“We are still a peace party”

Albrecht defends the Greens’ decision to also supply heavy weapons to Ukraine. “There is already an attack on all liberal democracies,” he said. “And Ukraine and its supporters are defending themselves against this in accordance with the law.” If they didn’t do so, the result would be a conflagration of autocratic land grabs. The decisive question is: “Are we legitimate under international law, and are we proceeding proportionately?” Albrecht’s answer: “A clear yes.”

He is not concerned with a purely moral consideration. The relevant standard for him is law and order. “I find it difficult to say that Germany should stay out of a blatant breach of international law.”

With a view to Germany and rapidly rising prices, Albrecht called for social policy to be “fundamentally and sustainably redesigned”. This requires ideas. “If we now invest billions in the production of renewable energy, this could be linked to the condition that part of future profits from the operation of the plants be returned to the general public.” This could be possible through pension funds, for example. That would strengthen social security.

Read the full interview here:

Mr. Albrecht, you are 39 years old, not even four years old, and you are now moving to the Executive Board of the Heinrich Böll Foundation. Were you fed up with the hassles of everyday political business in Schleswig-Holstein?

I could have imagined going on. But for me, the opportunity to actively support social debates and crises at the head of one of the major political foundations is a great offer.

Politicians often become chairmen of foundations at the end of their careers.

The Heinrich Böll Foundation sends a clear signal that it is not an employment club for discarded politicians, but that it assumes central responsibility as a political think tank in Germany and Europe.

You take the chair in turbulent times. There is a war in Ukraine and the Greens have said goodbye to being a peace party. What does that do to the party?

The Greens accepted this change years ago. More than 20 years ago we had to intensively discuss the deployment in the former Yugoslavia. From this we have developed a security and foreign policy that is no longer geared purely to pacifism, but goes hand in hand with the responsibility for enforcing the international peace order and human rights. That is also the task of a peace party, which we continue to be.

In January, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock spoke out against arms deliveries. During the election campaign, the Greens advocated disarmament rather than rearmament. In comparison, the change is quite rapid.

This shows the tension that the Greens are also facing. It’s not about a black or white, guns yes or no. This tension affects all parties. But what distinguishes the Greens is that they clearly take responsibility and make decisions instead of putting them off.

Aggressive war must end

It is now being said: Ukraine must not lose this war. But as a nuclear power, can Russia lose this war?

It is not about defeating Russia, but about ending the war of aggression and restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. That is, if you will, a failed war of aggression, which is also a defeat. But certainly not the end of Russia and possibly not the end of the Putin regime either.

Sections of the pacifist movement say arms shipments don’t end wars, only negotiations.

At the moment it can be said that Russia is not ready to negotiate. Kyiv was bombed while the United Nations Secretary-General was there. Prerequisites for negotiations are therefore required.

Which are they?

Negotiations on permanent ceasefires will probably only be possible on the basis of restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Anything else would be a defeat for the international community and international law, which would have unforeseeable consequences for all of us.

The Greens criticized Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his hesitant approach. Do you share that?

As an important player in the European Union and in the Western security alliance, Germany has the task of taking on leadership and responsibility. We cannot retreat to a neutral position in order to perhaps have a better relationship with the aggressor later. Unfortunately, this idea still rings through in one or the other statement by SPD politicians.

Is the danger of a third world war sufficiently discussed?

There is already an attack on all liberal democracies. And Ukraine and its supporters are defending themselves against this in accordance with the law. Because if they didn’t, the result would be a conflagration of autocratic land grabs. The crucial question is: are we legitimate under international law and are we acting proportionately? My answer to that is a resounding yes.

sanctions to end conflict

Some intellectuals oppose arms deliveries, which would only prolong the war. Germany should stay out. Do you think such pacifism is immoral?

no But I don’t understand when Jürgen Habermas, for example, accuses those who are in favor of military support for Ukraine of arguing morally. I’m not talking about a purely moral consideration. For me, the relevant standard is law and order. When there is a blatant breach of international law, I find it difficult to say that Germany should stay out of it.

In his speech at the turn of the century, Chancellor Scholz not only announced arms deliveries for Ukraine, but also an upgrade of the Bundeswehr. Would the 100 billion euros have been better invested in climate protection?

It’s not an either/or question. Combating climate change, the transformation to a sustainable, future-oriented economy remains the priority task of our time, and we will not be able to do it if we have to do without essential things. Climate protection is a key investment in the future and also serves our security. At the same time, we need sufficient funds for our defense capability and for the foreign and security policies of the EU and NATO.

The federal government is afraid of an energy embargo against Russia. How do you feel about this?

For me, the economic and financial sanctions are crucial to bringing the conflict with Russia to an end. We must continue to work 24/7 to achieve a full embargo. That is exactly what Economics Minister Robert Habeck has made his maxim.

Habeck has to promote the supply of fossil fuels in Qatar, the earlier phase-out of coal is up for discussion – is government participation a reality shock for the Greens?

We will only achieve change if we acknowledge the radical realities, especially with a view to climate change. However, this also means that we still need fossil fuels to ensure security of supply and that we have to build infrastructure such as liquid gas terminals. We must include this in our policy, but not in isolation from our goals. For example, if we build LNG terminals now, it must be clear that they will only run for a limited time and that at the same time terminals for alternative fuels are already being planned.

Parts of the climate movement are reacting to these insights with radicalization, such as the young protesters who are blocking streets in the cities. Does that worry you?

None of the measures taken so far are sufficient to meet our greenhouse gas budget. That’s why further steps are needed, and they have to be implemented with the utmost consistency. I can well understand that young people, seeing their future floating away, resort to radical means to demand action. However, we will not achieve majorities for the necessary measures if we drive people into the arms of those who want to leave everything as it is.

“Politics weren’t honest enough”

Energy prices have risen sharply. Inflation is also increasingly becoming a political issue. In France, the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen scored with this issue. How concerned are you?

Politics wasn’t honest enough. It was foreseeable for a long time that we would experience a significant increase in energy prices. Ever since emissions trading was introduced more than 20 years ago, it was clear that the costs of fossil fuels would go up. That is also intentional. But the costs are now rising faster than expected. In the medium term, there will only be relief through the expansion of renewable energy.

More Handelsblatt articles on the war in Ukraine

The medium term does not help people now if they can no longer pay their heating bills. How much social explosive is there in the rising prices?

Very much. And we have to react to this in a socio-political way. There is a massive burden on lower and middle incomes. This is not primarily due to fuel prices, but also to housing costs, which have shot up dramatically. These are real distortions. However, we must not play off these socio-political challenges against ecological and security policy tasks.

So the traffic light relief packages are not enough?

These are short-term measures. Social policy must be fundamentally and sustainably redesigned, and we need ideas for this. If we invest billions in the production of renewable energy now, it could be linked to the condition that some future profits from the operation of the plants be returned to the public, for example through pension funds. That would strengthen social security.

Mr. Albrecht, thank you very much for the interview.

More: The transformation of the Greens – Suddenly tank fans instead of pacifists.