The Rest Is Politics: Leading - 111. Angela Merkel: Putin, Trump, and Europe's future

Episode Date: December 9, 2024

What lessons on leadership does Angela Merkel have after 16 years served as Chancellor of Germany? Does she have any regrets from her tenure? What was it like being in East Germany when the Berlin wall fell? And what should Europe do to ensure the future security of Ukraine? Rory and Alastair are joined by ex-Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, to discuss all this and more. TRIP Plus: Become a member of The Rest Is Politics Plus to support the podcast, receive our exclusive newsletter, enjoy ad-free listening to both TRIP and Leading, benefit from discount book prices on titles mentioned on the pod, join our Discord chatroom, and receive early access to live show tickets and Question Time episodes. Just head to therestispolitics.com to sign up, or start a free trial today on Apple Podcasts: apple.co/therestispolitics. Instagram: @restispolitics Twitter: @RestIsPolitics Email: [e-mail] Translator: Dorothee Kaltenbach Assistant Producer: India Dunkley Producer: Nicole Maslen Senior Producer: Dom Johnson Head of Content: Tom Whiter Exec Producers: Tony Pastor + Jack Davenport Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thanks for listening to The Restis Politics. Sign up to the Restis Politics Plus. To enjoy ad-free listening, receive a weekly newsletter, join our members chat room and gain early access to live show tickets. Just go to therestispolities.com. That's the restispolitics.com. Welcome to the Restis Politics leading with me, Rory Stewart. And me, Alice Campbell. We're about to interview somebody that we've been desperate to get on. And congratulations finding getting on, Angela Merkel, who basically is the dominating figure in European politics, I guess, over the last 30 years. She is right at the heart of so many things.

She's at the heart of this transition from the optimism of the 1990s into our current age of populism. And she presides over the financial crisis, over the Russian invasion of Crimea, over a million people being accepted as German citizens after the Syrian refugee crisis. And of course, Brexit. I mean, what's your sense of her? What's your sense of what we're about to be getting into here? Well, I think she's a really interesting politician. and the reason we're talking to her, she doesn't do many interviews,

but the reason she's doing some is because she's got this book out called Freedom. And I think what's really interesting about her is that she's not a conventional politician in many ways, but she's an extraordinarily skillful politician. I think the legacy is going to be argued about long, long, into the history books, because when she was in power,

I would say she had one of the strongest, legacy, the strongest senses of leadership of any leader in the world. Since then, partly because of what Putin's done and the feeling that there is among some that she was maybe a little bit too soft on Putin at times. And too soft on migration, I guess. And on migration as well. And we'll definitely get into the whole sort of Villaschaffendas, this famous phrase, she said, you know, we're going to get, we're going to do this when the immigration crisis was on.

And I also think she's reading the book. She's just really interesting in terms of what she's, just the various stages of her. her life. She's a woman, first woman chancellor. She was from the East, probably never fully accepted by some, quite patronized for a lot of her career, hugely patronised by some of the other leaders, notably most recently Donald Trump. And then I guess my final one before we get into her is having been incredible at keeping European unity through some very, very difficult moments, is there a sense that she didn't quite rise to the challenge of the more ambitious projects of Europe. In the end, she slightly lacked the nerve and the imagination to make

the bold offers to Cameron and May that might have possibly reduced slightly the EU catastrophe with Brexit. Okay. Well, here we go. Let's talk to Angela Merkel. So, Chancellor, thank you so much for joining us. One of the fascinating things at the beginning of the book is just the description of your childhood, your father moving to East Germany and your memories of East Germany. Can you please try to bring to light. What was it like growing up as a child in East Germany? Yeah, first time, hersticheng for the inviting me.

And indeed, my book, Freedom describes, if you like, two parts of my life, the first 35 years I lived in the GDR, the second 35 years in reunited Germany. And these first 35 years obviously left also an imprint. and influenced me as regards the second part. It's not all that easy to describe in just a few sentences what life in the GDR was like, what it was made of. Many people who grow up in a democratic society

thought it was difficult for me because I was Christian because it was dominated completely by the state. And this is why I call my childhood a happy one because it was not completely true. On the one hand, we had the state that taught us to be very, very, very, careful, very circumspect, to always try and weigh in the balance what sort of difficulties might entail certain remarks that we made in public. But on the other hand, we had safe havens. We had protected areas with our parents, with our friends, and that is what a happy childhood

is all about. As a child, very early on, I learned to make a difference between the public sphere, where the state was all watchful and the private part. This is what you do in liberal societies as well. But here it was a matter of surviving because if you had a difficulty, if you made remarks about certain political situations, you had to learn that this might actually entail long-term and very difficult consequences. ...and very dramatic factors are waksen can. But your parents made the active decision to move from the West where you were born to live in the East. And am I right?

in reading the book that your parents were both politically to the left of you? So my father had this decision. Well, you see, my father was the one who made this decision. He was a parson. He had studied theology in what was then the Federal Republic of Germany. And even before he started his studies, he sort of had this plan to come back to go to the east because he felt that Christians also in the GDR needed good.

pastoral guidance and my mother followed him because she loved him. It was not her wish and for her it had actually quite difficult consequences. She had studied English and Latin. She wanted to be a teacher. That was something that she was not allowed to do in the GDR because the husband was a liquor. And so she had to assume this kind of reduced life, if you like, but the trigger was actually actuated by my father. And on the whole, my father was also. enthusiastic about the liberation theology, so he was more left-wing. And then when the war came down, my mother actually became a member of the Social Democratic Party. So you could say, politically speaking, they were indeed a little bit to the left of me.

