The EU foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels today, Monday. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza once again dominating the agenda. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken will join the meeting via video call in the morning, as will his Ukrainian counterpart Dmytro Kuleba.
One of the points: the use of the income generated by the frozen Russian assets. The German government has now given up its reservations, as Chancellor Olaf Scholz made clear after meeting with Emmanuel Macron and Donald Tusk on Friday: the “windfall profits” from Russian assets “will be used to financially support the purchase of weapons for Ukraine.” However, Hungary and some neutral EU states have reservations. Meanwhile, the EU Commission is still discussing how best to channel the money, for example, via the European Peace Facility or the Defense Fund. The proposal is due to reach the College on Wednesday.
The Russian funds were one of several points on which the three heads of state and government of the Weimar Triangle got specific. Others are to be pushed forward on Tuesday at the meeting of defense ministers at the US airbase in Ramstein: the purchase of weapons and ammunition for Ukraine on the global market (over and above the Czech ammunition initiative), corresponding production facilities in Ukraine and a new “capability coalition for long-range missile artillery,” which Scholz spoke of. This is not about Taurus cruise missiles, which Scholz is known to oppose, but about additional systems that the Bundeswehr and other European armed forces are already supplying.
Tusk emphasized that they wanted to help Ukraine “wherever necessary”, “right now and right here.” However, the Polish head of government relegated the unresolved differences of opinion between Macron and Scholz about ruling out the option of sending their own soldiers to Ukraine to the realm of “nasty rumors.” This was probably not the only reason why people in Berlin were happy about Tusk’s presence, who is regarded as humorous, diplomatic and clever. The three want to meet again in early summer, this time in Warsaw at Tusk’s invitation.
Have a humorous start to the week!
Mr. Schwab, the DMA has only been in effect for a few days before the first use case with Apple and Epic Games occurred. Apple has given in. Is that a good signal?
It is good that the Commission has defined the gatekeepers and that the rules are now in force. Now it is important that the Commission also acts quickly in smaller cases that are not in the public eye. In this case, it worked quite well. The DMA can only be effective if the Commission acts promptly to protect affected companies before irreversible damage occurs.
Do you expect that other companies that are less in the public eye feel encouraged by the DMA and want to assert their rights?
That is the goal. My colleagues and I are holding many talks to explain the new legal situation. The Commission is holding workshops and Ms Vestager has traveled to the USA. Lina Khan, the head of the US competition authority FTC, wants all complaints received by the Commission under the DMA to be forwarded to her. This is not about troubling the big American companies. But we want law and justice to return to digital markets. Affected companies should report infringements immediately.
So the DMA is nothing to rest on?
No. The DMA gives companies that would otherwise have found themselves in a hopeless situation the opportunity to point out misconduct and demand remedial action. But it’s a bit like falling into the water on the high seas: You have to shout and there also has to be someone nearby to help you. In some cases, we still don’t have enough staff to do this.
Is that because of the Commission?
Only the implementation is the sole responsibility of the Commission. But the national authorities are also called to keep a close eye on the market situation and to pass on information to the Commission. I proposed to achieve better cooperation between the Commission and the national authorities.
Is the collaboration working?
We need to keep an eye on this. I know that Germany loaned two officials to the European Commission, as have the Dutch. The Italians are in the process of doing so. So there are already forms of cooperation. The result can only be assessed in a few months.
In Germany, there was a discussion about making gatekeepers contribute to the monitoring costs. The DMA does not provide for this. Is this an omission?
I think it’s right not to do this at the start of regulation. It’s not about charging gatekeepers across the board. Or to demand market access fees. We want to transfer the basic principles of the social market economy to the Internet. If companies adhere to these principles, they will continue to be free to innovate and develop their business. But of course, if after a few years, we realize that we are constantly being led around by the nose by the gatekeepers, then we need to ask whether we need a regulatory fee. But I hope we can avoid it. However, it is up to the companies to behave fairly in the market.
