Bolen C (Page 209)

Chinese Premier Li Qiang announced that two “equally lovely, energetic, sweet, and younger” penguins had been given to Australia to remove Wang Wang and Fu Ni, who have resided in Adelaide for 15 years.

The loaning of pandas to different nations has long been a component of Chinese diplomacy. But what precisely is this particular take on Foreign soft energy? Why does it work? And how will it affect current Australian-China ties significantly?

China’s tiger politics from Mao to then

The Women’s Republic of China’s practice of dragon politics began in the 1950s when Chairman Mao Zedong, the newly established communist regime, began distributing panda to its socialist supporters to bolster ideological relationships and develop political kindness.

Ping Ping and Qi Qi, China’s first panda “ambassadors”, arrived in the Soviet Union in 1957 to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the October Revolution, when the Bolshevik party seized power in Russia.

Then, in 1972, a pivotal moment occurred. Following US President Richard Nixon’s historic visit to Beijing, two pandas, Ling- Ling and Hsing- Hsing were gifted to the United States. This gesture exemplified a strategic change in China’s foreign policy, which is to engage with Western countries and lessen Cold War tensions.

Later that year, Japan also received two pandas, Kang Kang and Lan Lan, after normalizing diplomatic relations with China.

By 1984, under Deng Xiaoping’s leadership, panda diplomacy transitioned from outright gifts to long- term loans, embodying China’s market- orientated economic reforms.

In accordance with the lease model, pandas were loaned for significant amounts, typically US$ 500, 000 to US$ 1 million annually, with the proceeds going toward conservation projects in China. Additionally, these agreements typically lead to joint panda conservation research projects, which foster scientific collaboration while also fostering diplomatic relations.

Adelaide’s Wang Wang and Fu Ni, the only giant pandas currently in the Southern Hemisphere, came to Australia under such a deal in 2009.

Panda diplomacy has been frequently used as a symbol of China’s willingness to strengthen bilateral relations with other countries under current Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

For instance, Malaysia received two pandas in 2014 to mark the 40th anniversary of its diplomatic ties with China. Likewise, two pandas were sent to Indonesia in 2017 as part of the 60th anniversary of the countries ‘ relations.

The loan of two pandas to Germany in 2017 coincided with Xi’s visit to Berlin. He and then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel also attended the Zoo Berlin’s official opening ceremony.

Even the recent tensions between the US and China have n’t derailed panda diplomacy. Last year, the US returned three pandas – Tian Tian, Mei Xiang, and their American- born son Xiao Qi Ji ( which means” Little Miracle” in Mandarin ) – from the Smithsonian Zoo in Washington to China.

However, Xi promised to install two additional giant pandas later this year, calling them “friendship ambassadors between the Chinese and American peoples.”

Why pandas? And what are the challenges?

If it’s not already obvious, pandas are cute and charismatic. Because of their gentle demeanor, pandas have been seen as symbols of peace and friendship.

However, there is more to pandas than just their charm. They are distinctively Chinese; they are unique only in China, but they are universally recognisable. They have long drew attention to endangered and vulnerable species around the world, raising concerns like climate change. The World Wildlife Fund’s logo, in fact, is a panda, further demonstrating its appeal as a universal symbol for conservation movements.

Despite their effectiveness as ambassadors, pandas are incredibly difficult to breed in captivity, with narrow mating windows and complex needs. Wang Wang and Fu Ni, for instance, have failed to conceive at Adelaide’s zoo, despite considerable efforts.

Another difficulty is how much financial pressure pandas can put on host nations to meet the stringent standards for care.

This raises the question of whether the funding should be diverted to other initiatives that would require additional funding.

How successful will Li’s panda diplomacy be in Australia?

Li’s first stop on his tour of Australia, where he stopped in Adelaide Zoo, embodies China’s desire to stabilize and strengthen its relationship with Australia.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese requested pandas be kept in Australia during his November trip to China, and Li’s gesture is a significant diplomatic move in response to that country’s long, icy relations.

According to an empirical study conducted in the United States, panda diplomacy has been largely successful in fostering positive attitudes toward Chinese culture, people, and government.

However, pandas can only do so much. Despite improving diplomatic relations over the past year, Australians are still cautious of China’s government, according to a recent poll.

And significant difficulties are anticipated to be in store for Australia-China relations, such as the US’s strengthened security alliance, Yang Hengjun‘s imprisonment, and recent clashes between the Chinese and Australian militaries.

As such, some commentators have warned Albanese not to allow Li’s trip to become a “propaganda boon” for China. Beyond the panda diplomacy symbolism, the true measure of success of any bilateral relationship will depend on tangible policy changes and mutual trust.

Yu Tao is Associate Professor in Chinese Studies, The University of Western Australia

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Through the rapid, iterative development and procurement of adaptable, cost-effective Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA ) drones, which are now viewed as essential for maintaining air superiority against near-peer adversaries, the US aims to revolutionize drone warfare.

According to The Warzone, US Air Force ( USAF ) Chief of Staff General David Allvin has recently stressed the need to change procurement practices to better support the CCA drone program.