And Chancellor, what did growing up in a close society teach you about what is good about a more democratic open society? What were the lessons you drew for later life? What was interesting about the GDR was that at first you did find a lot of people who were also critical about the state of the GDR, a like-minded people if you like, who actually rejected this state. We talked less about how we ourselves might envisage a society once the war had come down because it was fictional. It was not something that we thought was possible. So it was a very limited time in history where we had to do. decide those of us in which political direction we wanted to go once it came down. And with me, it was only a few months. So when you say, what do you learn in the GDR? You learn that the danger

is ever present because the state imposed certain boundaries on you. So the danger was you felt comfortable with that. As scientists, for example, we said, well, if we have good conditions, if we have best computers, we would probably be Nobel Prize winners in our field. But once the war had come down and we had to sort of be competitive and facing competitors, we realized that we were far away from actually becoming Nobel Prize winners. So this liberal society in many ways made more demands on you, more demands also on going all the way to your limits, to your boundaries. What I learned is to think of matters from the end. That's what I thought about, that's what I learned in the GDR. Because if you, if the state was not able to

deliver on their promises. Or if you in your work didn't deliver on your promises, then you were open to blackmail. You were vulnerable. The state security would take a closer look at you, would penetrate your private life. So it was hugely important to think of matters from the end, so to speak. And that was something that was useful later on, not promised people the moon and then not being able to bring it to them, but to be realistic in your appraisal of the situation. Realistic to make.

Just take us back to the time that the wall fell. I mean, it's one of the most consequential events of our lifetime, and you were there. Just talk us through where you were, what you were doing. It's a very dramatic account in your book, and yet it's also quite mundane. Well, we could feel that ever since Gorbachev had taken over power in Moscow, things became a little bit easier on you. There was more freedom of maneuver in the summer, 1989. A lot of people, as you know, fled via Hungary.

The Hungarians had opened the dividing line, and there was something in the air. Nobody really knew what was happening. I came at one time from the Academy of Sciences where I worked, and I heard Guntar Shabowski saying on the radio, which I had switched on, that freedom of travel is possible. I thought I couldn't hear right. And I called my mother, I said, have you heard this? because we had a saying, we said, well, once we, once the four comes down, we go to Kempinski in Berlin and eat oysters. And I said, well, it may well happen very soon.

And do look whether we have some West German money and let's prepare. And I remember the 9th of November 1989, I went to the sauna nevertheless with a friend. And I talked to her about this, and then very briefly we went to a pub, having a beer, and I was actually living close to a border crossing point, Bonhommechrace, which as well a big flow of people could be seen on the street. I saw them with my bag that I had my sauna towel and everything with me. I was also sort of joining them, and then we had somebody from the west walking up to us, once we had crossed, inviting us for a beer.

Then I went back home as a good citizen that I was because in the next morning I had work and I wanted to go to Poland the week after. Didn't have my presentation ready yet. So I thought, well, you cannot go to Kufus and thumb now. You haven't got your work. You can't go dancing or there. You need to go back and try and get some sleep. But it was obviously completely impossible because it was such an overwhelming experience. And then very, very rapidly, you went from being a professional scientist.

scientist to being a politician. What was your first experience of what was surprising or difficult about politics when you first became a politician? I think I should say in the beginning that in West Germany I would probably not have studied physics. I also studied physics because actually I was quite good. I wasn't such a bad scientist either. but I actually was much more interested in people than in figures. But the natural sciences in the GDR actually had the advantage that 2 plus 2 was still 4, and gravity was still gravity. In the natural sciences, you couldn't bend matters.

You couldn't interpret it the way the party wanted, and this is why I studied physics. Later on, when I had the possibility to sort of get closer to people, understand them a little bit more, I was of the conviction we needed new politicians, not the old guard in the GDR. So I went to join one of the newly established parties, Democratic Awakening. And the first thing I did, however, was being sort of a service person, sort of looking

after the computers, then because they didn't have a press spokesman, became a press spokesperson for their party, then later on deputy spokesperson for the then-GDR government. But I was more, if you like, doing the service routine for the politicians. And I looked at matters, observed matters until German unification was achieved. And I did not always go in line with those for whom I worked. And I thought, well, maybe I should be a candidate. I was looking for a constituency. And then what was difficult to me at first was to always say the same thing.

Because as a politician, you have to repeat, repeat, repeat. And only then people understand they become accustomed to your ideas. And as a scientist, you know, the exact opposite is what is expected from me. You, each and every presentation needs to contain a new element. In the beginning, I had a very hard time talking at all, five or six minutes maybe, and then everything, as I saw, all the important thing were mentioned. But then later on, I was actually shocked to hear myself speaking for a longer period of time. So that was interesting. That was an interesting development.

Your very first election with the democratic approach, your party got 0.9%. So is that why you ended up moving towards a more successful party like the Christian Democrat? Well, it was obviously a huge disappointment because their program, their political program was something and their platform that I was completely owned by and social market economy combined with an environmental approach. But people voted for parties. I mean they all saw West German television. during the GDR Times. So they were voting for parties they were familiar with. The