What steps do you expect next?
I already asked the Commission before Christmas to add further services to the scope of the DMA. This has not yet happened. For example, it needs to be clarified whether free email or cloud services should also be included. The same applies to whether artificial intelligence should be defined as core platform services (CPS) of the major gatekeepers. In my view, this work on the definition or designation of further services has not yet been done. This should have happened before March 7.
What else is on the agenda now?
Of course, it is now a matter of enforcing the rules for the already designated CPS. The compliance plans that the gatekeepers have submitted so far are probably not sufficient. At the very least, there are considerable doubts among many gatekeepers as to whether they have really become DMA-compliant. The DMA working group will meet with the Commission and the companies concerned on April 3 to examine what needs to be done next.
You said that the FTC wants to be informed about all DMA complaints. What does that mean?
An authority in the USA strives to enforce free competition, just as we do in Europe with the DMA. We have different legal bases, different instruments, different authorities. But the aim is that competition should be free and independent and must follow certain rules – these principles apply on both sides of the Atlantic. And they are also implemented in the same way. That is my assumption.
Apple could be interpreted that there will effectively be two different app stores, one European and one American …
That is the threat. We’ll have to wait and see whether Apple carries it out. Many threats have been made that have not materialized in the end.
So you expect that there will be pressure from the FTC to apply the European rules in the USA as well?
There will also be pressure in the USA to ensure fair market conditions. This already exists today, albeit on a different legal basis. There will certainly be coordination between the Commission and the FTC. This may mean that we pursue the same goal with different means. The important thing is that both authorities no longer want to accept the current gatekeeper approach.
Will the second attempt work? The President of the Swiss Confederation, Viola Amherd, is coming to Brussels today to mark the restart of negotiations between Switzerland and the EU with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. It is a new attempt to create a stable foundation for the complicated bilateral relationship and to secure Swiss access to the EU internal market in the long term. The goal is a package with the so-called institutional issues such as the dynamic adoption of law, dispute settlement and new internal market agreements.
In an increasingly unstable world, it is crucial to have stable and secure relations with neighboring countries, said Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis ten days ago after the government in Bern adopted its negotiating mandate. In May 2021, however, it was Switzerland that unilaterally broke off a first attempt after seven years of negotiations – to Brussels’ surprise. Many in Bern now see it as a mistake to have abruptly left the negotiating table back then. In any case, distrust towards the Swiss continues to linger in Brussels.
The EU also adopted its mandate last week. The two chief negotiators also want to meet today for a first round of negotiations: Brexit-tested Richard Szostak for the EU and top diplomat Patric Franzen for Switzerland. 120 agreements have so far governed the ever-closer bilateral relationship. The EU believes that a new basis is needed for the so-called market access agreements in particular, which warns against an erosion of Swiss access.
The bilateral agreements with Switzerland were once concluded statically, also in the expectation that the country would one day join. The discrepancy between the static agreements and dynamic EU law has grown ever greater over the years. There is also no dispute resolution mechanism if there is disagreement on the interpretation of the common rules of the game.
The EU therefore believes that the homogeneity of the internal market is at risk. For this reason, Switzerland is now to dynamically implement EU law in five market access agreements, from land transport to the free movement of persons. In the event of disputes, an arbitration tribunal is to decide, although it must consult the European Court of Justice if it concerns EU law and there is no case law on the matter.
What is new in the second attempt is that these so-called institutional issues are no longer to be regulated horizontally in a framework agreement, but individually in each agreement on a sectoral basis. However, this concession by the EU to the Swiss government does little to change the content of the initial situation. Also new is the so-called package approach with new agreements in the areas of electricity, food safety and health. This is also a Swiss wish in order to have more room for compromise, as reported in Bern.
Full association with Horizon Europe and other EU programs should be possible again for Switzerland as a research location, something that Baden-Württemberg in particular has lobbied for, with support from Berlin. An electricity market agreement would also be important for both sides, but above all for Switzerland to be able to keep its grid stable in the integrated internal electricity market. Just how important coordination can be for Switzerland in the area of health was demonstrated during the coronavirus pandemic.
