 Good evening to our audience here in Sydney and good and Morgan Narc Burlien. Welcome to this special Lowe Institute digital event with Germany's Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Annalena Baerbock. I'm Michael Fully Love, the Executive Director of the Lowe Institute. Let me begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which the Institute stands, the Gadigal of the Eora Nation, and pay my respects to their elders past and present. As you know the Minister was due to appear at the Institute in person last week but mechanical difficulties with her plane got in the way and she had to cancel her visit. But she was determined to press ahead with her appearance and I'm grateful to her for speaking to us today from Burlien. So thank you to the Minister for keeping her rendezvous with the Lowe Institute. Let me tell you how today's event will work. I'll give a few remarks at the beginning and then I'll invite the Minister to give a speech. Afterwards I'll put some questions to the Minister including questions from the audience. Frau Baerbock you are the first German Foreign Minister to address the Institute but as you may know my Chairman Sir Frank Lowe and I were honoured to host Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2014 when she gave the Lowe Lecture. As the Chancellor noted then the relationship between Germany and Australia goes back a long time and it's worth a great deal in terms of trade and investment. But the past 18 months have shown that apart from history and economics our ties are also maintained by our common world view one in which the rule of law is respected and every nation has the right to find its own way in the world. In February last year that vision was sullied when Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine. At that moment the scales fell from our eyes. We understood as the Minister wrote last month in the Guardian that security is not a given. Since then there's been a quickening of connections between like-minded countries like Australia and Germany that support the rules-based order. Of course Russia's brutal unprovoked assault on Ukraine is not the only challenge we face. In our region the People's Republic of China is undertaking the largest peacetime military buildup in history and its relationship with the United States is fraught. And as we watch heat waves and wildfires across Europe and North America we also understand that climate change presents a formidable threat. The common thread between all these challenges is that they can't be addressed by any one country alone. They require cooperation and solidarity from all of us. In that spirit it's a privilege to host the Foreign Minister today. Ladies and gentlemen, Anna-Lena Baerbock came to politics at a young age attending peace protests with her parents as a teenager. She studied political science and public law at the University of Hamburg and earned a master's degree in international law from the LSE. I also understand she was an elite trampoline gymnast in her youth which equipped her well I'm sure for the ups and downs of public life. For our Baerbock joined Alliance 90 the Greens in 2005. From 2009 to 2013 she was the party leader in Brandenburg. She entered the Bundestag in 2013 and from 2018 to 2022 she served as co-chair of her party. She was the Greens candidate for Chancellor in the 2021 federal election and after that election she was named Foreign Minister by Chancellor Olaf Scholz becoming the first woman to hold that office. It is my pleasure now to invite the Foreign Minister to deliver her remarks. Thank you very much dear Michael, fully enough. Thank you for this very warm welcome and I would like to join Michael in acknowledging all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional custodians of country and recognize their continuing connection to land, sea, culture and community. I pay my respect to elders past and present. I'm honored to speak today at the Lovie Institute but of course as you have said I would have much preferred to do so in person. As you might know I was forced to cancel my trip to the Indo-Pacific region at a very short notice last week due to problems with our plane. Thank you Michael for your kindness and especially flexibility in making this virtual exchange possible now. Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, friends. 78 years ago an Australian delegation travelled to San Francisco, its purpose was nothing less than historic to help draft the Charter of the United Nations, the rules that guide our international community to this day. What was special about the Australian delegation was not only that it included a woman, Jessie Street, something that was still rare at that time. What was also remarkable was that this delegation would be instrumental in shaping the United Nations as we know it today. Australians Foreign Minister Herbert Dock-Avett who headed the delegation had a clear vision. He believed that the maintenance of world peace should not rest in the hands of the great powers alone. He wanted middle powers and smaller nations to have a seat at the table as well. Avett didn't succeed in his aim to restrict the future powers of the permanent members of the Security Council. But he successfully advocated, also on behalf of many smaller powers, forgiving the General Assembly a stronger advisory role than the great powers had originally planned. Back in Australia, Avett told Parliament, the United Nations, I quote, is the best presently available instrument both for avoiding the supreme and ultimate catastrophe of a Third World War, waged with all destroying weapons and also for establishing an international order which can and should assure to mankind security against poverty, unemployment, ignorance, famine and disease. I'm recounting this episode because it is an unwavering belief in international and multilateralism in cooperation and dialogue that also unites our two nations today. Because unlike other countries in the world, we don't hold VGA power in the UN Security Council. Neither are we greatest military powers. We believe that is the UN Charter, our international order built upon common rules that is protecting all