Tino Chrupalla, December 16, 2024, Confidence in Government

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/205, pp. 26525-26526. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear countrymen. 

Following the elections for the 20^th German Bundestag, was very quickly clear that a government of SPD, FDP, Bundnis 90/Greens will yield no policy in the interest of Germany, and we were more than confirmed in that. 

In regards the decision of conscience of the now to follow vote on the Chancellor’s confidence question, numerous origins of the Ampel government’s failure need to be considered. 

Herr Chancellor, to express confidence in you would be counter to the interests of the economy and the citizens. This coalition wanted to combine programs which are simply incompatible. Thus were entirely obvious compromises in statutory form carried through which only served the Ampel’s stability. In that regard, the future of German industry was never at the central point. As a result are over 20,000 business insolvencies in the year 2024. Germany declines economically, and international investors, due to the enormous tax burden, still come only when robust state promotion means are promised. 

Along with the one-sided and aggressive climate policy, there remains from this Ampel only a state becoming ever larger, more interventionist and more restrictive of innovation, which devours the citizens’ taxes. Consent for restrictions was expensively purchased with promises and gifts of money, as the heating law only too well demonstrated. 

In that regard, the Free Democrats have committed the truly greatest betrayal of their voters. Who, for a securing of power, so far distances himself from his program, needs also show no tenacity in regards resignation. That is not only too late, Herr Lindner, but simply unbelievable, just as you are as a person. That, Herr Mützenich has today wonderfully summarized. 

Yet now we also need be so honest and say that politics is a long-term business. Every Federal government knowingly takes up the inheritance of its preceding or penultimate government. Accordingly, it’s simply just ridiculous when the CDU/CSU again shows no humility and not once develops its own ideas. You copy AfD demands: Solve the migration question by border controls and deportations, re-name Bürgergeld in a new basic security, abolish the supply chain due diligence law, reduce the business taxes. Herr Merz, the question is: With whom do you want to actually implement all that? With whom do you want to actually do all that? 

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): With you, certainly not. Certainly not with you! 

That, you did not say today in your unsympathetic speech, Herr Merz.

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): With you not! 

So as to make our country competitive again, of course need be developed the infrastructures which were neglected for decades: Structural, personal, and of course also financial. In that regard, it’s also about efficiency. Finally look at what you expended for particular posts. For years already, I call [anmahne] for an audit and it would have been your duty as Finance Minister, Herr Lindner, to finally realize that. We of course may no longer fleece those who create value in Germany. And we need not do it if the Federal government finally had come or would come to decisions with a future. 

A successful state provides an infrastructure – streets, railways, schools, hospitals, etc. – in which firms gladly settle and create workplaces and also can expand. If however these firms are alienated by ever more bureaucratic demands and expensive energy, they will go to another country, as we, ja, presently see. 

Herr Chancellor, I nevertheless hold one thing of yours to be good: Your Nein to a delivery of Taurus cruise missiles. For the war-lovers of the FDP, the CDU, the Greens, you were hesitant; for me in this case prudent. It is really not to be imagined if a Friedrich Merz had decided in your place. 

            Hermann Gröhe (CDU/CSU): Radio Moscow!

We would have been drawn much deeper into war. For there is, ja, peace in every cemetery. There we can, with a CDU/CSU-led government under Friedrich Merz, then visit our children. 

            Alexander Dobrindt (CDU/CSU): That is unbelievable!

Right honorable ladies and gentlemen, we finally need a politics in German and European interest. And that is only with a Chancellor candidate Alice Weidel and with the Alternative für Deutschland. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Petr Bystron, November 26, 2024, Ukraine War

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2024)11-26(2-0018-0000.) 

Frau President. 

More weapons to the Ukraine – you do it for whom, actually? The colleague has just said it: The majority of Ukrainians want negotiations, want finally peace – and for that they will even renounce territory. This is now a current poll from the Ukraine. Ten million Ukrainians have voted with the feet. They have already left the country. Among which are 500,000 men of military service age, who do not want to die most miserably. An additional 500,000 certainly could no longer vote, since they are dead. Is that not enough for you? 

Even Zelenskyi now says he wants negotiations and a diplomatic solution. That is precisely what we demand for two years. All of you have insulted for two long years those who demanded this as Moscow’s agents, as Putin’s agents. So, is now Zelenskyi Putin’s agent? Of course not. He has only noted that the war is over. Trump has won the elections. There is an end to further weapons deliveries. You here want in all seriousness to further escalate and draw us all into a third world war – just before the war’s end? 

