Martin Schulz: ‘The difference between Europeans and the Chinese is that China is a dictatorship and we are democracies’

Martin Schulz is a German politician who served as a member of the European Parliament from 1994 to 2017 and a lawmaker in the Bundestag from 2017 to 2021. A former president of the European Parliament, he currently serves as chairman of the prestigious Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Foundation.

During a recent visit to Argentina, Schulz, 68, manifested his concern over turbulent political times across the world, and above  all, in Europe after elections in which the global far right showed its teeth, placing the democratic parties of the Old Continent in check. 

Nevertheless, Schulz is optimistic, affirming his confidence in strengthened relations between Europe and Latin America due to the institutional and structural affinity shared by the democratic countries in those regions.

 

Immigration has been the main issue in European elections for several years now. Is the problem with Islamic peoples or is immigration in general an issue?

I believe that it is a general problem. The members of the European Union must understand that they are living in a century of immigration and there are two main reasons for that. One is that Europe is a rich part of the world and people want to join in the lifestyles of some European member states. That is not  prohibited. All the other regions of the world with that kind of immigration have reacted by imposing norms on the right to immigrate. 

That is what is lacking in Europe. We do not have a system of legal immigration like in the United States, Canada, Australia or here in Argentina. But it is a general problem which we must resolve. And secondly, yes, some of the immigration is of Islamic origin. From a principled viewpoint, that is not a problem. But if there is an Islamist backdrop with the infiltration of radical and terrorist groups, then yes, it becomes a problem. We must defend our open and free societies against that type of immigration.

 

Voter abstention marked out the recent European elections. To what do you attribute this political disenchantment of Europeans?

Responding on the basis of my experiences as a European politician, I’d like to describe it thus: Europe was a promise of peace, social security and a fair and equal distribution of wealth but what many people are facing nowadays is that for the first time in a long while we have a war on European soil. And secondly, we have an increasingly enormous gap between the super-rich and the poor getting poorer every day. Thirdly, there is the perspective of previous generations. My parents, for example, had peace, wealth and a fair and equal distribution thereof, something which for our children and their children is absolutely uncertain. And Europe, in the eyes of many people, is no longer keeping the promises of the European Union, leading to radical votes and abstention.

 

Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is the only party in the Bundestag advocating abolition of the European Union in its current form, saying: “We believe that the EU cannot be reformed, considering it to be a failed project” and instead defending a “union of European nations” giving more weight to the sovereignty of its member states. What would be the difference between the current EU and a Union of European Nations?

Firstly, to respond to Alternative für Deutschland, at the economic level Germany is a world champion in exports and the third industrial nation of the planet with the export of goods and services, two-thirds of which go to the interior market of the European Union, accounting for 33 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Destroying the EU is thus not an alternative but a disaster for Germany, making this party irresponsible.

And secondly, what is a union of nations? The European continent has had face-offs for thousands of years and not a single day without war, whether Danes against Swedes, English against Irish, Spanish against Portuguese, Italians against Croats and always the Germans against everybody else. And now for the last 80 years  as a consequence of World War I and World War II we have substituted a philosophy of massacring each other for imperialistic thinking. ‘My nation first, my party first, my religion first,’ which always means everybody else being placed behind. And if the French say: ‘We come first,’ so do the Germans, the Italians, the Croats and the Russians, the struggle of everybody against everybody was replaced with a superior idea: nations cooperating across frontiers according to principles of mutual respect, tolerance and dignity, giving Europe its longest period of peace ever. 

I belong to a generation, and there lies a difference between my parents and myself, which was born in peace and I believe that I’m going to die in peace. No previous generation on the European continent had that privilege. I am thus absolutely convinced that the nations of Europe are not going to recede in the 19th century.

 

Some months ago AfD members participated in a secret meeting with known neo-Nazis to talk about a “reverse immigration” plan for the expulsion from Germany of millions of persons of foreign origin. What does that mean for the strength of Europe?

Firstly, as a pro-European German, I must admit that this reminds me of the darkest years of the history of our country. I don’t live so far from the location of the Wannsee Conference where the so-called “final solution” for the Jews was hatched, 79 years after the end of World War II. In that same vicinity people have met to debate how to throw the children and grandchildren of immigrants out of our country but they are German citizens contributing to the wealth of our nation. Shameful and it is thus no alternative for Germany but rather a disgrace.

 

You said: “Europe must do more to economically assist this region to prevent the social gaps from widening as well as intensifying the economic cooperation with Latin America in conditions of equality.” How could you assist the region economically and with what tools?

