president's precious time should be making presidential decisions and getting ready to make tough presidential decisions rather than making government decisions. rop, it's your job to make sure people who are making government decisions are making them right way. >> find c-span's "the weekly" where get your podcasts. >> german chancellor angela merkel discussed lessons learned from the coronavirus pandemic and how global leaders can work. better together. the this was part of a virtual event hosted by the world economic forum. it's 40 minutes. [speaking germ] >> normally, we would [ speaking foreign language ] >> normally we would meet in

davos. this time only virtually, but i do remember that last time you were in davos, we were talking about how we can shape this world more inclusively, more sustainbly, and these two issues have gained even more of a priority due to the pandemic, and i think in the meantime i can safely say that due to the virus there is an increased necessity to strengthen the resilience of our economic and social systems. >> i would say that you have been able to guide germany, europe, the world with a steady helm. you have shown far-sightedness. you have steered this ship through the unruly waters of recent months, and obviously we're looking ahead to your

address, to your assessment of the present situation. allow me to add that one of the goals of this meeting, this virtual meeting, is to rebuild trust no our ability to shape the future and part and parcel of this is also international cooperation as one. preconditions for doing just that. madam chancellor, a very warm welcome to you, and we're very much looking forward to your address. >> thank you, professor schwab, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, all of you. covid-19 has changed the world, and that's also illustrated by this year's davos format which is a virtual one. in may there is to be a physical meeting but not in davos, this time in singapore, and just in my preliminary remarks to professor schwab i hope he's not going to swap the beautiful

mountains of davos for the duration with the skyscrapers of singapore, although that is obviously a vibrant place in this world. today a year ago i think no one would have thought that we live a pandemic this year, but some actually were sort of far sighted enough. the mr. shaheen, the head of biontech was one of them, said that he decide the year before that to actually change the format of the whole research program and develop an rna vaccine against this virus, and what we -- what he contributed and many others contributed to enabling us to now have a vaccine only 12 months after, well, it shows that humankind is capable of such great scientific feats, is capable of doing ground breaking research, and i

think this shows the way out of this pandemic, although this is going to be a very or dues road, much of an uphill battle and much more difficult than many think. biontech, pfizer has developed vaccines. biontech was a startup. people from 60 different nations work in this startup, and it's a clear illustration also of the shared value of international cooperation and of what you can actually do with this kind of cooperation. the pandemic has left deep imprints on our societies and our economies, and it is safe to say that i think it's going to determine in many ways the way we live, the way we do business over the next few years. hundreds of people -- hundreds of millions of people have actually become infected. millions have died. there's certainly also -- certainly only the official

figures, and in many ways davos is the right place to discuss how we can get out of this pandemic and how we can forge a future-looking path. anything that contains this pandemic is obviously a good thing. it's not only good for the he will of the people. it's good for the economic, for the social possibilities, for the cultural possibilities. you chose as a motto the great reset as this year's motto. i think do we really need this great reset? that would be the question that i ask as a first instance, or is it not so that perhaps we need less in the goals that we set for ourselves a reset and more the resolve that we show in anything we do, so there are three questions that i think are important at this point in time and what this pandemic really has driven home to us. first, it has shown us very clearly how much we're interlinked, how we are globally

interdependant. if we think of the origins of this voyeurs in wuian and china and how it has spread over the whole globe, i think it's very clear to see what globalization also means, not as regards actions of humankind but that we all live in one planet, and that in such an existential crisis trying to shut yourselves off from others, trying to isolate yourself fails, at least with this virus. it has clearly failed, and secondly our vulnerability has become obvious. somehow this virus was transmitted from animals to human beings which has shown us yet again that we are part of a -- of our natural habitat, of our natural environment, and although we have a lot of knowledge, technological knowledge and other knowledge, we still depend on nature. that is something that is in a way very calming, very soothing, but it has its consequences.

