 Guten Morgen und herzlich willkommen zu dieser ersten Plenarsitzung des 46. Jahrenstreffens des World Economic Forums. Es ist für eine besondere Ehre und Freude, dieses Jahresstreffen mit einer sehr wichtigen Stimme beginnen zu dürfen. Nämlich, wir haben hier, als unsere ersten Redner, der Staatsoberhaupt der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Herrn Bundespräsident Joachim Gautk. Herzlich willkommen bei uns. Herr Bundespräsident, Sie sind im Osten Deutschlands aufgewachsen. Sie sind Pastor. Sie haben sich immer vor dem damaligen kommunistischen Regime Distanz gehalten. Sie haben auch in der Nach der Wiedervereinigung eine bedeutende Rolle gespielt um das Unrecht. Um sicherzustellen, dass der Unrecht verabschiedet wird. Und jetzt, seit März 2012, Sie sind Präsident der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In Ihrer Eigenschaft, als Präsident der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Sie haben oft, ohne dass sie politisch überlebt werden, eine sehr stelle Position auf sehr wichtige Issus. Und heute Deutschland, Europa ist natürlich in unseren Köpfen, in unseren Gedanken. In unseren Köpfen wissen wir, dass Sie mit der Refugee-Krisis beantragen. Sie haben das Problem der Identität gegen die Solidarität. Sie haben das Problem der Europäischen Integration und das Problem der Disintegration. Sie haben einige sehr wichtige Issus, die Sie haben, anzudrehen. Und ich bin sicher, dass das etwas, das die Geschichte der Europäischen Union in diesem Jahr geht. So, wir schauen forward very much to hearing your speech, President Gauck. Can I ask you to come and make your speech to the podium? Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, Professor Schwab, thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me to address this forum today. In bringing together people who feel committed to no lesser a task than improving the world, Professor Schwab, you have made Davos and this forum a place without equal, a forum of ideas and of exchange between society, politics and the business community. All of them united in their wish to master the major challenges of our age. And this year your discussions will be focusing above all on how the fourth industrial revolution can be managed. Looking at your wide-ranging agenda, I was struck once again by how closely our global community is interwoven at so many different levels and by how many interdependencies already exist. This is true in particular of the rapid digitisation, the increasing connectivity of the world. Today I'd like to look at one particular form of the increasing connectivity of societies and mutual global dependencies. According to the latest study by the World Economic Forum, the world's major concern in the immediate future will be refugee flows. Almost 60 million people, more than ever before, are currently fleeing often at great danger to their lives. The hundreds of thousands of people seeking protection on our continent are presenting the European Union with its biggest ever test. Migration is not a new phenomenon. It has occupied both policymakers and society since time immemorial. People have always been on the move. And their motives for doing so have remained unchanged for centuries. The desire to escape poverty, squalor, unemployment or oppression, persecution or war, or perhaps also to improve themselves or out of a sense of adventure and curiosity. Whatever the reason for it, migration has always been associated with hope. The hope of a new, a better, a secure life. In many cases, ladies and gentlemen, migration has been an engine for progress and economic growth. Most economists believe that labor migration in particular has brought opportunities for increased prosperity, not only for the migrants, but also for the receiving countries and the states of origin. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith once described migration as the oldest action against poverty. Additional workers help create value added. The desire to improve one's situation produces new dynamism. A look at the list of American Nobel laureates and Oscar prize winners shows just how much a country can benefit from migrants' creativity, including all it does between three and four times as many immigrants as people born on American soil. Contrary to what we used to believe, poorer countries of origin also benefit from the immigration of talented people. Losses can often be bounced out. On the one hand, by the money migrants are sent home, and on the other, by know-how and education against if the migrants then later return to their home countries. The speed at which a whole society can benefit from migration is shown by the 25 years of a strong economic growth enjoyed by the fledgling Federal Republic of Germany after the end of the Second World War. Germany, which had lain in ruins, developed into an economic miracle. It not only absorbed refugees and displaced persons from the former German East Interities, but shortly afterwards it deliberately recruited millions more the so-called guest workers who wanted to go back to their countries of origin after a limited time spent in Germany. As we all know, things turned out differently. Some of the guest workers started to settle in Germany and have contributed to prosperity in Germany. In the 1970s, however, a lot of these migrants lost their jobs during the recession. In the end, the receiving society too paid a price because it failed to integrate the migrants and to give them access to more education. At the same time, it failed to call for efforts towards integration on their part. Sometimes such commissions have an impact right down to the third generation in the form of education deficits and unemployment. Similar developments, Social exclusion on the one hand and self-encapsulation on the other, can be seen in other European countries too. Furthermore, not all migrants have espoused all the fundamental European beliefs and convictions. This is true in particular of some people who have either come, or their families have come from Muslim countries. And