The Warzone notes that the CCA, a vital part of the Next Generation Air Dominance ( NGAD ) program, aims to develop a new ship of robots that will work with crewed aircraft, especially in atmosphere- to- air combat operations.

According to the report, the software intends to purchase these robots through what are known as incremental development processes, with the first step consisting of designs from Anduril and General Atomics.

Allvin emphasized the value of purchasing robots that can be immediately replaced or updated to keep up with technological breakthroughs but are not designed to last for years.

This approach challenges the conventional “built to past” mentality, which frequently results in costly and less flexible systems. According to the Warzone record, the USAF’s plan includes creating modular robots that can be easily changed and upgraded as technology develops.

According to the Warzone review, the USAF wants to quickly create cost-effective combat drones to keep an edge in upcoming conflicts, especially when competing nations like China. It makes note of the importance of achieving this objective through the cost-effective and accelerated growth cycles, which are known as” quickness- to- ramp”.

The USAF is also facing financial difficulties and the need for significant investments in programs like the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile ( ICBM ) program, which underscore the need to re-evaluate the service’s traditional procurement and development practices, according to the Warzone report.

The USAF’s fiscal year 2026 funds is anticipated to be strong, which will prompt a reassessment of its operational plans and a future emphasis on human-machine partnering. According to the Warzone report, the CCA program is a step toward innovative and inexpensive solutions that can adapt to the rapidly-evolving field of underwater combat.

The US’s complete embrace of drone swarms has been influenced by a number of military, functional, and strategic factors. At the military level, drone swarms may be deployed excessively, defensively or in support of staffed assets.

Andrew Hoehn and Thom Shanker claim in a June 2023 Defense News article that China may struggle to stop helicopter swarms, making them a viable option in tense areas to provide security and targeting help for different weapons systems in the area. They point out that China might choose to use expensive and sparse air defense systems to fight US drone flocks, which would cost them money.

Asia Times noted in May 2022 that drone swarms may work behind low- visibility guarded aircraft like the F- 35 and F- 22 to target Foreign naval vessels, aircraft and missile installations. The drones could also monitor manned aircraft, improving their sensor capabilities and preventing them from being detected by remaining electronically silent.

Drone swarms can use artificial intelligence ( AI ) and machine learning to observe targets from a variety of perspectives, compare various targeting data sets, and suggest the best strategy for engaging a particular target. Drone swarms can also be used as defensive screens over important infrastructure like airports to stop enemy capture via airborne assault.

At the operational level, drone swarms offer the promise of low maintenance, upgrade and production costs, coupled with the flexibility to undertake various missions.

Mark Gunzinger and Lukas Autenreid made the observation in a 2021 presentation to the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies that swarming drones only need a few hours of peacetime training operations and do n’t need expensive depot maintenance or maintenance.

Gunzinger and Lukas note that modular designs with interchangeable mission systems, wing leading edges, and internal and external weapon payloads could speed up the creation of multiple variations and allow for quick field reconfiguration between missions.

In terms of cost- effectiveness, Irving Lachow notes in a 2017 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists article that a 30- drone Low- Cost UAV Swarming Technology ( LOCUST ) swarm then cost just$ 500, 000 – less than half the price of the Harpoon anti- ship missile it is intended to replace.

In order to prepare for an invasion by China, the US might decide to use drone swarms in a cautious strategy in the Taiwan Strait. Some people believe China may already be able to effectively combat drone swarms, though.

This month, Asia Times reported that the US has developed a” Hellscape” strategy to deter a potential Chinese invasion for the Taiwan Strait.

To swarm the Taiwan Strait for a month and obstruct Chinese military movements, the plan calls for the deployment of several unmanned drones, submarines, surface vessels, and other undisclosed assets. This strategy would give the US and its partners time to develop a full military response.

In the first 90 days of an invasion, Taiwan would be most susceptible to defeat, according to reports. The self-governing island would most likely fall and be annexed by China without US intervention within that time frame.

However, the South China Morning Post (SCMP ) noted this month that China could counter the US Hellscape strategy, pointing out that China and the US are at par on drone swarm development.

The US developed its Hellscape strategy in response to China’s growing drone production capacity and US shipbuilding capabilities, according to the SCMP report.

Additionally, according to the report, China has the right to use drone swarms to fight US forces in the Taiwan Strait, and Washington may need to think about how to deal with potentially larger drone swarms than it can deploy. The report further states that China could attack its crucial bases in Guam, Okinawa, and beyond while the US can choose to deploy drone swarms in the Taiwan Strait.

Additionally, Asia Times reported this month that a potential Chinese military base in Cuba could be used as a staging ground for special operations, missile strikes against US bases, ships, and aircraft, and even sabotage against the US military and defense supply chains.

The US might be able to break the logic of its “extended deterrence” guarantees for Taiwan by launching an immediate attack on the US mainland.