thirdly, as regards germany, let me say very clearly that this pandemic is something, well, like a natural disaster that only appears once in a century, and in many ways it has tested the resilience of our systems, of our societies, has shown our flaws, our weaknesses in our social systems. our strengths also have become apparent but we want to address primarily those weaknesses, those flaws. maybe we should start what germany has learned what, our weaknesses are, our strengths, and that's something that we could rely on, the fact that so many people stepped up to the plate. that they should a sense of community. that's our biggest treasure, and in spite of all the difficulties that you have when you have a federal it brings responsibility to a lower level. it also -- we have also seen

that germany is part and parcel of europe. we have all in the beginning of the crisis made -- made difficulties, made mistakes because we were sort of inward looking, shutting ourselves off against each other but very quickly we learned the lessson. now speed is a be prompt we have seen that our processes have become very bureaucratic, that they take too long and that is something that we need to address. there's one good thing, a foundation that has stood us in good stead, namely our solid and sound finances, so we were able actually to help our companies, to help our citizens resolutely, introduce short-time work and keep the economy going and launched more than 100 billion strong economic impetus program, all of that that has strengthened our resilience. there are flaws also, weaknesses, a lack of digitalization of our society

which starts with the super regional networking of our national health services, of our local health services, digitalization of our education system, for example, online teaching. online learning, unfortunately, too weak. this is where we said we have to step in with our economic impetus program, with our economic growth program and address that. we also saw that a resilient health system is important and in germany we have a very good individual health care system but community health, for example, prevention, preventive medicine. here we do not as yet have sufficient resilience built into our systems so that, too, is something that we need to learn from this pandemic. we feel confirmed in our research policy ever since i have come to office.

we have steadily increased our spending for research and democrat with a 3% share of gdp have now been exceeded. we would like to approach the 5.8%, and everything we see with vaccines and also with other technologies is that promoting a -- a very strong research and development policy is certainly inviting. now, a big question is to be discussed, needs to be debated. the word sovereignty is something that seems to be on everyone's lips. many of the supply chains have been interrupted. they have not real proved their resilience so what we have to ask ourselves is that indeed a weakness, the fact that we depend so much on global supply chains, or should we rather learned those supply chains so resilient, so strong that they actually also tolerate that sort of strain in times of pandemic,

and i think we have to prevent people resorting to an inward looking policy again, but that's something that we need to be honest about. we need to honestly debate this, but supply chains have to be rendered more stable, more resilient in such a time of crisis that you want to depend on them. now, vulnerability is something that i mentioned earlier on. this vulnerability became -- came to the fore when the supply chains were interrupted, but after all, this is a virus that moved from an animal to a human being. all of our conventions on sustainability, be it the biodiversity convention, be it the climate convention that is entered into the paris agreement is absolutely the point on this, and we need to work much more to bring them to bear, to show much more resolve to implement them, so this is in a way ample proof.

this year we'll have incoming in china the biodiversity conference and also when we implement the paris agreement we can prove that we have learned our lessons. the european union has as a first step showed that it has learned its lesson. we have set our european goal, a national goal for co2 emissions from 40% to 55% is something that we want to aim as for 2030. we have committed ourselves for 2052 climate neutrality which may lead to a situation that europe once we have achieved that is the first climate neutral continent and before us, and i assume the commission president has addressed that issue as well, we have very hard months ahead of us because we have to now find a form how to reach that goal of 55% reduction in the new green deal. we have already changed 40% of

our energy generation to renewables, but we also know that it's demanding tremendous efforts if this vulnerability due to climate change is to be overcome. one has to resort to very tough political measures, and we have to obviously take people along, for example, is phasing out coal, changing to hide jen, a complete change as regards mobility, moving over to electric mobility, and we have to -- and also hydrogen maybe. we have to be open-mined as regards our technology. the european union and all of its efforts for a recovery, is we have taken a very unusual step for european union standard. we have set in this recovery a plan that we don't want to do business as usual. we really want to set priorities, very clear priorities.

more than 35% of all of the funds used need to serve of climate protection. more than 20% digitalization so that is future looking, forward looking investment because we want to have more resistance, more sustainability, and there's something that the world has, after all, achieved over the past few decades. namely, are the sustainable development goals for 2030. that is indeed something that in a very comprehensive way shows the way ahead. how do we need to act if we don't want to be as vulnerable as we currently are? but summit meeting of the united nations last year also showed very clearly that we lag far behind expectations, and this is a clear and present danger, that after this pandemic we all become more inward looking. we industrialized countries concentrate on our own policies and we're not caring for

developing countries. the that's something that we must avoid at all costs. that's why the german goal, the german objective is, and also as regards to a recovery program, the european union recovery program, we must not actually reduce our expenditure in our cooperation with the developing countries but rather do more. now, the third step is digitalization in terms of the depend sis that we have all over the planet, and that is something that actually was very much something that we needed to contend with, and it's become very clear to me, even more clear, i should say, that we we ought to choose, that we need to choose a multi-lateral approach, that shutting ourselves off against others will not help solve our problems. we see this first and foremost on the vaccination front because that obviously is how we get out of this pandemic. that clearly also shows whether