this obviously has an impact on their role or their perspective of the role of women, on tolerance, the role of religion and also on our system of law and order. The failings are especially obvious in areas where enclaves have developed. Where the values and rules of a democratic state based on the role of law have been circumvented or even replaced by fundamentalist convictions and extremist behavior. One key lesson from our own history, but also from recent European migration history is therefore this. Migration and integration must be thought of in tandem. Ladies and gentlemen, Europe is currently experiencing large-scale migration provoked by violence. The arrival of hundreds of thousands of people fleeing war and conflict, persecution and massive human rights violations. Allow me to say this quite clearly. It is our humanitarian responsibility to take in such victims of persecution. In most states this responsibility der rise from the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and in Germany the right to asylum is also anchored in our constitution, the basic law. We must not think in terms of usefulness with regard to these asylum seekers. People who need our protection are allowed to cost us something. A society which regards itself as a community of solidarity will act in a spirit of solidarity in relation to refugees too. If we were to shirk this self-imposed obligation it might bring some financial gain. But we would be losing something of great value namely our respect for ourselves, our sense of being at ease with ourselves. I know that many of you watching Germany viewed the behaviour of the countless Germans last summer and autumn in 2015 as either emotional exuberance or naivety. But for us Germans, and I would like you to think this over, this behaviour testified to something more. For many older Germans, the willingness to give the new arrivals a welcome was an expression of a commitment to a country which after its steep fall wants to be open to show solidarity and never again to become xenophobic or racist. For larger sections of the younger population this natural openness was the fruit of their positive experience as Europeans and as citizens of the world. And many who themselves came from families with migrant backgrounds offered their linguistic skills. This all made for an uplifting experience. At the same time however, I am of course aware that even if civil societies achieved something extraordinary in many places during the last few months, the readiness to demonstrate solidarity is not infinite. What society in the state are able to achieve and how long they can continue to do so depends on many factors. How well the economy is doing. How great a state's institutional, financial and social welfare capacities are. How big a cultural and social gap has to be bridged. And how willing the refugees are to integrate. Not least, it also depends on how much experience a society has with migration and the integration of migrants. In Germany we have only recently begun to discuss openly the fact that receiving societies are also affected by migration. Regardless of whether the migrants stay temporarily or permanently in Germany. Regardless of whether we're talking about refugees or migrant workers. A large proportion of the native population sees migration less as a boom and more as a cause of uncertainty in an überfamilie world. New arrivals bring with them different customs and views, different languages and religions and in some cases different values into everyday life. Those who come to us should feel at home in an alien country the former president of the German Bundestag Wolfgang Gertiersen said recently. He added that the native population shouldn't feel alien in their own country. As a rule, after people get to know each other they come to accept one another. Sometimes however conflicts develop. Following recent events in several German cities for instance, it was feared that fundamental achievements of our civilization such as tolerance, respect and the equality of women could be damaged. It was also feared and this is even more problematic perhaps that the state was no longer always able to uphold law and order everywhere. It appears therefore that migration is politically viable only to the extent that citizens are willing to accept it. People must believe that politicians have the ability to think forward and that the citizens are prepared to go along with and to accept change. If we think about the absorption capacity of a society, well, it's not a mathematical formula there is no mathematical formula. I think that we need to realise that you have to have a negotiating process within society and within the political sphere. In Germany for example, 10 years ago or 20 years ago it would not have been possible, it would not have been conceivable to do what we have done today. However, even today we are discussing limits in terms of the number of people we can absorb. Politicians have to reconcile citizens' desire to see their society continue to function and a humanitarian approach on helping those in need of protection. That could mean that policymakers have to develop and implement strategies to limit the people coming to our country, not as a knee-jerk defensive reaction, but as an element of responsible governance. A limitation strategy may even be both morally and politically necessary in order to preserve the state's ability to function. It may also be necessary in order to ensure that refugees receive all the assistance they require once they have arrived in our country. Limits us as such not unethical, limits help to maintain acceptance within society. Without acceptance a society is not open and not willing to take in refugees. And it is precisely for this reason that the German government and the governments of other European states and even Brussels are looking for ways to stem the tide of refugees. Those pursuing inhumane policies rife with resentment argue in favour of closed doors, which is what many populace in Europe want. Our actions