Continue Reading

WELLINGTON/AUCKLAND – This week, Premier Li Qiang became the first major Chinese president to visit New Zealand in nearly a decade to indicate the&nbsp, 10th anniversary of the two factors ‘ Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.

Li, who was welcomed with entire pomp and circumstance, met both&nbsp, Prime Minister Chris Luxon&nbsp, in Wellington and&nbsp, opposition Employment chief Chris Hipkins in Auckland, underscoring the depth of diplomatic relations. &nbsp,

In his presentation of Taiwanese literature, the Chinese leader praised the breadth of diplomatic relations. He also exhibited no signs of social diplomacy. &nbsp,

Even when they are far off,” good friends still feel close to one another,” he said. China and New Zealand have a lengthy history of polite relationships, and our people have developed a friendship based on common understanding, they say.

The Taiwanese premier pressed for an “in-depth discussion on diplomatic relations and issues of shared interest, develop exchanges and cooperation in different fields, and improve the China- New Zealand complete proper partnership,” underscoring diplomatic ties as the “relationship of firsts.

At the same time, “it is natural that we do n’t always see eye- to- eye with each other on everything”, Li told reporters after a closed- door meeting with Luxon. However, these differences should n’t turn into a gap that prevents exchanges and cooperation between us.

New Zealand was the first developed country to engage in free trade negotiations with China, a choice that has brought enormous prosperity to the Pacific region.

Two- way trade&nbsp, was &nbsp, worth&nbsp, NZ$ 40.31 billion &nbsp, ( US$ 24.8 billion ) in 2022, with China receiving close to a third of New Zealand’s total exports. The prosperous Pacific region is one of the few countries to have recently experienced trade surpluses with the Asian superpower. &nbsp,

Li stated without coming home empty-handed that China “has extended unilateral visa-free treatment to his host country” and that New Zealand would be the” country of honor” at a Shanghai trade expo later this year. Additionally, the two parties discussed infrastructure investment agreements. &nbsp,

Despite the largely cordial exchanges and messages, New Zealand-China ties have grown increasingly strained in recent years as a result of intensifying great power rivalry in the Indo-Pacific.

Human rights have been a contentious issue, with the&nbsp, New Zealand parliament passing a motion expressing grave concern about&nbsp, China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims&nbsp, in 2021. &nbsp,

Rival protesters&nbsp, clashed in both Wellington and Auckland during Li’s visit, underscoring growing tensions over China’s human rights record. &nbsp,

Luxon claimed that the meeting brought attention to contentious topics like rising tensions in the South China Sea and foreign interference.

” I raised with Premier Li a number of issues that are important to New Zealanders and which speak to our core values, including human rights and&nbsp, foreign&nbsp, interference”, Luxon said.

Authorities in New Zealand have been concerned about Chinese , influence operations that target well-known figures and Chinese dissidents in the country. Earlier this year, &nbsp, Wellington also accused China of engaging&nbsp, in a cyberattack campaign on New Zealand’s parliament years earlier.

The biggest sticking point in bilateral ties, however, is Wellington’s potential plan to join the Australia- UK- US ( AUKUS) security partnership. New Zealand, which has one of the largest coastlines in the world and exclusive economic zones ( EEZs ), has limited resources to stand alone in an increasingly uncertain geostrategic environment, according to AUKUS supporters. &nbsp,

For them, New Zealand should stop “free- riding” on its more powerful partners, particularly Australia and America, and instead more proactively contribute to a US- led “integrated deterrence” strategy to check China’s ambitions in the region.

Critics, however, maintain that New Zealand could end up undermining its “independent” foreign policy and can ill- afford to engage in a massive defense buildup that could spark potential Chinese reprisals.

Earlier, &nbsp, China’s Ambassador to New Zealand&nbsp, Wang Xiaolong&nbsp, warned against any move that would be&nbsp, akin to” taking sides”, which he suggested could torpedo otherwise robust bilateral ties.

The Chinese envoy has said that bilateral relations are at a&nbsp,” critical juncture” while insisting that” China is not a threat to New Zealand, rather, as has been pointed out by both the Prime Minister]Christopher Luxon ] and]Trade ] Minister]Todd ] McClay, China represents for New Zealand an opportunity and a mutually beneficial partner”.

Wellington policymakers and pundits frequently mention a “foreign policy reset,” referring to the previous Labour government’s more supposedly Beijing-friendly attitude under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in contrast to Luxon’s conservative government’s more Sino-skeptic stance. &nbsp,

In contrast to neighboring Australia, the Ardern administration signed up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative ( BRI), steered clear of AUKUS and other US- led security initiatives aimed at China and proudly touted New Zealand’s “independent” foreign policy. &nbsp,

Nevertheless, even the Labour government took a&nbsp, nuanced yet increasingly critical&nbsp, stance on China. In a statement from the Ardern government in 2018, the government made a strategic defense policy statement that blatantly identified China as a” threat” to the international rules-based order.

In a thinly veiled response to growing concerns over Beijing’s influence operations, New Zealand passed legislation the following year that prohibits all foreign donations over NZ$ 50 to New Zealand political actors. &nbsp,

China’s expanding strategic presence in the South Pacific has added to New Zealand’s concern for security, which publicly denounced a contentious security agreement signed by Beijing and the Solomon Islands in 2022.

