In an interview with ntv.de, Juso chairwoman Jessica Rosenthal looks back on the historic Bundestag session on the anniversary of Olaf Scholz's speech about the turn of the era. While Rosenthal supports the delivery of weapons, she criticizes the special fund for the Bundeswehr - and warns the FDP against overturning basic child security.
ntv.de: A year ago - on Sunday, February 27th - Olaf Scholz gave his speech on the turning of the era in the Bundestag. We met immediately afterwards in the queue at the Bundestag bistro. They looked shocked. How do you remember the speech?
Jessica Rosenthal: I will always remember this unique special session of the Bundestag, as well as February 24th. I was shocked by the aggression, by the suffering; that Putin is ready to take this step. I always found the decision to supply weapons, which Olaf Scholz made very quickly, to be courageous and the right one. That is gladly dismissed, especially by the Union. But that was a necessary but deep turning point in German post-war history. From the outside, the Jusos and I as chairman were expected to criticize the deliveries. Not at all: We were among the first in the SPD to welcome it. This is imperialist aggression against which the Ukrainian people must be able to defend themselves. Of course, you also need weapons for that.
In his speech, the chancellor cleared left-wing SPD positions in passing. Germany should implement NATO's two percent target of purchasing armed drones and F-35 fighter bombers for nuclear participation. The union cheered. And you?
The announcement of the 100 billion special debts shocked me. Not because more money for the military would trigger defensive reflexes in me as a left-wing politician, that's not the point. I was shocked because that is an immensely high sum that was not preceded by any strategic debates about how we want to further develop the Bundeswehr. In addition, the so-called special fund is an expression of an extremely narrow concept of security that only refers to the military. I already had this criticism at the moment of the announcement, I formulated it clearly afterwards and therefore voted against the special fund.
Do you see the lack of concept behind the special fund, which you criticized, as the reason why the upgrading of the Bundeswehr has hardly progressed a whole year after the speech about the turning point?
Yes, there is a connection. Defense politicians and members of the Bundeswehr may say that the needs are obvious. This applies to areas in which one has lived off the substance for too long. As a member of the Bundestag, I find it embarrassing that the members of our parliamentary army have to buy equipment with their own money, such as sensible backpacks. It goes without saying that we have to invest there. This does not require concept papers, but a more efficient procurement system. But when it comes to weapon systems, I would like to know: What division of tasks and synergy effects are planned in NATO and the EU? In what war scenarios are we planning? How does our country relate to the armaments industry?
From your point of view, was the beginning of the war simply a window of opportunity to implement weapon systems that the left-wing SPD and Greens had previously prevented?
The demand for joint concepts with our alliance partners is aimed at fundamental questions and goes beyond a simple "combat drones: yes or no?" out. The Jusos and I want better equipment for the soldiers. But we ask the question about the idea behind the expenses. And of course we ask how much automation do we want as a society at war? If some no longer even see the need for debates about moral and strategic implications, I think that is blatantly wrong. As an education politician, I have never experienced simply providing funds and then seeing what we can buy with them.
Does a certain enthusiasm about the just war that Germany supports in Ukraine narrow the space for debate?
I don't see that across the board, also based on the mood in the polls. But when colleagues in the Bundestag tweet leopard emojis, I find such a trivialization of weapons and war extremely wrong.
These emojis are also sent by politicians who see themselves as left-wing. Has this war changed what is left politically?
I can only answer that for the Jusos. We asked ourselves many critical questions. For example, what does anti-militarism mean in times of war? That, by the way, is something different from pacifism. As Jusos we know that fascism would never have been defeated if the Allies had not liberated Europe by force of arms. So we are and never were pacifists, but still stand by anti-militarism. But what does that mean for your own political attitude if someone like Putin is willing to put up with so much suffering and for the person attacked it can only be a matter of defending yourself? Our decision at the Juso federal congress at the end of October therefore also contains self-criticism. As leftists, we have to take the Bundeswehr much more seriously and not leave it to the conservatives or even the extreme right, because the army serves an important purpose in a democracy when it matters most. I will continue to say clearly that there are right-wing extremist structures and enemies of the constitution in the Bundeswehr, and I will criticize this in the strongest possible terms. But as Jusos, we didn't do enough to hold discussions with the many young people in the Bundeswehr.
In the resolution, you call for criteria for future conflicts according to which Germany can deliver weapons to war zones. Doesn't this alone result in a new rearmament? In an emergency, you have to have the weapons in stock, as we are now painfully realizing.
Germany is already among the five largest arms exporters in the world, so the arms industry is there. The question is under what conditions it operates. We consider it necessary to nationalize the arms industry in order to remove it from the logic of capitalist exploitation and profit interests. Under the impact of the war in Ukraine, the armaments industry has taken on a completely different meaning. But before that, armaments were sold all over the world and caused death and suffering there, for which industry is also indirectly responsible because it wanted to make money. So it's about the conditions under which weapons are produced. There is no question that we currently need to expand production capacities in the armaments industry. In the long term, however, we urgently need the perspective of disarmament again. After all, there had been huge successes in the past, otherwise I would not have been able to grow up peacefully for large periods of my life.
