Ladies and Gentlemen,

It’s good to be back at Harvard, it’s good to be back at the Kennedy School. My last visit here was more than a decade ago. Since then, I have often fondly recalled the admirable intellectual atmosphere that is fostered here. You can all be proud of that. And so don’t stop fighting to preserve the academic freedom and the excellence for which Harvard is so famous!

This university is also the academic home of Professor Michael Sandel, who I just met here again today. I remember that I read his book “The Tyranny of Merit” in 2020, right in the middle of the COVID lockdown. It has had a significant influence on my thinking about social justice and the double-edged nature of meritocracy. So, you could say there’s a very direct line running from Harvard to my 2021 election campaign, which was centred on the unifying theme of “Respect.”

I would be happy to discuss this topic with you today – or, indeed, any other topic. Because these are extraordinary times, and there is a great deal to discuss. So please don’t hesitate to ask me any question that is on your mind.

But perhaps let me start with one issue that has been on my mind a lot recently: This the question of the prospects of international order in today’s fragmented, unrestful and multipolar world.

When Immanuel Kant presented his famous philosophical draft for a modern international law in Königsberg in 1795, his world, too, was anything but peaceful. True, Prussia had just barely managed to secure the “Peace of Basel” after gruelling years of war against revolutionary France. But Kant feared – and not without reason – that this agreement too would prove to be nothing more than another temporary ceasefire. As usual – and I quote –, “heads of state, who can never get enough of war,” would soon launch their next campaigns. 

It was this recurring experience that served as the starting point for his treatise on “Perpetual Peace.” To overcome the existing “state of nature” of war between states and to replace the right of the stronger with the strength of the law – precisely this was Kant’s revolutionary idea at that time. “The rights of men must be held sacred,” he insisted, “no matter how great the cost and sacrifice to the ruling power.”

Kant’s ideas were first enshrined in the League of Nations following World War I and then, beginning in 1945, in the Charter of the United Nations: the principle of a world order in which the exercise of power is bound by rules; and, linked to this, the idea of a “federalism of free states”; as well as the principle of non-interference. “No state should violently interfere in the constitution and government of another state,” Kant had demanded – an early rejection of regime change as a legitimate cause of war. No state should have to fear being threatened, harassed, or occupied by larger or stronger states. 

Entirely in keeping with Kant’s spirit, the general prohibition on the use of force and the prohibition on intervention under Article 2 of the UN Charter are now part of international law. And in Article 25, the German Constitution stipulates that the general rules of international law are also an integral part of German federal law.

So far, so good, we might say. But unfortunately – as we see – there are still “heads of state who can never get enough of war.” And progress that has been achieved can be lost again. Various developments in recent years make it clear that the willingness to disregard international law remains undiminished. The hope that a rules-based international order, multilateral organizations, and collective security systems could finally civilize the international community has not yet been realized. 

The most glaring recent example of this is the unprovoked war of aggression against the entire country of Ukraine, which Russia’s President Putin launched in February 2022. For more than four years, the Ukrainian people have borne the brunt of this imperialist aggression. However, from the very beginning I described Russia’s invasion as a “turning point”, not just because it will determine the fate of Ukraine. And not just, because it will determine the future course of Russia – the world’s largest country by land area. What makes Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine a turning-point above all else is something different. Namely, that it represents a fundamental break with the basic principles of the rules-based international order established since 1945.

This order includes the unconditional agreement that borders must not be shifted by force. It also involves overcoming the disastrous concept of “spheres of influence,” according to which hegemonic powers are allowed to pressure or even conquer smaller states at will – simply because they can, or because they consider themselves historically justified in doing so. 

That is why the agreement on a rules-based order must remain in place: No state is merely the “backyard” of another, stronger state. Every existing state –

regardless of its size – has a right to territorial integrity. Every state has the right to decide sovereignly on its own path and its alliances. There should be neither a “Western Hemisphere” nor a “Russian World” or, indeed, a “Sinosphere.”

And incidentally, in light of these considerations, I would like to add here that it is difficult to see how recent actions taken by the United States regarding Greenland, Venezuela, or Iran could possibly be compatible with international law.

The international community, as represented by the United Nations, condemned Russia’s 2022 aggression against Ukraine by an overwhelming majority. That was an encouraging sign. 