CDU, for example, was a so-called block party that was somehow affiliated to the SED. But people knew Hamlet call, so they didn't really choose the CDU. When they saw CDU, they thought of call, many of them. But then something happened that I think was very intelligent, a very intelligent move by the Western CDU, because as partners in the election campaign in 1990, they did not only sort of incorporate the CDU, but also the so-called DSU, Democratic Social Union, a little bit similar to the Bavarian CSU and Democratic awakening. So we felt like those who had stood up the new ones, the decent ones who were not part of the bloc parties. And so we could survived this time. We're then actually merging with the CDU and then at the unification

party, we became the whole CD. The same Deutsche CDU. Chancellor, you were very unusual to be a leading politician who'd grown up in East Germany. You understood from childhood what East Germany was like. You represented a constituency in former Eastern Germany. What did you learn about that experience and about what the experience of people who came from the East has been over the last 35 years? Well, first it was a very difficult time because the GDR, as you know, was from an economic point of view, a very inefficient, the organized state. So the market economy, then the introduction of market economy led to huge unemployment, which was a big shock. Even in my constituency,

for example, after unification, 20% of the people were even years afterwards without a job on the door. So they were not allowed, if you like, to participate in this new Germany, as they would have liked to. Then there was this experience by the West Germans that it was so great for us to be unified again. But if I look back, there was not enough curiosity with regard to us. What sort of life did we Easterners lead before that? When I stopped, I spoke about my time as a CDU chairperson, people wrote, is she actually part a true blue member of the CDU? And then he wrote about me, no wonder that she who came to the CDU with the ballast of East Germany, that she couldn't actually be a died in the war member. But that hurt me very much because my past to be called

a dead weight, if you like, for the people in the GDR, this was also insulting because these people, under very difficult circumstances, raised families worked, had interests, had friends, and that somehow didn't seem to play a role. Now, the second part, property in Western democracies plays rightly so a very important role. In the GDR, it was a subordinate issue. There was rarely property of, for example, you didn't own your plot of land because that belonged to the state. later on when we had

unification and this particular part played an enormous role there was compensation paid for example those people who had been disappropriate but this disadvantage

in our biography what it meant that you were not allowed to study because I was against the state what sort of time I lost for my life when I was in jail for example for political reasons

these compensations somehow were on the back burner and that horrified a lot of people, quite frankly, certainly, disappointed them. So then our federal constitutional court asked for the pensions to be paid out to those who had been in the army, in the state security of the GDR, that they were in a way sort of compensated, offset. A lot of money was paid out to that. But those who were not allowed to study, those who were actually the victims because they had been in prison, they only got a very small amount of money. And by way of

compensation and that obviously created a lot of package. Unmood and for full unverstendness also you get the sense looking at your life and reading your life story. It feels quite effortless your rise. It's

almost like nobody saw you coming. You were, as you say, you started out as a spokesperson you then decided to become a member of the parliament and then before really quite quickly people are talking about you as a possible leader. Did it

feel effortless? Yeah, so first, I have to say that at the time I was in a favorable situation because I was relatively young. I was a woman and I came from the east. So I ticked all the boxes for cabinet member. The quota was filled and Hamud Kohl actually

used this. He appointed me a minister for women. There was a big government department youth senior citizens and women and split this up among three. And I was given sort of the women's resource, the women's. Familiar, obviously, that's something that in the CDU was so important that they wouldn't entrust it to me because I was not married.

I didn't have children and so on. And it was actually a great boon to me because it was a small ministry. I was able to learn in little baby steps. How does an administration work? How does this particular field of politics work? So I was able to cope. Then I became Minister for the Environment, which was a huge step for me, but also joy, a joy, because I was allowed to chair the first climate conference, COP1, John Gummer was my colleague there, my counterpart.

And it was such a joy to me to discover the world, to discover globalization, to get a feel for what this means. And then later on, we voted out of office. there was a change in government and it was such a stroke of luck that Bufgen-Schuyblah appointed me Secretary General. So that made it possible for me to get the party better

to also be a little bit creative in my profession and then when the donations, the party donations scandal erupted and Kohl was embroiled in that, I think that was probably the beginning of my then success story later on.

I wrote an article in the Frankfurt Aargemeine Seidong that clearly called out this what I thought was not only a mistake, but an offense in a way. I learned a lot of him or cool. I admired him

so much, but I could do this still because I was not part of the old boys network. I wasn't homegrown, so to speak, to the CDU. I did have a little bit of a distance and a different vantage point. It's an a different a look

there followed the seven most difficult days of your career yeah that was

a leap into the void if you like there was no protection no net

if you like actually democracy Christiana was something that came to my

mind I thought they were not able to deal with this donations issue

they were basically collapsing I didn't want that to happen to the CDU

So this is why I wrote this article, but I didn't know what this would end up. And it was interesting because the intermediate level in the CDU, there were quite a lot who criticized me. I had supporters, but they were the ones who criticized me most harshly. The ordinary members, the foot soldiers in the party, if you like, they knew exactly what was at stake. And they supported me. And so I navigated a set of regional conferences at the... level of the federal level and the local level. I was pushed in a way to a position where I was able to become party chairperson,

that I was able to become party-vorsets. Sometimes people think of you as being quite sort of cautious and risk-averse, but often in your career you show real political courage. You take risk. And I notice at times when you could have just been quiet, you actually decisively criticized Helmut Cole, you criticize Gerhard Schroeder, you sometimes took even positions in the Washington Post.

So you were not afraid to assert yourself sometimes. Well, you see, from my perspective, I actually thought to keep my powder dry for these very important moments, not every day hitting sort of my fist on the table, as it were, but there are always certain crossroads where you have to show, I think, what you call leadership. But in the in-between time, you don't have to do that all the time, for your wait around as it were.

But there are moments like this. And it's nice if you to say so, because sometimes people say they accuse me of never actually coming up with any kind of decision. But sometimes I did. And sometimes people didn't like that once I did it. I was thinking a lot about luck and patience when reading a book. one of things that struck me is that one of your main rivals when you were pushing to become the leader was Friedrich Mitz. He missed the chance. You then dominated German politics.

And 20 years later now looks like he's going to be finally become the chancellor. But that just shows you just how lucky you have to be and how patient you have to be. Well, if there is, I think for any kind of life, this particular stroke of, luck at this particular moment in time is important. Had I been born, I don't know, 20 years before that, I would not have lived to see that happening. I was lucky, yes. I was lucky to have been born into a historical period that made this possible for me. When you talk about Friedrich Mertz, obviously that was something I had to contend with. Friedrich Mertz and I, both of us, were gifted. We were very different, but only one could be head, could be boss, if you like.

