Ambassador Heusgen, the re-election of Donald Trump as US president is widely seen as a sea change. Do you agree?
Yes, we did wake up in a new world. However, I think we have some idea how this world looks like. We have the experience of his first administration, but of course, President Trump is now even more pointed than he was eight years ago.
I was Chancellor Angela Merkel’s foreign policy advisor at the time. My first meeting with Trump’s advisor and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in February 2017 has guided me in my assessment of President Trump and his politics since then. I explained to Jared that I come from a country that has a very strong transatlantic background, that we owe our sovereignty to the United States with the Berlin Airlift 1948-49, with President John F. Kennedy insisting on the independence of West Berlin before and after the building of the Berlin Wall, with Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush being totally committed to German unity, and that therefore transatlantic relations with a strong military basis in Germany is the foundation of my country. He replied that they were businessmen in the new administration. And in business, one day you’re a friend and the next day, you’re an opponent.
Is this the “new normal”?
I think so. The administration of President Joe Biden was the exception—a reminder of what many people consider the “good old days.” And there’s an element of continuity in what we are seeing now. After her first encounters with President Trump, Chancellor Merkel already said something which I think now needs to be pursued even more vigorously …
… in the “beer tent speech” in May 2017 near Munich, were she said that Europe needed to take its fate into its own hands “to some extent”?
Exactly. She made clear that we’ll not always be able to rely on the US and have to build up a stronger Europe. The outgoing government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz was right to invest a lot in transatlantic relations. What we have failed to do, however, is to work much harder on European defense.
Which means that Europe is unprepared?
At least Europe is sending the right signals. In Ursula von der Leyen, the European Union has a very strong president of the European Commission who clearly says: We have to have a strong Europe, defense is key. For the first time in the history of the EU we have a former prime minister as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, who is one of the most gifted, talented top politicians we have in Europe. We have for the first time a defense commissioner, Andrius Kubilius, also an experienced former Prime Minister. So, Europe is ready, Brussels has done its homework, and it’s now up to member states to actually support this.
What’s lacking?
Particularly in Germany, but also in many other countries, we have to overcome this way of thinking: National defense is the core of national sovereignty, we are not ready to empower Europe. If that prevails, we’ll miss a chance. Some countries have understood that. I'm really impressed by how the Nordic and Baltic states, the NB8—Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden—have organized themselves. They have weekly meetings now, they are coordinating their activities, most of them are massively increasing their defense spending. They understand that Russia is a real threat, while we in Germany are still partly living in our version of cloud cuckoo land.
What would be an adequate German response?
We finally have to understand that Putin is serious. Russia’s president means what he says. Therefore, we have to stop this half-hearted support for Ukraine, and this half-hearted build-up of our defense, and do it more seriously. We have to understand that we cannot work with special funds to increase defense spending, it has to be part of our regular budget.
This, of course, calls for very tough decisions; it calls for leadership. But if we continue to believe that just by going on like this, we will be able to solve the challenges, then we are mistaken.
Chancellor Scholz has called plans to spend 3.5 percent of GDP on defense “half-baked”…
I would recommend the chancellor to talk to his defense minister, who has requested more funds, but has been turned down. The chancellor himself personally agreed at NATO’s Vilnius Summit in 2023 that 2 percent is the minimum.
What is lacking the most when it comes to rebuilding Germany’s armed forces?
We need everything. We have to invest more to make the Bundeswehr more attractive, and again the defense minister has some ideas there, and we need to recruit more people. We also need more capabilities. So when we talk about the figures like 2 or 3.5 percent, there is a certain degree of arbitrariness in this. You remember that three years ago, the head of the army said, “Wir stehen blank da,” meaning “We are empty-handed.” This has improved, but of course there is a lot more to do.
So, when Chancellor Scholz talks to the military and to the defense industry, they will tell him what exactly is needed and how much that will cost.
The leader of the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has brought up again the question of establishing a National Security Council. Would that be helpful, too, tying together military and political expertise?
I think we do need to either establish a National Security Council or build structures that correspond to an NSC. We have to have a comprehensive view of the security threats we are faced with. Russia is clearly conducting a hybrid war against Germany and Europe, we just don’t realize it. But if you look at what’s being done with regard to first the attack on Ukraine, then the attack on infrastructure—in the Baltic Sea, but also on land—and with regard to the attempts to influence social media, and also the fact that Putin doesn’t even have a problem with killing people right under the nose of the government in Berlin, then you see he is in an undeclared hybrid war with Germany. We have to realize that and to reflect that in our structures.
