Question:

Mr Wadephul, the industrial sector in the Bergisches Land region is particularly dependent on exports. Correspondingly, it has been hard hit by wars, crises and Donald Trump’s trade policy. What are you doing to help make sure that the crisis doesn’t get even worse?

Johann Wadephul:

First of all, we are trying to play an active part in helping to ease the crises and conflicts in the world. One example would be the E3 format, where we are working with the UK and France to try to bring about an end to the Ukraine war. We are participating in talks to find a resolution between the US and Iran. We have got the customs agreement between the European Union and the United States through the European Parliament. That required lots of talks in the background. And we are working on free trade agreements, with Mercosur for instance, the South American trade bloc, as well as with India. This is quite clearly part and parcel of our foreign policy agenda. To some extent, I regard myself as a foreign trade minister.

Question:

Ought Germany and Europe generally to emancipate themselves more from the United States?

Johann Wadephul:

We Europeans absolutely must become more independent, and for that it is important for us in the EU to stick together. Some parties and politicians make it their business to knock the EU. I see things very differently. Yes, we need to become more sovereign, but there, too, we’re on the right path. We are concluding trade agreements and doing more for our own security.

Question:

Many processes in Europe take forever. How can we improve the EU as an institution?

Johann Wadephul:

There’s no question about it: with 27 member states, that is a complex process. I am in favour of doing away with the principle of unanimity and of using qualified majority voting on foreign and security policy issues as well. Not everyone takes that view, but that is precisely why we need a debate on reform. Also, we need to streamline the structures and define more clearly who’s responsible for what in the European Union. Among laypeople, hardly anyone understands it any more. What does the European Council do? The European Commission? The Presidency of the Council? The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy? At a time when great attention is being paid internationally to people and institutions capable of action, the EU must become more efficient.

Question:

Does it also need to stop trying to regulate every tiny detail? The buzzword here is bureaucracy. It’s exactly this that gives fuel to those who say that Germany should leave the EU.

Johann Wadephul:

Definitely. Sometimes the EU comes up with actions in areas where they are not absolutely needed, because it is not fully capable of action in other fields. It’s a kind of evasive action. That’s why I say we must make the European Union fully capable of action, especially on foreign and security policy, with clearly defined figures and procedures. Then it is more likely to be ready to reduce bureaucracy in other areas and not to get bogged down in detail.

Question:

There have already been lots of promises to cut bureaucracy.

Johann Wadephul:

It’s about more than that. We need a new way of thinking. We need to focus on the goal we want to attain. And make sure that the outcome is the right one. I can name so many procedures – from motorway construction to necessary building works at a foreign minister’s house – for which it takes a ridiculous length of time to get approval. I don’t claim that everything used to be perfect. But if we need decades to build a motorway or a railway station, then something’s wrong in Germany. We’re kept so busy documenting every single step. We only look at the process. We need to get back to looking at the result. If we carry on the way we are now, administration will be the end of us.

Question:

You mentioned India. What makes India so important, and how can we benefit from new partnerships?

Johann Wadephul:

Together, the EU and India comprise a market of around two billion people. Then there is the potential inherent in the Indian subcontinent: a relatively well educated population, many English speakers. And India is a democracy. Of course there are things that need to be improved there, too, for instance in terms of the rule of law. First and foremost, however, I see the opportunities. All the signs are that India will develop in a very positive way. The median age is around 29, far lower than here in Germany. India is a country that will see strong growth, where consumption will increase, creating new opportunities for skilled workers who can come to Germany. Given the situation in the world, India is looking for new options.

Question:

And what would those be?

Johann Wadephul:

In defence, energy and technology, for instance. There are major possibilities for cooperation in the digital sphere in particular. Mercedes-Benz, for example, has a development centre in Bangalore. It develops technologies that are subsequently built into motor vehicles here. In aerospace, India has possibilities we in Europe don’t have. There we are just at the start of a very promising development.

Question:

Germany, too, must look for new options. Is it perhaps not too terrible that the campaign for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council didn’t work out? We can concentrate even more on new alliances now.

Johann Wadephul:

In international politics it’s often the case that where one door closes, another opens. We are not tied now, and can use our strength and energy elsewhere. We did not lose anything: we just didn’t get to do something we would have liked to do for the next two years. To that extent, it’s fine.

Question:

Were we perhaps too reserved? There was a lot of talk saying that Germany lost because it didn’t take a clear stance on the US action and international law.

Johann Wadephul:

I think that was more of a German debate. It was not much of a thing at international level. In my view, our candidature faced two main problems. Firstly, we were too late in getting started. By that time, many countries had already decided to vote for Austria or Portugal. Secondly, we are too uncomfortable for some countries. We have a clear stance on Ukraine. Austria was able to present itself as a neutral state on that issue. Moreover, we have a close alliance with Israel, an alliance we have to have for historical reasons. Others can act more freely in that respect. Positions like these have their price. And Russia and China certainly had no great interest in Germany winning a seat on the Security Council.

Question:

Talking about the United States, will you be going to the World Cup?

Johann Wadephul:

I think so. I can’t make it to the group stage because of a tight schedule. But the tournament is off to a good start, and I hope to be there in the later stages.