Nanaia Mahuta, the former minister of foreign affairs, has also expressed concern about China’s use of economic coercion as a tool for foreign policy, particularly given that Beijing has imposed trade restrictions on neighboring Australia after Canberra demanded an international investigation into China’s possible role in Covid’s origin.

She praised New Zealand’s crucial role and robust security cooperation with Washington and Canberra, particularly in its and fellow Anglophone democracies ‘   Five Eyes intelligence-sharing relationship with fellow Anglophone democracies, but insisted on a more multilateralist approach that “includes dialogue, which ensures we build multilateral support for the things we advocate on that will protect our values and our interests.”

Under Luxon’s government, however, New Zealand has expressed growing openness to joining AUKUS, albeit on a more limited, calibrated basis than Australia. Due to its&nbsp, non- nuclear security policy rules, Wellington ca n’t get involved in any direct participation in the AUKUS nuclear- powered submarine project.

But it can, under AUKUS Pillar II, engage in the sharing of state- of- the- art defense technologies, especially in areas of cyber- warfare, artificial intelligence and hypersonic missile development. The Biden administration welcomed New Zealand to Pillar II of AUKUS last year, which immediately sounded the alarm in China. &nbsp,

China has expressed” strong concerns” about any potential New Zealand involvement in AUKUS, claiming that Wellington’s current non-nuclear policy would only serve and support nuclear-related military cooperation under the second pillar and that the initiative is an aggressive US-led alliance aimed at containing China. &nbsp,

The current government may face a difficult sell, in terms of domestic politics, in attributing this largely to China, according to the New Zealand expert Robert Patman.

Critics point out that China’s assertiveness is just one of the many threats facing the multilateral system, which New Zealand and many other small and middle powers rely on, aside from the potential economic consequences of such a move, Patman said.

However, other security experts in New Zealand, like Sakura Gregory&nbsp, think working with AUKUS is in line with the country’s foreign policy because it does n’t involve the development of nuclear weapons.

It’s” about recognizing and sharing the burden” that would have to be done to better deter Chinese military development and potential escalation, which has largely gone unchecked in the Pacific over the past few decades,” Gregory said. &nbsp,

The Luxon government has tried to strike a balance by maintaining a degree of strategic ambiguity while focusing on purely bilateral concerns during Premier Li’s visit while facing criticism from the opposition for AUKUS-related criticism. &nbsp,

” We canvassed AUKUS and they raised their concerns. And, as you know, we raised a number of issues and differing viewpoints, Luxon said, underscoring the need for firm economic relations with China and robust economic engagement.

Follow Richard Javad Heydarian on X at @Richeydarian

Continue Reading

Vladimir Putin appears to have won the far-right election in the most current European Parliament elections. The Kremlin is now gaining more support from all over Europe because it no longer wants to have power over former Soviet Union people.

The far-right Alternative for Germany ( AfD )’s decision to not attend Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech to the German Bundestag on June 11 along with the populist Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht, is a significant example of the pro-Russia movement. ( Bündnis means alliance and Sahra Wagenknecht is the name of that party’s leader. ) Both functions oppose providing military aid to Ukraine.

The AfD, which with 16 % of the voting beat Olaf Schulz’s Social Democrats party to take second place in Germany, said that Ukraine’s head needed to “negotiate so the dead stops” even if this meant losing its place. These notes echo Putin’s position on the battle.

Two far-right organizations, the German Conservatives and Reformists and the Personality and Democracy party, then control 131 votes out of 720 in the room following the recent election. AfD has another 15 members. This creates a major far-right political center, which will have greater impact over Europe’s position on the Ukraine conflict.

A European Parliament resolution from April requiring the AfD to formally declare all of its economic relationships, mainly with Russia, was raised by concerns about European far-right parties ‘ closeness to Putin.

One might assume that the alliance between a reputedly anti-Fascist Soviet regime and the increasingly fascist right-wing parties in Europe would not be ideal. However, whether or not they are in favor of Moscow, Russia inspires, encourages, and money fundamentalist actors. Why? Because they can disrupt different locations.

Considerably- right threats

Putin has skillfully influenced and infiltrated far-right goals while also developing an extensive detective community in Europe. Propaganda procedures that masquerade as genuine media outlets have spread perplexing and divisive information that supports pro-Kremlin narratives, such as the claim that Russian energy products are being impacted by sanctions on their products.

It’s not just Germany’s much straight that is friendly to Russia. But are far- proper parties in many other Western countries including Slovakia’s nova- fascist Republika, Hungary’s Fidesz party, Romania’s Alliance for the Union of Romanians Party, Bulgaria’s Revival party, and France’s Rassemblement National party. In the current Western Parliamentary elections, all of these functions performed well, and many of the party‘s officials, including Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, have vocally opposed Russian punishment.

