Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer: “Women should also be subject to military conscription”
Former Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer on Germany's role in the world, the Bundeswehr and possible diplomacy with Russia.
We meet Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer in the office of the think tank "Global Perspectives Initiative." As chair of the commission "World in Transition – Germany and the Global South," the former Federal Minister of Defense developed recommendations for the federal government on how to readjust Germany's international relations. Some recommendations from the cross-party commission, in which Joschka Fischer, among others, served, have been incorporated into the coalition agreement: for example, the establishment of a National Security Council or the recommendation to continue the independent operation of the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Ms. Kramp-Karrenbauer, your report is very clear in its analysis. Are we living in an era of intensified wars over resources? Have times become harder?
The order is definitely changing. We see this in cooperation in the West, particularly with the United States of America. We see that the countries of the so-called global South are developing greater self-confidence – rightly so, because they know that they provide what we need for the future: young populations and raw materials. Therefore, on the one hand, interest in these issues has increased. At the same time, we are seeing forces in our country that want to retreat into nationalism. They prioritize nationalism, perhaps a little bit of Europe, but they no longer want to engage in the world. In our report, we show that this is the wrong path. Now, more than ever, we must engage in the world because our own interests are also at stake.
Hasn't the stage of talks already been left behind? One gets the impression that today the main question is who is waging which war, where?
If we're honest, even in times that we may have experienced as particularly peaceful, there have been conflicts and wars all over the world. At the moment, we are increasingly inclined to no longer want to resolve conflicts on the basis of agreements and international law, but rather through the might of the stronger – military might, economic might. In Germany, we have a great interest in upholding international rules, and we must seek allies to achieve this. At the same time, we must articulate more clearly our interests and what we expect from our partnerships. This is something we have often heard, especially from the countries of the Global South: We know that Germany is committed, but we don't know what Germany actually wants.
What is Germany’s interest: to maintain the world order as it is and to stabilize it?
We are the third or fourth largest economy in the world. Our success model is heavily based on exports, and these exports need sensible rules. They need free trade zones, not additional tariffs. They need the structures of international organizations and courts where conflicts are resolved. If we accept that only the militarily strongest determines the way forward, then we will play no role in Germany or in Europe. Despite everything we want to do now in defense, we will not become a military superpower. We don't want that either. Our strengths lie elsewhere. The more supporters we have for such a system, the better we will be able to maintain it.
What do you hear: What does Germany stand for in the world?
We repeatedly hear that Germany is committed to financial matters, for example, in international organizations. This is all the more important now that the US is withdrawing. We are often seen as an honest broker. We are credited with always having an eye for balance and fairness. This is where Germany's good reputation internationally comes from.
A strength of Germany: Bilateral relationsYour report suggests that Germany should also feel freer when it comes to pursuing its own interests. Germany is, after all, strongly involved in the transatlantic relationship.
First, Germany must decide for itself that we will remain involved in the world and not withdraw. Overall, we must proceed pragmatically: There are some things that are better resolved at the EU level, and others that Germany can better resolve alone. Bilateral relations are, after all, one of Germany's particular strengths.
Now, the major powers are increasingly moving toward autocracy. Considering the years of TTIP negotiations that ultimately ended unsuccessfully, or the investment agreement with China , which has now been shelved: Don't democracies, and especially unions of states like the EU, have a natural disadvantage when it comes to competitions such as raw materials?
In the long run, a democratic system that controls and balances itself through different points of strength is always the more successful system. After all, it is also a system that many people around the world are committed to, taking to the streets and risking their lives to achieve this kind of freedom and participation that they otherwise do not have. The fact that the EU's free trade negotiations often stall is also due to the fact that we include many issues that initially have nothing to do with free trade. The current debates in the USA about tariffs have led to a renewed interest in free trade with the EU. Many countries say this also provides them with protection, because it is a space with rules they can rely on. The White House's policy highlights the advantage of the other policy that relies on the reliability of agreements.
Should Germany take the initiative and revive the agreement?
China poses a major challenge for us. It is both a systemic rival and a very important partner. For China and other difficult partners, the following applies: In the end, it is always better to have an agreement than no agreement at all. We must continue to work on this in the future, but with a mindful eye on our interests, for example, in security issues, infrastructure, and technology. We must also be able to free ourselves from one-sided dependencies.
So, should the agreement with China be revived? You could recommend this to the German government.
I believe the German government itself knows quite well what needs to be done—whether it uses the negotiated agreement as a basis or starts from scratch. My experience is that you always build on what has been done previously. In any case, it's important not to let the thread of the conversation break down. If the new agreement between the US and China is confirmed as it appears, it will definitely create a new dynamic between the EU and China. It's important that the Europeans clarify their position once again.
Ukraine and Europe: Partnership on equal termsSomething similar happened with Ukraine, where Trump suddenly put a rare earths agreement on the table, and the Americans are now exploiting the country's resources. How should the EU react here?
I've always wondered why the Europeans haven't negotiated such an agreement with Ukraine. The fact is that Ukraine, like other countries, has raw materials that we need for our production. These countries also have the skilled workers we need. We must represent our interests there. But we must say that this isn't just a one-way street in our direction. There must be added value locally so that the people also benefit.
Has the train left Ukraine?
I cannot judge whether such questions might not also be discussed in negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the EU.
The Americans also want to cooperate economically with Russia. What's left for the Europeans? Will we have to buy everything from the Americans in the future, with a corresponding markup?
We have always represented the interests of our own countries in the West. Because relations with the US are changing, we must reposition ourselves in Europe. We can see this in NATO: It was very convenient for us to have burdened the Americans with the main burden of defense for decades. This puts us in a state of dependency that we are now feeling very painfully.