You’ve also advocated for the merging of the Foreign Office and the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development in the past…
Economically, Germany is again being called “the sick man of Europe.” In the past, we relied on cheap energy from Russia and on exports to and investment in China. This doesn’t work anymore, so we have to diversify—and to look at other Asian countries, to African countries, to Latin American countries. Taken as a whole, Africa for instance is the second fastest growing economy worldwide. And Germany is hardly present there. We’ve fallen behind in some countries. Why are we so far behind? Because we don’t combine the different instruments we have at our disposal. The ministry for economic cooperation has its own Africa strategy, for instance, so does the foreign office. This cannot go on like this.
So, you’re saying Berlin needs to connect the dots?
For a country that is under the kind of strain that we are, I find it absurd that we don’t have a comprehensive strategy that combines foreign policy, economic relations, and development policy. Germany is one of the last countries that still has separate foreign and economic development ministries. You don’t need to have a merger, you can still have two ministers, but the structures have to be linked much more closely.
When I started out as a diplomat in 1980, we had two thirds of our personnel working around the world, in our missions. Today it’s two thirds working in Berlin. We have to change that again. If you go to an African country, you have two or three German diplomats in their mission, and across the street you have 100 Chinese ones. No wonder that they are more effective than we are.
Merz has also promised a new national security strategy…
My impression is that a lot of emphasis is put into writing these strategies, but then afterwards everybody forgets about them. I’m not a big fan of writing new strategies, I’m a fan of doing things.
So, you are not worried about Germany and Europe’s ability to survive in this new world, which even the US approaches in a more transactional way?
We have to have the right responses—to Russia, to China, and to the second Trump administration. On foreign and security policy, the response can only be: a stronger and more unified Europe.
But we won’t get there quickly…
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has clearly said that we have to be ready by 2028 or 2029. This is when he expects the Russian armed forces to be re-established, and in a position to attack NATO. So, we have these three or four years in which you can do a lot. But if you believe that by only half-heartedly building up defense, it is possible to stop Putin, then you are mistaken.
Are you afraid that the US will do a deal over the heads of the Europeans?
The US administration is likely to do a deal with Russia, and then they tell us what our role will be in this.
Could it entail European forces being permanently stationed in Ukraine?
Possibly. It’s clear that the US is not willing to give Ukraine the guarantee the Ukrainians want, and that is NATO membership. Biden was not ready; Trump will not be ready—so what are the alternatives? You have to provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs, and possibly European or other troops, to raise the price for Russia attacking again, and of course this is on the cards.
By the way, German soldiers in Ukraine is nothing new. In accordance with the Minsk accords, there was an OSCE mission monitoring the occupied part of Donbas, the deputy head was a German. A German military presence in Ukraine is thus far from unthinkable. We have to wake up. This is our security at stake, and we have to be ready to play a part.
What role will this year’s MSC play?
The MSC’s motto is “peace through dialogue”. We want to get as many parties to Munich as possible. US-China relations are critical. Also, we have to address various regional conflicts. When we talk about “peace through dialogue” we do this on a solid basis and that is the rule of law, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is why during my three years as a Chairman I invited all the major UN players.
Will the new US administration be there, too?
I am confident that we’ll have a strong US presence. Last year we had the then-US Vice President, Kamala Harris, and JD Vance, who now holds that office. And the EU institutions will be represented well, too. It’s Europe’s hour, really.
Then, as I said earlier with reference to Germany’s economic woes, we’ll only grow again if we reach out to countries from the Global South. One quarter of MSC speakers will be from the Global South. This is something I achieved during my three years as MSC chairman, and I will continue advocating for it. And we take a comprehensive view of security: We will speak about defense and deterrence, but we’ll also talk about climate policy, cyber security, and disinformation through social media.
One last point is that I deeply believe in the need to have gender balance. Last year for the first time in the MSC’s history more than 50 percent of those on the podiums were women.
So, the MSC is reflecting a changing world order?
We aim to foster a discussion reflecting diverse views. But no matter how much the world order is changing, peace through dialogue needs to be based on the rules-based international order, anchored in the UN Charter. The rule of law is key, and unfortunately we often underestimate what we have achieved in Europe in this respect.
We have to secure this, also in the face of countries that challenge the rule of law. I don’t see an alternative. Too often, when people talk about a new world order, there are no new substantive elements, but only a reliance on the rule of the strongest.
Will the second Trump administration be an ally when it comes to upholding international law?
Perhaps the current US administration will not wake up every morning thinking about how to strengthen international law. But that should be no reason to give up on the rule of law. Konrad Adenauer said that for him the rule of law was the most important. This was the conclusion of the founding fathers and mothers of West Germany and the European Union after the Second World War. And this remains true today!
The interview was conducted by Martin Bialecki and Henning Hoff. It is part of a special IPQ MSC 2025 issue, out on February 13.
