00:15Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
00:49Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
01:09Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
01:15Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
01:23Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
02:18Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
02:57Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
03:01Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
03:20Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
03:33Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
04:16Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
04:27Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
05:00Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
05:03Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
05:43Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
05:47Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
05:58Q&A
06:01Knochen
06:01Knochen
06:02Untertitelung des ZDF für funk, 2017
06:05U.S.
06:08ZDF für funk, 2017
06:13against Europe. However, I think nobody was naïve in thinking that this is not an olive branch,
06:21this is just a way to make the past few months a bit less painful. But clearly the roller
06:28head, as I mentioned, this is camped before the next tempest, because the roller head is still
06:33made of many differences. I think Ukraine is still lurking very much around the corner in
06:39terms of big US, Europe, Ukraine difference. And Greenland is not completely in a way solved. And
06:46I think the Danish prime minister was pretty clear about that. And do you think Greenland could be
06:51the next storm? Because we heard from Mette Friedrichsen, the Danish prime minister over the
06:55weekend, suggesting Donald Trump is still very serious about buying the island. Do you agree
07:00with her that there's still a big risk there for the NATO alliance? But clearly the problem is there's
07:07a mismatch between what the Danes, the Europeans are trying to do, which is to improve support to
07:13Greenland, both on the security and the economic front, which is a rational way of addressing possible
07:20vulnerabilities out there. And the US president who just takes a very emotional, personal view that
07:27he just wants to own that piece of estate. He's thinking like a Manhattan real estate mogul. So he
07:35doesn't take a very rational approach to it. And that's the mismatch that I think the Danes are
07:41trying to manage with a diplomatic process. How long the diplomatic process is going to keep things
07:47together? This is the big question mark. I think we have to be ready for the next crisis. And clearly
07:53the
07:53show of unity by the Europeans in addressing the US threat on Greenland worked once and may have to work
08:00another time. But we'll have to be willing to put even more skin in this game.
08:04You obviously shaped NATO policy for many years. Do you think there's a real crisis within the HQ
08:11here in Brussels? You know, we heard EU leaders von der Leyen talking about reactivating the EU's
08:17own defence clause over the weekend, seemingly because they cannot rely on NATO's Article 5. Is
08:22the NATO alliance, as we've known it for decades, now dead? It's gone?
08:26Well, I think it's not reactivating the EU mutual defence clause. It's making it real as a start,
08:33because it's never been taken really seriously. But on your NATO question, I think we are entering
08:39the age of parallel universes, where NATO is still going to be there. It's still a very much a valid
08:46option for the Europeans, both in terms of US extended nuclear deterrent, but also in terms of
08:52framework to plan and prevent the next war against Russia. However, clearly what you hear in the
09:00corridors, but also in the main hallway, is that we need to start thinking about Plan B's.
09:05And for that, you're going to have the European Union, but you also are going to have increasingly
09:11the development of coalitions, like the Coalition of the Wheeling for Ukraine, which maybe is going to
09:17be put with more substance or the joint expeditionary force that is led by the UK. So I think you're
09:23going to have the multiplication of all these Plan B's in response to the fact that, answering your
09:28question, I think the US has introduced a very significant doubt as to its commitment to Europe
09:35via NATO. And therefore, NATO is still going to go on, but it's no longer the one and only Plan
09:40A.
09:40Fabrice Potier, that's all we have time for this morning. But thank you so much for coming on
09:45and joining us and sharing your insights. Now, as we mentioned there, the President of the European
09:51Commission said in Munich over the weekend that the EU needs to bring its own mutual defence clause
09:57to life, saying, you change or you die. Our reporter, Jakob Yanis, has been scouring through the EU
10:04treaties in search of this little known mutual defence clause.
10:10Did you know the EU has its own mutual defence clause? Your reporter didn't. But suddenly,
10:17it is the hottest topic in Europe. Just days ago, the head of NATO told Europe to
10:23keep dreaming if they think they can defend themselves without the US. But the EU Commission
10:28President fired back. Independent Europe just means let's develop our strength without constantly
10:34leaning on someone else. And part of her plan involves a little-known rule, the Article 42.7.
10:42So, what is it? It says if an EU country is attacked, all their members have an obligation to help.
10:50And on
10:51paper, the wording seems to be stronger than NATO's famous Article 5. It doesn't even require a unanimous
10:58vote to activate. But there is a catch. The EU is not a military alliance, and it lacks a unified
11:05command structure. And it leaves it up to each country to decide how to help, which does not
11:12automatically mean sending troops. And in fact, it has only been triggered once, after the 2015 Paris
11:20attacks. Plus, there is a trust gap. When Eastern European nations look for a true security shield,
11:27they look to NATO, not Brussels. But with Washington demanding Europe to take over its own conventional
11:35defense, and with growing doubts around the future of NATO, the clock is ticking. The EU is also wondering
11:43what happens if the US closes its nuclear umbrella over Europe. And building a fully independent European
11:51nuclear shield would cost billions of euros and take time. So, Europe has the Treaty and the Article.
11:58Now it just must build the military strength to back it up.
12:07Jakob Yanis reporting there. Now, as we just heard, European leaders are reigniting the debate on a
12:14common European nuclear umbrella amid the continued threats from Russia and eroding trust in the US.
