DR. DIETMAR KÖSTER

Dr. Dietmar Koester is a Professor of Sociology and a member of the European Parliament representing Germany. He is affiliated with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and is a member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats in the European Parliament. Dr. Koester serves on multiple committees, including the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and the Subcommittee on Human Rights. He is also a member of the Delegation for Relations with Iran and the Delegation for Relations with the United States.

Question: How do you perceive the new security framework in Europe following the invasion? And what role does Germany play in the evolving transformation of the security paradigm?

Answer: Presently, the situation in Ukraine is extremely critical. We must provide Ukraine with financial support humanitarian aid as well as the necessary defensive weaponry. This support is crucial. However, the Ukrainian counteroffensive has not achieved its intended goal, resulting in a stalemate in the conflict. Essentially, we are witnessing a war of attrition where the front line remains stagnant, yet casualties continue to mount, posing a dire situation for Ukraine. Despite wishes for Ukrainian military success, the reality is far from it. Many military experts, including former US Defense Secretary Mark Milley, emphasized over a year ago that neither Ukraine nor Russia could win this war outright. Instead, they foresaw a tragic loss of life and urged for diplomatic negotiations. In hindsight, Mr. Milley's assessment appears accurate.

Given the current circumstances, recent discussions have underscored the urgent need to explore diplomatic avenues for resolution. While acknowledging the reluctance of both Russia and Ukraine to engage in sincere negotiations, it is imperative to devise a plan to end the conflict and pursue peace if military victory is unattainable, as repeatedly emphasized by Ukrainian authorities.

Q: In October 2023, you criticized the effectiveness of EU sanctions imposed on Russia, stating that while they may have weakened Russia's economy, they failed to achieve their primary objective of compelling Putin to cease hostilities. Do you have specific proposals for more effective sanctions against Russia?

A: In general, achieving political objectives through sanctions is a big challenge, as evidenced by historical precedents. Notably, the success in dismantling the apartheid regime in South Africa stands as a rare exception. However, following the February 24th, 2022 events, it became evident that maintaining the status quo was untenable. Sanctions against Russia were deemed necessary, albeit with a clear directive: to target the elite and those directly responsible for the aggressive actions while sparing ordinary citizens from undue hardship.

Russia faces numerous challenges, particularly in adapting to new technologies. While the Russian economy appears stable, I anticipate potential difficulties in the medium term. Achieving policy objectives solely through sanctions is proving arduous, albeit necessary. However, Western companies are finding ways to circumvent sanctions by routing goods through intermediary countries like Kazakhstan and the South Caucasus, posing additional challenges. Many countries, such as Brazil, India, and China, have opted out of participating in the sanction policy, complicating the attainment of goals set by the European Commission and Council. Consequently, the Russian economy appears relatively stable for now.

Q: Should Germany provide more weapons to Ukraine, such as the Taurus missiles, or should it prioritize diplomatic negotiations?

A: I believe we must pursue a dual strategy. Providing Ukraine with humanitarian, political, and financial support, including defensive weaponry, is essential. Each intercepted Russian drone or missile underscores the significance of Western-supplied arms in bolstering Ukraine's defenses. However, I caution against supplying weapons like the Taurus missiles, which possess the capability to reach Russian territory. Proper technical expertise is crucial for ensuring precise targeting with these missiles. Additionally, the risk of NATO involvement escalates with such advanced weaponry, potentially sparking a broader conflict across Europe—a scenario we must staunchly avoid to prevent a Third World War.

Q: There are discussions in Germany and England about the possibility of military confrontation with Russia within the next five to 20 years. What is your perspective?

A: It is imperative to establish a ceasefire as a crucial step forward. Russia must recognize the futility of its military efforts, understanding that NATO would not accept victory on their terms. Subsequently, we must work towards developing a new framework for peace and security in which the European Union and Russia can find a modus vivendi. The ultimate goal should be to create a new architecture for peace and security in Europe, with Russia as a key participant. Achieving long-term security and peace necessitates Russia's inclusion, though this may not be feasible immediately, it remains our ultimate objective.

Q: I'd like to delve into the topic of Iran. On September 12, 2023, you discussed the death of Adshina Mashamini, expressing dissatisfaction with the EU's efforts to compel Iran to cease human rights violations. Specifically, you highlighted the absence of the Revolutionary Guard on the EU terror list, among other criticisms. Subsequently, on September 18, 2023, Iranian President Raisi called for Western powers to re-enter the nuclear deal, recognizing the impasse they faced. Do you believe these two issues should be intertwined? Should the EU leverage the Nuclear deal negotiations to address human rights concerns in Iran?