However, opponents of closer ties to the EU single market are also mobilizing against this new attempt. The right-wing nationalist SVP, the largest party, sees sovereignty in danger and speaks of a “total subjugation of Switzerland to the EU” and a “colonial treaty.” The problem for the government is that its opponents on the left, i.e. the Social Democrats and above all the trade unions, are once again not on board. The government is giving up parts of the wage protection with the negotiating mandate, criticize the employee representatives.
The Social Democrats are warning against a “neoliberal attack” on public services given the opening up of the electricity market and the railways for cross-border connections. In Switzerland, many electricity companies are still in the hands of municipalities or cantons, and households are not free to choose their supplier, which would have to change with an electricity agreement. The business associations are in favor of a deal but have so far only been cautiously campaigning for an agreement due to differences within their own ranks. The opponents have the power of interpretation even before the negotiations have begun.
As a study by the Bertelsmann Foundation has shown, hardly any other EU member state benefits as much from access to the single market as Switzerland. This also includes the fact that Swiss companies, hospitals and research centers can meet the unbroken demand for highly qualified workers at low cost thanks to the bilateral Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons with the EU.
In Switzerland, however, the high level of immigration is being viewed increasingly critically. The right-wing nationalist SVP has just launched a new popular initiative “against the 10 million Swiss,” which is also a frontal attack on bilateral relations with the EU. If the government and supporters of rapprochement do not go on the offensive soon, the second attempt will fail also. A deal with Brussels would ultimately have to clear the hurdle of a referendum.
The EU has had an office in Nuuk, Greenland, since March 15. It is Europe’s official presence in Greenland and the wider Arctic region. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, together with Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede, signed two cooperation agreements with a total volume of almost €94 million in the presence of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. With the Global Gateway agreements “we will invest in clean energy, critical raw materials and skills in Greenland,” said von der Leyen.
The opening of an EU office in Nuuk is part of the EU’s Arctic strategy. The office will facilitate cooperation between the EU and the government, the private sector and civil society. It will promote EU public and private investment in Greenland and deepen cooperation in several areas such as education, renewable energy, critical raw materials and biodiversity protection.
The €71.25 million education program aims to improve the quality of Greenland’s education sector. The second cooperation agreement is a program for green growth (€22.5 million). It is intended to support investments in value chains for energy and critical raw materials, environmental protection and research.
Greenland as an EU overseas country and territory (OCT) underlines its unique relationship with the EU. From 2021 to 2027, Greenland will receive €225 million from the EU – including the €94 million now made available. vis
For his Master’s degree in Oxford, Roderick Kefferpütz chose a focus that was a real niche topic at the beginning of the millennium: Russian security policy. Other topics attracted more students to the traditional British university after the end of the Cold War. And so Kefferpütz sat alone opposite his professor week after week. It could happen that he began his lecture with the request “Let’s talk about war.”
The current Director of the Brussels office of the Heinrich Böll Foundation could never have imagined that the topic of Russian security policy would occupy him so much in his professional life. As a student, he deliberately chose Russia because he wanted to know what makes Europe’s biggest neighbor tick. Many people on the continent lacked this curiosity. “Transferring your own thought patterns to others doesn’t work in politics,” says the 41-year-old.
For Kefferpütz, a change of perspective, the ability to empathize with others, is the most important element in successful international politics. “Breaking through European self-centeredness” is one of his most important concerns at the Böll Foundation in Brussels. Before he took over as Head of the European Office with eleven employees in May 2023, he had already changed his perspective many times. He commuted between politics, think tank and foundation like only a few others in Berlin and Brussels.
His first job was directly linked to his studies: he worked on energy security and Russia at the Böll Foundation. He then moved to Brussels for the Böll Foundation and from there to the office of Green MEP Reinhard Bütikofer in 2009. Industrial policy became an important topic. At the same time, he came into contact with China. His boss, who had once dropped out of his sinology university studies, became involved with Beijing’s power politics early on as chairman of the China delegation in the European Parliament.