our acts match our deeds. the g-20 have done a tremendously good thing under the saudi presidency in committing themselves to a multi-lateral approach as regards vaccination, later on -- and subs kept to that kovaks was founded. the wealthier countries need to pay into this fund, that is right. the eu is doing that, it's participating. germany is participating. financial means, funds, are one thing, but in these times of scarcity actually the fact that one actually has a vaccine is also of the essencech this is all about fair distribution, not only about money, and this is why i am so pleased now that daffi is leading negotiations with covaks and also with those companies that have received their authorizations through

email, i'm very pleased that the world bank is supporting this very intensively, and we'll try to doing everything that we can in order to see to it that the distribution can be launched as soon as possible. we should not delude ourselves. the question is who receives what kind of vaccination and how quickly all over the planet will again create a new narrative, if you like because when you receive in such an hour of need, help, you will remember that for much, much longer than help extended to you in good times. this is the hour of multilateralism. what does multilateralism mean? it does not only mean somehow working together, muddling through, but it means showing transparency, and we have to be honest at the beginning of the pandemic we have probably not been as transparent as we ought to have been, as regards, for example, the information released by china as to the origins of this virus and also

as regards information, policy of w.h.o., but that does not mean that we ought to sort of simply look back, but we ought to look ahead. we ought to draw the conclusions from it. there is a w.h.o. team now in china. they will come up with a report. we ought to strengthen w.h.o. so it's a very good message that the united states of america after the transition now, after joe biden has become president of the united states, have declared that they wish to be participating in the work of the w.h.o. that's very important. now global links, global commitments mean that we have to have an interest in how the rest of the world is faring, so development corporation cooperation is in our national interests. that's how we see it in germany. we want to strengthen our links with africa. we want to strengthen investments in africa.

we as we have launched in the presidency, supported by the imf, by the world bank and we're going to be participating in this in the future as well. now fair international trade. that obviously is a wide-open field. wto as we know is working for open structures. there has been a standstill over the past few months. right now the arbitration panel, unfortunately, has not been set up so wto cannot really act, and i, as you know, am a great champion of bi -- action bilateral relations, but, still, i think that wto is absolutely of the essence if we really want to be sincere about multilateralism, and we see'19w

number of-rhíád bilateral trade agreements, multi-lateral trade agreements in the asian -- on the asian continent. we see sep, very remarkable. countries with very different structures are linked by this instrument. during the german presidency, we have made one step further. we have gone one step further in as regards the eu-china investment agreement that has been negotiated ever since 2013. we have tried to put on a market to come to an agreement there. why am i so satisfied that we've been able to make this step well? because i think that this in a way has injected a new quality in the relationship between the european union and china. because we can do more now that is more in line with reciprocity and for, for example, as regards to subsidies and as regards state-owned companies, but it

also opens up a more predictable access to high-technology areas, state of the art technology, that is, and it also has a lot to do with standards of labor, particularly along the lines of ilo. if we want to have multi-lateral organizations, is if we want to have multi-lateral conventions and agreements, certain standards have to be put down, common standards as regards the conditions of work, as regards the environmental norms and that's why the core norms of the ilo are important, too, and that is part and parcel of this agreement. we have to be very, very fast in finding multi-lateral answers to new challenges of digitalization. and i do hope particularly with the new american administration we will be able to continue the

work of oecd particularly with regards of taxation to say the very least at digital companies and that we're also in a better position to look at the global importance of competition laws in order to prevent global monopolies because we do have these tendencies all over the world, and we need to address that. if we don't do it, we will -- if we go it alone, we'll do it insufficiently because going it alone will not suffice to help with those monopolies. we do hope economic recovery will happen all over the world. there are regions with good economic growth. europe has been hard hit. this career we have predictions as to more growth, but obviously this has to happen in a more concerted way all over the world, and for that coordinated measures are necessary. i see that the g-20 and the italian presidency has a stroll role to play, and i know that

italy is working in this direction, so to sum it up, if we look at what the pandemic has left us with, i would say that in many ways it serves a confirmation of what in many ways was the spirit of davos over those past years. the questions that you addressed were the right ones, but as a german writer used to say nothing good happens unless you do it, and the pandemic has made it very clear, i think, to all of us, that discussing, debating, intellectual exchange is important, but the pandemic has also shown very clearly that now is the time for action. now is the time where we ought to act together or to abide by the same principles, that obviously we need to discuss and agree on previously but that we need to do something to address those weaknesses and overcome

them. that's it by way of my remarks. thank you for your attention. thank you very much, madam chancellor. allowing me, if i may, to take you up on this last point. one of the consequences of this pandemic is as far as we can say that companies are much more aware now of their social responsibility, their responsibility for society, so we have not less partners. we have even more partners than at the beginning of this man democratic, particularly because these companies were in our working groups,ings in a number of our working groups because they want to do what you said, match their words with deeds. just one example, we have a number of working groups, meetings here during this virtual annual conference.