However, five percent of GDP for armaments is already a lot.
If you look closely, it's three and a half percent for military equipment, and one and a half percent is to be invested in infrastructure—in roads, bridges, or railways, which are also needed to move the military from A to B. This also has a civilian benefit. The privilege of living in freedom and security doesn't come for free. You have to invest a lot of money for it, and not just money.
Conscription becomes necessary if there are too few volunteersSo also conscription?
Conscription too , if it becomes clear that the voluntary approach we are currently pursuing will not achieve the number of soldiers we need. That is a major goal because we need to have a debate about whether our country is worth defending. We can proceed in parallel and prepare everything we need now to reintroduce conscription. Now that NATO has made it clear how many soldiers we need – up to 60,000 extra – we must begin work now. If we see that volunteers are not enough, then we must say we are restarting conscription.
Why was conscription suspended in the first place?
There were three reasons: After the fall of the Berlin Wall, people said the East-West conflict was over. They thought we didn't need national defense on the scale and depth we had before, but rather a small army, for example, for international missions or the fight against terrorism. Then there was growing criticism of the military's inequality: an ever-decreasing proportion of young men of each age group were being drafted into the Bundeswehr. And finally, they wanted to save money.
However, Ukraine is currently demonstrating that you can wage war very efficiently with a few drones for 300 euros. What has fundamentally changed that we believe we need a giant army again today?
With Russia, as it has positioned itself under Putin, we face a real threat to NATO. Because of NATO's Article 5, alliance and national defense are once again a concern. For this, we need more weapons systems and more soldiers. It is important that we have a strong reserve, that is, a generation of soldiers prepared for any eventuality.
Another issue is the aging population. Does the fact that there are many migrants in the country who could also support the army benefit Germany's military capability?
If we look at the declining birth rate, the question will ultimately be whether we can do without any group. That would mean that women would also have to be drafted into military service . However, that would require a change to the Basic Law. I would definitely support that. I spoke out very early on in favour of universal compulsory military service that applies to everyone. Ultimately, the duration and the question of what an active reserve might look like are up for discussion. It's about how soldiers will be available after their service. It's no use at the end of the day if you don't have a system in place in which what you've learned can also be used in an emergency.
How is that supposed to be, like in Switzerland?
The Ministry of Defense has had plans for what this should look like for a long time, even before Boris Pistorius's time. When talking about military capability, one must also consider how a reserve is equipped. That is not yet the case today.
Is this even possible within a realistic timeframe? It would be necessary quickly if Putin is seen as an acute threat.
I believe it's possible if everyone truly wants it. We're in a situation where many things are being imposed on us from outside. The fact that we even spoke of a turning point in 2022 is due to the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine. The debate needs to be held in society now to understand the magnitude of the threat and ensure that we can defend ourselves in the long term. In my view, this is the top priority, and it's better resolved today than tomorrow.
Negotiations with RussiaHer former boss, Angela Merkel, was the last person to speak regularly with Putin. In addition to deterrence, wouldn't it be sensible to resume dialogue with Russia? Several important SPD politicians have just published a manifesto calling for this.
In general, diplomacy always makes sense. I can't imagine a situation, should there be serious negotiations, in which the German or European side would refuse such talks. However, all previous experience has shown that Putin either didn't come at all, or if he did, it was only to play tricks to continue the war unabated. Therefore, a position of strength is needed to bring him to the table for serious negotiations about a ceasefire and an end to the war. Neither the Americans nor the Europeans have succeeded in doing that so far.
Perhaps Trump was the wrong person to talk to, sending Wittkoff, a real estate agent, to Putin. Wouldn't this be the hour for the Germans, who really only need to pick up the phone?
To do that, you first have to be in a position where you can exert influence. My impression is that Putin only takes seriously those he knows can stop him. We will only be taken seriously if we can show that we are capable and willing to take a counter-point. And we are not in that position.
Why not? The Bundeswehr isn't as bad as people make it out to be. As a former defense minister, you must also find it an insult when people now say the Bundeswehr isn't even operational. Putin will certainly be afraid of the Bundeswehr.
I don't think Putin is afraid of anyone. The security services say Putin could test whether NATO's Article 5 really works and deliver the first pinprick.
But then Mr. Merz could say: Mr. Putin, just so you know: Article Five or not, we Germans will intervene with the Bundeswehr if something happens in the Baltics. Couldn't Merz say that?
The point is that the real strength of deterrence lies primarily in American capabilities, including nuclear ones. Cooperation with America is the key to deterrence. Europe alone is not yet a deterrent enough. That's why we must work on precisely this point. NATO functions in partnership with the Americans.
But regardless of that, Merz could still say: Putin, the Baltics are not here, otherwise I'll send the Taurus!
The Lithuania Brigade is a clear signal. The fact that we have exempted defense costs from the debt brake, and that we will reintroduce conscription if necessary – these are clear signals. The Chancellor's promise to Ukraine that he will supply Taurus still stands. It was also smart of him to say that we will no longer talk publicly about what we will and will not supply, because that plays into Putin's hands.
But Merz could tell Putin directly and put him under real pressure.
The Chancellor decides when, how and what is spoken.
So there are channels of communication?
You have to ask others this question. Typically, people always try to maintain relationships through channels.
The entire rearmament effort will cost a lot of money. Do we really need to tell the Germans the truth and say we have to make cuts elsewhere? Because you can't have everything.
You can only have everything if you want to tell future decision-makers that you have no room for maneuver now because we have already spent everything.
That wouldn't be responsible. No, that wouldn't be responsible at all.
Do you have feedback? Write to us! [email protected]
Berliner-zeitung
