“You can only change things if you get involved”

Citizens of the 28 member states of the European Union will be electing a new parliament at the end of May. What significance do these elections have for the future of Europe?

Europe needs a strong European Parliament. And the European Parliament needs a strong democratic mandate from the citizens of Europe. After all, the decisions that we take jointly with the European Parliament and the European Commission in 
Europe have immediate consequences for all our daily lives. The fact that we can now use our mobile phones abroad without having to worry about the seconds passing by is just as much a result of European rules as the guarantee that savings accounts up to a value of 100,000 euros are protected all over Europe. Matters that concern us every 
day are actively debated in the European Parliament: data protection, climate policy, the treatment of refugees and measures to promote social cohesion are just a few 
examples. Therefore, in the European elections we are not voting on an abstract European idea, but on concrete policy decisions.

Nevertheless, European elections have usually had a very low turnout in the past. Are the increased importance and duties of the European Parliament not appreciated by the citizens of the European Union?

We need active dialogue between voters and their representatives. That appears rather difficult for some. You can meet your mayor at the local market square, but what about the parliamentarians who debate in Brussels or Strasbourg in over 20 different languages? Each one of the 750 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), however, also represents a very specific region – their questions are our questions! Don’t we use euro coins every day, a currency in whose stability we need to trust? Don’t we buy food from other European countries at our corner shop in the expectation that the same consumer protection standards apply? I 
anticipate increased voter turnout in the elections as a result of the fact that the 
European parties will be rallying behind their leading candidates for the first time. As a result, the coming European elections will now have “faces” just as they would in the case of a national poll.

Forecasts indicate that Eurosceptics 
of the Left and Right, whose voices can be heard particularly loudly in some countries, could enter the European Parliament with more than 20% of the EU-wide vote. Wouldn’t that be a slap in the face for the European idea?

Although the problems the crisis has brought to light in individual European member states are primarily the consequences of an acceleration of the globalization process, our common currency has very largely received the blame. As a result, there has been a significant loss of trust over recent years. This development has affected Europe, but not only Europe. Surveys speak a very clear language: national politicians and institutions in certain countries have sometimes lost more standing than the 
European Union. Eurosceptics try to play 
on citizens’ worries. However, their apparently simple solutions will not do justice to people’s concerns. This kind of populism is not only a slap in the face for the European idea, but also for all rational efforts to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness and at the same time preserve social cohesion.

Which arguments can be used to promote “more Europe”?

We must ensure that the European Union again moves to the fore as a solver of problems and not as a cause of problems. Incidentally, that doesn’t mean you have to be satisfied with the current state of the European Union to take part in the European elections. You can only change things if 
you get involved. I also see the need for a “better Europe”, a “stronger Europe”. We need further reforms of the economic and monetary union to make the euro really 
stable for the future. Conversely, Europe lives from its diversity. In areas where things could be better regulated at the 
national or regional level Europe should take a step back. This truth is also part of a citizens’ Europe. We can present these arguments dispassionately and objectively, but also with commitment and conviction.

Although advances have been made, the crisis in Europe is still not overcome. Can you see light at the end of the tunnel?

The scales are again pointing in the direction of growth, reforms have been initiated and budgets balanced. Yes, I can see light. However, we must not relax our resolve just yet. After all, the job is not finished with an improvement in the economic numbers. Many people have suffered in recent years. The crisis has damaged the social framework of the European Union. It is now important to give people in Europe renewed confidence that together we have the strength to be a continent of the future. 
Cohesion and solidarity among the countries of the European Union equip us to take this path.

You recently appealed – in a similar way to Federal President Gauck – for a stronger foreign policy commitment on Germany’s part. What do you mean by that in concrete terms?

We should be prepared to play an earlier and more decisive foreign and security 
policy role. Foreign policy responsibility is always concrete. Commenting from the sidelines does not help make any progress. Let me cite one example: Germany has offered to destroy the residues of Syrian chemical weapons in German facilities. That is a targeted contribution to solving a concrete problem. Europe will only be able to make a difference in the world if European countries pull their weight together. This can be seen in our joint European effort to assist the countries and societies in our European neighbourhood to achieve democratic and stable development. Acting in this spirit in Africa, too, we support 
fragile states – namely, Mali and the Central African Republic – with concrete measures.

Does this mean the end of Germany’s repeatedly emphasized military restraint?

Germany will continue to show restraint in the future. The deployment of military force is always only a final recourse. However, we must differentiate between “restraint” and “remaining on the side lines”. Germany is simply too large for the latter. I believe we should make more active, more creative, more courageous and more extensive use 
of the diplomatic tool box. It is important that we seek close coordination with our partners and develop creatively astute approaches that enable us to apply our resources even more successfully.

The outbreak of the First World War 100 years ago is being commemorated in many countries during 2014. In a recent article that attracted considerable attention you reflected on the “failure of diplomacy” at that time. Is diplomacy wiser today?

Fortunately for us, diplomacy has access to other instruments today. At the beginning of the 20th century there were no institutions for achieving a peaceful balance of interests, such as the European Union and the United Nations. Yet, although peace and prosperity may sometimes be taken for granted today, we must not deceive ourselves. Only a few months before the beginning of the July crisis in 1914 most people considered the outbreak of a major war impossible. Our world is full of points of friction and conflicts of interest; it is vulner­able. In the light of the current crises we should make it clear to ourselves that preserving peace and prosperity entails hard work. A discreet foreign policy that also considers the interests of partners and evalu­ates consequences while keeping a cool head is more important than ever before. ▪

Interview: Janet Schayan