Germany

As we meet in this venerable forum, the final election rallies are being held in Germany. The day after tomorrow, 60 million Germans will be called upon to elect a new parliament. They will decide on new coalitions and on the successor to the Federal Chancellor who has governed Germany for 16 years. At this time of political transition in my country, I would like to assure the Assembly that after this election, Germany will remain a country that is aware of its international responsibility and shoulders it. There are two compelling reasons for that. First, we Germans do not forget that our political and economic rebirth after two World Wars, our journey to re-enter the international community after all the horrors for which my country was responsible and, finally, our peaceful reunification — this, Germany’s path of fortune — was possible only with the support of our neighbours and partners. Secondly, we remain convinced that the path to a more peaceful future and the resolution of the major issues facing humankind will require much, much greater cooperation on the part of the international community. The Preamble to Germany’s Basic Law formulates our aspiration in brief but precise terms: “to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe”. That aspiration, that obligation is one shared by every German Government, and that is why it was important for me to come to New York today as Federal President and convey Germany’s message to the international community: our partners can rely on us, and our competitors will need to keep reckoning with us. To my mind, our foreign policy responsibility begins with a frank and undistorted look at the world. Over the past few days, speakers at this session of the General Assembly have been unusually open in their endeavours here. Indeed, the global situation today is in many respects sobering. The fall of Kabul marks a turning point. We achieved our goal of defeating those who wrought horrendous terror on that city 20 years ago. But despite an immense endeavour and investment, we were not able in two decades to establish a self- sustaining political order in Afghanistan. My country also shares responsibility, and we have an ongoing responsibility, particularly towards the many Afghans who had hoped for a more peaceful, free and democratic future. Yet I believe we need to ask ourselves: what conclusion do we draw from this failure? What lessons can we learn and what tasks do we feel able to perform having had to acknowledge that we wanted too much? I am convinced that resignation would be the wrong lesson to draw. To my mind, this moment of geopolitical disenchantment contains three messages for our foreign policy: we need to become more honest, smarter and stronger. First, we need to be honest with regard to both our options and our limits. We need to be more realistic in defining and prioritizing our aims and interests. We can often achieve more when we want less. Secondly, we need to be smarter in choosing our instruments and setting our priorities. German and European foreign policy must not restrict itself to being right and condemning others. We need to extend our diplomatic, military, civilian, humanitarian toolboxes. For me, being smart also means less a sense of mission and more openness in our endeavour to find potential solutions and common ground, including with those who are different from us. Thirdly, even though some may find this paradoxical, we need to get stronger with regard to our means. Citizens in all our countries expect their Governments to protect them from threat and attack — and rightly so. That is why, in these unstable times, my country is also investing more in its defence capability. But one thing is clear as well: future generations will not judge us on our military strength today but on whether we were able to resolve problems and conflicts. Military strength without the will to forge understanding or the courage to engage in diplomacy does not make the world a more peaceful place. That is why we need strength at the negotiating table just as we need strength in defence. For this reason, Germany shouldered this responsibility over the past two years in the Security Council, and we would like to do so again in the 2027-2028 term. Yes, we failed on many things in Afghanistan, but our failure should not be cause for schadenfreude for others. I am deliberately using this German word that has made its way into many languages: schadenfreude, which refers to a mindset in which loss to one is gain to another. Such a mindset fails to do justice to the reality of our interconnected world. Regional instability, weakening State structures, refugee and migrant flows, religious extremism and terror, and new forms of conflict — hybrid, digital, environmental and resource-based — are developments that threaten us all, and all of us, small and large alike, have to deal with them. The major Powers — the United States, China and Russia — shoulder a particular responsibility towards smaller countries. The privileges the major Powers enjoy in the United Nations system are justified only to the extent that they promote and uphold the international peaceful order in the interests of all and do not ignore or undermine that order in pursuit of their own interests. The United Nations is not a boxing ring devoid of values at the disposal of world Powers. I also do know that our hand pointing the finger at others has other fingers pointing back at ourselves. Those warning now about an American withdrawal should not succumb to similar reflexes at home. We Europeans and we Germans have to do more for our own security. We need to do more for peace and stability in our neighbourhood and around the world. We need to continue our multilateral efforts — in Libya, in eastern Ukraine and in the Middle East. We are ready to renew the nuclear agreement, and we call upon Iran to return to serious negotiations as quickly as possible. I know we are in agreement with our closest partner, France, in saying that we need a strong common foreign and security policy in Europe. Only a