Here actually the question needs be asked: Whose interests do you at all represent? Not those of the Ukrainian people. Here, you only represent the weapons lobby, NATO and the secret services, since they conduct the war against Russia. Who now feel themselves already in a war against Russia legitimated by no one. No parliament at any time has voted for that. The people in the Ukraine do not want the war. Most Europeans do not want the war. So stop drawing us into the war. It is over. 

 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, November 14, 2024, European Defense

EU Parliament, Brussels, P10 CRE-PROV(2024)11-14(2-0018-0000). 

Frau President. 

In the past decades, the European Union has neglected to coordinate the member states’ security policy so that a maximum standard is guaranteed for our citizens. Whether it be the defense of the air space, the ending of mass migration or the protection of our raw material or commercial routes on the world seas, we are generally dependent on the structures of the United States of America. In none of these areas are we currently in the position to independently defend our security interests. 

Yet the EU itself is guilty of this dependence. It invests much money in ideological projects – from gender questions to climate protection – it worries about all possible things, but does not correctly worry about what is important. It is therefore necessary to dismantle [zurückzubauen] the European Union: Fewer competences, fewer duties, fewer expenditures. The European level should concentrate on fewer, yet decisive, duties for all; one of which would be a coordinated defense and security policy at the European level; for example, fewer weapons systems instead of 150 in the European Union today, few of which are comprehensively compatible for the armies. 

Yet it needs be clear: More security policy cooperation does not mean the creation of a common European army. It would be a nightmare if the EU bureaucrats and Frau von der Leyen were allowed to decide on the mission of German, French, Polish and other European soldiers. The further distant from the citizens are the decisions over war and  peace, the greater is the danger that decision makers thoughtlessly undertake a war – and nothing is further from normal life, from we citizens, than Ursula von der Leyen. To summarize: We say yes to more cooperation in defense and security questions, but a clear Nein to any phantasms of a European army. 

 

[trans: tem]

Joachim Wundrak, September 27, 2024, Bundeswehr, Iraq and the U.S.A.

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/189, pp. 24644-24645. 

Frau President. Frau Defense Commissioner. Herr Minister. Ladies and gentlemen.   

Again the Federal government puts forward a motion for the prolongation of a mandate which presents an inadmissible mingling of the U.S.-led operation Inherent Resolve for the combatting the “Islamic State” on one side and the NATO Iraq mission for advising and training the Iraqi armed forces on the other. As in previous years, we reject the presented draft mandate. 

First, since 2019 the IS has been militarily defeated. The further and long-term containment [Eindämmung] of IS is the duty of the sovereign states of Syria and Iraq. The continuing presence of foreign armed forces in Syria, without the agreement of Syria and without a UN mandate, merely on the basis of an explanation of the right to self-defense according to Article 51 of the UN Charter, is to be increasingly evaluated as counter to international law. This applies in especial measure to the presence of NATO partners U.S.A. and Turkey, as also the German Bundestag’s experts indicate. 

The Federal government has shown itself to be thoroughly aware of this problematic and thus two years ago withdrew from the mandate the mission of German aircraft in Syrian airspace. Yet support of violations of Syrian airspace by the allies with German contributions of air refueling and radar surveillance is also in our view illegal. 

The U.S.A. continues to maintain around two dozen support points with nearly 1,000 soldiers in Syria, against the will of the government in Damascus and for the withholding of the output of Syria’s rich oil fields. 

And the Iraqi government – we have just heard it – has since 2020 raised an objection to the presence of 2,500 American soldiers in its country. The Iraqi Defense Minister Thabat Al-Abbas has now publicly announced that the Iraqi and U.S. governments have agreed to a step-wise withdrawal of U.S. troops and their allies. The withdrawal of the soldiers of the U.S.-led counter Daesh coalition shall follow in two stages. The coalition wants to give up by September 2025 its support points in Bagdad and other parts of Iraq. By September 2026, the coalition shall also leave the autonomous Kurdish area in northern Iraq. This plan is still not confirmed by the U.S. government, yet nevertheless indicates the direction of the foreseeable development. 

What the withdrawal of U.S. armed forces along with allies from Iraq announced by the Iraqi government means for the continued presence of NATO in Iraq presently remains unclear. Nevertheless, the abrupt and chaotic termination of the missions in Afghanistan and Mali should be a warning for Germany and the Bundeswehr. For the signals in the Near and Middle East are stormy. An involvement of NATO and thus also of the Bundeswehr in armed conflict in Iraq is not acceptable. The constitutional core duty of the Bundeswehr is the defense of the country. And Germany is defended neither in the Hindukush nor in Iraq. The NATO mission outside of the alliance area we fundamentally reject. NATO should be consistently directed defensively [Die NATO sollte konsequent defensiv ausgerichtet werden]. 

