Alexander
Gauland
Aachen
Treaty
German
Bundestag, May 16, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/101, p. 12291
[Alexander Gauland is a
national chairman of the Alternative für Deutschland as well as a chairman of
the AfD delegation in the German Bundestag.]
Today
we are debating the Aachen Treaty between Germany and France for German-French
Cooperation and Integration. It contains much diplomatic word play and many
good intentions, none of which is my theme.
Of
all themes, ours must be the assistance obligation defined in Article 14 in
which both treaty partners oblige themselves, in case of attack upon their
sovereign territory [Hoheitsgebiete],
to render to one another every assistance and support in their power, including
military means. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a novelty in regards the Élysée
Treaty of 1963, commended as a model, and it creates a new obligation in
addition to that of the NATO Treaty’s Article 5 assistance clause.
The
entirety is thus not only more than symbol politics and border crossing but it
reaches territory beyond the NATO obligation. This is acknowledged to be
confined according to Article 6 of the NATO Treaty to territory north of the
Tropic of Cancer, while the new obligation extends to the French overseas
departments south of this line. Now, this could be dismissed as a bagatelle, -
Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): Indeed!
-
as a case which will never arise, were it not for an additional insecurity, the
inclusion of French nuclear weapons. It was not stated what was meant that they
were not be included in the assistance obligation. It is however difficult to
conceive that France for its own defense relinquishes its so expensive force de frappe. Yet what does that mean
for Germany and its renunciation of atomic weapons? All is obscure.
Ladies
and gentlemen, military assistance concerns the right of existence of a state.
Size and territorial extent must therefore be defined free of doubt and
deficiencies of interpretation are to be avoided, else there is a danger of
sleep-walking into military adventure. For that, European history unfortunately
provides sufficient examples. However, ladies and gentlemen, we must be
concerned with something other. Each new bi-lateral promise of assistance
weakens the multilateral NATO union, which alone, by means of the American
anchor, guarantees Germany’s defense capability.
The privileged partnership with France, the two-speed EU, is unfortunately a
symptom of diplomatic failure. Besides Macron, the Chancellor apparently has no
more allies for her diplomatic goals. After three years of Trump bashing by
German politicians and media, the alienation of America is complete. On account
of Brexit, we are detached from the British. The east Europeans have had enough
of being school-mastered by Germany. The relations with Russia are as bad as
can be imagined. What a sad sum.
Ladies
and gentlemen, reckoned according to a federal government which gladly enthuses
over rule-based multilateralism, this weakens what has worked for 70 years. For
that very reason, we maintain that this German-French agreement is not a good
idea and will not vote for it. I would be glad should the Herr State Minister
enter into the defense question and not just gush that borders can now be
crossed. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Christian Petry (SPD): What has he
said?
[Translated by Todd Martin]