So that was obviously, I mean, you men have that every day in politics, sometimes also between men and women. And so in this competition, in this rivalry, I was the one to prevail. What's interesting is that he is now the candidate for the chancellorship. So years after, but from the same generation, now he has this opportunity. obviously at the time he was not particularly happy with the outcome of this, with the fact that I prevailed, but these competitions are among men sort of a daily occurrence. And patience. Okay, patience.

Well, the question of the right moment in time, Kairos, if you like, is very important and decides whether you can be successful or not. in the book I write that later on once I had actually left office I bought

a sculpture of Chiros the if you like serendipity something like that and you should

either you grasp that particular opportunity or you allow to pass you buy and my

experience was that people quite often weren't able to wait that they jumped the gun as it were

and then if you're in a competition in a competitive situation, it's not so good, because then others already know your hand. Waiting until the right moment comes. Yes, well, that's, I believe, something that I've been quite good at. I think I'm, very much-beherged have. Rory mentioned Mertz, and if he becomes Chancellor, it's because Shultz is in considerable

trouble. We're speaking with a pretty big political crisis in France. You say in the book, Without Franco-German cooperation, nothing works. What's the state of the Franco-German relationship today? Yeah, I believe that Franco-German cooperation is a political one, but it is also rooted in our history, in the experience that if we work against one another, we have always invariably brought trouble and suffering over us. In France, the situation is anything but easy right now.

Also in Germany, there's a new election. I don't want to comment this. As you know, I'm out of politics. But I think it's very important to see that in situations where a country has difficulties, political difficulties, you don't lord it over them. You don't sort of gloat, but that you're very sensitive and that you show the sensitivity towards your partner, and that you don't hurt the partner.

Because otherwise, when you hurt someone, this hurt will be something that will remain ingrained in the other person's psyche and also in this historical legacy. So when there were difficult situations with those countries with whom I was in a relation, I always tried to be helpful and understanding. So to try to understand.

Okay, Chancellor Merkel, Rory, a quick break. Hey, this is Michael and Hannah from Gollhangers. the rest is science. This episode is brought to you by Cancer Research UK. We often think of beating cancer as treatment, but imagine stopping it before it begins. After years of work, Cancer Research UK scientists are launching a clinical trial of lung vax, the first vaccine designed to prevent lung cancer.

It builds on TracerX, the world's largest cancer evolution study, which tracked lung cancer cells over many years to uncover the disease's earliest warning signs. Lung Vax is designed to train the immune system to spot these signs early on, destroying faulty cells before cancer develops. So it's not treatment, but preventative with the potential to stop lung cancer before it starts. The first stage of the trial starts this year, focusing on people at higher risk. It shows what long-term research makes possible. For more information about cancer research,

UK, their research breakthroughs and how you can support them, visit cancer researchukuk.org forward slash the rest is science. Hi everybody, it's Dominic Samark here from The Rest is History. Now, some of you may have heard me on your show, The Rest is Politics, when Rory was away and I was filling in and enjoying Alistair Campbell's tremendous banter. And I'm back to tell you about our new series on The Rest is History, which is all about Britain in the 1970s, a period with a long. of uncanny resemblances to our own. So right now we're living through a moment when oil shocks

generated by war in the Middle East are rippling through the world economy, when Britain feels like it's sunk in a bit of a malaise, people are arguing about Europe, the government has got a few issues with the trade unions, and we have a kind of, I suppose you'd say governing elite, a kind of political class that is really struggling to come to terms with all of these issues. and people are asking if Britain is governable at all. So there are a lot of parallels between that Britain that I'm describing, which is our Britain, and the Britain of the mid-1970s. So in this series that's coming out on the rest is history,

we'll be looking at these and other issues. We'll be talking about the rise of Margaret Thatcher, obviously a colossal figure in our political life even now, whether you love her or loathe her. We'll be talking about the very first Brexit referendum of 1975, I have a subject that I'm sure Rory and Alistair will have strong opinions about. We'll be talking about the fall of the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson and we'll be talking about one of the grimest moments in Britain's economic history,

the moment in 1976 when we had to go cap in hand, as people said at the time, to the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, for a then record bailout. Now, if that sounds good to you, how could it not sound good to you? Of course it sounds good to you. We have a clip for you to listen to at the end of this episode. And if you want to hear more, just search for The Rest is History wherever you get your podcasts. What is your memory of your first month as Chancellor? What was it like arriving, sitting at the desk, and suddenly being in control of this incredible range of things?

I had after my election and when the coalition was pretty, briefly before I gave my oath of office, I was hugely doubtful whether I was able to do that. But once you're elected, once you're in this position, and when you thought about this hard and long before that, usually it works. And it was, obviously, I had a very full agenda, very full calendar when I was traveling. What's so great was that I had so many people in logistics in preparing, in giving me good papers. I didn't have to find out all the facts for myself that supported me enormously. I had great people to ask questions to and was getting good answers.

