Question:

Mr Wadephul, wars, crises and disasters are part and parcel of your day-to-day work. Do you sometimes feel like pulling the covers over your head?

Foreign Minister Wadephul:

No, I don’t. My job is to keep as cool a head as possible and to represent our interests to the best of my ability. The solidarity within our alliances – both the European Union and NATO – gives me cause for optimism in this regard. Among the Europeans in particular, there has been a noticeable increase in cooperation, understanding and friendship. Everyone recognises that we are all in the same boat and that we need to stick together now.

Question:

What can be done to counter the public’s crisis fatigue?

Wadephul:

First of all, there is no reason to be overly anxious. But there is reason to prepare carefully. The public can help make us more resilient in the civilian domain. We demonstrated very successfully during the Cold War that we can do that. Those who are capable of defending themselves significantly reduce the risk of being attacked.

Question:

You’ve been in office for just over a year now. What has been your most memorable experience as a minister?

Wadephul:

Like many others, I could not have imagined beforehand the twelve-day war between Israel and Iran last summer, nor Iran’s indiscriminate response. Given the rhetoric, there were concerns at times that the situation might spiral out of control. The conflict, of course, continues to have an impact to this day due to the clashes which flared up at the beginning of the year and which have now erupted again. However, there is a growing realisation that negotiations are the only way to resolve this conflict.

Question:

This year, the United States intervened for the first time. Has the German Government now completed its review as to whether it considers the attacks on Iran by Israel and the United States to be in violation of international law?

Wadephul:

Our assessment is very clear: Iran is acting unlawfully with its massive attacks against Gulf states that are not involved in the conflict. That also applies to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. There is a clear difference between attacks on Iran and Iran’s attacks on others. States such as Kuwait cannot be accused of any wrongdoing. Iran, on the other hand, not only has a nuclear programme of a scale for which there is no plausible justification, but also supports several terrorist organisations in the region that, in turn, are threatening and attacking our close partners.

Question:

How wise is it to lift sanctions against Iran now, as the United States has announced it will do?

Wadephul:

I don’t see any scope for lifting sanctions at present. That will only be considered if Iran credibly and verifiably abandons any uranium enrichment programmes intended for military use. What’s more, Iran must stop supporting terrorist groups that destabilise neighbouring countries. Unfortunately, we are still a long way from that point.

Question:

In light of the ongoing waves of attacks by the United States against Iran and by Iran against other countries, should the German Government consider new measures to relieve the burden on the public, such as reintroducing a reduction in fuel tax?

Wadephul:

I don’t believe that is the right approach. Such measures cannot permanently offset the impact and would eventually place a strain on our resources. We have to be honest with people and tell them that two major conflicts in our neighbourhood – in Ukraine and in the Gulf region – have, unfortunately, led to rising energy and other prices. That’s why we are focusing our efforts on ensuring that negotiations in both conflicts either begin or resume.

Question:

What conclusions do you draw from this for Germany’s energy supply?

Wadephul:

The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz was a wake-up call for all of us. It should strengthen our resolve to phase out fossil fuels even more rigorously and to become more independent. There are already strong arguments for this anyway in the light of climate change. But the security and economic dimensions further underscore this necessity.

Question:

Let’s turn to Gaza. An agreement has been reached, yet the suffering and destruction continue. How can we move forward from here?

Wadephul:

Progress in Gaza is urgently needed. Israel must allow more humanitarian assistance into the Gaza Strip and transfer partial control of areas under its jurisdiction to the Palestinians. At the same time, Hamas must finally be disarmed, as was agreed. In reality, the opposite is happening right now – it’s rearming itself. That’s why countries with influence over Hamas must exert even more pressure. All those who say they are concerned about the Palestinians must help ensure that Hamas is stopped.

Question:

When can the international force tasked with securing peace in Gaza begin its deployment? And can Europe play a role in this?

Wadephul:

It’s encouraging that some Muslim-majority countries have already expressed their willingness to take part. They are likely to meet with greater acceptance there. However, they have all made their involvement contingent on Hamas being disarmed.

Question:

The mandate of the UN peacekeeping force UNIFIL in Lebanon is set to expire soon. What happens next?

Wadephul:

Developments in Lebanon, which has a government working for stability, are currently among the most promising in the region. We Europeans must do everything we can to ensure this process continues on a positive track. The EU should examine whether a European mandate can prevent a security vacuum from arising once the UNIFIL mission has ended. This could create the conditions necessary for the Israeli army to withdraw without Hezbollah and its terrorism returning.

Question:

The German Government has strongly condemned the advance of radical Jewish settlers into the Palestinian territories. However, it’s blocking an EU import ban on products from Israeli settlements. Why?