states, no matter how big or small they are, no matter where they are located. That is why we will not turn a blind eye when these rules are broken. Because if we fail to do so, I believe no one anywhere would be able to sleep peacefully because we would all have to fear the attack of a bigger neighbour. That's why in Australia, although your country is some 15,000 kilometers away from Ukraine, you stood up firmly against Russia's war of aggression, as did many other medium and smaller powers across the world. At a time when the UN Security Council was blocked due to Russia's VGA power, it was indeed the General Assembly that spoke out firmly condemning Russia's war with an overwhelming majority of more than 140 states across the world, condemning Russia's war of aggression, condemning the fundamental breach of our UN Charter. We showed that the General Assembly is our joint voice, our voice for peace, our voice for our global rules, our voice for our common security. Australia's support for Ukraine has been unravering. Through its political engagement, its military assistance, its strong support for sanctions, as well as its generous humanitarian measures. What we have seen is an outstanding effort also by New Zealand and other regional partners. We applaud this support and we won't forget it. I think this shows that although oceans might separate us, Germany and Australia, we do have a common understanding for the enormous challenges we face. What we see is the emergence of a world of increasing systemic rivalry and with some autocratic regimes seek to bend the international order to increase their spheres of influence, using not only military might, but also economic clout. This is especially true for the Indo-Pacific, a region which not only matters to your security but also to ours in Germany and Europe. Because we share an interest in an Indo-Pacific that is peaceful, a region where common rules are respected, where every state is free to determine its future by making independent political and economic choices. A region that is neither unipolar nor bipolar. A region where shipping routes are open, where free and fair trade preserves the economic dynamics that have brought prosperity to hundreds of millions in the region. A region where all states join hands to address the climate crisis. A region where men and women and children see their rights respected. And I truly believe that middle powers like Australia, like Germany, New Zealand and so many others are not condemned to be bystanders when it comes to shaping such an Indo-Pacific. We have agency to build a better future even when faced with enormous challenges. Herbert Aved already knew 80 years ago that we can make a difference if we work together, if we build collisions, cooperation amplifies our voice, unity multiplies our power. And when I look at our partners here in this vast and so beautiful region, I'm confident that we will get ahead on this because our trust and cooperation is already solid in so many areas. It's clear that the Indo-Pacific will play a decisive role in the 21st century. One third of global GDP is generated here. Today, around one-fifth of Germany's global trade is within the Indo-Pacific region as a whole. Countless jobs in cities like Hamburg, Frankfurt or Leipzig depend on these trade relations. And I don't only mean China by this. Yes, China accounts for a large share of our economic relations with the Indo-Pacific, but all the other Indo-Pacific countries together actually form the bigger share. As a matter of fact, ASEAN is now our third largest trading partner outside of Europe and after China and the US. Our technological and scientific progress also depends on the brilliant ideas of men, women in both our regions. Malaysia, for example, is the second biggest country of origin of the microchips imported to Germany. Or did you know that an Australian-German company based in Marburg is one of the leaders in research on how to treat hemophilia? To me, these examples are examples of solid bonds. It's our joint values and interests that make me confident. We can meet the main three security challenges we both face, strengthening the global rules that we all rely on, bolstering our economic security and accelerating our joint battle against our biggest global security threat, the climate crisis. Firstly, that means firmly and jointly standing up for these rules that men and women like Jesse Street and Herbert Evan laid out some 80 years ago. Because these rules ensure our common peace and prosperity. And this is not an abstract statement. When we see that half of all container ships in the world today pass through the Taiwan Strait, container ships which transport goods like medicines, machine parts or food. As Germans and Europeans just the same as you're here in Australia, New Zealand or the Pacific Island states, we have a crucial interest in de-escalating and dialogue to avoid conflict. We don't accept when others spend our common rules. Any unilateral change in the status quo across the Taiwan Strait would be unacceptable, even more so if this were to include coercive or military means. The United Nations, with its rules and institutions, were built to prevent exactly this. That is why we stand up for these rules. For the respect for the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, as well as the arbitration ruling on the South China Sea. And we know we have to fill these rules with life. That's why we cooperate with Australia, Japan, Korea and New Zealand in the East China Sea to observe compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions on North Korea. For this purpose, Germany dispatched a frigate in late 2021. Germany has also become a regular participant in the most important joint military exercise organized in Australia. Last year, Germany sent an Air Force contingent to participate in Kakadu and Pitch Black. Just a few weeks ago, the German Army and Navy participated in the biggest military exercise in Australia, talisman cyber. And we will certainly come back for the next rounds of Pitch Black and talisman cyber. Because if international law is broken in your region, it can be broken anywhere. Your security matters to