Question:

Minister, while you were in the Middle East just a few days ago, Israel attacked Iran and you were drawn into a crisis mission. Did you expect the first weeks of your term of office to be so turbulent?

Johann Wadephul:

No, I didn’t see that particular crisis coming. But when you are confronted with such a dramatic situation, there is no time to look back and take stock.

Question:

It was striking that before your recent talks in Cairo, Chancellor Friedrich Merz conducted a phone call with the Egyptian President, and before your subsequent visit to Oman, Merz spoke with the Sultan. Are you as Foreign Minister in competition with a Foreign Chancellor?

Johann Wadephul:

That is our understanding of seamless foreign policy in action. We work on different levels and complement one another. It is the most normal thing in the world. The Chancellor has confidence in me, I have confidence in him. That is a vital prerequisite for being able to do my job.

Question:

Seamless policymaking, how does that work specifically?

Johann Wadephul:

Most of our talks involve the Chancellor asking me for my opinion.

Question:

Do you sometimes contradict him?

Johann Wadephul:

I’ve not had much cause to contradict Friedrich Merz either during our time in opposition or since the change of government. But I don’t have a problem accepting that he is the head of the Government and has the authority to issue guidelines.

Question:

You do a lot of travelling. Do you still have a life outside of politics?

Johann Wadephul:

It’s become more difficult, but my family life is very important to me. For example, I still try to visit the weekend market in my home town or go to the theatre in Hamburg with my wife.

Question:

You are a devout Protestant, you wish God’s blessing on people. In the Middle East, many politicians invoke God when justifying their decisions. Do you see that as an abuse of religion?

Johann Wadephul:

Many people regard their personal religious beliefs as fundamental principles in life. I think that is good and right. However, it’s not advisable to allow religious convictions to dictate politics in the narrower sense. For me, being religious means being open towards others. My church in Berlin-Mitte runs the House of One, where Christians, Jews and Muslims come together and pray together. Sometimes I wish that in the Middle East, too, more emphasis could be placed on the common ground that the religions share.

Question:

Can Germany influence the dangerous situation in the Middle East?

Johann Wadephul:

I think so. I know many foreign ministers in the Arab world from my time in the opposition. It is clear to everyone that Germany bears a responsibility for Israel’s security; nonetheless people hold us in high regard as a fair and reliable dialogue partner.

Question:

Unlike the United States, the German Government was not informed in advance by the Israelis about the large-scale attack on Iran. The news took you by surprise during an interim stop in Cairo. Were you irritated by this approach?

Johann Wadephul:

The surprise element is an important aspect of military operations of this nature. My Israeli counterpart Gideon Sa’ar put me in the picture quickly and comprehensively.

Question:

What is the oft-cited friendship with Israel actually worth if you only find out about such important events after the fact?

Johann Wadephul:

The main thing is that we engage in close and constant dialogue about the strategic situation. We knew that Iran is pursuing a nuclear enrichment programme that could no longer be justified with the argument that it was for peaceful civilian use. Neither was it a secret that the regime in Tehran is driving forward a long-range missile programme that threatens Israel and Europe. Israel and Germany had similar perceptions of the threat emanating from Iran.

Question:

After the start of the military operation against Iran, you initially expressed understanding for the Israeli Government’s decision, and then called for de-escalation. So what is correct? Is Israel’s attack compatible with international law or not?

Johann Wadephul:

I can’t provide a definitive assessment from an international legal perspective. To do that, we would need information that we don’t have.

Question:

Are you getting the Federal Foreign Office to look into that?

Johann Wadephul:

To do so, we would need all the facts that formed the basis for the Israelis’ decision. One thing that is clear is that Israel is entitled to protect its existence and the lives of its citizens.

Question:

Are Israel’s military operations against Iran morally right in your view?

Johann Wadephul:

I don’t think we Germans should be rushing to pass moral judgements on the State of Israel. Iran poses a threat to Israel. It is the declared state ideology of the Iranian regime to destroy Israel. Netanyahu’s Government felt compelled to act. I don’t see any reason to criticise that decision.

Question:

At the G7 Summit in Canada, the Chancellor stated that Israel was “doing the dirty work” for us in Iran. Do you share this view?

Johann Wadephul:

As I already said, Germany and Israel had a similar view of the extent of the threat from Iran for the people in the region and far beyond. I fully agree with the Chancellor on that point.

Question:

The protection of Israel has been part of Germany’s raison d’état since Angela Merkel was Chancellor. In 2008 she justified this by citing the threats of destruction from Tehran. Will the German Government help Israel if the Iranian attacks continue and the number of victims rises?

Johann Wadephul:

I am attempting to prevent an escalation. I am warning Tehran not to renege on international agreements and exacerbate the conflict. But that is a possibility. Israel will always be able to rely on Germany.

Question:

On Friday, together with the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom and France, you want to meet your Iranian counterpart in Geneva. What do you hope to achieve by this?

Johann Wadephul:

The situation is extremely tense; it is difficult to say how things will develop over the coming days. It isn’t enough simply to hope for the best. Hope is not a category of diplomacy. But talks are.

Question:

Chancellor Merz warned that escalation of the conflict could destabilise the entire region. For decades, one of the standard sentences of German diplomacy has been to warn of destabilisation in the Middle East. Is that term still appropriate?

Johann Wadephul:

In the current conflict it is almost an understatement. If the conflict between Israel and Iran spreads to other countries, the consequences will be more than mere destabilisation.

Question:

Last October, after Israel’s strikes against the Lebanese Hezbollah, your predecessor Annalena Baerbock warned of the risk of destabilisation of the Middle East. At that time, you criticised that statement and spoke out in defence of Israel, but now you sound like Baerbock. Have you learned some lessons?