Far-right Members have demonstrated a pro-Russia voting record in addition to growing criticism to Russian punishment. Some far-right members of the European Parliament have abstained from casting ballots on measures that target to punish or condemn Putin or Russia.

This includes positions on how to answer to Russian suppression, the detention of Alexei Navalny and Vladimir Kara-murza, as well as Russian support for terrorism. The Eastern Partnership program, which aims to strengthen the political-economic connection between the EU and its partner countries in the south Caucasus, also addresses the safety topic.

Putin has a number of advantages from exploiting the far-right in Europe. These events have a tendency to reject the institutions of politics, especially if they are perceived as barriers to passing conventional laws like tougher immigration laws or restricting LGBTQ rights.

The strong legal world and the free flow of information threaten Putin’s hold on power. However, Russia uses policies and laws to weaken these right. These include laws limiting financing for NGOs and impartial press from foreign agents. For laws have passed in Russia, Hungary, and most just Georgia.

The less likely it is for political voices in Russia to be supported by other countries the more totalitarian the world is.

Putin’s issues are not limited to political nations, but even inter-governmental organizations like the EU, which support a human rights and democracy plan. Putin sees a united EU as a threat as opposed to Moscow’s reactionary agenda. So he tries to destroy the east by stifling EU political projects.

Putin also gains from the turmoil he causes in the political landscapes of various European countries. This could result in a less cohesive NATO. The alliance has the authority to increase the supply of weapons to Ukraine, which is already a significant impediment to Russia’s ambitions.

New world order

Far-right events find Russia’s conflict with the world purchase that the West established at the end of the Cold War to be of interest. They often talk of “globalist” causes, which they view as threatening to their national independence and cultural identity. The way straight views Putin as a capable, independent leader who can stand up for his beliefs against the democratic West, which tries to undermine those beliefs.

Russia’s proceed to become more proper wing, authoritarian and pro- western has served as an anti- democratic role model. The extreme right also seems to support Putin’s position on” traditional” family values, which typically include having children with women and men in leadership positions.

Putin will be pleased to see that these friends have gained more energy and performed well in recent elections, which is only going to help him. In the 1980s, far-right parties received only 1 % of the vote in EU member states, but this percentage increased to 10 % in the 2010s. They are now poised to have greater social influence than they have ever been.

However, the far right, one of Europe’s most divided social parties, has its differences. Giorgia Meloni, the prime minister of Italy, has no endorsed the sanctions against Russia, for example. This contrasts with France’s deep- right head, Marine Le Pen, who has had personal and political relations with Putin, and is against preparing Ukraine.

The influence of these far-right parties on the future years may have significant effects on Western democracy and security. The huge problems facing Europe are being demonstrated by the fall of the far right, which is also proof of Russia’s skills in emotional and information warfare as well as the real anxiety producing over cost of living and identity issues.

Natasha Lindstaedt is a professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex.

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

Germany must find its place in a multipolar world, argues German conservative leader

Maximilian Krah was the Alternative for Germany’s lead candidate for European Parliament, and is one of the most controversial and charismatic personalities in German politics. The AfD took 16% of German votes in the June 9 election, more than any party in Germany’s present governing coalition, and is expected to poll first in three state elections in September. Born in 1977, Krah left the Christian Democrats in 2016 and was first elected to the European Parliament in 2019. He spoke to Asia Times Editor Uwe Parpart and Deputy Editor David Goldman on June 13. Below is a lightly edited transcript of their discussion.

Q: Maximilian Krah, that was a significant victory – an earthquake, even. It has set off and continues to set off shockwaves. How did it happen? Specifically, what did German voters, your voters, vote for and against?

A: The game changer was the young people. The youngsters made the difference. We saw a 12% increase among voters younger than 24.

The left allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, thinking they would support leftist candidates. However, within that group, aged 16 to 24, we gained 12%. We are now the strongest political force among the under-24 demographic, with a total of 17%.

This is the game changer because it shows that the future is ours, provided we don’t make mistakes again. We could have done much better if we had adopted more of Donald Trump’s style. During the campaign, I was a victim of some intelligence attacks.

Unfortunately, my party decided to hide me for some weeks, limiting my campaign efforts to TikTok and the internet, focusing on young voters. The gain among young voters was substantial enough to overcome the losses among older voters.

So, the message from Germany is that young Germany is moving to the right wing. It’s a big win and brings hope.

The other message is that we must learn to handle such strong attacks, which were orchestrated by intelligence agencies.

Q: In May, you gave an interview to the Swiss magazine Weltwoche titled “Germany must be a power for peace.” Was the issue of peace particularly important to young voters and the electorate as a whole?

A: First of all, I think peace is the major issue for European politics in the next five years. Why? Because America will gradually withdraw from the Ukraine conflict.

Looking at the world map, we have three centers of conflict: Ukraine, the Middle East, and Taiwan. America alone cannot win a war in all three locations.

It is clear that the war in Ukraine must be supported by European money. The decision has to pass the European Parliament when it comes to new money for Ukraine, new weapons and funding military support. So, in European elections, we decide on the continuation of the war in Ukraine for the next few years.

