German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/81, pp. 9774-9775.
The 2015 annual report presented for arms control documents far more than
one mere crisis. It describes the systemic erosion of the global security architecture.
The Federal government's analysis in that regard named three central fault lines.
In first place here is the unsustainable disintegration of the nuclear order. The
end of the New Start Treaty and the uncontrolled expansion of the Chinese nuclear
arsenal mark the crossing into an indistinguishable, multipolar world of rival
superpowers. At the same time, regional agreements fail, as for example, the INF
Treaty between Russia and the U.S.A.
The second fault line is the unconfinement of modern conflicts. Space has become a
military operations area. At the same time, we experience the withdrawal from
verified arms control treaties, as for example the Ottawa Convention on the ban on
anti-personnel mines, and by EU states; a direct consequence of the altered
threat perception in the East.
The third fault line is the technological disruption. The deployment of artificial
intelligence and autonomous weapons systems on the battlefield is no longer a
theory but reality. These weapons systems dictate the speed of modern warfare,
and in seconds decide over life and death.
In all of these points the report delivers a plausible description of the situation,
although the description alone falls short. We need to posit for ourselves a fundamental, inconvenient truth: The structures which defended us for decades were the result of the Second World War and the Cold War. They are the products of a past epoch. We no longer find ourselves in a transitional phase. We stand in the midst of a completely fragmented, multipolar reality. The era of unipolarity, of the uncontested supremacy of the U.S.A., is conclusively past.
China has established itself as a powerful counterweight. Russia manages an unconfined power Politik and forges alliances in the global South. The middle powers there manage a purely transactional Politik of interests. They conclude economic agreements with Peking, purchase armaments in Moscow and cooperate in security questions with the U.S.A.
The result is no stable, rules-based order, but a phase of the radical new categorization. It is thus unlikely to be able to successfully analyze the challenges of the present within the structures and with the methods of the past.
That is to say: On the situation analysis, we here today are indeed largely agreed. Yet where we fundamentally differ is the methodological approach for the achievement of the goal. This is exactly shown in the Federal government's arms control strategy. Its declared goal is the global stability by means of multilateral agreement, transparency and the regulation of technological progress. Demanded is the outlawing of fully automated weapons systems and new rules for cyber- and outer-space.
We support these ordnungspolitischen goals, yet we doubt that they can be achieved with yesterday's methods. Who closes the eyes before this reality, manages Geopolitik in the rear-view mirror.
An arms control requires two fundamentals: Trust and geopolitical stability. Both no longer exist in this multipolar world order. Worse still, Germany has blithely squandered its traditional role as honest broker on the world stage.
Instead of pursuing a foreign policy lead by interests, Germany hides itself behind the template of an ancillary leadership role, and thereby submits itself unconditionally to the Brussels transnational technocrats.
We all pay the bill for this misguided Politik. Certainly in Germany, we feel harder than ever before the economic and political censures [Verwerfungen] of this world order. Our view is accordingly, it must be a core duty of a wise German foreign policy to stand for that the described tectonic shift does not escalate to a global war, that it does not harm Germany.
That however would presuppose the acknowledgment of interests of equal rights of allied partners, yet also of competitors. Only on this basis is possible a success of diplomatic strivings and initiatives for disarmament and arms control.
This recognition is denied by the Federal government and by the parties long sitting here in moralizing self-complacency.
The Federal government seeks instead an impossible balance. It wants to be a wide-ranging, moral court for the arms regulation, and at the same time create a most modern army efficient in war, yet thereby obviously fails in its own ideological blinkers.
As in a magnifying glass, that is shown in regards military deployment of AI: The Federal government dogmatically persists in the primacy of human control and also wants to enforce this concept internationally.
That is clearly intended to be ethically noble, yet ignores the technical realities which today are clearly shown in the Ukraine war. For the defense against hypersonic weapons and drone swarms, to name an example, the human reaction time is no security factor but the deadly bottleneck. Who here persists exclusively in manual control, consents to accept technological inferiority in an emergency situation. Who however irresponsibly accepts the inferiority of our armed forces, risks the lives of our soldiers and destroys every military credibility.
The same paralyzing spirit prevails in Federal German science. While Washington and China radically drive forward the civil-military fusion, a well-fed scientific estate clings to civil stipulations. This artificial separation blocks precisely that technology transfer which the Bundeswehr so urgently needs to at all keep pace. We brake the progress exactly there where it is most critical for the national defense.
The third hurdle is the over-flowing bureaucracy. AI development cycles are measured in weeks. Our procurement procedures, on the other hand, continue to administer a decades-long hardware process. An army which reacts to technological disruption with formulas, over-regulation and control mania, loses the connection before the first shot has even been fired.
These dogmas in dealing with AI characterize the Federal German Politik. Without a fundamental turning away from these dogmas, the Bundeswehr will not become Europe's most powerful army, but a grave for billions in tax money without any added value in security policy.
Who hopes AI weapons technology threats can be enclosed internationally, and at the same time ignores AI's defense potential, makes himself ridiculous internationally. The armed forces plainly cannot be modernized and at the same time the technological progress be blocked as this government is doing it. Both mutually exclude themselves, when
the goal should be to be the strongest conventional military power in Europe.
This report is thus no future plan. It is the written document of a strategic sluggishness and of a moral complacency which endanger the security of our country.
Many thanks.
[trans: tem]
x