our security. And let's talk straight. The Australian government has endorsed the findings of the Defence Strategic Review 2023 quite comprehensively. The review describes the deterioration of the security environment in the Indo-Pacific and the unpresented strategic challenges, including the potential for major military conflict. And it leaves little doubt who is responsible for these varying developments. It is China's military buildup, and I'm quoting the review here, that is now the largest and most ambitious of any country since the end of the Second World War. This buildup is occurring without transparency or reassurance to the Indo-Pacific region of China's strategic intent. Unquote. The fact that China has been so central to Australian debates on foreign and security policy has had broader consequences. According to a survey by this, by your institute, Michael, the Lovie Institute, in 2018 only 12% of Australians perceived China as more of a military threat than an economic partner. Today, the comparable figures stand at 52%. I don't think this development is in perception has come out of the blue. You as a closer neighbour have realised earlier than us what we have now also laid out in our government's China strategy. China has changed, and that's why our policy towards China also needs to change. To us, China is not only a partner, but also more and more competitor and systemic rival. A partner on global issues like fighting the effects of the climate crisis, a trading and investment partner, but also a competitor, as it is to Australia and many other countries in the region. And increasingly, China is a rival when it comes to the very fundamentals of how we live together in this world, the principles of our international order and respect for human rights. The China strategy that my government adopted a few weeks ago looks at this new China and how we need to respond to it. And I want to state it very clearly. This strategy does not mean that we have become obsessed with China, that our sole interest is now geared towards our relations with that one country. Yes, one part of our strategy is about our bilateral relations, obviously, but the much bigger part is about how we should deal with the challenges posed by China across the world. And that concerns all of us. In Europe, in Africa, in Latin America, and particularly here in the Indo-Pacific, we see how numerous countries are pivoting more towards China. And we have to be honest about this. Often this is due to a lack of alternatives. We would like to change this. And what's clear is that our office will not promote a new confrontation between blocks. We want to gain partners who choose to work with us more closely because both of us will gain from it. And that brings me to my second point, economic security. As Abbott already said more than 80 years ago, we know that security is more than protection from military conflict and violence. Security also means being able to live a life free, not being subject to coercion or blackmail. And that means strengthening our joint resilience. Because the economy is geopolitical. Such a realization does not lead us towards decoupling. What we seek to do is to de-risk our economic relations. And crucially, that means diversifying, broadening partnerships that not only create economic value for both sides, but also help all involved to reduce risks. In Germany and my country, we have learned, I must say, painfully, how vulnerable our one-sided dependencies on Russia's energy imports made us. And we don't want to repeat that mistake again. For many countries in the world and particularly here in this region, China is by far their biggest trading partner. But China is not always as predictable, transparent and reliable as is needed to allow a stable economic relationship. Australia know what that means. That's why the European Union's trade policy seeks to help not only us Europeans to diversify trade, but also our partners. Because it makes us all stronger. It's good news that the EU and New Zealand signed a free trade agreement last month, which could increase trade between both sides by up to 30% within the next decade. I had hoped we would also conclude the negotiations for the EU-Australian trade deal in July. We should now strive to really finalize it. The same goes for the free trade agreements with India and the Asian member states. We also want to strengthen our partnerships on natural resources that are key to the green energy transition. Australia has a leading position in this, producing half of the world's lithium and large share of cobalt as well as raw earth. One challenge in establishing direct supply chains with Germany, however, is that there is little on-site processing. One example, more than 90% of the lithium mine in Australia is exported without further processing to China. While the EU imports more than 90% of its processed lithium needs from China. So the key question is, how can we diminish this risky detour? How can we politically support business in tapping into this, I would say, potential? Australia is already planning new mines and processing facilities. And the good news, in April, Siemens, Andritz and Plinker signed an agreement to provide key technologies for the Townsville Energy Chemicals Hub, which includes a refinery for battery materials. I believe we need more of such partnerships, because in a globalized world, also mining and processing is geopolitical. That's why de-risking means becoming better at seeing all economic interactions through a geopolitical lens. Here, with you in Australia, you experience painfully how China is willing to use economic coercion when it impose restrictions on key exports like wine, meat and coal to exert political pressure. You've actually been a role model in not bowing to that pressure. I want to express my great respect for the courage and the resilience, as well as the sense of proportion that you demonstrated. In the EU, Lithuania has also experienced such coercion from China. To be able to react to this kind of pressure, European unity was key. Because China tried to divide European countries on exactly that point. So we, as Europeans, developed now the anti-coercion