For the named reasons, we therefore reject the presented motion. 

I thank you for your attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

Matthias Moosdorf, September 11, 2024, Foreign Office

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/184, p. 23905. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It would be difficult to find differing highpoints in the Ampel’s comprehensive failures. Nothing however exceeds the incompetence of the German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. Never before has the Republic lost so quickly and so much in reputation and influence. 

You have managed to trample underfoot German interests, to bend the law and deliver over your Ministry to a green nepotism business. Open-handed gifts of passports, even to presumed terrorists: Does that actually belong to a feminist foreign policy, or is it merely normal, Green, anti-German policy? Who demands of embassies and consulates to agree to visa applications despite incomplete or obviously falsified papers, would long since no more be minister in a country with a functioning fourth estate. 

The embarrassing return of the Benin Bronzes, the routine failure of flight readiness, the much too late and poorly organized departure of Germans from Israel, consolidates the picture of an amateurish office. With rhetorical slapstick, 360 degree turns, the “Bacon of Hope” in South Africa, panzer wars in the 19^th Century, or the SPD as the inventor of the social market economy, you moreover daily send signals of a lack of education in the land of Dichter und Denker. Your blot at the European Council, “We are fighting a war against Russia”, unleashed an outcry precisely because your Chancellor took care not to make us a warring party. 

Bruno Hönel (Greens): How was it with your delegation chairman and the German poets? Do you want to tell me what that was about?

Thank God no one anymore takes you seriously! 

Foreign countries look with increasing alienation at Germany; our diplomatic relations with the most important neighbors have been destroyed. In that regard, ntv says: 

“The relations with China and Turkey are…clearly stressed; important developing countries…are alienated.”

Our

“values-led Twitter diplomacy…along with an instruction and confrontation potential, leads to that ever more of the world’s doors are closed to you. When then they…are used, as presently in the case of Qatar/Hamas, Germany has scarcely anymore possibilities of influence.” 

Deborah Düring (Greens): Say for once, you also sit in the committee! Do you actually listen? Or another to you?

And ntv further says: 

            “Not Realpolitik, but attitude and media effect”

are at Baerbock’s central point. Instead of substance, make-up and stumbling. 

            Deborah Düring (Greens): Oh! 

Bruno Hönel (Greens): Does anything substantial come here, Herr Moosdorf?

Dear colleagues, the former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Melnyk has this week demanded of Olaf Scholz to make way for peace talks with Putin. That was and is the position of the AfD from the beginning: Diplomacy, de-escalation, the search for a settlement of interests and an understanding. And that applies for all parts of this world. 

            Boris Mijatović (Greens): That is noted, ja, in your speeches!

Germany thereby of course requires no further NATO expansion to all the world, no additional color revolutions, no compulsion of woke nonsense in countries which – in a picture of the Minister’s – are “hundreds of thousands of kilometers” distant from us. 

            Boris Mijatović (Greens): Hundreds of thousands!

The immediate limitation of illegal migration, the comprehensive deportation of all those obliged to depart, a return to a definition of German interests: That, we require. Away with the sanctions which harm only us! Back to peace and sovereignty for the nations of Europe! You who are not capable of that, who disdain Germany and sell its assets dirt cheap, should finally make free the way, you and your unspeakable dilettante government. Please finally resign! 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Peter Boehringer, September 13, 2024, Delayed Bankruptcy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/186, p. 24196. 

Frau President. 

Following this week’s debates, it is increasingly confirmed: The government attempts everything to drag itself through to the autumn of 2025. And furthermore, no clarity is created for the central questions of the draft budget. 

How perchance should one deal with the giant gaps in the two fully distinct military estimates? For one with the regular costs for a Bundeswehr for the defense of Germany: Legitimate expenditures, yet even today and first of all, quite unclearly financed in the finance planning time frame. For another with the expenditures for misguided foreign missions, primarily for the Ukraine war which in addition is not our war. Billions in costs for direct and indirect German participation in war, concealed by an EU peace facility, a 50 billion EU Ukraine facility and in a Federal budget by the so-called post-procurement [Nachbeschaffung] of material, which however means nothing other than the physical donation of Bundeswehr material for use at a foreign front. German weapons will be given to Zalenskyi and then post-procured; that is in x places in the budget: Pro forma for the Bundeswehr. Here, the Bundeswehr is misused as a transshipment warehouse for an unfortunate and lost war which needs to be solved diplomatically. 