A: From my perspective, the nuclear deal appears to be all but defunct. I see little opportunity for its revival. However, it could potentially serve as a tool to exert pressure on Iran to address human rights abuses. It is imperative that we intensify pressure on Iran and unequivocally condemn human rights violations. Recent reports of widespread executions and the detainment of a Swedish diplomat raise serious concerns. Engaging with the current Iranian regime poses significant challenges as it continues to destabilize the Middle East through its support of various proxy groups and aggressive actions against neighboring states. Despite China's diplomatic efforts, I remain skeptical about the Iranian regime's willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue or adhere to international agreements. Therefore, I do not support strengthening or renegotiating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It is apparent that the Iranian regime is determined to pursue nuclear capabilities, regardless of cooperation with the European Union. Given the current circumstances, I am skeptical of the regime's sincerity as a negotiating partner and doubt the effectiveness of diplomatic engagement with Iran.

Q: On several occasions, you have emphasized the EU's role as a promoter of human rights, particularly concerning refugee policies. You've criticized the legal void at the EU's external borders, holding Frontex, the EU border agency, accountable. You even called for the resignation of Frontex's former head, Fabrice Leggeri, who resigned in 2022. Has the situation improved since his departure? My second question concerns the growing populism in Europe. In France, for instance, during the 2022 presidential elections, the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen received 41.46% of the vote. There's now speculation that she may win the next presidential election. Her platform is founded on xenophobic ideology, scapegoating immigrants for societal issues in France. Similar rhetoric can be observed in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe. How do you reconcile the EU's relatively liberal policy toward illegal immigration with the surge of far-right electorate?

A: The rise of extreme right-wing movements is deeply concerning, as they represent a significant threat to the European liberal order and often serve as a proxy force for Vladimir Putin. One of the primary challenges in addressing human rights within the EU is the failure to establish a migration and refugee policy grounded in human rights principles, particularly evident at our external borders. We witness daily human rights violations, with over 3,000 refugees drowning in the Mediterranean in 2023 alone. Frontex's involvement in these violations, including illegal pushbacks, is alarming. Furthermore, the EU's cooperation with Libya is deeply troubling, as warlords there subject refugees to detention, torture, and exploitation akin to slavery—a reprehensible situation that demands urgent action. Recently, an official visit from members of the European Parliament to Tunisia was planned, inter alia in order to address refugee issues, but our official delegation, which I was part of, was abruptly barred from entering the country by the Tunisian government. This obstruction impedes our ability to collaborate with third-party states effectively. Additionally, the EU's proposed allocation of over 150 million euros to Tunisia, without sufficient oversight, raises serious concerns about accountability and misuse of funds. Such a lack of transparency is unacceptable and undermines our efforts to address humanitarian crises effectively.

Now, I would like to address the question of whether there is a correlation between the challenges posed by migration and refuge and the rise of far-right politicians. It is a grave mistake for democratic parties to attempt to tackle these issues by adopting the same rhetoric as far-right politicians, advocating for the expulsion of refugees. This approach will only serve to bolster the far-right's influence. We must firmly denounce such tactics as unacceptable. Perhaps you are aware of the situation in Germany, where investigative journalists from Correctiv uncovered plans by far-right politicians, including members of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, to deport not only migrants but also German citizens of migrant descent and political dissenters to countries in Africa. This revelation illustrates that far-right forces oppose fundamental principles of humanity and democracy and those who hold differing views. Fortunately, in Germany, millions of citizens have taken to the streets in protest, rejecting nationalism and fascism and demanding that such politicians be kept from power. I had the privilege of participating in a demonstration in Dortmund, where over 30,000 citizens gathered—a powerful display of solidarity with those in need and a beacon of hope in these turbulent times. I remain hopeful that we will continue this fight beyond the upcoming election on June 9th as far-right politicians pose the most significant threat to the European Union, its values, and human rights.

Q: Shouldn't Alternative for Germany, the far-right political party you mentioned, be disbanded for their actions?

A: Yes, I believe so. The revelation of their deportation plans is clear evidence of their disregard for the Constitution and democratic principles. While it may be challenging to secure a court decision to ban the party, there is ample evidence to suggest that they seek to undermine democracy, our values, and the foundations upon which Germany has rebuilt since World War II. We must remember that nationalism played a significant role in two world wars in the last century. Strengthening nationalist parties like the AfD, with roots in national socialism, is a dangerous path. It is time to take decisive action and ban the AfD.