State arms companies dominate in Russia and China, two other global arms exporters. It doesn't make the world any more peaceful.
The question is whether you want to equate these two state systems with Germany. I think that's a misleading comparison. We are an open democracy based on human rights. State action will and must follow completely different standards here.
The Juso resolution also calls for a new direction in foreign and security policy, a departure from what the Juso call Eurocentrism and Western centrism. In view of the travel activities of the traffic light ministers, especially to Asia and South America, do you see this already being initiated?
I have the clear impression that Olaf Scholz shares this perspective. In his Ash Wednesday speech, Markus Söder complained that Olaf would travel too much. You can't afford to have as much limited horizons as Mr. Söder these days. Encouraging support for Ukraine from other non-Western states is one of the top priorities if we are serious about our solidarity. This breaks with Putin's propaganda, which has been successful in some cases in spreading the narrative that the West is waging some kind of war against Russia. It seems to me that the most important thing is to make it clear that Germany is looking for cooperation based on partnership and does not want a bipolar world with the USA on the one hand and China and Russia on the other. Olaf is trying to do that, for example by inviting Indonesia and Senegal to the G7 summit. We can and must create a multipolar world order. That is the goal and vision of the SPD. However, it is also clear that a genuine break away from Eurocentrism and post-colonial structures requires far greater steps than simply promoting partnership. In optimistic terms, we are only at the very beginning.
The turning point also has tangible domestic political consequences. In the meantime, even significantly higher defense budgets than the two percent of the gross domestic product are being debated. Federal Finance Minister Lindner is open to this, but refers to empty coffers. Are socio-political projects such as basic child security in danger of falling under the wheels of the new rearmament?
The two percent target is a symbol that I find questionable in its sweeping nature. It's not about what is actually necessary. Other NATO countries also include components such as cyber security and civil protection. And if we are serious about wanting to create security in the world, then that also means that development cooperation is an essential component of a security architecture. Every $1 we put into crisis prevention saves us $16 that we have to put into post-conflict recovery. That is why just as much money must flow into development cooperation as into defence. This money helps us to prevent crises.
What is left for social and educational policy?
It's a question of political will, nothing else. I still find it extremely problematic that a party is taking overall responsibility for this country at this time and committing itself to party-political and ideological positions. We have a succession of crises, which for many - myself included - is sometimes hard to bear. But these crises are there, we didn't choose them. The debt brake provides for exceptions for such crises. Even if you don't want to abolish the debt brake like the Jusos do, you can constitutionally suspend it. And if you look at who in Europe has benefited from these crises, I don't think a one-off wealth levy comes from a left-wing dream world.
That means?
That means there are opportunities to finance other things. I will say very clearly: the basic child security is non-negotiable for me. It's a red line for me and for many in the SPD. And then I have to say that a finance minister is bound by the coalition agreement and I measure him against that. And I also judge the FDP according to the extent to which it assumes responsibility for the country during this time.
SPD General Secretary Kevin Kühnert said on ntv's "early start" that the Social Democrats were ready to talk about expanding budgetary leeway. The SPD would have the Greens on its side. Why so hesitant towards the smallest coalition partner?
In a three-party coalition, everyone has to agree. But I see it the same way: From my point of view, the SPD must push this through together with others. It's not just about basic child security. The security and educational opportunities of children are just as much a question of resilience as the necessary investments. We are thus strengthening our society for the future. And I believe that the FDP is also firmly convinced that we must continue to enable the ecological transformation. The financial scope for this is available.
There is great skepticism in parts of the population about the Ukraine policy and the armament, while inflation hits low incomes in particular with full force and a large number of refugees find inadequate infrastructure such as poorly equipped schools. What follows from this simultaneity?
Inflation means a drop in real wages for many, many people. And that is exactly the point, which is why I am firmly convinced that the SPD must not and cannot make any compromises on these issues. Probably no government has done so much for people who earn less than 2000 euros gross as the traffic light. The respect we promised during the election campaign was not a slogan. We have fought and implemented things for our people who have a small or medium income. But as an education politician, I also say: If we write everywhere that our children are the treasure of the future, but never back it up with the fact that we implement the concepts against child poverty, nobody will believe us anymore. The basic child security is therefore not a theoretical question, but it is acute and it must be a red line of the SPD.
In the last federal election, the SPD won numerous direct mandates in the new federal states with Juso candidates. In the East, a particularly large number of voices are calling for a quick ceasefire and criticizing the traffic light policy as anti-social because of inflation. Is the SPD high in the east history again?
I have great respect for my colleagues who keep opposing demonstrations and explaining why international law applies and why Ukraine has to defend itself. For the people in the East, it was worth voting for the SPD, for example because the increase in the minimum wage to 12 euros means a real wage increase for a particularly large number of people here. Of course, especially at this time with massively high prices, 12 euros are still too little and, above all, the collective bargaining agreements should be much higher. Basic child security will also help people on low incomes. The 49-euro ticket is also a real relief. It remains our task to keep earning the trust of the people - also in the East.
Sebastian Huld spoke to Jessica Rosenthal