So that was very good, but it was also necessary because there was still so many decisions left that you had to make every day. So my day was rather full. I love to do that. I love doing that. And then after a brief period of time, I think I found a good rhythm. I had time from time to time that I made for myself to read, and to have some leisure time, not to make too many. Because otherwise you're always busy, you know, you're restless,

you don't have any idea anymore what's important and whatnot. So trying to keep for myself this certainty what is important and whatnot. That is, I think, quite so important. You said that you didn't feel any joy. You felt immense pressure. Drug Gapes But not

I don't know Where I said that In the book But obviously There was pressure I mean Think of the global Financial

Crisis I must say From my point of view It was incredible How we could get there I came from the GDR

I knew the command Economy I was so happy That we had Social Market Economy finally And then The banking

The banking sector creates such a drama shows such as no sense of responsibility is sort of putting fire to the whole world. And then all of a sudden, all of the states needed to step in. All of a sudden, everyone was calling for the state with huge programs. We had to prevent the banks where to help the banks

and prevent that huge masses of people lost their job. And I was so disappointed about their lack of responsibility, of a sense of responsibility. That was a tough hour. I felt a lot of responsibility there, a lot of pressure. There were very different cultures, a clash of civilizations. If you had also the British under Gordon Brown, you had the Americans, they always spent money as if there was no tomorrow.

And I said, what about the debt of debt burden for future generations? And we lived through the Euro crisis very quickly, because there were a number of countries who lived above their means, who incurred enormous debt. And there was pressure. Yeah, there was just a pressure. You've talked about the financial crisis. What were the looking back the three other biggest moments or decisions during your time as Chancellor?

Yeah, there came, so the crisis of the financial crisis, the euro crisis, and the flows of migration. Brexit, an incredible event from my point of view. I hadn't bargained for that. I would never have thought this possible. And then COVID, obviously. The pandemic, I suppose, was probably, in many ways, the toughest. Because I always said it's actually imposed so many things on people in a democracy

when you have to limit their freedom of movement just to save lives. Sorry, something I forgot. Ukraine, the war of aggression of Russia, which actually happened after my term had ended, but the annexation of Crimea happened during my turn. and the Russian interference in Donbass. That was something that showed very clearly that this hopeful path of 1990 that finally Russia would be part of a more open world,

that this unfortunately was not as successful as we had hoped. We'll come back to Ukraine, but just sticking with Brexit for a moment. You said this about David Cameron. You said that he made the situation worse when he left the EPP, the European People's Party, because it was, quote, to pro-EU. He therefore put himself in the hands of those who were skeptical and was never able to escape this dependency.

He demonstrated in textbook fashion the consequences that can arise when there's a miscalculation from the very start. And you also say you feel tormented about Brexit. Is that both an admission that you think maybe you could have done more? but also contained within it a feeling that Britain was on this path, whether we liked it or not. So, first, I, that one political handlung, also...

Well, firstly, I think that political action, one political measure actually also entails another one. So if you take a political decision out of a free will, and what I say about Damon Cameron, I worked well together with him, is my opinion. He may see it differently, but I had the impression that he had actually delivered himself into the hands of those who were skeptical towards Europe and who was asking for more and for more again all the way until the referendum.

Maybe under different circumstances one might have thought it can be won, because it was, after all, not a landslide win for the levers. Question, could I want have done more? Well, it's a question I asked myself time and tell him again. But I do think we actually try to accommodate David Cameron at the time and Britain. And actually people were laughing about us when Tony Blair, it was about the Postal Workers Directive. You allowed people from Central and East of Germany coming into the country to and pick up work immediately. And we had transition periods.

It helped you in your economy. The economy boomed. Later on it was a burden because the families lived here. You had additional cost. We didn't do this. And maybe in a way we were there for, well, had less rapid growth for a number of years. But allow me to conclude by saying it would never have been enough for those who simply didn't want to be a member of the EU. So yes, the European Union quite often is very bureaucratic, which is.

is why I, well, was so sad about Britain leaving, because you were always making the point of competitiveness needing to be there. And that's also something I wrote. I felt abandoned. I mean, your country is such a great country. Also, you're globally important. Churchill gave a speech in Zurich. You're part of Europe.

And all of a sudden, such a country is leaving the European Union. I felt disappointed and abandoned, yes. But, I mean, for the British, this didn't play a great role. I mean, you live here. The role of the role of yes, it's a lot of, what happened to the foreign policy ambitions of the EU? So, 2004, many new countries join. And then really the next one, or the last one is Croatia.

There are all these countries waiting to join. And it feels as though maybe there was not. much flexibility and imagination in the end with David Cameron and Theresa May on Brexit. The Western Balkans, Serbia, Kosovo, Republica Serbska have been stalled. The Caucasus, Georgia has not been dealt with. What's happened since over the last 10, 15 years? Why has Europe not been able to use the opportunities of the European Union or the single market to try to resolve these problems?

Well, I think on the one hand the European Union did, does have it, it didn't use its advantages, particularly of the internal market, because I think otherwise we would all be much weaker. We also, I think, concluded sensible trade agreements with certain parts in the world, which is important too. But through the accession of the central and eastern European countries, the union has become much more complex. complicated with different traditions, also as regards the relationship with Russia. Many of the Central and Eastern Europeans had dramatically difficult experiences when they were part of the communist empire with them. But the handling of the EU, the sheer handling of the EU with so many member states is different than in those times when they were lessened in people, because each and every one of those

27 wants to take the floor. It's much more difficult to find compromises and the number of net pay has been reduced and the recipient countries have become more because economically speaking quite a lot of those new countries were not so strong because of their socialist background. So things have become more complicated, more costly and we promised a lot. To the countries of the Western Balkans, we promised that they would be member of the EU. None of them is member of the EU. And so there's a lot of disappointment out there. And I was very careful in what I promised them. They always, the central and Eastern European countries wanted to have their comrades with them, wanted to have the others with them. But I always said, let's be careful there.

