Vienna Alexander Schallenberg is unexpectedly at the head of Austria’s government. In the interview, the former Foreign Minister emphasized the closeness to his predecessor: “Sebastian Kurz and I worked very closely together and we are very similar.”
Nevertheless, Schallenberg recognizes grievances: “The moral picture that shows up in the chats is ugly and unpleasant: the tonality, the way in which judgments are made.” However, one must take into account that the chats were private messages – and If these had been worded differently, it would have been clear that they would have been made public. “That is why I have expressed my opinion that I am assuming that the proceedings will be terminated,” says the new Chancellor.
In the corona crisis, Schallenberg does not yet see his country “over the mountain”, the vaccination rate is too low. “If we don’t get better, winter can be uncomfortable for the unprotected,” warns Schallenberg. He excludes compulsory vaccination.
Read the whole interview here:
Federal Chancellor Schallenberg, after Sebastian Kurz withdrew at the beginning of the month, you were catapulted to the top of the government as Foreign Minister. Because you are a diplomat?
Let’s put it this way: My 20 years of professional experience will certainly benefit me. Diplomatic skills are required.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
What did you have to learn the fastest?
How I bring calm into this mixed bag. We have to get away from the domestic gasp. Trust in the governing coalition has been destroyed, and that has to be cemented.
You have now phrased it very diplomatically. Sebastian Kurz described the Greens as opponents when he resigned – there was a lot of bitterness about the withdrawal of support. How do you govern each other like that?
The People’s Party (ÖVP) and the Greens are very different, but both want to continue to cooperate. You have to talk to each other, which is why I have proposed an early get-together far away from the public. It is my job to restore trust in one another step by step.
Despite these uncertainties, you want to remain in office until the end of the legislature in 2024. What does it depend on?
The key question is whether the two partners are willing to continue the coalition. In football language, we took the top player off the field and now a new team has to pass enough passes to score goals. A government is no different. I will do everything I can to ensure that there are no early elections. That would be irresponsible in the current situation.
How do you differ from your predecessor?
Sebastian Kurz and I worked very closely together and we are very similar. But I’m a different person, it starts with the fact that I’m almost 20 years older (laughs). I have a different way of communicating. It is important for me to emphasize continuity: we have a government, a program, a majority in parliament. I am talking to all my strengths in the country, the social partners, the opposition, the religious communities. I try to reach out my hand everywhere.
Kurz is considered a “shadow chancellor”, and you too emphasize the close coordination, almost like a prayer wheel. How do you have to imagine that concretely?
It’s not that exciting. It is not only normal, but also imperative that I work closely with the chairman and parliamentary group leader of my own ruling party. Twice a week there are larger rounds with the parliamentary group and the sub-organizations of the ÖVP, in which we coordinate. I was a minister for more than two years, I know the line of government.
The former foreign minister is considered a close confidante of the ex-chancellor.
(Photo: dpa)
But you have only been a party member for a year and have no house power. Is that a mortgage?
No. In many states it is common practice for someone who sits in government to hold no party function. There were also phases in Austria in which the Federal Chancellor was not party leader.
After you took office, you said that you believed the allegations against Kurz to be false. The legal aspects will be examined by the courts. But can you spot grievances?
The moral picture that shows up in the chats is ugly and bad: the tonality, the way in which judgments are made. Those affected have also admitted that. However, they are private messages that you would have worded differently if you had known that they would be public. That doesn’t change anything in the matter. But that has to be separated from what is criminally relevant. That is why I have expressed my opinion that I am assuming that the proceedings will be terminated.
Do you see a need for political action? The barter deals of advertisements for positive reporting that have come to light seem very dubious.
Before we can gallop too quickly in one direction, the dust has to settle first. Then we can think about what we need to change.
But the disproportionate influence of government agencies on the media through advertisements has not only been known for three weeks. Should these expenses be reduced?
The subject has been around for decades, and the relationship between the public sector and the press is highly complex. Politics in a democracy requires justification and therefore communication, and that happens through the media. You should leave the church in the village: not every advertisement is a crime. The government was even accused of not campaigning enough in the pandemic. There is a cognitive dissonance there. But I am open to discussion.
There is certainly enough material for this in the coalition. What will connect your two parties in the future? With the tax reform you already have the prestige project wrapped up.
We have a substantial government program. Already in the first weeks of my chancellorship we delivered results in an intensive rhythm, with the budget, the eco-social tax reform, the new law on dealing with crises, the regulation of assisted suicide, according to a judgment of the Constitutional Court, and other corona measures.
The pandemic fight connects?
Yes. We have been through 18 months of crisis and new elections are not a good mechanism for dealing with it. Unfortunately we are not over the mountain yet, the vaccination quota is too low at 63 percent fully immunized. We are stumbling into a pandemic of procrastinators and hesitants.
The number of hospital admissions is increasing sharply. They announced a lockdown for unvaccinated people if a limit value was exceeded in the intensive care units. Isn’t that counterproductive for this group?
We will not reach certain people. But there is probably just as large a group that I want to convince to get vaccinated. At the same time, we created a threatening backdrop – with the expectation that it would never occur. If we don’t get better, winter can become uncomfortable for the unprotected. There will never be a compulsory vaccination in this country.
As Foreign Minister, you dealt more with Europe than with domestic affairs. Her assumption of office as Chancellor coincides with turbulence: the conflict with Poland over judicial reforms has reached a new level of escalation with the imposition of a daily fine of one million euros by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Warsaw speaks of blackmail. Right?
It is right that a legal construct like the European Union should act with legal remedies. But in addition to proceedings before the ECJ, respect and dialogue are required. In an ever closer union in particular, the right to be heard must apply to everyone.
The most recent ruling by the Polish Constitutional Court does not make this any easier: it is directed against those articles of the treaties that state the goal of an ever closer union and regulate the functioning of the ECJ.
Poland is questioning the primacy of the treaties; that is a new quality. The discussion about the extent to which the ECJ has competences vis-à-vis national constitutional courts, on the other hand, is a legitimate one that other states have long struggled with. But Poland’s government is building a system that is incompatible with the independence of the judiciary. Basic values such as the separation of powers and the rule of law are non-negotiable. The states committed to this when they joined the EU.
Will Warsaw give way?
Poland has announced that it will comply with demands to abolish the disciplinary body. I believe and hope that they will continue on this path constructively. But it’s a matter of principle. Shouting accusations at each other via megaphone doesn’t help.
The many conflicts in Europe sometimes give the impression that the continent is drifting apart. Do you share this concern?
The European unification project is the greatest thing that has occurred to us in the last 150 years. Yes, there are difficulties, but there have been in the past too. The EU’s strength has always been to isolate and solve problems, and sometimes to circumvent them. The most dangerous centrifugal force is the feeling of those states that have joined since 2004 that there are first and second class memberships. We must not allow this to solidify. And the EU must be careful not only to make a policy for established industrialized countries, but also to take into account the pains of transformation in the former Eastern Bloc countries.
What role can Austria play in these discussions? It is a small state with limited political weight.
Our voice is not that insignificant in a European concert. We have eight neighboring countries, from Switzerland to Slovakia, and we have very good communication channels with all of them. We Austrians can show understanding for the conditions and the emotional states in the west and east of the continent. We are right in the middle. Our strategic interest is that Europe grows together. Austria suffered from its peripheral location for decades and is the greatest beneficiary of the enlargements.
More: Comment: Kurz failed – his legacy is also disappointing