At the same time, however, the principled rejection of revisionism of any kind under international law is a challenging matter. For it is undeniable that the world’s borders and territorial arrangements, as they exist today, are the result of past wars or arbitrary decisions by former colonial powers. This is perceived as historically unjust. Consequently, demands to redraw international borders and to restore former conditions are repeatedly being voiced all over the world. 

It is thanks to German Chancellor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Willy Brandt that such demands will never come from Germany: The question of the border between Germany and Poland along the Oder and Neisse rivers has been definitively settled since the 1970 Warsaw Treaty and the 1990 Two Plus Four Treaty.

But elsewhere in the world historically rooted resentment continues to be a powerful driving force behind revisionism in international law. Much would therefore be gained if borders – however arbitrarily drawn – were no longer called into question, thereby becoming the cause of new wars aimed at changing them.

Of course, when the United Nations Charter was adopted by 50 founding members in 1945, many countries in the Global South were still foreign-ruled colonies. The peoples of these colonies did not have a say in drafting the rules of international law that apply today. Also, these rules did not protect them. It is therefore easy to understand why the praise for the “rules-based international order” does not always convince everyone in Africa or Asia right away. There is deep-seated mistrust of a West that often seems to insist on compliance with “universal” rules precisely when these rules serve its own interests.

All these difficulties and challenges must be understood, if one wishes to contribute today to what political scientist Adom Getachew has called “the establishment of a post-imperial world.” I believe that this – the establishment of a post-imperial world – is an important goal. I am also confident that this is a goal that is achievable. But obviously, a resilient, rules-based order in a new era of multipolarity will be easier to achieve if we, the representatives of the “old West”, demonstrate considerable humility. We cannot take for granted that our conduct will be perceived as honest. The trust without which no rules-based order can endure must be earned through many small steps – and it must be reaffirmed time and again.

What can help in this regard is patient work toward the broadest possible consensus among the world’s democracies. The spectrum of democratic systems is vast. In many countries, democracy functions differently than it does in Germany. Even within the European Union, the variations of democracy diverge widely. Nevertheless, a shared commitment to the fundamental values and principles of democracy can be the glue that brings together – and holds together – states from very different regions of the world as kindred spirits.

Incidentally, the fact that the world’s democratic states recognize one another as like-minded nations must not lead to a failure to advance orderly cooperation among all states, regardless of their internal political systems. The shared rejection of border revisions is therefore of central importance.We should also strive to ensure that all states respect the principle of habeas corpus in relation to their citizens. Opponents of the government do not belong in prison anywhere! It should be our ambition to achieve both goals in this century. This is possible – and it represents the fulfilment of Kant’s vision.

But at the same time, strengthening democracy around the world remains necessary. Just to illustrate my point: The G7 summit of the world’s economically leading democracies took place in Germany in 2022 – just a few months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. At the time it was particularly important to me to invite key democratic nations from the Global South. That is why India, Indonesia, South Africa, Senegal and Argentina were represented at this summit as friends and partners. (Senegal and Argentina as representatives, at the time, of the African Union and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, respectively.) For it was and remains crucial to demonstrate that democracy and the rules-based international order are not merely “Western values”. Rather, they can – and should – be universal principles: principles that are shared by like-minded partners in the emerging multipolar world.

Promoting this message will become even more important in the future. Such advocacy can only succeed if it is never perceived in the Global South as patronizing or condescending. In Europe (including Germany), we often still fail to fully grasp how sensitively – even allergically – people in countries of the Global South react today to lectures from the “Old West.” As Germans and Europeans, we would do well to ease this atmosphere with great caution. 

For Europeans it would be helpful to abandon the still-widespread notion of Europe as the ultimate benchmark of historical development. I believe that this is a necessary process of adjustment – an adjustment that the Indian historian Dipesh Chakrabarty has termed “Provincializing Europe.” 

In fact, in a dynamically evolving multipolar world with 10 billion inhabitants, Europe will no longer be the linchpin. Rather, it will be a significant global province – one significant global province among other significant global provinces. Not viewing this as a historical decline and humiliation is one of the great challenges we face today. We will not overcome it through nostalgic navel-gazing, but with a great deal of pragmatism and a willingness to embrace the changes in the world. Then it will become clear: Europe can still contribute to the success of the global whole. But it can – and will – do so as a self-assured equal among equals. 

Here, too, we would do well to take our cue from Kant. Throughout his entire life this philosopher never left his native province of East Prussia even for one single day. That did not prevent him from presenting a groundbreaking blueprint for a peace to encompass the entire world.

Thank you very much – and now I’m looking forward to your questions!