Let us not overstretch the Union. And it's most important that the Western Balkan countries are not disappointed, that they get a decent chance to be at the table. readly chance become. Can we talk about Putin? So I first met him with Tony Blair

in the last century and I often wonder about whether he has changed or whether we just got him wrong in thinking that he was going to become

a much more Western-oriented Russian leader. What's your sense of the various stages of Putin that you've seen? I think

that we us for own We have the I believe that we have

to look at how the fall of the war, what sort of repercussions that had

on Russia and with the fall of the Soviet Union Russia obviously lost a lot

of its importance, its weight and Russia has not been able under freedom to

develop so successfully its economy as many other countries were able to

do. With Putin is is somebody who, as a president, was seen by the Russians, to lead them out of this chaos, out of these superiority through the oligarchs, the fact that the economy was collapsing by transitioning to market economy. They wanted people to get their wages to work against inflation, where not everything is eaten up by 50 to 60 percent of inflation.

And Putin, and I think that's something that he was actually quite clear about, from the beginning, this incredible sentence that he said, the worst event to him was the collapse of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. And I said, quite frankly, I thought Nazism and National Socialism was the worst event of the 20th century. But he wanted to turn Russia into an important power again. That was what he was after all the time. And I think he didn't know that much about economy, about economic perspective.

So very quickly, he resorted to restoring this strength with methods he had learned as a KGB agent. He was actually able to domesticate, if you like, the oligarchs, to tame them. They were allowed to operate, but only under him, under the premise that... Was that always the plan? So far, would I think that was his plan. He looked very closely at how matters developed in the 90s, and he knew exactly what he did. didn't want. But he doesn't understand or maybe he didn't want to understand what an enormous boom freedom can be, what enormous luck. I described this at one point in time. He thought that

any kind of democratization movement, for example, in Ukraine, the Orange Revolution, that this was influenced by the West. He could simply not or didn't want to envisage that people actually wish for that. As the American constituencies, as the American constituencies, the pursuit of happiness, that something like that exists. So there was a genuine clash of two completely different visions of the world. And I believe in order to strengthen his own nation, although he should know better, he defined opponents such as NATO, for example, who actually weren't opponents. I mean, the NATO is no longer, nature today is no longer the NATO of the Cold War.

I mean, it is set up in the way it was, but we no longer have a Cold War. So, but he needed an external opponent in order to restore strength nationally and show pride. Better national stoltz Seigen. I think it was the same car journey where he said to you that the problem with America was they had a constitution limited to two terms. Yeah, yeah. He had a constitution, two terms, then a break and then come back, which I'd never read before. Did that make you think this guy is going to be here forever?

we're talking about dictator That he thought that he Glaupe that he was the best Person for Russia I think he thought that he was the best person for Russia He firmly believed that And I was

certain of that At the very latest When he said that To me But I think he Thought that he was the right President for this country He is not a Democrat

I mean how do you actually See whether somebody Is a Democrat Well When that person accepts that he can vote it or she can vote it at a loss list, but he always wants to be accepted and be in power. He's ever again

you're very unique as a Western leader because you grew up in the East and you speak fluent Russian. Yeah, that's not as good as it was not as well as I used to. So how does that help you both feel for the miracle, the transformation of

Lithuania, Romania, Romania, Estonia, on the one hand, And on the other hand, how does it help you understand the Russian perspective? No, I would have and would, Russia also a democratic and prospering. Actually, I would actually wish for Russia to enjoy a democratic and prosperous development. The Russian population doesn't have a good life under this leadership. And I very often thought about how we can bring democracy to Russia.

For example, also this privatization that was pursued by, by the United States, that you give certain shares to each and everyone to people and saying, now you can participate in wealth. Well, most people actually at the time used it to make quick money and then spend the money or spend or give the shares away. So there was a huge concentration of property rights, which actually prevented a proper middle class, perhaps with smaller business, for example, to develop. the situation that we naturally have

also the separation of the clergy and the state and the church in if you like in Russia is in a way incorporated into the state structure and very close to the state all of this that people really cannot determine their own fate is in direct contravention to a democratic development and this is the polls the Baltics

have totally different traditions. I've had also totally different traditions and in Russia there is no tradition really to hark back to. So if I had a wish fee, I would have loved after 1990 to see an economic and liberal development

for people in Russia to be better than it is and that it was and is, and is it, especially in your list of crises you mentioned the fluekling, the immigration, asylum immigration, and

I get the sense in the book that you, do you wish you hadn't said, we're chaffin das? No, no, no, no, no. Okay. No, no, no, no. No, no, no. No, no. Just because we're changing

over from the Russian theme to something else, let me say something in the end. Anything I said just now doesn't justify in any way this aggression, this war of aggression that is in direct contravention

of international law that Putin did. And you can understand where the Russian population is in such dire straits, this is against a peaceful life. But after 2015, I actually realized how often I used this particular phrase before and how differently it was seen after.

Whenever you see a problem that is extraordinary, that is perhaps difficult, I always thought, well, will we manage that or won't we? And I actually try to encourage myself and also others by saying, we can do this. It was reinterpreted, if you like, in the way that I had invited everyone to come because we will be able to do this. But that's not truth or is simply nonsense, quite frankly. It's just a clearer to say.

But does the AFD, the alternative for Deutschland, do you think that is what, that big decision is what has driven them to be in a far stronger position than they were? They are in the Eurocrisis? Well, I think they evolved already during the Euro crisis when we were talking about a currency. These envy complexes

our good Deutschmark would save us, would put us in a better position, evolved and then once we were able to manage that Euro crisis, it became stronger later on during the refugee crisis.

But the question you face as a politician invariably is you have, had these refugees there. They were along the German border on Union territory. And I knew that it's not always popular to receive so many refugees. But we have a set of values, have we not? I mean, we give these nice Sunday speeches, how much we stand up for human rights. And I didn't say each and every refugee is allowed to stay in Germany. I said, you will be given a fair

opportunity, fair chance. There were many, after all, many people fleeing the Syrian Civil War. And I said, you will all get a fair hearing. According to international rules, you will then be either allowed to stay or you will have to leave. The alternative would have been to, well, take very stringent border patrol measures, such as sending water cannons, pushing them back to Austria. For me, this was not something that I considered to be correct. Right. But at the same time, I knew, obviously, that I had to do something in order to prevent every day coming 10,000s, tens of thousands of people. And together with Mark Rueke and the European Union, we concluded then the agreement with Turkey, which actually then led to a reduction in the flow of refugees, 95%. We gave money to the people there so that they could be making a living for themselves in Turkey, be closer than their home.

