BSW: These are our demands, we will not bow down

Interview with Sevim Dagdelen in the Berliner Zeitung | September 8, 2024.

Sevim Dagdelen, foreign policy spokesperson for the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, on the demands for forming a government and the party’s considerable leverage.

By Michael Maier

Sevim Dagdelen is the foreign policy mastermind of the new Wagenknecht party. We spoke on the phone with the member of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee and asked her to outline the BSW’s demands regarding Germany’s Ukraine and Russia policy. It turns out that the party is unwavering when it comes to supporting peace and rejecting US missiles in Germany.

The problem facing the CDU in forming a government in Saxony and Thuringia: if it does not allow the BSW into government, the Wagenknecht party can push through its demands while in opposition. To do this requires only a smart – and democratically completely legitimate – interplay with the AfD. The BSW is clearly resolved to act given the urgency of the peace issue.

Berliner Zeitung: What is the BSW’s foreign policy position with regard to Russia’s war in Ukraine?

Sevim Dagdelen: The Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) is committed to peace and diplomacy. We demand a stop to arms deliveries and a start of peace negotiations. Every effort must be made to end the terrible suffering and death in Ukraine. Instead of backing a senseless war of attrition by supplying Kiev with a constant stream of new weapons, the German government should make Russia an offer of negotiation: a halt to arms deliveries in return for a ceasefire and talks. Putin has just reaffirmed his willingness to negotiate in Vladivostok. This should be taken seriously and not, as is so often the case, dismissed out of hand. We must avert the enormous danger posed by the war spreading to the whole of Europe and potentially the world.

That scenario is a major cause for alarm throughout the population. 68 percent of the citizenry favours peace negotiations. Neither the SPD-Green-FDP government’s foreign policy nor that of Merz’s CDU enjoys popular support. With regard to the discussions about Saxony and Thuringia, I’ll say this on behalf of the BSW: there must be no more business as usual. We want a coalition agreement to stipulate that the state government opposes further arms deliveries to Ukraine, supports more federal diplomatic efforts, and stands against the planned deployment of US missiles in Germany. A decisive reversal is needed here. For us, this is of fundamental importance. A new survey shows that more than two-thirds of Eastern Germans reject the deployment of US missiles. People see the immense danger for Germany, that it would become a battlefield in the event of nuclear conflict. It’s a matter of democratic principle that the interests of the popular majority do not continue to be ignored.

What do you say to the argument that foreign policy is a federal matter, so the states should have no say in it?

Those who claim that the states have no say in foreign policy either do not understand our constitution, or make this argument solely to block all peace initiatives undertaken by the Bundesrat from the outset. And I’m not just referring to the states‘ own 130 diplomatic missions and offices; the Bundesrat has its own foreign policy committee – it recently dealt with a resolution on German-Polish relations. What should prevent it from dealing with German-Ukrainian relations as they pertain to arms deliveries, or with German-American relations in light of US missile deployments? The federal government is neglecting entirely all efforts to achieve peace here. The states shouldn’t just stand by and watch this happen.

It would also be possible for the states to take the initiative and call for a nationwide referendum on US missile deployments, as the prime minister of Saxony has already proposed.

Does the involvement of the states stem from the fact that this issue not only concerns offices in Berlin, but also directly affects the living conditions of people in the states themselves?

The population should be involved in the existential question of war and peace. In the event of war, everyone is affected; no distinction can be drawn between the Chancellery, the Foreign Office, and targets in Thuringia, Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate or North Rhine-Westphalia. And that’s why state governments should speak out and take a position on these fundamental matters. There was no debate at all in the run-up to this decision. Olaf Scholz behaved like a vassal when he signed the so-called ‚joint statement‘ sent to him by the US government. We all – members of the Bundestag and the public alike – learned of his grovelling from the newspapers. But this concerns the core of Germany’s democratic sovereignty. The decision on the deployment of these US missiles would not be made by the German, but rather the US government. The German population must be consulted in such an important matter. In the Bundestag, we, the BSW, have therefore called on the federal government to organize a referendum on the missile deployment within six months, or at the latest in conjunction with the [2025] federal elections.

Will a general statement suffice?

It’s quite evident that a coalition agreement will require a clear message of peace, in line with the wishes of the vast majority. Anything else would amount to contempt for the voters.

So it has to be specific then?

Yes. We’re not the CDU’s reservoir for wielding power. For us, it’s crucial that a state government actually makes policies in the interests of the majority of the population. The CDU must also understand that a government with us, the BSW, must bring tangible changes for people. Otherwise, such a government would be nothing more than a stimulus programme for the AfD.