in contrast are guided by another objective, especially as we want to provide as much protection as possible, at some point as problematic and as tragic as it may be, we will have her to refuse to take in everyone. Another point, if Democrats do not want to talk about limitations, then Populists and Xenophobes will ultimately set a limit. The increase in votes for right-wing populist Parties in nearly all European countries almost daily in some cases violent attacks on refugee accommodation in Germany starkly highlights this danger. Our need is to discuss these in society. We cannot leave this to right-wing Parties. We cannot allow them to deal just with the concerns of the population. No, the whole of society must deal with these. The democratic middle, the open discourse needs to take place in the centre of the political spectrum. Now, let me at this a point to take another point, which I'd like to share with you. Humanity or humanitarian principles are being put to the test at different levels. Those who come from the Middle East and who manage to make it to Europe are just a minority of the many at risk who have been displaced. My visit to a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan over a month ago confirmed me in my belief that most Syrians want to stay as close as possible to their homes so that they can return as quickly as possible as soon as they can. They do not want to come to Europe if they can find somewhere to stay and if possible an income closer to Syria. Assistance for refugees, and this will apply most especially if the flow of refugees into Europe is curbed, will require much greater efforts beyond our borders. Let us step up our efforts whether they be add to the level of government or civil society to help these people in transitional situations. Let us also step up our efforts to find a peace settlement in Syria which enables the people of that country to make a fresh start. Ladies and gentlemen, anyone who talks of limits on the subject of borders. In the European Union the external borders define our common area of freedom. Protecting the external borders must not under any circumstances result in us sealing ourselves off. But we should carry out checks and manage our external borders. Openness may not lead to the complete disappearance of borders. However, borders are no longer forbidding, if bridges or gates are established to allowing those who have a right to enter our continent. The freedom of movement within the Schengen area can only be preserved if security is guaranteed at the external borders. Conversely, and developments during the last few months have shown this, if the external borders are not effectively protected national borders will once again become important. And freedom of movement within Europe will be at risk. In Germany too, a growing number of people no longer want to rule out national border checks if and as long as European borders are not sufficiently safeguarded. A good solution would not be the loss of this freedom of movement. Can we not come up with a better idea than this? Ladies and gentlemen, no other problem has divided and jeopardized the European Union as much as the refugee question. I understand that the assessment of how many refugees can be absorbed is different in each country. In France it is different than in Poland or Germany or Italy. I understand that in Central European societies which found themselves in a completely new political landscape 25 years ago and had to fundamentally adjust to new conditions, the fear of change as well as concerns about preserving national sovereignty and identity are especially great. However, I find it difficult to understand when countries whose citizens once experienced Solidarity as the victims of political persecution now deny Solidarity to those fleeing persecution. I also find it difficult to understand why renationalization is seen as a solution at a time when globalization is leading to every or ever stronger international links not only in the flow of goods and capital but also through the mobility of people. Not only would I like to see European states showing Solidarity with Germany which is bearing such a heavy burden. I'd also like to see a discussion in which the citizens of Europe do not put all their strength and imagination into shaping a retreat into national solutions but rather into ideas for a Europe in which everyone feels included and by which they once again feel represented. A Europe which offers better political and economic prospects to everyone than any individual nation state. No one, absolutely no one can want to see the great historical success which has brought Europe peace and prosperity collapses as a result of the refugee question. Nobody, nobody can really want to see that happen. Thank you. Herr Bundespräsident, I've got a number of questions that have already been noted but in your very balanced presentation and in your analysis I think you've already addressed all the questions that I wanted to ask you either directly or indirectly. You spoke about Europe, you spoke about Germany but I do have a question that I'd like to put to you. You spoke about the question of limiting the number of refugees who are allowed in and you also spoke about the question of acceptance by society. The fact that this limitation strategy also has a moral component is morally acceptable. Now last year there were a million refugees who came to Germany and the numbers, if they were to be extrapolated on the basis of the January figures, these figures lead us to believe that we will probably have exactly the same number, another million this year. So, my question is the following, in fact I've got two questions for you. First is, do you believe that the limitation strategy of which you spoke? Do you think it is necessary today? Secondly, what can we do if we decide not to limit the number of Rivals? What could we do to prevent these massive flows of people, which may amount to one million or more refugees coming to Germany? In answering your first question, the