instrument, with which we can protect European countries against attempts at blackmail by third countries, with measures ranging from dialogue to tariffs or trade restrictions if required. We are also looking more closely at the actors that are investing in our critical infrastructure, in our ports, roads or telecommunication networks. That's why we will strengthen foreign and security policy criteria in the investment screening process. And yes, we have learned from you. We have learned from Australia a lot in this. Because we closely followed your debate on leasing a strategic port to a company from China. We followed your debate already a couple of years ago on 5G on cyber security. This has clearly shaped our policy responses. To conclude, I want to address our third security challenge, the biggest of our time, the climate crisis. A crisis that is causing destruction worldwide. Australia has seen devastating bushfires, half of Asia suffering from recurring storms, heat waves and rising sea levels. And again, I want to state that very clearly. It is up to us to form coalitions to bring about change. That is exactly why together with Australia, we support the Pacific Island states in making their voice heard. On Saturday, we opened a new German embassy in Suva, Fidji. Unfortunately, as I said, our plane problems meant that I wasn't able to be at the opening myself, which I deeply regret. The key focus of our teams there will be to help battle the effects of the climate crisis in the region. And to help the most vulnerable states with climate impacts that can no longer be reversed. And for that, major emitting countries like mine carry particular responsibility. At the COP in Shamil Sheikh, we agreed to set up new financing mechanisms for loss and damage. We are now working hard to use existing mechanisms better to set up new structures. And we want to see substantial, substantial decisions made on this at COP 28 in Dubai. I hope together. Australia's bid for COP 31, together with the Pacific Island states, is the key opportunity to show how strong Australia's commitment is to lead this battle together with those countries that are most affected. I'm glad that we're in this marathon effort together as well. 78 years ago in San Francisco, Jesse Street, Herbert Everett, and their colleagues knew what we know now. We will only be able to shape our future together as partners who can rely on each other, who will stand up for each other, no matter how big or small we are, because our security depends on it. Thank you very much. Minister, thank you very much for those important remarks, which will be read closely in capitals across Europe and Asia. Thank you for mentioning Doc Everett, one of Australia's great foreign ministers, as well as Jesse Street, one of Australia's great feminists. And thank you also for agreeing to take our questions. We've got about 25 minutes or half an hour to put questions to you. I'm going to kick off. I want to come, of course, I want to focus on the Indo-Pacific and climate, but I want to start with Europe if I may. Let me ask this. You've been an activist in pushing Germany towards a values-based foreign policy and also in standing up to Mr Putin. Do you think that previous German governments deserve criticism for their softly, softly approach to Russia and China? Well, obviously, we have changed course, which we highly needed, and some neighboring countries have told us already a couple of years ago. It was not only debates you were having in Australia with regard to your dependency, but we had this big debate. You might have heard about it also in Australia about Nord Stream 2, our gas pipeline, and we had already Nord Stream 1 and other gas pipeline, whether this is a purely economic pipeline, as governments before in Germany labeled it, or whether, and this was a call especially from our neighboring countries, the Baltic states, Poland, but also Ukraine, that this has also a geopolitical security dimension, especially for Ukraine. And unfortunately, Germany in the past didn't listen closely enough to that, but this is spilled milk. So the important thing in politics, well, as it is in life, is always to learn from your mistakes, that you do not repeat a mistake twice. And this is why we have changed course. This is why the Chancellor gave his famous, I would say, a speech about the Titan vendor, and we have established in our national security strategy, and also in our China strategy, these learnings that we cannot have, again, dependencies, which are capable of blackmailing us, and also by that could threaten our own security. All right, let me ask you about Russia. Last week I interviewed Kaya Kullis for my podcast and the Estonian Prime Minister described Russia as the world's last colonial power. Do you agree with that assessment of Russia? And what would Russia have to do in order to rejoin the international community? Well, I might think about that a bit deeper, if it's the last one, because obviously we see also other players in the world who imagine their empires. But what we obviously see is that Russia has this whole strategy based on a narrative and the believing from the last century. They want to rebuild an empire which is not compatible with our current world order, because we have agreed that sovereign states are sovereign states, and that every state has the right to their own security and territory independence. And therefore, and this is again the learning from the past, and presidents like from the Baltic states have told us that, because they suffered under the Soviet Empire also in the past, that we should listen closely to speeches as well. Putin has said in the last years already that Ukraine actually belongs to Russia. He said that they have to bring it back to Russia. And when I was in Russia myself just before the outbreak of the war a couple of days before, I was asking the Foreign Minister Lavrov directly, so why are you saying you do not plan any invasion? So what are the thousand soldiers doing directly at the border? But this was the last alarming bell. We have seen and heard especially the alarming bells before, and we have to take this very seriously. And the second