one small example, the commitment to set up a platform, for example, to plant 1 million new trees in the course of this decade, and re-scaling the further training of people, further education of people. that is something that we need abilities that are far different than the sort of skills that we used. there's up moment left to us. i would like to come back to two or three issues that you address. you were speaking about the vulnerability that we all felt. we have to render our societies more resilient which means that

effort needs to transcend the current crisis situation. we have cbs -- we have showed in our report how many risks we need to contend with in the world at large and maybe it might of of interest to hear from you how you see this. this morning it was shade that there were certain efforts made at the european level, particularly in the health sector, that are now building resilience, not only against covid-19 but also against future risks. what's your take on this? how do you see this particularly as a scientist? >> i think our economy or the way we do business in general in

good times has a certain tendency to actually try and use all of the different -- all the leeway that we have. all the wiggle room that we have. efficiency is sort of number one, but then you have no buffer zone as it were. we have just in time deliveries so there's no real buffer built into the system. you start from the assumption that everything works just fine, 100%. you can see this when you have, for example, airplanes that have to stay on the ground simply because all of a sudden there is a bad weather front, and the more the world is connected, the more a disturbance in one part of the system leads to a ripple effect to other systems and then we see how a non-linear -- a linear event can change into a non-linear event, and that is something that i think we ought

to learn that in good times we also have to have something up our sleeves that we can then use, the necessary funds, for example, or the necessary beds in our icus or the necessary drug stocks, medicinal drugs, that we have the next personnel. good armies know that they need to draft reservists in the case of war, so i think it would be a good thing if all of these really elementary functions of our societies, the underpinnings of those societies, if we screen them very carefully and try to analyze where we need more of a buffer as it were, and i think, for example, in climate change, and we're already in the phase of mitigation so we have to adapt to risks before we can

actually come to change, so that's in a way the lesson from this pandemic, that we need to be very careful not to assume that everything will always work just fine, will always be perfect but that we have to also, well, contend with certain problems. >> so in a way what we need is a precautionary activity and ability, yes in, a way. you're bringing together two magic terms. we've been creating more than one in terms of the corona infection numbers that there is no glory in prevention. now, when you take a look at the cause -- the course that

infection rates have taken, the phenomenon of exponential growth means that there's little you can see at the beginning, but you have to take action exactly during that period. that i believe is the major lesson that we have to draw from the pandemic, and we should also apply that lesson to other areas if you want to ensure that the world does not end up in a shape that makes it difficult for us to control developments. even in extremely difficult situations, we would be able to enact it we would be prepared for some unexpected situations. we are quite aware of us not being able to solve everything at one time, and we have to pursue a step-by-step approach, trying out things and seeing whether we can control this phenomenon that's so difficult.

and i support this notion of pros agility. >> madam chancellor, one of the consequences of this crisis, rather this pandemic, is the enhanced role that the state, the government has to play and as was mentioned earlier the enhanced role to be played by leading companies, and they have realized that they have to act in a spirit that projects the environment that meets the social needs of people. now, what does that mean for our long-term social model and for our long-term business model? i'm asking you this question because you know that i have been very committed to this principle of stakeholder capitalism, and i've been surprised time and again that this seems to be triggering some resistance of a psychological nature.

i believe that companies are not only an economic unit, but they also have a social function to play, and i don't think those two contradict each other,kzwf how do you --9x■ñr but what is e that we should strive for and a second question added up this one that results from this first question. the leading companies in the world, will emerge from this crisis stronger than before. whereas the medium and smaller-sized companies are especially hard hit and these are the companies that are of great importance for europe at large but especially for germany because they have an important social road to play. >> well, i would say that we do have small companies and big companies that have benefitted to some extent from the crisis because other things are in

demand now, demand for digital solutions is exploding, so to speak. whereas other companies are especially hard hit when you think of restaurants, event managers, when you think of artists and their work. when you think of smaller shops and department stores, once the pandemic has been overcome, we will be able to ease restrictions and take a closer look at what we can do in order to maintain a certain infrastructure. i think that there are groups and companies that have benefitted from this crisis in an unexpected manner. but you may be a big company and be hard hit by the consequences of the pandemic. a question you put to me was of a very fundamental nature and i think it is not impossible to respond to this question in five

minutes' time. what has become obvious time and again is what we call the social market economic model is a good model. it puts demand in its center. we have to think things from the perspective of man, from human beings. we have to use and exploit fully the inventiveness and imagination of men and women. but at the same time we have two sets of rules and provide guidelines and i think we have to rethink this in times of digital sovereignty of each and every individual. whereas the basic approach is always the same and it is not static in nature. it is that we have to strike the right balance between the actions of the state, of the government, and allow the individual to realize itself while it's providing the long-term conditions.