Johann Wadephul:

The situation now is not comparable with the one we faced last year. Israel took action against Hezbollah because it was being attacked from Lebanon every day, and a large part of northern Israel was uninhabitable. I therefore considered Israel’s military action at that time to be right. But now we are in a different, more complex dimension.

Question:

Recently, you sharply criticised Israel because of its conduct in the Gaza Strip. You said that the German Government would not let itself be manoeuvred into a position where we would be pressured into a forced solidarity. Many in the Union were appalled by that. Why did you speak of forced solidarity?

Johann Wadephul:

I understand that my choice of words was criticised by some Union colleagues, my opposite number Sa’ar also raised the issue with me. As far as the German Government is concerned, Israel’s security is part of its raison d’état. At the same time, international humanitarian law applies. The situation in Gaza is dramatic. Germany must draw attention to this and have the option to respond with demands.

Question:

Has the new, critical tone that you and also the Chancellor have adopted towards Israel made your talks in the Gulf region easier?

Johann Wadephul:

I’m convinced that it has. But that wasn’t the reason for our bluntness. It is the situation that has prompted us to speak out. Germany will not remain silent in the face of the suffering in Gaza.

Question:

In the Arab world, many accuse Germany of employing double standards. They claim that Berlin is particularly critical of Russia’s warfare in Ukraine, but is more restrained with regard to Israel.

Johann Wadephul:

In Arab countries, there are those who have the impression that we are blind in one eye. We are not. We uphold the rules of international law in all regions, our standards remain the same. We keep calling upon Russia to comply with international law. But we also expect that of countries in other parts of the world, including those in the Middle East.

Question:

In pro-Israel circles, including within your party, some scoff that in view of your criticism of Israel it would have made no difference if Baerbock had remained Foreign Minister. How would you respond to your critics?

Johann Wadephul:

I’m very satisfied with the way in which I have settled into my role and with the support I have received from many colleagues and members of staff. My numerous contacts in Europe, but also and particularly in the Middle East, show that Germany is valued as a dialogue partner.

Question:

In what ways does your foreign policy differ from that of your Green predecessor?

Johann Wadephul:

In my first speech I made it clear that I intend to focus on essentials, with a clear, realistic view. Above all, my priority is to maintain security, freedom and prosperity in Germany and Europe. That is definitely placing a different focus. But foreign policy is not suited to revolutionary acts. Continuity is important, otherwise our reliability would be called into question. However, after the end of the electoral term it will be clear that I have done some things differently from my predecessor.

Question:

You stress that you also want to talk with representatives of countries which do not share Western values. Did you find Baerbock’s style arrogant?

Johann Wadephul:

I don’t intend to pass judgement on the way Annalena Baerbock performed the duties of her office. I will be working with her in her new role as President of the UN General Assembly. As far as I’m concerned, a willingness to engage in dialogue is the prerequisite for successful foreign policy. To begin with, you should take every dialogue partner at face value. That doesn’t mean that we have to abandon our values or our interests.

Question:

Could you also envisage holding talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov?

Johann Wadephul:

A foreign minister is always well advised not to refuse to talk to anyone. As far as the Russian Foreign Minister is concerned, first we Europeans would have to come to the conclusion that talks with the leadership in Moscow would be worthwhile. There is no lack of offers from Ukraine to engage in talks. Putin lacks the will to put an end to his attacks.

Question:

Russia’s war against Ukraine could be overshadowed by the conflict between Israel and Iran. Does that worry you?

Johann Wadephul:

Yes, it does. We have not forgotten Ukraine. And that also goes for other armed conflicts and humanitarian disasters such as those in the Sudan and South Sudan, where people are dying in large numbers.

Question:

Do you expect Russia to be willing to engage in serious peace talks in the course of this year?

Johann Wadephul:

The more consistent the stance is that the West adopts towards Moscow, the higher the probability that Vladimir Putin will agree to engage in negotiations. That means that we likewise cannot afford to relax our military support. We must continue to help Kyiv. That is necessary for our own freedom.

Question:

Do you expect Russia to launch a new major offensive against Ukraine this summer?

Johann Wadephul:

Every single day that this war continues is terrible. The Europeans are determined, but our approach is more effective when we can coordinate it closely with the United States. If we succeed in this, Putin will very quickly be willing to negotiate.

Question:

A few weeks ago, as the first Minister in the new Cabinet, you spoke out in favour of Germany spending five percent of its GDP on defence. That met with a lot of criticism. Did that surprise you?

Johann Wadephul:

Yes and no. Perhaps not everyone was prepared for the fact that such far-reaching decisions have to be taken. But in just a few days, NATO will convene in The Hague for its annual Summit. There, the proposal presented by Secretary General Mark Rutte will be adopted to raise the investment in our defence sector to five percent. Germany has to be a role model, we must be willing to take the lead. It is up to us to do what is necessary for our security and hold NATO together.

Question:

Chancellor Merz has announced his intention to make the Bundeswehr the strongest army of the European allies. That sounds like a task for many generations to come. Is the German Government doing enough to explain what it is trying to achieve in defence policy to the public?

Johann Wadephul:

We need to talk much more about our security. Phase two of the Zeitenwende is now beginning. We should tell our citizens very clearly that without a major investment programme for our defence sector, Germany and Europe will not be safe in the future. That includes recruiting more personnel for the Bundeswehr but also significantly strengthening civil emergency preparedness. We in the Government have a huge responsibility to communicate this.

Interview: Christoph Schult and Severin Weiland