part of the question about Putin coming back, I mean the International Criminal Court had its arrest warrant because of war crimes. And I think this is so important in this debate even though I like to talk about international law and you like to do it, but to bring it down what happens every day. So we are not getting used to just speaking theoretically about war, what he has been doing. I think this was important from the arrest warrant from the ICC because of the deportation of children. Also these kind of methods you can see the style also back in time. It was also back in time when the Soviet regime transported children from their parents to somewhere else where it has a method. And bringing this to justice as the first part of the matter I think is so important because it has also shown other countries in the world, many African countries who said in the beginning, with frankly speaking, I can understand because they are thousands of kilometers away. Well, this is a war in Europe. We don't really know what happened. So what happened also in the past? What was we before with NATO, all this debate? But when they heard and also saw because they visited also Ukraine, what was going on with the normal people, with daily lives, with the text on infrastructure at electricity grid that children were deported. I think this is so important in politics and international law that we don't forget that we speak about people and their suffering. And this is why answering your question, if we see the arrest warrant from the ICC being charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity, obviously there has to have to be consequences. We follow this because otherwise we give a message to everybody else, dictators in the world. Well, at some point we forget about your guilt, but this is not international justice. This is not what your foreign minister ever planned for for the general assembly. This Russia today, this is also what we as the European Union formulated in our strategy. This Russia today cannot be a partner, but obviously Russia is a neighbor of us Europeans. So this is why we are not only talking about the war in Ukraine, we are also talking about all the arrests in Russia. We are talking about the end of democracy in Russia, which has happened over years because we want at some point to live together peacefully again in Europe with our Russian neighbor, but obviously with the Russian neighbor, which is not attacking other neighbors in Europe. All right. Thank you. Let me ask you about the links between what's happening in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, which is the subject of your address today. When you were in China, you were quite frank in criticising China for not condemning Russia's aggression against Ukraine. That has always struck me as odd because on China's behalf, because for decades, as you know, China has put respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity at the heart of their foreign policy and I've had Chinese interlocutors lecturing me on those subjects many times over the years. Do you think it damages China's reputation that it is failing to stand up for its own values and by and condemning Russia's aggression against a sovereign state? Well, also they had the press conference, I was actually asking a question. So, asking the question towards the Chinese foreign minister why they are not speaking about the aggressor, because I think it's not up to me to lecture others what to do, but I believe that it's a fair question to say, so when we are talking about this war of aggression, which it is, why the word war is not being used, but crisis or why there was and is the call from China to both sides as if this was a football game and you say both sides keep up your good spirit and try to do the best, but obviously one country invaded another country and it was a fundamental breach and if you were in sports or somewhere else where you rely on rules, you couldn't play anymore. And this is why I asked the question of saying, so why do you not name the perpetrator the aggressor because and this is also my explanation everywhere in the world and I wanted to try to deliver this also with my speech. It has obviously a blueprint for others if other countries see that at some point also the international community just gets tired of saying stop the war. It might be an invitation for others and I think this is also what China has realized over the last one and a half years that yes as you have said they are like Russia a P5 member. They have not only rights as a P5 member they do also have obligation which are labeled in the charter to secure international peace and therefore also other countries also other actors have asked questions to China and we have seen also slightly movements beginning with their call for not using nuclear weapons and I think also lately you could have seen developments because obviously what your question was there's also a tendency to be seen that it could also fall back off to them what they are saying to others if they are not commenting now the current situation. Let me ask you one of the powerful points you made in your speech is that economics is geopolitical and you said all we have to see all economic interactions through a geopolitical lens. As you know as you mentioned in recent years Australia was subjected to a campaign of economic coercion. I was struck that you mentioned you'd observed that you saw Australia as a role model you're impressed that we maintained a sense of proportion. Can you talk a little bit more about the conclusions that you drew from that episode about how to withstand that kind of economic coercion when it comes from a large neighbour? Well I think first of all it is this understanding that military means and diplomacy this is not only the two means for security but that security is way broader in a way this is totally simple. This is why I quoted Mr. Evans who said that already 78 years ago but in between sometimes obviously societies and government tend to forget it because we have seen also and this is why for us it's so kind of new and important that we drafted our security strategy because beforehand we had only a security