There is no format and no conversation I hold without also informing the smaller and medium-sized member states of the European Union, particularly when they are directly affected regionally themselves, such as the neighboring states in Eastern Europe.
In that sense, I believe we have shown that we as Europeans are capable of acting, both in the large format of the G7 and in the large round of heads of state and government of the European Union.
I am traveling home this week after intensive consultations with the feeling that international cooperation is working well, both in Europe and in the G7 format. And that is the precondition for us to make our contribution, yes, to nothing more and nothing less than peace in the world. Many thanks, Mr. Fischer, please.
Thank you very much, Chancellor. It seems there is greater disagreement about who should sit at the negotiating table for the Europeans when talks between Ukraine and Russia come about. Do you still see enough support in the EU for the E3 to continue the diplomatic process, and does the E3 actually have its own communication channels to Russia, at whatever level, or is there total radio silence?
Please excuse us for not informing the public about the details of our consultations, but two things are important to me. First, this E3 format came about at the express wish of Ukraine, and it also has a certain internal logic, namely that Great Britain, Germany, and France are working closely together here. These are large states in Europe, and they are also the ones contributing to a considerable extent to the military support of Ukraine, Germany by a large margin by now.
The number one point is, as I said, the express wish of Ukraine that these three countries play a role here, also in coordination. That is what we are doing. Great Britain, as a country that is no longer a member of the European Union, must still be involved. It is an important NATO partner in the European Union. And we are not only talking about Ukraine; we are also talking together about important questions now in preparation for the NATO summit in Ankara in a few days. In that sense, these are important discussion formats.
We always involve, of course, Italy, we always involve, of course, Poland and also other member states of the European Union. That is a matter of course for us. Who speaks for the European Union, we do not have to decide today. We will decide that when talks come about. It is of course clear that the Council President, Antonio Costa, the President of the European Council, has an important role to play here. He represents the European Union. He ensures that we hold good talks within the European Union, that we also go into the Council meetings well organized and well prepared in the European Council, and in that sense we do not need to make any further decisions at the moment.
Mr. Rinke.
Yes, thank you. Chancellor, could you please specify a bit more precisely which instruments you want from the European Commission? Are these also instruments against currency manipulation, which you have now been talking about? And a follow-up question. The USA has launched an investigation against Germany over pharmaceutical prices. Are you concerned that the tariff agreement with the USA is now void again, because possibly higher tariffs on pharmaceutical products are coming?
No, I assume that the United States of America will stick to the agreement we have. As far as the reimbursement of modern, innovative medicines by our health insurance funds is concerned, that is a decision that falls under our national jurisdiction. If America would like information about that, we will of course gladly make it available. But that is a question of our reimbursement system within the legal framework of health insurance. And in that sense, it is a purely domestic matter that we will have to discuss here if necessary.
The question of how we proceed further in the formats is a question I have just explained. I think we have really found a good rhythm now in how we conduct the talks, and that we are all trying to end the war in Ukraine as quickly as possible, that is clear to all of us, I believe. Please, is the trade... Oh, you wanted... You wanted that. Yes. Yes. I apologize, I misunderstood that.
So, which instruments are available to us, that is what the Commission is now supposed to prepare for the next Council. I already raised the topic of currency relations or exchange rates in the G7 format. By the way, also with great approval from the American side, because America is affected by this just as much as we are. We compete in some cases with currency areas that have currencies depreciated by up to 30%, undervalued currencies compared to us. Undervalued is the right expression.
And I recalled that there were such disruptions between trading areas in earlier decades as well. There were then sensible discussion formats about how to ultimately deal with such questions. An agreement was once reached at the Plaza Hotel in New York. There was once an agreement in Paris, even before we had the currency union in the European framework, before we had the EU monetary union. There was the European Monetary System back then, which was also a system where people agreed on corridors for exchange rates. Something like that is also what I have in mind now.
We do not want to make mutual accusations here, but we want to try to balance out these imbalances. And these are imbalances that do not only come at the expense of trading partners; they also come at the expense of domestic demand and purchasing power at home. So basically, nobody can have an interest in having such currency burdens, such shifts also in terms of the real purchasing power of individual currencies, over the long term. And in that sense, talks are indicated, but we also have to conduct them in our own interest.
Mr. Gutschker, please.
Thomas Gutschker, Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung. Chancellor, I have a follow-up question first about the possible negotiations with Russia. You said that first we have to agree on the substance, then we clarify the formats. Where do you still not agree on the substance as the E3 and with Ukraine? Which questions still need to be clarified there? And second, an extension: you said the debate will actually only come in October, but you have already submitted your considerations, and they were probably presented in the room.
Regarding your proposal for an associated membership for Ukraine, there is a lot of criticism from the member states. The arguments are: one must not prefer Ukraine over the Western Balkans, and it is legally not feasible to introduce an observer status. Is the proposal basically already dead before you can really discuss it?
