The chancellor is the first western head of government to travel to Beijing in years - shortly after head of state Xi had himself proclaimed the most powerful ruler, Mao Zedong. This caused criticism and the Greens are also irritated after the dispute over China's participation in the port of Hamburg: In an interview with ntv.de, the Greens parliamentary group leader Katharina Dröge urges the Chancellor to take a different, more decisive stance towards China. "Olaf Scholz has to go into conflict with Beijing," she says, and explains why she still thinks it's wrong for the Chinese state-owned company Cosco to enter Hamburg.
ntv.de: Ms. Dröge, the Chancellor is flying to Beijing for a state visit. What kind of country is this China he is visiting: a partner, a rival or an opponent of Germany?
Katharina Dröge: The situation in China has deteriorated massively in recent years. This applies above all to human rights and civil liberties. In addition, China is pursuing an increasingly aggressive foreign trade policy. That is why, in our view, a reassessment of German China policy is needed. We must become independent of China in sensitive areas. All of Europe needs more strategic sovereignty. We Greens expect a robust attitude and clear words from the chancellor on his trip.
The chancellor is the first head of government of a major western country to travel to China since the beginning of the corona pandemic. In his luggage he has the freshly approved partial sale of a terminal in the port of Hamburg to the Chinese group Cosco. Is this trip a gesture of submission to President Xi Jinping?
You have to keep talking to China. That remains important. But the chancellor must not pay the Chinese leadership a courtesy call and only talk about economic projects. Olaf Scholz has to go into conflict with Beijing. Clear words are needed, especially with regard to human rights in China, and also on economic policy issues. In the coalition agreement, we agreed on greater strategic sovereignty for Germany and the EU over China.
Do you expect these clear words from the chancellor on the open stage? Or is it enough to be clear behind closed doors, as Angela Merkel preferred?
So first of all: Ms. Merkel has fundamentally failed to speak plainly to China too often, even behind closed doors. Confidential discussions are of course important. However, our policy as the Greens is to formulate important demands publicly. This is crucial in the dispute with China.
The federal government is currently working on its new China strategy. Are you worried that Scholz will create facts with this visit before the whole federal government has set its course?
no There are key elements of our China policy that we have already agreed on. They must be the focus of this journey. It is crucial that our China policy takes place within the framework of a joint EU-China policy. The principle is important here: There is no separation between human rights and business. That is why we support a European supply chain law. The EU Commission is also working on an import ban for products made from forced labor. Both together result in a clear message to China that we do not accept the way the Uyghurs in Xinjiang Province are treated.
And how do you want to prevent China from having more and more influence on German and European companies?
There is no fair competition with China. And China uses economic dependencies to exert political pressure. While Chinese companies often have free access to European markets, European companies do not have the same form in China. Own companies are made big - also through government subsidies - until they can dominate global markets. There are numerous reforms at European level so that we can take better action against such behavior in the future. About state aid. Another example: the subsidized Chinese steel industry flooded the markets with cheap steel until our steel industry came under pressure. The EU takes action against such forms of dumping. Supporting this course is also part of German foreign trade policy.
Should the federal government, together with the EU Commission, proceed in such a confrontational manner, it could lead to revenge from Beijing. Wouldn't that have enormous disadvantages?
It's actually the other way around, with China's foreign trade policy taking little account of the interests of other countries. The Chinese government has made that clear often enough. If we just let Beijing carry on like this, it would be to our enormous disadvantage. That is why a robust and joint response from the EU is needed at this point.
Chancellor Scholz seems to feel less urge to distance himself from China. He pushed through the port deal in Hamburg against your resistance -- even though the federal government actually wanted to reduce dependencies on authoritarian states. Didn't Scholz understand the lessons to be learned from the Russia case?
From our point of view, it is extremely important to learn from the mistakes of the past. Our lesson is: we must never again become so dependent on a country that does not share our values. The problem with China is economically much bigger than that with Russia. We need tightened scrutiny, especially with regard to critical infrastructure. Against this background, I think the decision to go to the port of Hamburg was wrong.
But again: Do you understand why the chancellor is acting like this?
It has become apparent that the Chancellor does not share our perspective on China in this case. I don't find the argument that the sphere of influence of the Cosco group in Hamburg is so small that it can be controlled convincing. You have to look at the whole project: Cosco is not only involved in Hamburg, but also in a relevant number of other European ports. This networked power is a far bigger problem than the one investment alone.
If the sale is as devastating as you say, what do you intend to do to prevent such decisions from being made in the future?
We should further develop the foreign trade law. We need to better protect our critical infrastructure and key technologies. In doing so, we also need to look at how market power is networked and where companies are investing in supply chains across Europe. With these new legal regulations, questions such as in the case of the Port of Hamburg could be evaluated differently in the future.
If the Chancellor travels to Beijing now, he will meet Xi Jinping, who is probably the only head of government in the world who still has any influence on the Russian President. Does the chancellor have to make him responsible for convincing Putin to end the war in Ukraine?
Talks with China are very necessary on this issue. However, one should have realistic expectations. And I'm not very optimistic that China will play this role in the Ukraine issue.
So it's not in the interest of the Chinese government to end this war?
It's obvious that China is doing something else right now. China has not participated in the economic sanctions against Russia. They abstained from the UN resolutions condemning the Russian attack and the illegal annexations. There was just one joint appearance by Xi and Putin. True, China did not offensively support Russia's war against Ukraine. But China is a long way from the clarity that one would wish for.
Does Germany have to look a little past the critical conditions in China in order not to finally force the country to close ranks with Putin's Russia?
That's not how the Chinese government works. It does not define its position in the world primarily in terms of relations with Russia. China has formulated a claim to become the leading world power. We have to face this with self-confidence in order to protect our values and also the global rules of the game for fair business. That must be the guiding principle for the Chancellor's trip.
Philip Scupin and Sebastian Huld spoke to Kathrina Dröge