strategy drafted by the defence ministry and the foreign ministry together seeing security as military means plus diplomacy and maybe a bit international cooperation and for the first time we did what other countries did as well maybe a bit before us to say okay also the question for example climate crisis is a security threat to us but defending democracy defending our freedom this is also of security concerns and these attacks on democracies and our freedoms are not being done by rockets or drones but being done by cyber attacks if you see that if you have attacks on three hospitals in Germany in a federal country in three different federal states from our constitution we from the federal level cannot even do anything because then each separate federal state would have to react to that and having the understanding that we could be attacked without any military means is something new in in our debate and yes we have seen it from examples like in Australia that it doesn't have to be cyber attacks which also you and others have experienced but if there would be a ban on critical materials which is highly needed to a society like in Australia your your call export but also other project that you could harm an economy so badly and this is again I would say like in quotation marks the benefit of dictators and autocratic regimes they don't have to fear like democracies that in three years time when the economy is down you see it with Russia and the sanctions that people wouldn't vote for them anymore because in a dictatorship in an autocracy obviously you have banned elections beforehand but in democratic countries and this is what makes us so vulnerable obviously if your economy goes down if your unemployment rates are going up governments will feel that at the next election post and this threat that democracies especially can be targeted also by economic means if you put up sanctions I would say you could see in Australia trying to blackmail Australia we have seen that with Lithuania the whole purpose that they could not export their product anymore was to try to separate Lithuania from the EU and try to give in and not into your internal discussions but what I've heard and read obviously you didn't give in but why did you have the chance but maybe you can also explain it from your side my reading was why you couldn't or had had the chance to not give in was also that you had some tools in your hands that obviously China also needed your call this was a problem from Lithuania it's a very small country it's like was only a couple of millions of inhabitants they didn't have something where can they where they can counter this blackmailing any projects like in Australia so the only counter argument was European unity that the whole EU said enough is enough and if products are not being allowed on the market anymore maybe they are not Lithuanian projects in the end we label them as EU products because other EU projects were needed and I our reading was from your situation because you asked me for that what could we learn that obviously if you're having such a dependency that you can be blackmailed 100% you're in a kind of loose loose situation so to have also not only decouple with one part with coal or with other projects but have cooperation and this is why we are saying we also need China as a partner not only with regard to fighting climate change but in a partner with other sectors so that they could not say to Europe we ban all the raw material and then the economy in Europe is being down but they know if they would do that and we have our anti-cursion measurements we would say well you also have some projects or you want your products on our market it would also harm you so seeing these tools obviously peaceful tools but however powerful tools in the economic dimension is something we have seen with you where you very balanced didn't say we stop all the import export with China but obviously made China quite clear that it would be also very risky for them if they would totally decouple or they use it as blackmailing with with you I'd love to talk about Australia-China relations with you and the importance of strength and consistency and as you say sharing the risk but I also want to bring in some other colleagues who've been asking questions so let me start with a couple of questions from think tankers and then I'll take one or two questions from the media first of all a colleague of mine at the institute Mihai Sora a research fellow Mihai congratulates you on opening your embassy in Fiji as you mentioned in your prepared remarks what do you hope to achieve for Germany with an increased presence on the ground in the Pacific? Good question and I've been asked this question a couple of times in Germany because I think we have to be also very honest between foreign officers between a think tank institute and ministries it's quite obvious yet that you say you need cooperation in a globalized world however speaking again about citizens and democracy I've had also many questions especially when our plane broke down so actually why did she go their first place what does she want to do and then your region is so beautiful doing in such a beautiful holiday reason so I had to actually explain that partnership and cooperation and diplomacy the currency of diplomacy is interaction is visits and you have said it quite friendly in the beginning but you can say it also very harsh the last foreign minister to Australia who visited was in 2011 and then Merkel was there but obviously in between nobody from us from the foreign ministry of chancellor visited you and that partnership is also seeing each other regularly is of high importance and then with Fiji and the small island states frankly speaking this is our first embassy not on Fiji but on all Pacific island states so it's kind of a joint embassy and we are opening this to enhance our cooperation obviously and if you do not have an embassy you can have less cooperation on the climate issue because of the small island forum because we joined now as partners in the blue Pacific and also to have with the Pacific island forum or the Pacific community better exchange on their bigger threat the climate