they have to be stopped if they become too powerful, that is the competition law which makes it so important in times of globalization when you pursue a nationally based policy, you always have to think of the global interconnections. you have to internalize prices, climate protection being one case in point. i believe the best instrument here is putting a price on emissions. but they have to be internalized. you have to make that mandatory because i don't think any company would do it on itself or not quickly enough and not the totality of companies. and when you take a look at the last 15 years or so, i would say that in 2007, 2008 when we were facing the major financial crisis, we had a trend in the direction of too much freedom, not enough rules with regard to

the efficiency of financial markets and of capital markets. then in the wake of the crisis we have the opposite excessive development, too much regulation. we went down that road together. the internalization of what is so important for us in our lives, economy, ecology, the price on emissions makes the actions of the state so important. we cannot rely solely on the companies acting in a way that will be to the best of the world. however, we have to be careful as not to allow the pendulum to swing too much in the other direction where the state feels that he is the best entrepreneur because that would put a damper on the imagination, the createness of our human element. it is a perpetual search, you have to strike a balance, you have to identify what is the optimal approach. you can no longer think along on

national lines as you used to do in the past. that's the way in which i would describe this. i think social market economy and stakeholder capital is basically identical. >> last question, if i may, you stressed the importance of multilateralism. yesterday president xi jingping spoke to us and he warned us against the ininvolvement of blocs. do you think that we can hope for a multilateral corporation given the trends we have been observing as of late, also in the context of bringing back home supply chains, can we

prevent the involvement of blocs? >> perhaps i may respond first to the issue -- the question you put with regard to multilateralism. the chinese president spoke yesterday and he and i agree on that. we see a need for multilateralism. but there's one question where we are not in agreement would probably be the question of what it means when you have different social models. to what extent -- when does interference begin? where does it begin and where does it end? when do you stand up for elementary values that are indivisible? we have to discuss this issue no

matter what social system we come from and you end up quickly with different interpretations of what the meaning of multilateralism is. it doesn't necessarily or simply mean the coexistence of entities that seem lifeless, but we're talking societies here that consistent of human beings and that's -- we also need to engage and exchange views on these different social models. transparency is the second important element of multilateralism and i mentioned that earlier. transparency about what is happening within a country, so as to allow you to assess whether things are still -- trade is happening on the basis of a rules-based system or whether you are playing out certain advantages against another country. and, of course, this leads to tension areas and you can

discuss these. i would very much wish to avoid the building of blocs. i don't think it would do justice to many societies to say this is the united states and over there is china and we're grouping around one or the other. this is not my understanding of how things ought to be. i think we will have more values that we share, more positions that we hold in common, but there will also be differences of opinion and different interests. i'm not in favor of a total decoupling of all digital activities. we should not strive for that because it would feed into a division of the world. but as you said, each and every one of us has to identify the vital and elementary life functions of one's society and the pandemic has taught us a lesson here.

even if my multilateral partner leads me for a certain point in time, i can nevertheless do what is of elementary importance for my society. we have open societies. i'm not thinking china, in particular, when i say that the united states, for example, have a war act that is enforced with regard to the import and export of vaccines. this also effects important components that go into the production of vaccines. of course, this is undoubtedly going to feed into this -- if there's something you lack that, you need to produce your vaccine, you will make sure in future that you can produce it back at home. >> madam chancellor, in a way, one could say that europe has a special part to play in this regard. perhaps i may coin a phrase or word, as far as the stress on

multilateralism is concerned. thank you very much, madam chancellor. we very much hope to see you perhaps later this year in singapore, the physical meeting, or next year in devos. thank you for your time. french president emmanuel macron spoke about the response to climate change and the leadership needed to restore the economy in 2021. his remarks were part of an event hosted by the world economic forum. this is 25 minutes. >> the participants, it's my great honor to welcome mr. president macron. generally we meet