Kefferpütz, who is married to a British woman, moved from the European legislative branch to the executive branch under Green Minister President Winfried Kretschmann. At the Baden-Württemberg State Ministry in Stuttgart, he initially dealt with the regulation of cars. He then became Deputy Head of Division for Policy and Strategy.
Then he was drawn back to geopolitics. He spent two years working on the relationship between Russia and China at the Merics think tank in Berlin. He recognized parallels in the functioning of the respective communist parties. “I had a different approach than a traditional sinologist,” says Kefferpütz.
In his light-flooded office in Rue du Luxembourg, not far from the European Parliament, he talks about how he moved between different worlds as a child. At weekends, he often traveled with his parents and his brother, who was four years younger than him, from Düsseldorf to Amsterdam, the home of his Dutch mother. When he was 13 years old, his parents decided to move to Vancouver on the west coast of Canada, where he graduated from high school.
After that, he could not decide where to study and spent his first year of university on a Canadian sailing ship. What sounds like an adventure turned out to be a tough learning experience: “For the first three months, I only hung over the railing.” The tour first took him to Tierra del Fuego and then across the Atlantic to Egypt – at a time when port cities had not yet spruced up their jetties for cruise ships. It was on this trip that Kefferpütz developed the desire to work in international politics.
He sees the Böll Foundation’s Brussels office as an important hub for connecting the foundation’s 35 offices worldwide. It is important to him to bring the perspective of the Global South to Brussels and to maintain contact with the Indo-Pacific region – for example, Vietnam, Korea and Japan.
In addition to the Foundation’s traditional topics such as democracy and the green economy, he would like to initiate new topics, such as space as a new arena for geopolitics. In the more than 15 years of his career, Kefferpütz has learned that many things are connected to many things – but are viewed very differently around the world. Silke Wettach
The EU foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels today, Monday. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza once again dominating the agenda. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken will join the meeting via video call in the morning, as will his Ukrainian counterpart Dmytro Kuleba.
One of the points: the use of the income generated by the frozen Russian assets. The German government has now given up its reservations, as Chancellor Olaf Scholz made clear after meeting with Emmanuel Macron and Donald Tusk on Friday: the “windfall profits” from Russian assets “will be used to financially support the purchase of weapons for Ukraine.” However, Hungary and some neutral EU states have reservations. Meanwhile, the EU Commission is still discussing how best to channel the money, for example, via the European Peace Facility or the Defense Fund. The proposal is due to reach the College on Wednesday.
The Russian funds were one of several points on which the three heads of state and government of the Weimar Triangle got specific. Others are to be pushed forward on Tuesday at the meeting of defense ministers at the US airbase in Ramstein: the purchase of weapons and ammunition for Ukraine on the global market (over and above the Czech ammunition initiative), corresponding production facilities in Ukraine and a new “capability coalition for long-range missile artillery,” which Scholz spoke of. This is not about Taurus cruise missiles, which Scholz is known to oppose, but about additional systems that the Bundeswehr and other European armed forces are already supplying.
Tusk emphasized that they wanted to help Ukraine “wherever necessary”, “right now and right here.” However, the Polish head of government relegated the unresolved differences of opinion between Macron and Scholz about ruling out the option of sending their own soldiers to Ukraine to the realm of “nasty rumors.” This was probably not the only reason why people in Berlin were happy about Tusk’s presence, who is regarded as humorous, diplomatic and clever. The three want to meet again in early summer, this time in Warsaw at Tusk’s invitation.
Have a humorous start to the week!
Mr. Schwab, the DMA has only been in effect for a few days before the first use case with Apple and Epic Games occurred. Apple has given in. Is that a good signal?
