What failings in domestic and foreign policy has the current coalition of the Union and the SPD committed?
Green Chancellor candidate Annalena Baerbock can think of a lot.
Berlin - Green Chancellor candidate Annalena Baerbock wants to fight for every vote in the federal election - despite the current mixed polls.
In an interview with the dpa, she not only talks about the planned upheavals that the Greens want in Germany.
The candidate for chancellor also hands out clearly against the current coalition of the Union and SPD - and denounces Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) and her allies not only in matters of foreign policy.
In surveys, the Greens currently come to 15 to 17 percent.
However, you continue to talk about the possibility of a green government.
Isn't that presumptuous?
We have seen in the last few months how quickly polls go up and down and that's why I don't base my policy on polls, but on what is possible in this country. I am on the move in many places and you can often feel that many are saying: We cannot continue to be governed under value as we did in those years of the Groko, where people only reacted when it was already too late.
Many people outgrew themselves in the pandemic, in daycare centers, in schools, in health facilities, but also in industry, where numerous companies say: We can operate in a climate-neutral manner.
That is why it is now finally up to politicians to surpass themselves.
And that's what we compete for.
As a candidate for chancellor, it makes a big difference whether or not the next federal government is green and therefore with the right to renewal.
And yes, we need a few more votes for that.
Your campaign is based on the assumption that people want a big change in Germany.
Isn't Olaf Scholz the walking counter-evidence?
The election will take place in a little over a week and the voters - that's the nice thing about a democracy - can decide freely. And of course people notice that we are in the midst of major upheavals, and they also expect us to shape them in the interests of a safe and good life. Therefore, the decision is now to be made: continue as if nothing was with Groko? Or do we opt for a real departure, for a courageous policy of change, precaution and foresight? I am deeply convinced that the greatest risk, particularly with regard to the climate crisis, is to do nothing. We saw this in a dramatic way during the summer floods in Germany. That is why it is very clear to me: When it comes to climate protection, there can be no more half measures.
You want to push ahead with a European asylum reform, even if not all states are on board - it is precisely because of this lack of unity that attempts at reform have failed for years.
How do you imagine that?
I would like us to lead the way with those states that are ready to end the suffering at the external borders and stand up for a humane and orderly refugee policy in the EU.
First of all, it is about voluntariness through incentives.
We cannot wait until the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is ready to talk about European refugee policy.
This is not a responsible European policy.
Europe has always grown because some states have come together and made it clear: This is our common Europe, we are continuing to build Europe.
We want to control the external borders so that we know who is coming to Europe.
But it must also be clear: access to the fundamental right to asylum must always be guaranteed, we must not allow Europe's values to perish in the Mediterranean.
What would that mean exactly?
We have to implement the European Parliament's proposal that has been on the table for years. People who arrive at the external borders are accommodated in joint initial reception facilities, checked and then distributed within Europe as quickly as possible. The states that take in refugees and carry out their asylum procedures receive support from an EU fund. Everyone else pays a fair contribution. For me there are no more excuses why we as Germany shouldn't work with eleven or twelve other countries within the EU to ensure a humane refugee policy.
It is a misconception, especially of the conservatives, that a policy of foreclosure creates more order.
We have seen that this leads to an absolute dead end.
In this way, Europeans have become the plaything of anti-democratic actors such as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Hungary or Poland would not get you on board for such an initiative in the foreseeable future.
Would you expect these countries to contribute financially?
Yes.
It is precisely this proposal that is being discussed at European level.
Only countries that participate would receive European funds for the integration and reception of refugees.
Another topic: The top candidate of the Greens for the elections to the Berlin House of Representatives, Bettina Jarasch, says she would ultimately support the expropriation of housing associations in order to create new living space.
They also?
We cannot simply ignore the situation in Berlin, but also in other large cities.
People are being driven out of their neighborhood, families, pensioners, police officers, nurses because they can no longer afford the rent.
With the Berlin rent protection umbrella, Bettina Jarasch was the only candidate for mayor to come up with a solution to resolve the aggravated situation on the Berlin housing market without expropriation.
But Ms. Jarasch does not ultimately rule out expropriations.
She neither?
I think it is right to sit down with people at the table and consider: How do we make a city a city for everyone again - with neighborhoods in which people with different incomes live? I am optimistic that in the end we will find a better solution than expropriating the housing associations, which is presumably expensive for taxpayers. At the federal level, I rely on a triad: more social housing, a more effective rent brake without the many exceptions and a general upper limit for rent increases of 2.5 percent per year.
The fact that these apartments are now owned by private housing associations is a consequence of political decisions made after the turn of the millennium, when the State of Berlin sold these apartments itself. Do you not find it problematic to possibly correct these political decisions now through expropriations?
The misery we got into in many big cities is the legacy of a policy by the SPD and the Left Party in Berlin because they sold the public apartments, and at a ridiculous price. And it is also a result of the fact that the grand coalition at the federal level wants to reduce the funds for social housing construction again to one billion, although three apartments every hour are already falling out of social commitment. We need 100,000 new social housing a year, and the grand coalition's funds may be enough for about a tenth of that.
This shows that the Social Democrats cannot be relied on when it comes to fair rents and affordable housing, when it comes down to it.
For me, this means at federal level to finally reintroduce non-profit status so that landlords who commit themselves to social and rent commitments in the long term receive tax advantages and investment subsidies.
And for me that also means that we can't just talk about building, building, building like Olaf Scholz and Armin Laschet.
Instead, there must be a clear focus on affordable housing.
Because we already have enough luxury apartments in Germany.
Housing shortages are a particular problem in large cities.
In the countryside, on the other hand, there is a lack of infrastructure in some places.
What do you want to do there?
I grew up in the village myself and I know that we still have many, many regions where you can't just say you should switch to bus or train. Be it because the rail connection has been shut down in recent years, or because the bus doesn't run at all on the weekend. The principle of equal living conditions enshrined in the Basic Law means for me that all people in our country have the right to be mobile, regardless of whether they have a driver's license or not. And half of the people in our country don't even drive a car.
That's why I want a bus or train to run at least every hour between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. in every town with 500 or more residents.
In regions where few people live, it is then minibuses.
And above all, we need a reactivation of disused railway lines.
Of course, this also means that every milk jug, as the saying goes, has to have a fiber optic connection.
Just as there are mailboxes everywhere, people also need a fast internet connection.
It will be very expensive.
These investments cost money, yes.
But if we stop investing in our infrastructure, we won't just leave our children with ramshackle bridges and rails - every sixth bridge, for example, is already ramshackle today.
If we don't do anything to prevent schools in rural areas from having internet access and doctors not wanting to work there due to poor working conditions, then we will weaken these regions even further.
That is why it is so important to invest in these areas now.
We are therefore proposing an extension of the debt brake for investments in our country's infrastructure.
But this makes it very difficult to form a government with the Union or the FDP.
In the last few weeks the FDP and CDU have obviously recognized that it is not enough to simply write “We are modernizing” on posters, but that people rightly ask “Where is the money supposed to come from?” More and more economists point this out to the fact that without these investments we endanger the infrastructure and thus also the economic strength of our country. We have made specific proposals on how we can manage investments - by reforming the debt brake. I don't see how the next federal government can even initiate a future policy without such investments. (
dpa
)
Annalena Baerbock recently answered questions from the audience in the ZDF format “Klartext, Frau Baerbock!”. When asked about milk, the Green candidate stumbled - a farmer reacted with incomprehension to her statements.