taz: Mr. Kaczmarczyk, what did you think when US President Donald Trump didn’t just say he wanted to Greenland but also threatened with tariffs because of it?
Patrick Kaczmarczyk: At first I didn’t take Trump’s threats to Greenland seriously either. This was just like his talk about Canada becoming a US state. But then came his coup in Venezuela. It was clear then that he was serious about his imperialist ambitions. That’s why his tariff threats over Greenland no longer surprised me.
taz: Others probably felt the same way. After all, they had already survived Trump’s first term in office. Isn’t that why many people hoped that his second term in office wouldn’t be so bad?
Im Interview: Patrick Kaczmarczyk
The political economist was born in 1990. He is currently researching at the Transformation Competence Center at the University of Mannheim. He was a deputy member of the federal government’s expert commission on reforming the debt brake. His most recent publication was “Disintegration of the World Order” by Westend Verlag.
Kaczmarczyk: France was more realistic. In his speech at the Sorbonne nine months after Trump’s first swearing in, Macron had already demanded that Europe needed strategic autonomy from America. That was almost a decade ago. In Germany he was almost exclusively criticized for this, but much of what he warned about in his speech has now happened.
taz: In the meantime, Trump has withdrawn the tariff threats. Negotiations are now underway about Greenland. Chancellor Friedrich Merz said in Davos that Europe had understood Trump’s message. Is that correct?
Kaczmarczyk: By now it should be clear to everyone in Europe where this naive transatlanticism of the last few centuries has led. We have become extremely dependent on the USA. This not only affects security policy, but also the economy.
taz: Europe is the USA’s largest creditor. Isn’t the dependence mutual?
Kaczmarczyk: The surplus country always has more to lose in a trade war than the deficit country, even if both sides suffer damage. And Germany, with its ordoliberal economic policy, has only itself to blame for its poor negotiating position.
taz: Why?
Kaczmarczyk: Because it was said that the state should stay out of the economy as much as possible and the focus was on exports instead of a strong domestic market, Germany was always dependent on impulses from abroad. The USA, with its large market, has always been something of a… consumer of last resort for German corporations. And if Trump now threatens with tariffs, then demand for goods made in Germany will be at risk. That’s why the German business model no longer works in times of protectionism.
taz: How should the federal government react to Trump’s imperialism in terms of economic policy?
Kaczmarczyk: Germany and Europe must break away from transatlantic dependencies. This first requires a new pragmatism. Economic policy must finally say goodbye to the general austerity dictate and the fixation on exports. Otherwise, the situation for industry and on the labor market will become even bleaker and the distribution struggles become even sharper.
taz: What does that mean specifically?
Kaczmarczyk: At the European level, a reform of the Maastricht debt rules necessary. These set far too tight fiscal limits for the EU members. Because if the USA ceases to be a sales market, the state must first step in and create demand. In addition, the EU rules for state aid would also have to be relaxed so that a more active industrial policy can be pursued in Europe again, which helps companies to transform and generally creates more stable framework conditions. There is Germany, for example The industrial electricity price has already reached the limits of state aid law.
taz: Doesn’t higher national debt also pose the risk of a new euro crisis?
Kaczmarczyk: That is why the European Central Bank should also support the European countries with its monetary policy and ultimately stand behind debt securities. Large financial players should know that they cannot speculate against individual countries, as happened with Greece in the euro crisis. They should know that they will then always be messing with the ECB and the entire euro area.
taz: The EU is trying out free trade agreements like these Latin American Mercosur states or to make India more independent from the USA. To what extent would the Global South be a strategic new partner for Europe?
Kaczmarczyk: Strategically, it could actually be worthwhile for Europe to build up the Global South and win it as a long-term partner. However, free trade agreements only help to a limited extent. On the one hand, they are not a substitute for domestic demand, which is much more important than foreign trade with third countries. On the other hand, are the problems are particularly serious in the poorest countries in the world. In order to address this, one would have to get to the foundations of international financial policy and development aid.
taz: In your current book you also call for a reform of international institutions. What should this look like?
Kaczmarczyk: Developing and emerging countries must be given significantly more leeway in their development. They must be given the right to protectionism so that they can promote their economy. And institutions like the International Monetary Fund should no longer tie their aid to demands for neoliberal reforms. Countries like India and China were able to grow successfully because they had the leeway to break away from these market-liberal dogmas.
taz: China has long been perceived, especially in Germany, as a competitor that outdoes local car manufacturers in the competition. Isn’t there a danger that new competitors will be bred in this way?
Kaczmarczyk: If we act in this way of thinking, we would actually have to try to prevent growth in all emerging and developing countries. But this puts us exactly in the zero-sum thinking that is fueling the current tensions in the world. It is wrong to see China only as a competitor.
taz: But China is also fighting hard in geopolitics and on the global market.
Kaczmarczyk: One should not be naive about China. But demonizing it is also wrong. Perhaps Europe can also learn from China, at least in economic terms.
taz: To what extent?
Kaczmarczyk: If a European company in… China wanted to invest, Beijing attached conditions to it. For example, European companies had to enter into joint ventures with local companies. This resulted in a transfer of knowledge to the Far East, from which China benefited. Europe could now also impose such requirements on Chinese companies if they want to enter the European market.