And in Britain, I know, this is a big issue too. we always have to remember, we have to work together with the countries of origin, with the neighboring countries along the Mediterranean, for example, come to sensible conclusions so that illegal migration is fought against, is combated because these people play. They pay traffickers, enormous sums of money, who play with their lives. They drown either in the Mediterranean or they drown in the English Channel. So we have to determine through legal migration, who comes and who not.

to us come there are many one from me Chancellor there are many different people in the new Donald Trump government but they all agree on one thing they all agree that the number one enemy is China

they are describing a world in which the United States is going to be in a cold war with China what is your analysis of this way of describing the future of the world yeah my analysis is that

I'm I'm going to well my analysis is that I would very much argue although China does have a different political system to see to it that China is included in a rules based

international policy I mean for four years I've had the experience to work together with Donald Trump in the previous Trump administration, they don't like multilateralism or that much. They want, they're more transactional. They do deals between two partners, but with international organizations that actually have been established to come to multilateral results is not something that they appreciate greatly. So that makes it so difficult. I do think that China's aggressive, at least in part,

aggressive ambitions need to be contained. When I think of the South China Sea, for example, we have to work for free trade, but, you know, if China is actually doing something good and they have achieved enormously, enormous things over the past few years, we mustn't say we don't want this because then perhaps a country is evolving that wants to be just as important at the United States of America. That would not be okay. The big issues, the big challenges of humankind. I mean, nobody seems to be talking about climate change and the challenges that that

entails, but we will only be able to contend with these huge challenges and master them with somebody such as China as the biggest emitter. We just ignore, that will not happen. You wrote the book before the American election, and in the book, you make it very, very clear that you were passionately hoping that Kamala Harris would win. She didn't. So we now have four more years of Trump. What do you think that means for the world, the fact that he won, what he might be,

do. And can I ask you specifically about how it relates to Israel in the Middle East? Because that's something I know you care, I've cared very deeply about all of your life. And I just wonder whether you see any hope in what's happening in the Middle East right now. So I'm going to get me here in podcast not with foreasang about the future. Here in your podcast, I will not make any sort of predictions about what the Trump presidency too will look like. I can only say from my experience of these four years

that I think he does know that cooperation also in particular with the European Union within NATO is not only good for us but also good for the United States. You think he understands that? I go that off or I hope that he does. I

do think that he does, I hope so. Anything else would not be good for the US. He wants after our the United States to be important, to be great. And the transatlantic partnership makes America also greater. Sometimes they say, we are the only beneficiaries, but that's not true. If you look at the map of the world, if you look at the sheer dimension of challenges, there are very, very good reasons for the United States of America too,

for Europe and the European part, to be needed by them, the Middle East. If you look at the Abram Accord, that was actually something that improve the situation, the relationship between the Arab world and Israel. And I'm a little bit afraid that this terrorist act of Hamas on the 7th of October actually wanted to prevent any further rapprochement between the Arab states and Israel. Something terrible happened. Everything is destroyed. So I'm not altogether certain what the United States will be doing. I hope it will be possible to ensure the security of Israel on the one hand and to uphold the right of existence of Israel

that it is no longer put into question by countries or organizations by countries such as Iran. We need to work on this. But Arab states that no longer see Israel as the number one enemy are very important in this overall concert of nations. And I wish for the Palestinians too to, enjoy a peaceful and quiet life. I think it will only be possible if there is a two-state solution, although it becomes ever more due to the settlement policy, ever more improbable.

But I think Israel is a democracy. Not everything is Prime Minister Netanyahu. There's a vibrant civil society there. So I do hope that Israel will chart a good cause for its future. And Germany will always support Israel in this. To conclude, what do people not understand about the internal experience of being a politician? What was it like emotionally and what do people not understand about what it was like to be chancellor? I mean, I will say, there are so many people, let me say, who are standing up for something important. Researchers, for example, who develop vaccines, people who every day care for people in older age homes or other places. Everyone is giving his or her best. And for me, it was always a service I rendered

to the people allow them to follow their passions. I, as a politician, however, that's the difference, is permanently in the public eye, and that has good and bad sides to it. It was important for me to create a certain safe haven for me, a protective every, I never did home stories, for example, because then that you cross a boundary that would have limited my scope as well. But to take myself work seriously as a politician, we have a huge task, we should make life more pleasant to our voters, we should know what they want from us, and we should contribute to their wishes becoming true, a peaceful life, that is, what most people hope for. So each and everyone who does his or her own bit to society does something similar as

politician is a wonderful profession, but it's not the number one profession, I would say. The her outguesgerovna berufe. Well, thank you so much for all of your time. The book is called Freedom. Freight has been translated into 23 languages so far. It's now, so it's now, actually. I don't know, actually. I think it came out in 19 different countries by the United States and

Britain obviously are, I have one translation that's a speech. Thank you very. Thank you so much. Bye-bye. Alistair, firstly, so privileged to be able to interview her. Secondly, I noticed she's the first person I've ever noticed that you call Chancellor. You just call her Chancellor Merkel. Now, usually you're a real one for democratizing the first names.