12:22Joining me in the studio to explain more is our defense reporter, Alice Tidy, also freshly back from
12:28Munich for us. Alice, lots of Europeans talking about this over the weekend, the need for a common
12:35homegrown European nuclear deterrence. Why now? Well, basically, the Europeans, although they've gone to
12:43great lengths over the past week to say that they believe that the US is fully committed to NATO, that
12:47they believe it is committed today, tomorrow, that it will be in 10 years, that it will be in 20
12:51years,
12:51there are still a lot of concerns over that commitment. I mean, remember that last year,
12:57Washington cast doubt over its commitment to Article 5. So, Europeans responded by more than
13:02doubling their spending target within the alliance. And yet, this year, we had Trump saying that he would
13:08forcefully seize Greenland. So, that cast a lot of doubts over the very existence of NATO. And obviously,
13:14the US has also said that he wants to pull back. But there's a lot of
13:19unsaid yet over how that partial pullback would happen, and whether or not this could include
13:23the nuclear deterrent, right? So, over the weekend, indeed, we had French President Emmanuel Macron
13:28announcing that he had held strategic dialogue with Chancellor Mertz on this topic, as well as with
13:35other EU leaders. He didn't name those other EU leaders, but we know, for instance, that the Latvian PM,
13:41Evike Selina said that she would be open to that discussion. We also had the Polish President
13:49yesterday telling Polish media that he wants his armed forces to look into the nuclear potential.
13:56And I also spoke with the Finnish Defense Minister, Antti Hakkinen, on the sidelines of the conference,
14:03who said, and I quote here,
14:05Inside NATO, it's clear that the US is ironclad committed to nuclear deterrence.
14:10It's good news if the European nuclear states are investing to build up even stronger nuclear
14:15capabilities. But to compensate the US, that's not the question now. So, Finland would be open.
14:21But again, this European deterrent would have to complement the US and not compensate it.
14:28So, it's clearly an idea of gaining traction among European leaders. But at the same time,
14:33Alice, it's still very, very divisive, this question of nuclear rearmament. And we heard
14:38from the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, clearly voicing some reservations about this.
14:43Yes, it did. Sánchez was at the Munich conference, and he made it clear he is not for nuclear
14:48rearmament. In fact, he said that the nuclear deterrence is far too costly, far too risky.
14:56It's a far too risky way of avoiding conflict. And he said that what it involves, the risks it involves,
15:02are actually more of a gamble than a guarantee for European security.
15:05Clearly still some divided opinions on that subject. But thank you so much for bringing
15:09us that update. Moving on now to something completely different. The Berlin Film Festival
15:15has only been running for a few days, yet already there is significant controversy over comments made
15:21by members of the jury. To explain, we can cross over now to Berlin, where our correspondent,
15:27Laura Fleischmann, is standing by for us, I believe. Laura, good morning. Bring us up to speed.
15:33What has been happening here? Well, at first, everything seemed to go smoothly at the Berlinale.
15:41But then a German journalist asked a question at a press conference with a jury of the festival. He
15:48accused them of what he called selective solidarity only with Iranians and Ukrainians, but not with
15:54Palestinians. And one of the festival's jurors then responded that there are many conflicts going on
16:00worldwide that don't get any attention at the festival either. But what really sparked controversy was
16:06the response by Wim Wenders. He is the president of the jury and a very famous German filmmaker.
16:12He said that the festival is a counterweight to politics. And this even led an Indian writer to
16:19pull out from the festival altogether. But let's see what Wim Wenders actually said at the press conference.
16:25We have to stay out of politics because if we made movies that are dedicatedly political,
16:37we enter the field of politics. But we are the counterweight to politics. We are the opposite of
16:43politics. We have to do the work of people and not the work of politicians.
16:49Yes. And Laura, it's also true to say that these film festivals, including the Berlinale,
16:55are usually highly political, very politically charged. Why the sudden change in tone here?
17:04Indeed, the Berlinale is known as a highly political film festival, and it still is.
17:09There are many political statements being made on the red carpet at press conferences.
17:14But the change in tone could be due to Germany's history, especially in regards to the Holocaust
17:20and in regards to World War II. Israel is a highly sensitive topic here in Germany. And this could be
17:26the reason why Wim Wenders is hesitant in regards to Palestine and in politics in general. But it could
17:33also be due to anti-Semitism being linked to some pro-Palestinian protests here in Germany. There are
17:40anti-Jewish chants. There are anti-Jewish and anti-Israel signs at some protests that aren't against
17:46the government, but against the whole country's existence. So this could be a reason why movie
17:51makers and actors don't want to be linked to this topic, perhaps. And also, there has been a spike
17:56in anti-Semitism as of recently here in Germany. And the festival's director, Trisha Tuttle,
18:02even came out and supported Wim Wenders after the controversy. She said that it is, as of recently,
18:09oftentimes expected of movie makers and actors to make political statements. But they are mainly
18:14at the film festival to promote their work, their movies. They want to talk about what they did. They
18:20don't want to talk about politics, perhaps. And it is their right of free speech to talk about whatever
18:25they please. They can decide to not talk about politics, but they can also decide to talk about
18:32them. But they get criticized either way. That's what Trisha Tuttle said after the controversy broke
18:38loose. Laura, thank you so much for that update on the controversy surrounding the Berlinale Film
18:44Festival in Berlin. But that's it from us for today. We'll be back at the same time, same place tomorrow.
18:51In the meantime, if you want to read more about the stories we covered on today's show,
18:55and all the other breaking news from Europe, remember to stay up to date on our website,
19:01euronews.com. Thank you so much for tuning in, and we hope to see you soon here on Euronews.
19:28Hey,
19:37Untertitelung des ZDF, 2020
20:01Untertitelung des ZDF, 2020
Kommentare