It is good that the Commission has defined the gatekeepers and that the rules are now in force. Now it is important that the Commission also acts quickly in smaller cases that are not in the public eye. In this case, it worked quite well. The DMA can only be effective if the Commission acts promptly to protect affected companies before irreversible damage occurs.
Do you expect that other companies that are less in the public eye feel encouraged by the DMA and want to assert their rights?
That is the goal. My colleagues and I are holding many talks to explain the new legal situation. The Commission is holding workshops and Ms Vestager has traveled to the USA. Lina Khan, the head of the US competition authority FTC, wants all complaints received by the Commission under the DMA to be forwarded to her. This is not about troubling the big American companies. But we want law and justice to return to digital markets. Affected companies should report infringements immediately.
So the DMA is nothing to rest on?
No. The DMA gives companies that would otherwise have found themselves in a hopeless situation the opportunity to point out misconduct and demand remedial action. But it’s a bit like falling into the water on the high seas: You have to shout and there also has to be someone nearby to help you. In some cases, we still don’t have enough staff to do this.
Is that because of the Commission?
Only the implementation is the sole responsibility of the Commission. But the national authorities are also called to keep a close eye on the market situation and to pass on information to the Commission. I proposed to achieve better cooperation between the Commission and the national authorities.
Is the collaboration working?
We need to keep an eye on this. I know that Germany loaned two officials to the European Commission, as have the Dutch. The Italians are in the process of doing so. So there are already forms of cooperation. The result can only be assessed in a few months.
In Germany, there was a discussion about making gatekeepers contribute to the monitoring costs. The DMA does not provide for this. Is this an omission?
I think it’s right not to do this at the start of regulation. It’s not about charging gatekeepers across the board. Or to demand market access fees. We want to transfer the basic principles of the social market economy to the Internet. If companies adhere to these principles, they will continue to be free to innovate and develop their business. But of course, if after a few years, we realize that we are constantly being led around by the nose by the gatekeepers, then we need to ask whether we need a regulatory fee. But I hope we can avoid it. However, it is up to the companies to behave fairly in the market.
What steps do you expect next?
I already asked the Commission before Christmas to add further services to the scope of the DMA. This has not yet happened. For example, it needs to be clarified whether free email or cloud services should also be included. The same applies to whether artificial intelligence should be defined as core platform services (CPS) of the major gatekeepers. In my view, this work on the definition or designation of further services has not yet been done. This should have happened before March 7.
What else is on the agenda now?
Of course, it is now a matter of enforcing the rules for the already designated CPS. The compliance plans that the gatekeepers have submitted so far are probably not sufficient. At the very least, there are considerable doubts among many gatekeepers as to whether they have really become DMA-compliant. The DMA working group will meet with the Commission and the companies concerned on April 3 to examine what needs to be done next.
You said that the FTC wants to be informed about all DMA complaints. What does that mean?
An authority in the USA strives to enforce free competition, just as we do in Europe with the DMA. We have different legal bases, different instruments, different authorities. But the aim is that competition should be free and independent and must follow certain rules – these principles apply on both sides of the Atlantic. And they are also implemented in the same way. That is my assumption.
Apple could be interpreted that there will effectively be two different app stores, one European and one American …
That is the threat. We’ll have to wait and see whether Apple carries it out. Many threats have been made that have not materialized in the end.
So you expect that there will be pressure from the FTC to apply the European rules in the USA as well?
There will also be pressure in the USA to ensure fair market conditions. This already exists today, albeit on a different legal basis. There will certainly be coordination between the Commission and the FTC. This may mean that we pursue the same goal with different means. The important thing is that both authorities no longer want to accept the current gatekeeper approach.
Will the second attempt work? The President of the Swiss Confederation, Viola Amherd, is coming to Brussels today to mark the restart of negotiations between Switzerland and the EU with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. It is a new attempt to create a stable foundation for the complicated bilateral relationship and to secure Swiss access to the EU internal market in the long term. The goal is a package with the so-called institutional issues such as the dynamic adoption of law, dispute settlement and new internal market agreements.
