“I wish Switzerland all the best”

class=”sc-3778e872-0 cgWkHT”>

Mr. Schäuble, you are considered a good friend of Switzerland. Is that really you?
German politician: I have great sympathy for Switzerland. As a child I was allowed to visit my aunt in Lucerne. After World War I, she emigrated to Switzerland to work. After World War II, I came from the devastated Black Forest and visited them. Switzerland was a paradise for me.

What tip would you give Switzerland for the difficult negotiations with Brussels on the framework agreement?
Switzerland must conduct this debate itself. Public advice from the outside does not help. In Brussels, I have always advocated that Switzerland be treated with respect.

Are you still convinced that Switzerland should join the EU?
Yes, but I always say: Switzerland decides for itself. We’re not going to push them. The door for them is open. Much of what happens in Europe has affected Switzerland both positively and negatively. Experience shows that it is better if you have a say. The British now realize that they were not entirely happy with Brexit.

Do you understand Swiss neutrality in 2023?
Putin is pursuing a ruthless expansion policy. Nevertheless, Switzerland prevents Germany from supplying much-needed arms and ammunition to Ukraine. Switzerland must ask itself whether its position of perpetual neutrality in this plight is a wise position.

What face-saving solution could Bern come up with to say: we’re helping the West anyway?
Switzerland does not need to help the West. Switzerland must stick to its own convictions. If such a brutal offensive war against Ukraine takes place, I think Switzerland’s commitment to permanent neutrality should be discussed and decided again. But this is a debate that Bern would do better for herself and not on the basis of precocious advice from politicians based outside Switzerland who are on their way to retirement (laughs).

Germany has been doing good business with Vladimir Putin for years, especially with gas. At the center of the criticism are former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel.
Excuse me, but you can’t mention Schröder and Merkel in the same breath. Nor do I want to comment on Schröder. But for a German chancellor to have such close contacts with a dictator like Putin immediately after leaving office is in many ways difficult.

Angela Merkel was chancellor for 16 years. You were part of the Merkel government for 12 years.
We all hoped that Russia would develop differently. Polish President Lech Kaczynski, who later died in a plane crash, warned after the Russian attack on Georgia in 2008: “First comes Georgia, then Ukraine, then Moldova, then the Baltic States, then Poland.” We all said, “What is he talking about again?” But he was right.

Is there anything you personally blame yourself for?
I, too, could have realized earlier that we were wrong. I too had more hope that we would no longer live in such dark times – although I warned about Putin before others. Now it is a matter of drawing the right conclusions. I don’t know anyone who would say, “If Putin wins, he’s happy.” We should all understand that, including the Germans and the Swiss. And that is why it is better that we support Ukraine in its heroic struggle, which it ultimately fights for all of us.

Putin has a lot of enemy images, especially NATO.
I was involved with Chancellor Helmut Kohl at the time when the focus was on NATO’s expansion eastward after the fall of the Wall. Gorbachev accepted that the united Germany would become part of the Atlantic alliance. With Yeltsin and later with Putin, we hoped to establish close economic and political ties with Russia and the other successor states. In relation to Putin, this was a deception and disappointment.

Some argue that Vladimir Putin made the decisive turn in the Syrian war: when US President Obama first spoke of red lines – yet remained inactive after Assad used chemical weapons. Putin concluded from this that he could do whatever he wanted. Is there something behind this theory?
The only Western power that can put Putin in his place is the United States of America. When this world power draws a red line, it must punish anyone who crosses this line. Otherwise, the red line makes sense. Deterrence is the best way to keep the peace.

Geopolitically, the cards have been reshuffled for some time now. Does the West have a chance – or will it lose the power struggle against China and India in the next 20 years?
I’m not so pessimistic about the West. Most people in the world value free, constitutional democracy and a social market economy. We are very attractive. It’s up to us to do better.

In addition to neutrality, a second Swiss dogma is currently under scrutiny: the banking center. How did you experience March 19, the end of Credit Suisse?
It is nothing new that banks can go into a crisis. For a long time, Swiss banks have not done as well as they used to. And yet I was touched when I heard of the end of Credit Suisse. In Switzerland, too, the consequences of a risky banking strategy aimed at excessive returns are becoming visible. Still, it didn’t really surprise me. And now this model has failed even in Switzerland with its exaggerated return expectations. Even at Deutsche Bank, a Swiss did not play a particularly valued role.

You speak of Joe Ackermann, the former head of Deutsche Bank.
I don’t want to comment on that. I am generally concerned with the pursuit of exaggerated returns. Even the Temple of Apollo in Delphi says that you shouldn’t do too much. It is therefore not surprising when exaggerated expectations end in such catastrophes. Germany also had to experience this during the financial crisis.

Many people do not understand how, 15 years after UBS, another systemically important bank has to be bailed out – this time Credit Suisse. Are bank crashes part of the system?
Freedom without borders destroys itself. This also applies to the financial sector. It’s a continuous process. Politicians should try to find new rules that set the framework – but politicians should not think they can do everything better. People and institutions are always looking for new ways to meet exorbitant return or profit expectations.

Since the takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS, many have been warning of a mega bank. What does this crisis mean for the future of “Too big to fail”?
“Too big to fail” is a nice sentence that sounds convincing at first: the bank is too important, so you have to save it. Credit Suisse was also saved. But the consequence should not be that this entails an even greater risk. Because that would be even worse. In that respect it would be better if the development towards ever larger units, ever larger monopolies or oligopolies were slowed down. But also in the IT sector we see how difficult it is to keep up with the dynamism of the large American companies in California with their incredible amounts of capital. I wish Switzerland all the best.

How moral should bankers be?
A banker must take responsibility for a commercial enterprise and ensure that it functions successfully. But in excess, everything is bad. A banker must be humble, reserved and discreet. The incredibly high salaries, commissions and bonuses are not correct. Every banker should ask himself whether he is exaggerating.

Source:Blick

Livingstone

I am Liam Livingstone and I work in a news website. My main job is to write articles for the 24 Instant News. My specialty is covering politics and current affairs, which I’m passionate about. I have worked in this field for more than 5 years now and it’s been an amazing journey. With each passing day, my knowledge increases as well as my experience of the world we live in today.