Wadephul:

For now, there are only options, but no concrete proposal from the European Commission. We have a clear position: the settlements violate international law. In my view, however, it would be unwise for Germans – given our history – to take the lead in imposing trade restrictions on Israel. Especially since the proposed measures would have more of a symbolic effect. We have other ways of making our position clear to the Israeli Government. This includes pointing out that the Israeli Government’s current policy risks permanently jeopardising support for its country in Europe.

Question:

Germany is being accused of double standards – of interpreting international law strictly when it comes to Russia’s attack on Ukraine, but more loosely when it comes to Israel, and the attack on Iran.

Wadephul:

The accusation of double standards is something I’ve heard mainly in the debate within Germany.

Question:

Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz merely termed the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by the United States legally complex. So a kidnapping like that is something you can just do?

Wadephul:

Let me say again that I’ve scarcely encountered these questions at international level. Of course, the German Government must consider what priority it attaches to what issue, for example in the case of the leader of a regime who has suppressed human and political rights in his own country on a massive scale and forced millions of people to flee.

Question:

The US administration has attacked head-on the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was set up to monitor compliance with international law. What’s your view on that?

Wadephul:

We are committed to the international courts system, just as we are committed to the rules-based international order. It is clear to me that the International Criminal Court makes the world safer and fairer. It has uncovered the worst crimes against humanity, for instance the recruitment of child soldiers in civil wars. It has held to account those responsible for the most serious crimes. In other words, it is fulfilling the task for which it was created. If it has shortcomings, as any institution does, they can be criticised. However, Germany does not see this as a reason to call into question the very existence of this important institution and achievement. Quite the opposite. It is vital to safeguard and defend the International Criminal Court as an independent institution.

Question:

Germany’s failure to win a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council also had a huge impact. In its wake, you announced a review of Germany’s UN contributions. Is an act of revenge like that the proper response?

Wadephul:

That would be an incorrect interpretation of our policy, because that’s not at all what it’s about. We have to justify our engagement and the use of our budget to the public. That’s why, from the outset, we have supported the United Nations reform process. The UN apparatus is huge, and there is potential for savings. I’m not sure that it really takes 50 under-secretaries-general to effectively ensure peace and security in the world. There are very many crises and wars going on all across the world. In my view, our money would be better spent if we could cut down on bureaucracy and provide more help instead. That is our aim, and I get the impression that lots of people think it’s a legitimate one.

Question:

Would it be sensible to allocate support for Ukraine from the funds available under the recent constitutional amendment that enables Germany to increase its defence spending? That would give you more scope for humanitarian and development assistance.

Wadephul:

I think that is a sensible idea. The matter must now be discussed within the coalition and a decision taken in the autumn.

Question:

For how long can an increased defence budget be justified?

Wadephul:

What we have just now is a special situation, because we need to make up for previous shortfalls. But it is clear that at some point the defence budget will return to normal levels and the current race to catch up will be over.

Question:

At the NATO summit, assistance for Ukraine was increased, and the Coalition of the Willing has just demonstrated its support in Paris with a large military parade. What chance does diplomacy have?

Wadephul:

All wars end through diplomacy sooner or later. I am working to ensure that it happens as soon as possible in this case.

Question:

The United States has taken over the negotiations. Do the EU states still have any say?

Wadephul:

Recently the United States’ engagement on the Ukraine dossier has been less pronounced. To that extent, we Europeans have not only the possibility, but also a clear duty to engage. Indeed the E3 – Germany, France and the United Kingdom – has taken the initiative here. In terms of the format, however, we are not dogmatic. We are looking to all partners and our common interests as Europeans. The most important thing is to find a path towards talks at last. But so far Vladimir Putin is not open to that. So it is up to him, because he must now seize the opportunity to end this war, which is hugely damaging for his country, too.

Question:

Presumably Putin is waiting for the EU to fall apart, for instance if the right-wing populist Marine Le Pen wins France’s presidential election in 2027.

Wadephul:

It would be another mistake on Putin’s part if he were to bank on Europe’s disintegration. No matter what happens in the French elections, the EU is a very stable construct. It has withstood difficulties in the past and will continue to do so.

Question:

Together with France, you are pressing for an end to the principle of unanimity for voting in the EU. That would mean that Germany could be outvoted – for example on how to deal with Israel. Is that something you would accept?

Wadephul:

I see no downsides to scrapping unanimity, only benefits. The EU needs to achieve what Jean-Claude Juncker once coined “Weltpolitikfähigkeit” – the capacity to play our role in shaping global affairs. The current system leads to self-imposed deadlock. And someone standing in their own way is not shaping events. The European Union, in its own interest, cannot afford to be like that in the long term.