Obviously, this is a global issue. This is why intelligence services from all over the world were so interested in and active in influencing this campaign. Among young voters, the questions are much more fundamental.

When you are a young person today, you know that the experiences your teachers and parents tell you won’t prepare you for the future. Young people don’t know what the future holds, and they aren’t even taught what it means to be human.

They doubt their gender identity – whether they are male, female or something else. We have a generation of young people who are insecure about themselves but know they face a future that will transform everything around them. Young people demand fundamental answers because they know that life ahead will challenge them, and they feel unprepared for that challenge.

And, of course, war is a fundamental and crucial issue because it concerns life and death. In war, you can die, so young people are very open to fundamental issues.

Q: Does the AfD have a vision of what peace would look like? Eventually, this war will end, as all wars do. What comes after it?

A: The AfD has faced challenges during the campaign because we anticipated attacks but didn’t know they would be so severe. Unfortunately, we weren’t prepared for the intensity of these attacks.

It’s hard to say if the AfD has a cohesive vision, but I can share my own vision. For a peace deal, everyone knows the basic idea.

We could take the current front line and establish it as the new border for the next five years. After that, hold a plebiscite in the Russian-occupied areas to determine if they want to belong to Russia or Ukraine. It’s highly probable that they would choose Russia.

However, the war in Ukraine is about more than Ukraine; it’s about the global world order. If Russia doesn’t lose completely and even gains compared with the status quo ante, the current Western-led global order ends. Thus, the West cannot accept such a peace deal.

The conversation is about prolonging the war, supplying more ammunition, more weapons, and trying to prevent Ukraine from losing. Any end to the war would signify the end of Western global dominance.

This is why the elites in Brussels and Washington DC are committed to continuing the war and preventing any peace initiative.

When I spoke to Weltwoche, I emphasized that Germany should be a “Macht für den Frieden” (a power for peace). But Germany today is not a power at all; it is more like a weasel. There is no independent German policy thinking. When Donald Trump was president, all of Brussels and Berlin called for strategic autonomy. When Joe Biden came back to lead the world, everyone was happy because the political elites lacked the intellectual capacity for independent foreign policy.

To understand European policies, just look to Washington, DC. The fight we face is to save Western global dominance, which means American global dominance.

My vision is for Germany to understand it is the loser in this war and seek support from other European countries for an independent foreign policy. Many smaller European countries, like Hungary and Bulgaria, understand this, and even the Netherlands. But as long as Germany is the front-runner in a policy that harms itself the most, there will be no change.

Q: Let’s say in a few years, the AfD holds the foreign ministry. You are the foreign minister with a mandate for an independent foreign policy. The old order is in ruins. What kind of new order would you like to bring about? What is your vision for what should replace the existing circumstances?

A: The vision is to accept that there are different understandings of a perfect order.

Let the Chinese be Chinese, the Indians be Indian, the Africans be African and the Europeans be European. We must abandon the idea that the whole world must follow the same political and legal culture. Asia has its traditions, and they should govern themselves accordingly. The same goes for the Islamic world. Let Muslims follow their own order without trying to impose Western values on them.

So, the first step is to accept that major regions in the world should govern themselves by their own ideas of political and legal order. Then, foreign policy should be based on mutual interests.

The problem today is that the West believes its values are universal and enforces them through military and economic sanctions. Instead, I propose that Asians follow Asian rules, Muslims follow Muslim rules and Africans follow African rules while we start diplomacy based on mutual interests.

This idea aligns with Carl Schmitt’s concept of Großraumordnung (large area order) rather than Immanuel Kant’s idea of a universal global order. I align with Schmitt’s perspective, not Kant’s.

Q: But let’s discuss how to get from here to there. The AfD has the voter strength of a mass party but still has the profile of a protest movement, an Aktionsgruppe. What will take the AfD from its present status as a perceived protest movement to a party that can govern or participate in governing Europe’s most powerful country?

A: The polls now tell a different story. People were asked why they voted for the AfD—was it because of the program or as a protest? Now, 55% say they vote for what we stand for. This shift is a significant success of mine.

I advocate an idea, a vision. I stand for a vision, not just opposition to the government. Maybe we could have gained even more support by campaigning solely against the government. But I said, “If you vote for me, you vote for a vision.” We need to accept that having a positive 16% in favor of something is better than 18% against something.

We must make it clear that there is an alternative in political thinking. The liberal era is ending. The Global South is rising, bringing traditional thinking back. We should rediscover our own Western traditional thinking.

Let’s advocate for a positive political vision instead of merely opposing the current system. This approach will gradually strengthen our position.

As we grow stronger, there will be an incentive for the Christian Democrats to find an agreement with us. In September, we have regional elections in three eastern German states—Saxony, Thuringia, and Brandenburg. We will be the strongest force in all three states.

The Christian Democrats can either join with us to form a government or align with the Greens and Socialists to form a left-wing government. If a conservative liberal has to choose between partnering with leftists or with us, their first choice would be us. However, the national party leadership currently prevents them from doing so.

