feel safe – to Europe, for example, and potentially also to Germany. If we don’t sort out the issue of illegal migration to Europe, then we risk destabilising the entire continent. That’s why we need measures to secure Europe’s external borders, but also to combat the root causes of migration. In the past, we perhaps focused too much on traditional development cooperation. As important and necessary as this is and continues to be, it must not be our only focus of attention. Much of what concerned state security structures, for example, didn’t feature. We need to become more open-minded in this area because we have an interest in these countries being able to effectively exercise a monopoly on the use of force.

Question:

The conflicts in the Middle East could escalate once again. The US has not ruled out renewed military attacks against Iran. Some observers believe that further air strikes in the context of the uprisings against the Islamist governmental system could be imminent. Can air strikes help to bring democracy to the country?

Johann Wadephul:

We don’t know how the US will act, so I don’t want to prejudge that. However, the protests have clearly shown that the regime in Iran is coming to an end. They took place across the country and were brutally cracked down on in a manner that we have rarely seen in this world, with protesters being bludgeoned and shot at. Many thousands were injured, abducted or murdered simply for standing up for their freedom. This regime has clearly lost all legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

Question:

Human rights activists in Germany have recently launched an initiative calling on the Federal Government to establish more prominent and official contacts with the Iranian opposition. Indeed, there have been hardly any high-profile meetings between German government officials and prominent dissidents of late. Why is the Federal Government having such difficulty here, given the situation that you have just described?

Johann Wadephul:

We have very wide-ranging contacts with the Iranian opposition. From my time in parliament, I can say that I have always cultivated these relationships, and others are doing just that right now. There’s no reluctance on the part of the Federal Government. Just this week, Minister of State Serap Güler met representatives of Iranian civil society at the Federal Foreign Office. We sometimes don’t publicise encounters with specific individuals to avoid compromising their security. But we always maintain contacts with all sections of the population, especially in autocratic countries.

Question:

So that means that we’ll see more high-profile meetings with prominent opposition figures from Iran?

Johann Wadephul:

As I said, meetings have been taking place. And I think there will be more such meetings in the near future. However, we always have to ask our interlocutors how much they want to be in the public eye.

Question:

What about Germany’s involvement in the Board of Peace that US President Donald Trump originally proposed for Gaza? The Federal Government was prepared to back it at the time. Now Trump appears to be bent on giving the project a global mandate, and Germany isn’t part of it. How do you intend to help in Gaza now?

Johann Wadephul:

Our willingness to contribute to resolving the conflict and to improving the situation in the Gaza Strip remains unchanged. Until now, the Board of Peace has only existed as a concept. And, indeed, everyone was most curious to see what its statutes would look like. We were very surprised by the current draft, however. So we still have many questions that need to be discussed with the US. Regardless of this, we continue to have a strong interest in lasting peace and reconstruction for the people of Gaza. Whether this succeeds, however, depends less on which bodies are formed for this purpose and more on whether the bloodthirsty Hamas can be disarmed at long last. If this isn’t achieved, then we can establish as many Boards of Peace as we like and still fail to make any progress.