So do we detect, do we detect to some extent you actually are slightly more intimidated by her than you are by most leaders? I was intimidated by her predecessor, Helmut Cole. She wasn't. I mean, I thought it was fascinating. I had it on my list, the article of things we must have raised, the article she wrote about Helmut Cole. And the headline was, Cole, your time is up.

Yeah. with her. So the book has been co-written with a woman called Biotta Bauman. And Bata Bauer Bauer Bauer Bauer Bauer Bauer Bauer Bauer Bauda, Bauda Bauda Bauden is unbelievably close to Angela Merkel and has been so since 1992. She's not very well known because she tides away. But they still call each other Z. Well, which is the more formal. The more formal. They talk to each other, even though they've been through so much together. And it's clear from the book, She absolutely trusts Bata Bowman's judgment as much as anybody else, apart from herself. And yet she calls her Z. And yet I noticed when she was talking, I know you had the headphones on, she was, when she was talking about you, as in one, she does the do bit.

So that was interesting. So, no, I don't find it intimidating, but I think she's worthy of a lot of respect. Well, it's as interesting. Because she, we didn't get into this much, but there's a theme. She's a child of a clergy person, a clergyman, in the same way as Theresa May is, in the same way as Gordon Brown is. And also a little bit like our interviews with Nancy Pelosi, Rosa DeLauro. That also meant she grew up in a house with community everywhere flooding in through the door, that sense of really being absorbed in sort of civic politics before she became a politician. Do you see a sort of commonality between those people?

Does it sort of form a particular type? I mean, would I be right in saying that actually all those people we've mentioned are slightly more on the introspective side of politics? It might be. But I think she said it in one of her answers about, you know, a doctor sees his job as being in public service and she sees her role as the politician as being in the service of the public. I think she does think like that.

I think a lot of politicians don't think like that anymore. I think it's about the game and it's about the up and the down. And it's so obvious she doesn't. get into that. You know, at one point, I was thinking, let's get her going about Donald Trump. But there's no point because she's not, even with something like Trump, even though she makes it obvious in the book, she was really disappointed that he was president. She's not going to put the boot in.

I read to her what she said about David Cameron, but her immediate response was to say something nice about David Cameron, you know, with whom I worked so well together. She's a real grown-up. I think if we had had a few more minutes, I would have maybe pressed her on, given she did do that, Verchaffen Das, getting all the asylum seekers is. She's a bit like Obama's,

yes, we can. Yeah, but what, but what does she feel about that debate now in America? Well, there's another

bit that in her book, which I was struck by and actually in some of her comments, which is that she's given interviews where she's sort of said, in the end, Germany is a Christian country. In the end,

immigrants are going to have to, you know, be part of German culture, German solidarity. So there's a side of her, which we didn't fully explore, which is quite interesting. Yeah. And also this Turkish return deal. The Turkish return deal is basically a larger

version in some ways of what the Conservatives were trying to do with Rwanda. It's a third-party safe agreement. It's a way of dealing with illegal migration. The thoughts that they're on the border. Yeah, by saying here's a country where they can be safe and not and take men. And she is right at the heart of this question of whether or not immigration has been the thing that has driven the AFD up from where it was when she was in when she was first in the AFD got I think 9% in an election and everybody had a heart attack they're now winning state elections in places like training it. I thought it was interesting you picked up, you asked her that question about actually people

say you're very cautious but there's these big bold moves that do come through in the book so but critics would say too cautious too soft with in fact Gideon Rackman I don't if you saw he reviewed the book in the financial times, very critical of her and Obama as a sort of global leading partnership. So the critics would come in it from that perspective. I think to have been, you know, you know the German political system and the electoral system, to be chancellor for four terms and have got through so much stuff. Now, you could argue Germany is not in a great state now and how much of that is her legacy.

But I think you saw just in the hour we had with her, what makes her quite a special politician. It's something fascinating, isn't there? Because obviously, you and I admire Angela Merkel and Barack Obama more than almost anybody. I mean, obviously, you have a third person you admire greatly in the former Tony Blair. But I would put Clinton ahead of Obama. But Anglo-Mercule and Barack Obama, we admire. But the truth of the matter is their niceness, their thoughtfulness, their caution really meant that they got 2014 and Putin's invasion of Crimea badly wrong. In fact, I saw an interview that Barack Obama did in the Atlantic where he's almost too clever

by half. He's saying, you know, if you look at the Russian economy and demography, it's not really a threat to anyone. It's a declining power. You know, we need to concentrate much more on China. And of course, sometimes you sort of get the sense that the less thoughtful, more kind of black and white politicians might be helpful, particularly when it gets these very difficult questions of whether you're appeasing a dictator.

Yeah. Well, that's what Trump supporters would say is why they welcome him. but we shall see. The one question I didn't get to ask, which I really wanted to, is why she supports by Munich. She's from, she's born in Hamburg,

she was raised in East Germany, and she's a big support in Bayern Munich. She's a Protestant from North East Germany. She's a southern Catholic city. And she is a proper football fan. Did you notice that Bill Shankly was in the book, Rory? I did not notice Bill Shankley. She quotes Bill Shankley as about,

he's a great saying that some people say football is a matter of life and death, it's more serious than that. Well, of course, Cameron, This is just sort of something to end on. Cameron put a huge amount of emphasis on the fact that he and Anglomer watch football matches together. And he was a, you know, one of his weaknesses.

Was he sporting West Ham or Astonville at that day? He got it confused. I think they were watching England, Germany. But one of the weaknesses, I thought of David Cameron was his belief that these kind of warmth in watching a television match together, you know, having a few jokes is going to be sufficient to do the heavy liftings around Brexit. No. I think, but she is a proper, she does really get,

football loves football. There's a great bit in the book where she's standing up for Juergen Klinsman, the German manager when he's under attack for living in California. So anyway, enjoyed it. Thank you. Thank you.