I hope that eventually the Christian Democrats in eastern Germany will stop following their national party leadership and choose to collaborate with us. This is our path to power: the Christian Democrats facing internal trouble and their eastern branches seeking agreements with us.

Q: Looking at the results of the June 9 elections, the AfD is the dominant party in these three states, especially in Saxony. If things continue this way, you might be able to form a government with a smaller party as early as September. You might not even need the CDU. The left-nationalist party of Ms Wagenknecht – BSW [Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht] – also made significant gains. Do you see the possibility of forming a government in Saxony or Thuringia with the BSW, despite some differences?

A: This is the crucial question. I would love to see that. However, while Ms Wagenknecht is at the top of her party, her regional colleagues are still very much socialist in a negative way.

Wagenknecht comes from a traditional Marxist school, the old East Germans; she combines a very classical Marxist education in philosophy with a PhD in economics.

There are a lot of issues on which we agree. She understands economics, which sets her apart from the other socialists, and opposes woke ideologies.

But she isn’t alone. Her local staff are of lower quality, and less forward-looking than she is. We don’t even know who are the key people in the Wagenknecht party in Saxony.

Unfortunately, Ms Wagenknecht has already made an offer to the Christian Democrats, which suggests that she is applying for membership in the establishment. In Thuringia, though, the Christian Democrats won’t have enough votes to form a coalition with Wagenknecht. So Thuringia will become the laboratory of German politics. It’s likely we will have more success collaborating with disillusioned CDU voters in East Germany than with the Wagenknecht party.

Q: What about the the Social Democratic Party? We are seeing something of a rebellion among the SPD against Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his Green coalition partners. SPD leaders from the east have suggested collaborating with the AfD. Is there any chance of that happening?

A: No, I don’t see that happening. The SPD has become too much of an ideological party. Traditionally, the Social Democrats were for the working class and social justice, with values of family and tradition. The SPD has long since left that behind. They became a party of ideological projects – climate change, energy transformation, feminism, and LGBTQ+ issues. They have lost touch with traditional social democratic values. The SPD will not be our partner. Our path to power will be through the CDU or forming our own government.

Q: In the English language press, this is portrayed as a European move to the right in European Parliament elections. To what extent do you see a European trend? And to what extent is this something specifically German? 

A: The problem is that the European right is divided. We have a move to the right. The strongest single group we have in the European election in the European Parliament now is the French Rassemblement National of Marine Le Pen. We agree with them, as long as you talk about migration, the cultural war, the stifling socialist bureaucracy, this climate nonsense, etc.

But the most important question is foreign policy. And unfortunately, the European right is completely divided. You have a part of the European right, which in my view is the majority, that has a Cold War thinking, which has more to do with the 1980s than with 2024. So for them, international politics is not about the shift of power from the Atlantic to the Global South, etc. They still believe in the old rhetoric of war between the free world against the world of darkness. They are deep state agents when it comes to foreign policy, even more sometimes than the Socialists.

We have a move to the right when it comes to questions of migration, etc, etc. But the front lines are completely different when it comes to foreign and global policy. And there we don’t have a shift to the right. Unfortunately.

Q: The United States likes to frame the global situation as a contest between the US and China. And the way many in the US look at Europe right now is that Europe has to make up its mind. Does Europe have to make that kind of a choice between America and China?

A: It seems to be a rather absurd proposition. I don’t think it’s a choice between America and China. And if there is only a choice between America and China, I would prefer America. The question is, do we have a choice between America and being more or less independent?

In the case of Germany, our economic model was based on getting cheap energy from Russia, using this energy to produce manufactured goods, and exporting them to the whole world, including China.

Now, in the brave new world that we find ourselves in, thanks to our American friends, we don’t get cheap energy from Russia anymore, because our pipelines were destroyed. So the prices of our manufactured goods are increasing, and they no longer are competitive. And we are not allowed to export to wherever we want, because of a global sanctions regime designed by the United States.

That means as a matter of economic necessity, we need to get back on good terms with the Russians, that we can import energy. And of course, we need open trade, because Germany is based on the manufacturing industry, and we produce more goods than we can use ourselves.

What we see today is the complete destruction of the German economy and the German manufacturing industry because of this new foreign policy approach of America. And I’m not willing to accept that. 

The whole Western or American empire is in decline. The decline of Western dominance or American dominance is not a matter of five years. It is a process with periods in which this decline is visible and quite rapid. And there will be times in which there’s a counter-strike, and American and Western power will increase for a short period. But in the long run, I’m convinced that the world of the future is a world of multipolarity, which is not run by Washington, DC, and Brussels anymore. The demographic and economic data are clear.

In 1913, one-third of the global population lived in Western Europe and North America. Now, it’s just one-sixth. And the age pyramid in the Western world is horrible. The same is true of global GDP. When I was born in the mid-1970s, almost three-quarters of the global GDP was produced in the G7 countries. Now, we are on the same level as the BRICS. We only dominate in terms of military power. But as Talleyrand said, you can’t sit on bayonets. 

