German
Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/228, p. 29191.
Frau
President. Ladies and gentlemen.
With the
motion [Drucksache 19/29310]
submitted by the AfD, the Bundestag would have necessarily resolved decades ago
to finally create a constitutional basis for the Bundeswehr’s foreign missions.
In clear text: For 30 years, CDU, SPD and Greens dispatch German soldiers all
over the world and as to that there is in the Basic Law [Grundgesetz] not a single word.
In 1994, the
Federal Constitutional Court decided that so-called out-of-area missions can be
legitimated with Article 25 of the Basic Law – a legal auxiliary construction
with which the Bundestag works now already for almost 30 years. Out of Area, ausserhalb des Gebiets, that is what it
is about. The Bundeswehr – some will yet recall – is an army for the defense of
the States and the Bund.That is its constitutional duty. All else can only be
permissible in very well-grounded
exceptional cases.
…It was ever
again enjoined that it was owed to the soldiers to quite precisely examine what
they were being sent into. Since 1994, the Bundestag has voted over 200 times
for the prolongation of a mandate, not a single time against. Thus 200 times a
real examination of conscience, an examination of conscience im Akkord. The truth is: Sticking to the
government parties, nothing more at all will be examined, neither the missions’
sense or purpose, nor prospects of success, nor constitutional legitimacy and
certainly not one’s own conscience. It will be nodded through; no substantial
questions will be put. This also lies in the lack of a constitutional
regulation.
Ladies and
gentlemen, these days the failed mission in Afghanistan goes to an end. It was
hitherto the Bundeswehr’s longest and bloodiest mission. Six weeks ago, the government
coalition here prolonged the mandate. And now? All falls down. Within six
weeks, a 180 degree turn from “We must continue” to “We must get out”. Real
political flexibility! It is good the mission in Afghanistan now goes to an
end. The goal must be to bring home safe and sound all German soldiers; since
there is nothing more to win which could justify a risk.
This brings
me to a present aspect. The Defense Minister has instructed that the special
forces commando [KSK] be dispatched
to secure the departure from Afghanistan. And to be calculated into this
critical phase, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer encumbers the KSK’s mission readiness with a certain affair. On Monday, the state
attorney’s office allowed the seizure of the service handy and laptop of [KSK] commander Markus Kreitmayr.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): What then has that to do with the Basic Law?
He is
suspected of having made himself culpable of an obstruction of justice in
office [Er steht in Verdacht, sich der
Strafvereitelung im Amt schuldig gemacht zu haben].
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): What has that to do with the Basic Law?
And the Minister
still asserts to have known nothing of the commander’s illegal orders.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): What then has that to do with the Basic Law?
Volker Ullrich (CDU/CSU): It’s about the constitutional legal fundamentals!Philipp Amthor (CDU/CSU): He hasn’t much to say on that!
So as for
once to clearly say: I am convinced that in this matter Annegret
Kramp-Karrenbauer has lied to the parliament.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): It has nothing to do with the Basic Law!
The KSK has a leadership against which the
state attorney’s office is proceeding and which has completely lost the trust
of the soldiers under its command.
Frau Minister, your political survival is at the disposal;
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): What has that to do with the Basic Law?that I know. But it is now about the very lives of our soldiers.
Vice-president Dagmar Ziegler: Please come to a conclusion.
Conduct
yourself accordingly.
Thank you.
[trans: tem]