crisis again because I mean talking and giving speeches is great but if people on the islands are saying if you want to help us you obviously have to know what's going on here and as you might know we do have already a couple of partnerships with the small island states in Papua Guinea in the Solomon island to protect the coral reef but also to support the new test initiative at the international court of justice but it's also security issue obviously so our embassy there is not only because of strengthening our ties with the climate crisis but also as we have seen other countries because they might be closer but also because they have a strategic interest our quite more regular there on the visits we have seen that all these small island state voted in the general assembly banning the war for Gresham from Putin but they could have also said I mean we are small island so where is actually Ukraine and what the hell do we have to do with it they didn't do so what we really appreciate but only applause doesn't help so this is why also for us this has the geopolitical dimension if these small island states are standing up for us in Europe for our security we want to make clear also with our embassy that their security concerns also concerns us and this is why we are also present now with an embassy on the ground all right thank you I have a question from Torsten Benner director of the Global Public Policy Institute and he says Australia's foreign minister Penny Wong talks about both deterrents and guardrails as key elements to prevent escalation and war over Taiwan so he asks what is Germany's approach to the deterrence of threats to the peaceful status quo in the Taiwan Strait as well as guardrails between the key players well first of all as he's still online Torsten Benner best greetings because this was also we try to bring also one of our best the researchers on the matches to the region he was in the same plane so it's good that we are together here again well obviously and this is the academic debate the political academic debate we're having also in Germany again I would like to underline also the Taiwan Strait it's quite far away so again in Germany you have to explain first of all well where it is many people know but why it's of such an importance also for us also for the global interest and I quoted how much container ships go through this Strait and I was also quoting this again in China at the press conference making clear because we are talking about international law we are calling on China's and others to support our international rules so first of all we are saying obviously all the regional actors have the primacy in dealing with their regional concerns but if it's addressing so much also the international order international rules it's obviously also in the global interest that there is no closure of the Taiwan Strait so the question is what is the best to do and this is a debate we are also having with Thorsten Benner and others how much pressure and how much diplomatic action there I believe that it's already a change in course that a German foreign minister that European Commission president von der Leyen are speaking about the Taiwan Strait making clear that this is also of our concern making clear that we do have international rules about these kind of trade routes this is why I quoted also Unklost and other treaties we are having and as I've said that we would not accept any coercive or military change in the status quo and again you ask about how I perceived that China was a Russian war in this horrible war sometimes there are side effects which might help in other discussions my impression was when I was in China speaking also to many German companies with German Chinese employees that the situation that there was such a unity of reaction not only from EU not only from G7 major but from 140 states towards Russia's brutal breach of the UN charter has been heard and seen obviously also in China if fundamental international law is being broken that the EU that the international community is even though sometimes we are a bit slowly as democracies but we are capable of being there united and then this has already at least changed a bit the discourse about the whole situation however and this is why I also quoted what we are doing supporting and training together in the security and military form obviously I do not want to say only thank you that you're supporting also Ukraine in the right of self-defense military but that our security concern is also your security concern and visa versa and this is why we are participating in the different trainings which we haven't done in the past all right thank you minister I'm sorry to hear that Torsten Benner was also stranded in the Gulf by your aircraft malfunction I want to reassure you that here at the Lowy Institute we still believe in German engineering minister let me let me get in one or two more questions if I can I have a question from Kirsty Needham from Reuters. Kirsty asks does Germany support the opening of a NATO office in the Indo-Pacific frankly speaking I believe that this is a very sensitive question because what we shouldn't underestimate and this is one of my biggest learnings in the last one and a half years we talked about that also cyber attacks also economic ties can be a weapon of war in a globalized world but this counts also for disinformation fake news which we have been seeing not only with the Russian war and especially in the beginning we were really afraid that there was such a setup from Russia with total fake news where people around the world couldn't maybe see whether it was really Russian attack or Ukraine did also something on a Russian territory because with artificial intelligence I mean you can do whatever you want but we do not only see this fake news and this power of narrative positive and negative narratives obviously in the Russian war but also in Africa if we look at Indonesia for example now at the moment the whole discussion where Ecovast is calling for support from others yesterday my colleague from Kursenegal was here in Berlin and she was telling me how important it is that Ecovast has a primer role if we can Europeans would