Q: What would you expect from a second Trump presidency?

A: When we look back at the first Trump presidency, when it came to foreign policy, it was quite ambiguous. Trump did a lot of good things, ending the endless wars. But on the other hand, of course, Trump is an American president. And his big idea is America first. He also wants to save American international and global power, which is, of course, his duty as an American president.

Trump wants to reshape American global power. Trump will not be able to make everything reverse what happened during the Biden presidency. There is a long-term trend of decline of American global power. But you will see periods in which American global power is declining more quickly and some years of a reverse process. And I think that during a Trump presidency we will see that, in an overall perspective, American global power will increase. 

Q: Look into Germany’s economic future, as you described the problems before. China, in the past four years, has more or less doubled its exports to the Global South. Is there much thinking in Germany about Germany’s future in the Global South and how to adapt to a world where the Global South is a major contributor to growth?

A: No, there is no thinking at all in Germany. It would even be flattering to describe our political elite as mediocre. I truly believe that the biggest fear of our political elite is the state of the climate in 100 years. And when it comes to foreign policy, and especially trade policy, they don’t question what it means for German GDP. They are driven by the idea that they have to serve a kind of global moral imperative.

The country is in the hands of idiots, of people with no understanding of economic development. We are not just bystanders when our industry gets ruined. We spend money to destroy our export industry. There is no understanding at all of the changes in the world and the competition with China.

The German elites follow phantom debates, which are focused on climate, on moral issues, on human rights – but are not focused on economic growth, on our share of international trade, on our influence in economic relations. 

Q: Despite charges that have come from the left-wing press regarding alleged temporizing about the Nazi period we do observe, simply from reading websites in the press, that the most pro-Israel party in Germany is without doubt the AfD. And I was wondering if you could elaborate on that a bit, on the AfD’s attitude towards Israel and what that means for the AfD.

A: I mean, first of all, what is the accusation against me? I know you know that during World War II there was a kind of a second army. There was the official German army, the Wehrmacht. And then there was a second army, which was the Waffen-SS, which at the end had 900,000 soldiers. And of course, this clearly was a Nazi army. This was not a transformed traditional army. This was a newly built Nazi army.

But you also had 16- and 17-year-old people who were conscripted into this Nazi army, and they had to fight with their rifles and their tanks. And I was asked whether I would think that everyone who was in this second army was a criminal. And I said no. I think there was a high percentage who committed war crimes. But once again, even in that case, you have to look for individual guilt and you have to make personal claims.

This is, by the way, what even the Allied forces did after World War II. They always looked at whether there was an individual crime or not, but they never punished people just for being a member of the second army.

Unfortunately, the awareness of historical facts and the understanding of basic concepts of guilt and crime is, meanwhile, so low in Germany that what I said was completely misunderstood and misinterpreted. Now you can say it would have been better if I had not answered the question, or you could say I should start to inform people more and more.

When it comes to Israel, it’s quite clear that we are the only party to understand that Israel is a project that is culturally European, so that this country in some way belongs to us Europeans, because of its culture, its history, and our collective belonging to each other.

But when you are a fierce liberal, then there is no such thing as culture or history. Then there is only the individual and mankind. And the only thing you consider is individual human rights. And if you try to understand politics and history only through the lens of individual human rights, you usually will come to the wrong results.

I feel a lot of sympathy for and solidarity with Israel. When you have this approach, you will never arrive at an anti-Israeli stance. Nonetheless, I also have the privilege from time to time to criticize Israeli politics, because I don’t want to have these two million inhabitants of Gaza in Europe. 

Q: One thing that struck us is that the AfD leader, Alice Weidel, said, “We are the Arbeiterpartei, the party of the workers.” And that may be a bit of a stretch, but it is in fact the case that the AFD in these last elections appealed almost to the same extent to what the good old Marxists called the working class. What is your thinking?

A: The AfD issued its basic manifesto in 2015, almost 10 years ago, and the world has changed tremendously. For me personally, the time to talk only about redistribution of wealth is over. We have to talk about how to create wealth. And now I am comfortable with our self-description as a workers’ party.

The problem in Germany is that one-third of the GDP is redistributed. It’s a huge socialist machine that takes money from the economy and gives the money mostly to immigrants. That’s a big magnet for immigration.

I feel a lot of compassion for people who work hard and have almost nothing at the end of the month. After-tax wages in Germany are shamefully low. But I think that the way to increase the living standard of the middle class is not to increase redistribution, but to reduce redistribution. They should keep more of what they earn, and that means less in taxes and less in deductions for the social security system.

In my mind, to be the advocate of the middle class, of the ordinary people, of the single mom who works in a grocery store as a cashier, is not to increase redistribution and follow a socialist agenda but to keep more of their income in their pocket.

My approach is more market economy, but a market economy that serves the single mom who works in a grocery store as a cashier rather than serving Goldman Sachs – a market economy for the middle class, for the small and mid-size businesses, instead of a market economy for the global conglomerates.

Continue Reading