Latin American countries are very rich in the raw materials which the EU needs so that deepening our economic exchange is in our mutual interest. Europeans should invest here and the EU on its side should open up its markets to Latin American countries and economies. The Mercosur agreement, for example, is an excellent idea but Europeans should understand that the 21st century is not like the past when they defined the rules and other parts of the world had to accept them. This should happen on the basis of agreements of mutual interest. That is why the negotiations are so difficult but I’m profoundly convinced that Europe’s main conversation partner in such turbulent times is the Latin American continent.

 

Regarding the EU-Mercosur commercial agreement, you said: “The particular interests of some member states are precisely what complicate the materialisation of the agreement with Mercosur.” What are those interests? Do you believe that this agreement will come through?

I’ve been waiting for 33 years with Mercosur remaining an issue throughout my political career. For example, France is a farming champion. To give you a figure, I believe that around seven percent of German GDP comes from our auto industry, Volkswagen, BMW, Daimler-Benz. In France over eight percent of GDP comes from agriculture. That means that French agriculture performs the same role as car production in Germany. You might imagine that if you are negotiating with the French government to open up the European market to Latin American farm produce, that turns Latin Americans into competitors for French farmers. French governments are therefore very prudent about agreeing over certain agricultural items in the Mercosur agreement. 

I always proposed opening up our markets in order to strengthen Latin American countries and hence their capacity to consume. If a country is richer as a whole, its domestic consumption can increase. That in the final analysis is a compensation for Europeans who can export more to those countries with higher levels of consumption. While French farmers might lose out, we as Europeans should have the financial strength to compensate them for their losses.

 

You said: “The EU has an advantage over China in this region because the Latin American population recognises that it prefers us as a partner, but the EU should act immediately in order to use this to their own benefit.” Is China expanding its trade and presence in Latin America a problem for the EU?

From a principled viewpoint, it is not a problem as part of the normal competition in our global world. It is a challenge for Europe to be better than the Chinese and it is a challenge for the Chinese to be better than the Europeans. At the end of the day such competition increases activity, making for better products and services, which is always in the consumer interest so I have nothing against that. But one thing is clear. The difference between Europeans and the Chinese is that China is a dictatorship and we are democracies, as are Latin American countries so on that point we are closer than China.

 

The historian Timothy Garton Ash assigns a central importance to the war in Ukraine in Europe’s future, affirming that “it has ended the era of perpetual peace.” Do you agree? 

I know Timothy Garton Ash very well. We are in frequent contact and I agree with some of his considerations but disagree with others. He’s right. The result of the war in Ukraine is decisive for the future of the European Union, that’s true. What happened there is that the president of the Russian Federation has broken the principle of recognising the national sovereignty of post-Soviet countries as agreed in a pact with Russia. Ukraine became a sovereign state following an agreement with the government of [Boris] Yeltsin. What is completely forgotten is that the Russians accepted the sovereignty of Ukraine and in exchange Ukraine returned all the nuclear weapons on its soil to Russia – that was the deal. This was broken by [Vladimir] Putin with a heated ideological debate: “This is historically our country. Kyiv is the historical capital of Russia. This is Russian soil.” If this kind of irredentism prevails, Europe loses out – that’s for sure. But I’m absolutely sure, and there I disagree a bit with Timothy, that European leaders know this and will do everything possible to support Ukraine so that it doesn’t lose the war.

 

France has held some important elections where the extreme right were the front-runners. What impact on the EU do you think a victory of Marine Le Pen’s party would have had?

I find it easy to answer your question. Marine Le Pen is a personality leading a party which, like the AfD in Germany, is against the EU. She is one of those propagandists for a Europe of the nations. During her last presidential campaign, Marine Le Pen said: “I’ll put an end to Franco-German cooperation as it now stands.” This is in Germany’s interest to an exceptional degree. So my answer is yes, a French premier from Marine Le Pen’s party would have considerably altered the structure of the EU and the  Franco-German relationship which is the basis of the European Union.

 

Does the rise of the extreme right in Europe have economic roots? Some point to discontent, low wages and inequality as catalysts.

I believe the answer to be a pretty clear yes. Inequality is one of the sources of these bad feelings and people’s discontent with the conditions of their daily lives. At the start of our conversation I mentioned that in Germany we have the highest number of millionaires in the history of our country. At the same time a couple with two salaries and two children, both earning normally, in a city like Frankfurt or Munich or Berlin are incapable of paying their rent. Such inequality is the reason for this very dangerous development we are facing.

 

Do you think that the democratic system as we know it is at risk after the European elections?

It is under pressure and the risk are too high. Our democracies, both at the national and European levels, must provide solutions for the risks of daily life for ordinary citizens.

 

Do you think there is such a thing as an acceptable far right like [Italian premier Giorgia] Meloni and some of the parties within the European Conservatives and Reformists group (ECR), and another undesirable who may be considered “friends of Putin,” including the AfD?