support them because a narrative from the junta that actually the former government the democratic elected government was just on behalf international actors or if something would be done now by Ecovast if it would be too close to a cooperation with european the fake news about this has been something from outside would be so powerful and this is why i'm saying this argument not to bypass the answer to this question why i'm really thinking a lot these kind of questions we want to strengthen our ties also in the military cooperation also in the security cooperation however especially with NATO we can see that this argument NATO started this war that war right or wrong yeah no matter what but Afghanistan we have the question about Kosovo so this is a very unfortunately strong and the most part fake argument so i think we have to be really careful that there's not now the narrative NATO is doing something now in the in the pacific whereas NATO is a defense alliance a transatlantic defense aligned and therefore these are very sensitive topics and discussions and i think what matters is a cooperation and not so much a symbolic action all right minister i'm going to take the chair's prerogative and ask you the final question if i can often in the west you find that political figures on the right are very strong on hard security issues but weak on climate change and often those on the left are very strong on climate change policy but weak on hard security you make a powerful argument for being strong on both hard security and on climate change and you make the argument i think that solidarity is important both in maintaining a rules-based order and avoiding dangerous global warming because it's such a powerful argument can you just talk a bit about the commonalities between hard security and climate change well also thank you for that question and also to make it a bit more lively when i came into office we agreed in the government that foreign climate policy will go to the foreign office and there was a bit of debate so why is she doing that now because she's the green foreign minister and now she also wants to have the neat topic of climate like a good feeling topic for green as you have said because maybe rather on the on the left you talk about climate and my argument was it's not about green it's about the reality that the climate threat is the biggest security threat for many countries in the world that we have seen that unfortunately the climate crisis doesn't only cause environmental damage or damage to people but that it's an accelerator especially for conflict regions and we have seen that over the last years we have heard it from small countries or we have heard it from those countries confronted with this and i would say it was one of my best decisions to do this because in half of my talks now if the foreign ministry if me in person won't be totally into this topic half of my discussion partners would say well she doesn't understand our security threat so unfortunately the climate crisis or put it positively fighting the climate crisis is one of the most important security answers because it's an accelerator for conflicts we have seen that in so many smaller discussions around the chat lake for example the lake got smaller and smaller terrorists raised and raised not only due to the climate crisis but also because of the climate crisis because fishermen could not work anymore terrorist groups were going through the villages recruiting young boys which could before working on the lake was farmlands which was not able now anymore not speaking about drinking water and all the other issues so bringing this together is in our deepest security interest and this is why in our national security strategy the third chapter is about the question of fighting the climate crisis strengthening biodiversity and environmental protection to see it protecting our livelihood is in our pure security interest the good news maybe to end on a good news i would say is that also speaking as a green having these debates in the last 10 years now it has been come to everybody's agenda maybe for a green reason maybe for a human reason but maybe also for purely economic interest this is a good news about it i would say that even though if countries governments people do not believe because of saving the planet that they have to fight climate crisis the understanding that this is a security concern and that this is the revolution in the whole economy so also business wise it's a smarter thing to do is i think the good news because we can see also in many countries and i mean your country is still in call to be frank and open my country has formulated a cold phase out but we are also doing still a lignite mining so it's not about accusing other countries but we can also see in the big oil producing state that obviously they do not want to end their business now to lose a lot of money but they are do attract because they are preparing everything to be also the first movers with the biggest solar panels so i think this is a good news in the end for whatever reason fighting the climate crisis has been or is now on the agenda's top level and if we join hands now to fight it hopefully we can at least make in this regard some parts of the world a safer place minister we're out of time thank you very much for joining us thank you for paying us the compliment of giving a serious speech thank you for answering the questions with the frankness that that you're known for and thank you also for ending on a positive note i very much hope that next time if your air force allows you'll speak to the lowe institute in person dankeschön frau ministerin dankeschön as well yeah and i hope so too and again thank you so much i know how uh how tricky this is to separate these kind of formats digitally wise and then was a time difference so thank you so much to you michael in person but to the whole institute thank you very much and hope to see you in person then uh in a couple of months bye thank you again and thank you ladies and gentlemen for joining us today at the lowe institute we look forward to welcoming you to another event soon whether online or here at 31 bligh street good day