Federal Republic of Germany has to be very careful, so I can't really deal with operational policy. So let me just formulate it in this way. The discussion of the number of refugees will come as we had last year, or perhaps even more, and that Germany would have to deal with this problem. That problem has been recognised by all sections of society. The coalition in Germany, the grander coalition, has had a very large number of refugees coming to Germany, and we have to be very careful about the number of refugees coming to Germany. In Germany, the grander coalition has had a very lively discussion on this issue, and so I think that it is extremely likely that forms of control and limitation will be introduced to whatever form they take, and they will have to be introduced. At the present time, government is looking at ways of just processing all the refugees' papers and applications at the moment. But I think that we should not think about what people in the right fringe of society. But you also have highly committed mayors and volunteers who are starting to say, we are doing all this work, but I don't know how we can do more than what we are doing already. So I'm expecting something will be done. And that is why your second question is so important. If we are to show solidarity, and we are prepared to do so, we have also got to make sure that we increase our efforts beyond our borders, and we can show solidarity by providing support in the area around Syria and Iraq, for example in Turkey. And we have supported efforts at the European level in order to ensure that we can improve people's lives in these areas. Ich war in Jordan vorhin, und ich habe ein Projekt mit Jordanien und britischen Autoren zusammengekommen. Wir könnten vielleicht ein Freitrain-Zone haben, wo die Leute zusammen arbeiten, Produzieren, perhaps Refugees und Jordanien, und dann arbeiten sie side by side, und vielleicht können sie in better conditionen, um ihre Produkte in Europa zu exportieren, so dass sie sich wirklich lernen, um sie zu exportieren. Das ist einfach ein Beispiel, wie wir die Konfliktiereien wirklich gehen können, und etwas machen, um die Menschen, die ihre Landen zu verdienen, zu verbessern. Die Solidarität stoppt nicht an unseren Bordern, und all das, was ich tun kann, ist, dass die Regisseure von UNHCR und der Welt-Fooder-Programme, aber die Forderung von Menschen zu diesen Organisationen zu ändern. Ich denke, wir müssen die Unterstützung, wir müssen die Efforten stecken, und das ist etwas, das in der Gesellschaft zu diskutieren muss. Wir helfen die Leute zu Hause, aber wir schauen uns über unsere Bordern, und wir müssen das alles mehr so machen, wenn wir nicht in einer solchen politischen oder militärischen Lösung und der Krieg sind. Insofern, dass die United Nations in der Position ist, um die ISS zu kämpfen, so dass die Bedeutung zu Irak und Syrien kann. Aber ich denke, wir sehen uns alle, dass die United Nations nicht mehr mehr tun, als es sie jetzt macht. Und wir sehen nicht, dass ein robustes Mandat der UN-Fooder-Programme ist. Ich denke, das ist warum die Unterstützung, das ich so wichtig bin. Herr Präsident, aus Ihrer eigenen Lebenserfahrung, Sie haben ja immer für Grundwerte gekämpft. Sie haben immer für grundwerte Grundwerte gekämpft. Und ich denke, es gibt eine gewisse Grundwerte in Europa, die in Europa stecken. Und ich denke, Sie haben das in Ihrer Rede gesagt. Aber für unsere europäische Freunde, dass Sie einfach ein paar Worte sagen, zu erklären, was für Sie die basicen Werte, die wir wollen, umzuschließen, sind. In meiner Rede habe ich gesagt, ich würde gerne, dass Sie in Deutschland und Europa in ihrer Position zur Solidarität stehen. Und das ist based on the conviction, that a human life, as defined in the UN Charter, is something which really should get a maximum protection we can provide. And I think that this is not just an ethical principle, which we must uphold, and which derives from many religions. But I think it is also clever political thinking. I do not believe that we can have a future, where you have one group of countries, which preserves human values and which shows solidarity. And not a group of countries, which is building up military strength, which is trying to fight enemies and which simply want to preserve their own personal interests. I think the history of humanity in the First World War showed that it was necessary to create the League of Nations after the Second World War. We had the United Nations and we had a very clear path. And it was decided that political action and ethical values had to come together. That is what we need to pursue. And I would like to add something. Why do I believe, I think I said this in my speech, that if you think of limitation, you think of something restrictive, but I think it is morally acceptable. And perhaps I can just borrow the words of the President of the Evangelical Council in Germany, a bishop and social ethical worker, Betfurcht Formus is A. And he once said a social form of ethics, which has never had to face a test of time, is not social ethics. And I think that if you have art and if you want to show enthusiasm for good things, then you also need to take into account that we always have limited forces and we can only do good with limited forces. And unless you are aware of this, then our desire to do good can fail and can lead to massive frustration such as that all our activities in order to achieve good are simply destroyed. And we cannot allow that to happen. We've got to ensure that the people who are committed can continue to that. But we need this sober idea of what is possible. Thank you very much for coming to us, President. I think it was very important in this very first session that we should have addressed this issue. I think that over the next few days we will be talking about the effects of the industrial, fourth industrial revolution. But precisely here it is important that we put the humanitarian aspect at the forefront. And that is what you've done in your speech. And we're very grateful to you for that.