In an increasingly unstable world, it is crucial to have stable and secure relations with neighboring countries, said Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis ten days ago after the government in Bern adopted its negotiating mandate. In May 2021, however, it was Switzerland that unilaterally broke off a first attempt after seven years of negotiations – to Brussels’ surprise. Many in Bern now see it as a mistake to have abruptly left the negotiating table back then. In any case, distrust towards the Swiss continues to linger in Brussels.
The EU also adopted its mandate last week. The two chief negotiators also want to meet today for a first round of negotiations: Brexit-tested Richard Szostak for the EU and top diplomat Patric Franzen for Switzerland. 120 agreements have so far governed the ever-closer bilateral relationship. The EU believes that a new basis is needed for the so-called market access agreements in particular, which warns against an erosion of Swiss access.
The bilateral agreements with Switzerland were once concluded statically, also in the expectation that the country would one day join. The discrepancy between the static agreements and dynamic EU law has grown ever greater over the years. There is also no dispute resolution mechanism if there is disagreement on the interpretation of the common rules of the game.
The EU therefore believes that the homogeneity of the internal market is at risk. For this reason, Switzerland is now to dynamically implement EU law in five market access agreements, from land transport to the free movement of persons. In the event of disputes, an arbitration tribunal is to decide, although it must consult the European Court of Justice if it concerns EU law and there is no case law on the matter.
What is new in the second attempt is that these so-called institutional issues are no longer to be regulated horizontally in a framework agreement, but individually in each agreement on a sectoral basis. However, this concession by the EU to the Swiss government does little to change the content of the initial situation. Also new is the so-called package approach with new agreements in the areas of electricity, food safety and health. This is also a Swiss wish in order to have more room for compromise, as reported in Bern.
Full association with Horizon Europe and other EU programs should be possible again for Switzerland as a research location, something that Baden-Württemberg in particular has lobbied for, with support from Berlin. An electricity market agreement would also be important for both sides, but above all for Switzerland to be able to keep its grid stable in the integrated internal electricity market. Just how important coordination can be for Switzerland in the area of health was demonstrated during the coronavirus pandemic.
However, opponents of closer ties to the EU single market are also mobilizing against this new attempt. The right-wing nationalist SVP, the largest party, sees sovereignty in danger and speaks of a “total subjugation of Switzerland to the EU” and a “colonial treaty.” The problem for the government is that its opponents on the left, i.e. the Social Democrats and above all the trade unions, are once again not on board. The government is giving up parts of the wage protection with the negotiating mandate, criticize the employee representatives.
The Social Democrats are warning against a “neoliberal attack” on public services given the opening up of the electricity market and the railways for cross-border connections. In Switzerland, many electricity companies are still in the hands of municipalities or cantons, and households are not free to choose their supplier, which would have to change with an electricity agreement. The business associations are in favor of a deal but have so far only been cautiously campaigning for an agreement due to differences within their own ranks. The opponents have the power of interpretation even before the negotiations have begun.
As a study by the Bertelsmann Foundation has shown, hardly any other EU member state benefits as much from access to the single market as Switzerland. This also includes the fact that Swiss companies, hospitals and research centers can meet the unbroken demand for highly qualified workers at low cost thanks to the bilateral Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons with the EU.
In Switzerland, however, the high level of immigration is being viewed increasingly critically. The right-wing nationalist SVP has just launched a new popular initiative “against the 10 million Swiss,” which is also a frontal attack on bilateral relations with the EU. If the government and supporters of rapprochement do not go on the offensive soon, the second attempt will fail also. A deal with Brussels would ultimately have to clear the hurdle of a referendum.
The EU has had an office in Nuuk, Greenland, since March 15. It is Europe’s official presence in Greenland and the wider Arctic region. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, together with Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede, signed two cooperation agreements with a total volume of almost €94 million in the presence of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. With the Global Gateway agreements “we will invest in clean energy, critical raw materials and skills in Greenland,” said von der Leyen.