strong Europe can expect others to play their part along with us in building a peaceful international order. Only a strong Europe can do both at the same time: seek cooperation with China where cooperation is in the interest of both sides and indeed necessary, and, at the same time, demand that China respect human rights and international law, as well as the legitimate interests of its neighbours. A strong, rules-based peaceful order also needs a strong transatlantic partnership. We know that the United States is setting new and different priorities, and we know that, as the world changes, alliances also need to adapt. But no short-term advantage is worth causing cracks to appear in our transatlantic unity. We need to be mindful of that together. The responsibility of the major Powers, including us Europeans, weighs upon us all the more heavily when we call to mind the great global challenges, the major issues facing humankind. Never before have we had such an existential experience of our interdependence, our reliance on one another, as we have had in the almost two years of the coronavirus pandemic. And yet, although we do know that the pandemic is only over when it is over everywhere, when we take stock of global vaccine distribution, the picture is at best mixed. Too many people are still waiting for the life-saving vaccine. That is why the distribution of vaccines must not be an instrument for countries to showcase themselves or grant tactical favours. The COVAX initiative under the auspices of the United Nations is the right way forward together, because it is our shared way forward together. One in three COVAX vaccine doses is being made available by Europe, and, as the world’s second- largest donor, my country will contribute €2.5 billion, which will make at least another 100 million doses available by the end of the year. What holds true for the existential threat posed by the pandemic is just as true for climate change. Apocalyptic fires and scorching temperatures, tropical storms and hurricanes, failed harvests, drought and famine: they are happening now, they are happening in this country and everywhere. They pose a threat to people, families, livelihoods — to everyone, particularly the most vulnerable — but also to the rich industrialized countries. Devastating floods in western Germany this summer cost almost 200 of my compatriots their lives, and we also recall the recent images from New York City of huge masses of water in streets, apartments and subways. Against this dramatic backdrop, the regression to the national egoisms I warn against is more than just a step back to the past: it is robbing us of our shared future. It is harming the very institutions and instruments that we now need. We need strong joint decisions at the upcoming summit in Glasgow. After all, when it comes to climate change, it is also true that the gap between our ambitious goals and our concrete policies remains much too wide. It is our shared job to close this gap, and we need to do it now. After all, we are living in an era in which humankind can irreversibly destroy the living conditions on our planet. It is up to us, our generation, to leave the future open for our children and grandchildren. We have to leave them an open future in which climate and environmental protection, economic prosperity, a self- determined life in freedom and social cohesion are all possible simultaneously. This is — and I am not using this lofty word lightly — is our historic task. We must not fail because the future of humankind is at stake. I began my address with democracy and the democratic transition unfolding in my own country. As I draw to a close, I would like to widen the angle once more and consider the situation of liberal democracy as a whole — its credibility, its impact and its future at this difficult geopolitical juncture. In Afghanistan, a long engagement which cost many lives has failed — but not the idea behind it. My country has a deep-seated commitment to the idea of freedom and democracy, perhaps precisely because our German path to get there was long. We do of course know that, in reality, political systems will never be perfect — not in Europe, not in America, not anywhere. Consequently, they can neither be exported, nor, taking it further, imposed. I believe the task is a different one: it is not by missionary zeal that we render the best service to this tremendous idea but by letting the strength of democracy shine through at home, by bringing democracy to bear in the daily lives of our citizens and by resisting any authoritarian temptation. Only through that can we render the best service to this tremendous idea. At this General Assembly, President Biden spoke of the global power of democracy (see A/76/PV.3). I would like to underscore that democracy is not a force directed against anyone. It is not a Western instrument of political power. It is an open project, regardless of compass reading or geographical borders — and regardless of skin colour. It is the project for freedom and human dignity that the countries of the world have set as their yardstick in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Because the Universal Declaration must remain the yardstick for us Germans, even after failing in Afghanistan, withdrawal from the world is not an option. While people are being robbed of their dignity, indifference is impossible. That is why more realism in foreign policy does not mean less responsibility, nor does it mean less ambition to make the world a better place. On the contrary, the inherent human yearning for freedom and dignity and self-determination will never be extinguished anywhere. Doing justice to this human yearning instead of suppressing it — that is the real question defining our future in the twenty-first century. And this question will not be decided on any battlefield in our world. After all, the firepower of the most powerful army comes to an end, as does the long arm of the strongest State. But the appeal of freedom and democracy in the hearts and minds of people lives on. That is my firm belief.