That is a very interesting question but I must admit that I cannot find a consistent answer because some of the people in those parties and movements are credible and reasonable while others are extremely dubious. The question is who will win out in the end. 

Look at Italy, since you mentioned Giorgia Meloni. When the first republic broke down in Italy, the PCI Communist Party was dissolved and replaced by the Partito Democratico but at the other end the Christian Democrats also disappeared. For a while there was a vacuum which was filled by Silvio Berlusconi who attracted many voters, including those who thought that he was an odd fish but he represented their conservative interests. Now Berlusconi, who really rallied that kind of middle-class voter for a long time in Italy, has died and once again there is a vacuum. Now the open question arises: Is Giorgia Meloni capturing those democratic voters, people who are attached to the institutions of the republic, but the precondition for maintaining them in the long term is that she renounces her fascist past. Meloni says: ‘Yeah, that’s what I’m doing,’ as does Le Pen, excluding her father from his own party. The question then becomes: Is that tactical or is it  sustainable? If it is sustainable, I’m glad for democracy. If it comes down to tactics, then these people are penetrating the institutions in order to destroy them from within, as [Jaroslaw] Kaczynski has done in Poland or Viktor Orban in Hungary.

 

We find ourselves in very tumultuous times globally with Russia on the attack in Ukraine, Israel’s war in Gaza threatening to spread to Lebanon and the appearance of United States protectionism as pushback against China. How do you read the current geopolitical cycle?

I’ve never been so worried as I am today and your question shows that you too are on tenterhooks over this unstable and risky evolution in the world. The epoch of the bipolar world of the United States and the Soviet Union vanished over 30 years ago. China has been a power on the rise since then while Russia is a power in decline but still possessing the second-largest stock of nuclear weapons in the world. India, with its 1.4 billion citizens, is a power on the rise. What is missing these days is a centre of coordination, something needed in this multipolar world capable of balancing the heterogeneous interests in a fair and equitable fashion. Normally the United Nations should be that centre. But let's be honest, not only the Russians but also the USA ignore the main norms of multilateralism and the UN Charter. The Iraq war (2003), for example, was against the decision of the United Nations and the advice of its secretary-general. And what we are seeing in Ukraine is the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council, who include the Russian Federation. And those five permanent members are normally obliged to defend UN rules, hence their veto rights, but this power to veto is breaking all the UN rules. UN Secretary-General António Guterres paid a visit to Moscow and then flew to Kyiv. During his stay there Moscow ordered missiles to be launched against Kyiv, which signified the most dramatic humiliation suffered by the United Nations as an institution, unthinkable. We must therefore strive to convince leaders as much as possible to return to the principle of respect for international rules. And I return to what we were talking about at the start, Latin America and Europe, as democratic regions, should cooperate ever more deeply to defend a kind of thinking which signifies respect for the rules instead of physical power.

 

What do make of the possible return of the Republican populist Donald Trump to the White House after the presidential elections next November in the United States. What repercussions do you think that would have in the EU?

I hope that the US voters are sufficiently reasonable to prevent a second term for that man because he was already unpredictable during his first. But his thoughts of revenge and a permanent strategy of fake news and lies to gain a second chance create the feeling that Mr Trump can do anything without respecting any limits and without being punished. And this is very bad news for the world as a whole.

 

Four or five years after Brexit you will have been able to make the analysis which the passage of time permits. What consequences did Britain’s exit have for the European Union and what were its geopolitical effects, if any?

A disaster for both sides. For the United Kingdom as the EU’s second economy because it had unrestricted access to the single market of the European Union and cut that link. And for the EU, with a view to geopolitical developments, having a member with veto rights as a permanent UN Security Council and with nuclear armaments within NATO would reinforce our role in international relations – also very bad for the Europeans. I thus find it a disaster for both sides.

 

What does the term “globalism” say to you? Do you think that it is just a slogan used by right-wing politicians opposed to the idea of patriotism and nationalism?

Globalisation cannot be stopped. When the Internet shows us in a second what is happening in any part of the world, we must accept the global village. Everything has to do with everything and everybody knows everything about everybody. Responding to that challenge with the message of let’s renationalise and stop globalisation is a fairy tale to tell your children before they sleep but has nothing to do with the reality of our century. More than ever we need the global multilateral cooperation of democrats. But I continue fighting as a politician. We began the process and I don’t think we should give up. But my message for all of us is that we do not continue the confrontation but the quest for commitments to save the security of us all. In Europe we have finally managed to place the prime minister of Luxembourg at the same level as the chancellor of the Bundesrepublik. This is possible on the basis of respect, tolerance and dignity, principles which Latin Americans also consider to be their own. At the end of the day, regions of the world who think alike should create an economy in common which contributes to greater peace in the world.

 

Production: Melody Acosta Rizza & Sol Bacigalupo.