The opening of an EU office in Nuuk is part of the EU’s Arctic strategy. The office will facilitate cooperation between the EU and the government, the private sector and civil society. It will promote EU public and private investment in Greenland and deepen cooperation in several areas such as education, renewable energy, critical raw materials and biodiversity protection.
The €71.25 million education program aims to improve the quality of Greenland’s education sector. The second cooperation agreement is a program for green growth (€22.5 million). It is intended to support investments in value chains for energy and critical raw materials, environmental protection and research.
Greenland as an EU overseas country and territory (OCT) underlines its unique relationship with the EU. From 2021 to 2027, Greenland will receive €225 million from the EU – including the €94 million now made available. vis
For his Master’s degree in Oxford, Roderick Kefferpütz chose a focus that was a real niche topic at the beginning of the millennium: Russian security policy. Other topics attracted more students to the traditional British university after the end of the Cold War. And so Kefferpütz sat alone opposite his professor week after week. It could happen that he began his lecture with the request “Let’s talk about war.”
The current Director of the Brussels office of the Heinrich Böll Foundation could never have imagined that the topic of Russian security policy would occupy him so much in his professional life. As a student, he deliberately chose Russia because he wanted to know what makes Europe’s biggest neighbor tick. Many people on the continent lacked this curiosity. “Transferring your own thought patterns to others doesn’t work in politics,” says the 41-year-old.
For Kefferpütz, a change of perspective, the ability to empathize with others, is the most important element in successful international politics. “Breaking through European self-centeredness” is one of his most important concerns at the Böll Foundation in Brussels. Before he took over as Head of the European Office with eleven employees in May 2023, he had already changed his perspective many times. He commuted between politics, think tank and foundation like only a few others in Berlin and Brussels.
His first job was directly linked to his studies: he worked on energy security and Russia at the Böll Foundation. He then moved to Brussels for the Böll Foundation and from there to the office of Green MEP Reinhard Bütikofer in 2009. Industrial policy became an important topic. At the same time, he came into contact with China. His boss, who had once dropped out of his sinology university studies, became involved with Beijing’s power politics early on as chairman of the China delegation in the European Parliament.
Kefferpütz, who is married to a British woman, moved from the European legislative branch to the executive branch under Green Minister President Winfried Kretschmann. At the Baden-Württemberg State Ministry in Stuttgart, he initially dealt with the regulation of cars. He then became Deputy Head of Division for Policy and Strategy.
Then he was drawn back to geopolitics. He spent two years working on the relationship between Russia and China at the Merics think tank in Berlin. He recognized parallels in the functioning of the respective communist parties. “I had a different approach than a traditional sinologist,” says Kefferpütz.
In his light-flooded office in Rue du Luxembourg, not far from the European Parliament, he talks about how he moved between different worlds as a child. At weekends, he often traveled with his parents and his brother, who was four years younger than him, from Düsseldorf to Amsterdam, the home of his Dutch mother. When he was 13 years old, his parents decided to move to Vancouver on the west coast of Canada, where he graduated from high school.
After that, he could not decide where to study and spent his first year of university on a Canadian sailing ship. What sounds like an adventure turned out to be a tough learning experience: “For the first three months, I only hung over the railing.” The tour first took him to Tierra del Fuego and then across the Atlantic to Egypt – at a time when port cities had not yet spruced up their jetties for cruise ships. It was on this trip that Kefferpütz developed the desire to work in international politics.
He sees the Böll Foundation’s Brussels office as an important hub for connecting the foundation’s 35 offices worldwide. It is important to him to bring the perspective of the Global South to Brussels and to maintain contact with the Indo-Pacific region – for example, Vietnam, Korea and Japan.
In addition to the Foundation’s traditional topics such as democracy and the green economy, he would like to initiate new topics, such as space as a new arena for geopolitics. In the more than 15 years of his career, Kefferpütz has learned that many things are connected to many things – but are viewed very differently around the world. Silke Wettach
