Germany's Baerbock says her Green Party remains united on migration
Robert Habeck, Germany's vice chancellor and the Greens' leading candidate for the upcoming February 23 election, unveiled a 10-point plan that calls for more deportations and particularly tough enforcement on suspected Islamists and other extremists.
Germany's Greens have historically championed the rights of refugees.
"The Habeck plan is the result and the short summary of our election programme and we stand by it as a party," Baerbock, Germany's current foreign minister, told a local radio station in Berlin on Thursday.
The youth wing of the party, the Green Youth, responded to Habeck's plan with their own paper which called for far greater support for migrants and better services for those fleeing persecution.
Baerbock acknowledged that there "are always individual voices" of dissent, but noted that the Green Party's election manifesto, which contains sections on migration and domestic security issues, was unanimously adopted at the party conference.
"A liberal society must have the strength to be able to say in one breath that those who abuse our right of asylum - such as Islamists and criminals - must be deported and at the same time the thousands of people who work here and have found a home here, who have fled from Islamists, must of course continue to receive protection in our country," Baerbock said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
5 hours ago
- Time Magazine
From the Sidelines, Ukraine Prepares to Watch as U.S., Russia Discuss Its Fate
This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME's politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. Given the optimistic tone coming from so many world leaders ahead of Donald Trump's Friday meeting with Vladimir Putin, one might be forgiven for believing a peaceful end to Russia's war in Ukraine was merely hours away. [time-brightcove not-tgx='true'] German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called Wednesday's video call with the U.S. President to discuss the Americans' upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin 'a truly exceptionally constructive and good conversation.' From his point of view, Trump 'would rate it a 10, very friendly.' Putin told reporters on Thursday that he saw Trump making 'quite energetic efforts to stop the fighting, end the crisis, and reach agreements of interest to all parties involved in this conflict.' All the while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whose country remains under constant attack from Putin's Russia, seemed to say what everyone else didn't want to acknowledge: 'Putin does not want peace. He wants to occupy us completely.' Ahead of a bilateral summit between U.S. and Russian leaders slated to take place on Friday in Alaska, no one was offering hard predictions. It's impossible to forget just how effectively Putin has succeeded in bending Trump with his charm, brutality, and mind games. The session in Anchorage is likely far from resolving the three-year-old war but could, if Trump's comments this week hold true, a first step toward winding down a conflict that has left Trump beyond frustrated that he cannot simply will peace into being. But everyone has seen Trump set out with one plan only to see him return with a completely revised notion. It's why Putin is already trying to distract Trump with other agenda items before they even meet. To be blunt, it's a coin-toss what happens next. But one thing is certain: none of it will match the tranquility and conformity that leaders were trying to project heading into this session. Trump is famous for going into these sessions under-prepared and over-confident. And recent reports suggest Trump may be preparing a deal with Russia that would trade rare minerals—perhaps those mined in Alaska—with Russia in exchange for peace in Ukraine, a suggestion Trump did not shoot down during a Thursday meeting with reporters. Separately, there are reports that Trump is bandying around an idea that would give Russia military and economic control of an occupied Ukraine, much like Israel has the run of the Palestinians' West Bank. Indeed, the expectations-lowering machine was going so fast this week you could see the smoke coming off the gears, with Trump on Thursday doubling-down on the idea that Friday's session was merely an opening act for the real games that would come quickly and with Zelensky on hand. 'We have a meeting with President Putin tomorrow,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday. 'I think it's going to be a good meeting, but the more important meeting will be the second meeting that we're having. We're going to have a meeting with President Putin, President Zelensky, myself, and maybe we'll bring some of the European leaders along. Maybe not.' It's the maybe not that has a lot of Ukraine's allies on edge. Europe's bloodiest war since 1945 has left the continent unsettled, the West dusting off its Cold War instincts, and Russia increasingly isolated. This will be the first time Putin has had an in-person audience with a U.S. President since 2021, or since he invaded Ukraine the following year. That Trump would welcome Putin on U.S. soil was being spun both as Trump securing home-turf advantage and a moment of capitulation to a cold-blooded dictator whose values are anathema to American values. For his part, Trump has been aggressively cagey about the summit's goals as he tries to improvise his way toward the Nobel Peace Prize he openly covets. 'We're going to see what happens. And I think President Putin will make peace. I think President Zelensky will make peace. We'll see if they can get along, and if they can, it'll be great,' Trump said of the two leaders who have killed thousands of foes in a battle that seems fated. White House officials and their proxies on the outside have been shameless in repositioning the goalposts so that Trump could declare a win no matter the outcome. The talking point calling the summit a 'listening experience' drew so much derision, it teeters on becoming the new Infrastructure Week, a branding campaign infamous for its lack of tangible results. On Thursday, Trump leaned into that posture in his freewheeling session with reporters. 'We're going to find out where everybody stands,' Trump said, seemingly oblivious to the fact Russia invaded Ukraine and has been far from an honest negotiating partner. 'And I'll know within the first two minutes, three minutes, four minutes, or five minutes left, we tend to find out whether or not we're going to have a good meeting or a bad meeting. And if it's a bad meeting, it'll end very quickly, and if it's a good meeting, we're going to end up getting peace in the pretty near future.' In an earlier radio interview, Trump said he put the odds of a failed summit at one-in-four and said he would leave Alaska immediately if things go sideways. The pieces were certainly in the wings for that outcome. Putin is bringing with him a business delegation that could distract Trump from the task at hand with the prospect of big-ticket investment vehicles. Trump, above all else, sees himself as a deal maker, and an economic package at home could prove more tempting than peace in a far-away corner of the globe. At the same time, Kremlin officials have dangled a nuclear treaty as another potential subject of conversation. Trump's advisers see the risk. Putin knows its potential. And Trump himself seems indifferent to the distractions hiding in plain sight. So as Friday's summit barrels toward a starting pistol, it is the diplomatic equivalent of a jump ball, with two nuclear powers making a play as Ukraine is left to watch from afar a discussion about its sheer survival. Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.
Epoch Times
7 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Zelenskyy Says ‘Putin Is Bluffing' Ahead of Trump Summit
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Aug. 13 that Russian President Vladimir Putin was 'bluffing' when he said sanctions were not hurting the Kremlin. Zelenskyy was speaking after sitting in on a series of virtual meetings hosted by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz ahead of the summit on Aug. 15 between U.S. President Donald Trump and Putin.
The Hill
8 hours ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