Is it conceivable that Saxony or Thuringia could demand an end to the sanctions?

It would be sensible. The German economy is currently in a dire state. Reasons for this development include the billions transferred to Ukraine, the arms build-up, and a disastrous energy policy – not to mention the self-destructive economic war waged against Russia. It’s in the interests of millions of employees and those companies suffering most from this economic warfare to end the madness. In other parties, too, there is mounting criticism of this self-inflicted damage.

At the state level, you could open up your own channels of communication, for example in civil society or in academia. Would that be an option?

I am in favour of having good neighbourly relations with all European countries, and Russia is a European country. We condemn Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, which violates international law. However, we are also aware of the historical background, and the problem posed by NATO’s eastward expansion, contrary to its assurances and commitments.

It’s extremely unwise to burn bridges. We have the impression that the geopolitical aim of deploying US missiles is to damage German-Russian relations permanently, even once the war in Ukraine ends. This explains why the chancellor lied when he claimed that Russia, not Donald Trump, had terminated the INF Treaty unilaterally. But Willy Brandt didn’t embark on his policy of détente from a comfortable situation either. That ought to be a model. It’s vitally important to have more courage on this front.

Given the current military situation in Ukraine, namely the rapid Russian advance, do you think it would be in Ukraine’s interest to end the war soon?

It’s terrible to see more and more people die as ever more weapons are delivered. It would be much better to support the efforts of China, Brazil or even the Vatican, or to take the initiative ourselves. It’s essential to recognize that Russia cannot be defeated by conventional means, and that therefore the senseless killing and destruction must stop. It’s time for diplomacy.

Where could states take action internationally?

The Bundesrat is represented in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and participates in the EU’s Inter-Parliamentary Conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). But if we look at the reality of the Federal Republic, we see that even at the state level, there are attempts to keep from government those parties critical of NATO, or those unwilling to bow subserviently to every decision made in Washington. The weekly newspaper Die Zeit, for example, is calling for a ‚yes‘ to further Western integration, where assent to stationing US missiles in Germany is to be made a condition for joining the government. There won’t be any such genuflection from the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance.

Leading CDU politicians have called Wagenknecht Putin’s chief propagandist and the ‚Hitler-Stalin Pact incarnate‘. How can one actually expect to be able to discuss anything together, let alone govern?

The CDU is currently doing everything it can to make a joint government with the BSW impossible. The leading Eastern German CDU politicians have been trying for weeks to drive a wedge between the federal board of the BSW and Sahra Wagenknecht, along with the BSW’s state associations. The attacks and abuse levelled against Sahra Wagenknecht by the CDU and CSU are indecent and poison the atmosphere.

Arithmetically, could the BSW and AfD push through a Bundesrat initiative for peace even without the CDU?

Let’s wait and see if the CDU is prepared to work together fairly. The BSW will not make the tabling of motions in parliaments dependent on those who may ultimately vote for them. In the run-up to the state elections, the prime ministers of Saxony and Brandenburg, Michael Kretschmer and Matthias Woidke, and the top CDU candidate in Thuringia, Mario Voigt, backed peace negotiations. One hopes that they will remain supportive of peace negotiations after the state elections.

So if both the AfD and BSW are in opposition, is it possible that one of the other’s motions could be adopted?

Basically, we orient ourselves according to the matter at hand, and not by who is putting forward the motions. For us, if the AfD says the sky is blue, we won’t declare it to be green.

That gives you quite a bit of leverage over the CDU. You can say to them in coalition negotiations that if you don’t want it, we’ll go into opposition and push our policies through, motion by motion.

As I said, that depends on how the CDU continues to behave and whether they get back to an objective discussion. The risk of a nuclear war is greater today than it was during the Cold War. The US hypersonic missiles have no warning times and are capable of eliminating Russia’s command centres. It would be utterly irresponsible to allow such missiles to be stationed in Germany. Unfortunately, the risk of an accidental nuclear war is no longer a matter of alarmist exaggeration. That’s why we want Germany’s federal government to return to diplomacy. But, because we know its attitude, it’s now up to the states to appeal to reason. This is what the BSW is advocating in Thuringia and Saxony.

In Thuringia, Bodo Ramelow has offered to work with the Christian Democrats. What is the Left Party’s policy regarding peace?

Bodo Ramelow has so far always supported arms deliveries to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia. I would welcome it if he were to change his mind.

Source: Berliner Zeitung