Then your sustainability budget for 2024. That the Ampel on account of the fully “unexpected” worsened business cycle still brings in the autumn of the current year a sustainability budget is a novelty in the history of budgets. Thereby will now be obtained the indebtedness margin, increased 11 billion euros by purely technical formula, ten months after the issuance of the original budget. That is not serious, particularly as the Ampel embezzles transaction proceeds from the sale of the Bund’s silverware – over 4.1 billion euros –, simply illegal in the accounting, so that then the debt brake will no longer be observed for the fifth year in a row. 

Colleague Bury plainly said something correct, and for another reason is this budget again not constitutional. 

The Ampel here besides profits from the evil fruits of its own policy. Since of course the origins of the worsened economic activity were the years-long oppressive and fraudulent Corona preventive measures, the world’s dumbest energy policy, and the omnipresent, false incentive which you set above all with the planned economy CO₂ religion. Only that allowed you, on the basis of the somewhat questionable debts logic of Article 115 of the Basic Law, to today also obtain an extra 11 billion. 

There still continues to be some billions in risks in the budget which you yourselves have created. The risk of still further excess EEG compensations due to the planned economic guaranty price, the risk of a further exploding citizens’ wage [Bürgergeld], the risk of an abolition of the solidarity surtax, soon to be prescribed by the Constitutional Court, of course also the risk of a dramatically broken down economy. In the auto industry, that risk is already a reality. In July 2024, an orders breakdown of minus 29 percent vis-à-vis the previous year was to be written down; in regards E-autos, even a minus 69 percent in comparison with the previous year’s month. 

The Ampel apparently just plans precisely until the election date in September 2025. With you, it is therein clear, even if you deny it, that at the precise point after September 2025 there will be no more money. Any new Finance Minister will need to immediately order a budget embargo. Or then the Ampel or a successor perhaps proclaims yet again an emergency situation, so as to be able to conceal and compensate their own self-made budget emergency yet again by means of an ostensible external catastrophe? That is not academic. The coalition’s speakers in this week have explicitly not denied a new budget emergency on the basis of – cite Habeck – a historical struggle in the Ukraine. Whenever those governing trouble themselves over the pathos of endurance and historical dimensions, it becomes dangerous and expensive for the citizens. 

Yet then Herr Habeck also says what for an Economy Minister is a legendary sentence: The “Budget is not the center of the world”. Indecent numbers are thus to the Economy Minister all the same, – unbelievable! – all the same to him also is presence at this budget debate. 

The Ampel in any case is from the summer of 2025 no longer interested in the entire misery; Germany unfortunately still needs to be interested. In business, delayed bankruptcy is a criminal act; in this government, a common practice. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Gauland, July 4, 2024, NATO, Russia and Ukraine

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23422-23423. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Yes, NATO is a success story. It has bestowed peace and security on its members for 75 years. And yes, we need NATO still today. With the Gorch Fock, Germany’s trade and seaways are not secured. Germany is not in the position to defend itself. NATO guarantees us protection and security. 

This should nevertheless not prevent us from putting a couple of questions. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact had offered the possibility involving an all-European security system with Russia. The opportunity was wasted. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): By whom, then?

Instead – and honesty is in order to state this – we sought to drive Russia in a weak phase out of Mitteleuropa. That might have been a geostrategic aim of the U.S.A. – it did not serve European peace. 

Ladies and gentlemen, in this house it is fairly senseless to recall that in the reunification negotiations declarations had been delivered – I name now only one – like that of the British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, which maintained – cite:

“There was no plan in NATO to admit in any form the countries of eastern and middle Europe into NATO.” 

I could continue the list with James Baker and with our former Foreign Minister Genscher – I know, the CDU contests this and ever again was heard, all of that is not right. 

            Joe Weingarten (SPD): You can stop! The remittance from Moscow comes!

Therefore I have also used this citation. 

I of course also know that the Warsaw Pact then still existed and corresponding developments lay in the future. Yet the question needs be allowed whether it would not have been smarter to include Russia in the changes taking place. 

President Bärbel Bas: Herr Dr. Gauland, do you allow an interim question or                            an interim remark?

No, I do not now allow that. 

The present war in the Ukraine has a long, previous history, and which also – and not in the least measure – has to do with the eastern expansion of the alliance. It is therefore important in this moment to recall: NATO is a European Atlantic alliance of defense. The Ukraine is not a part of NATO, just as little as, for that matter, Taiwan. 

            Joe Weingarten (SPD): Er tut mal für sein Geld!

NATO is thus not responsible for the integrity [Unversehrheit] of non-member states nor does it have duties to fulfill in the Indo-Pacific area. And, ladies and gentlemen, it is also no ideological bulwark of democrats against autocrats. 

We should always keep in view – and for this too is honesty in order – that the world’s largest democracy, India, does not share our viewpoint on the Ukraine conflict. In the world of Ranke’s Die Grossen Mächte, NATO is insurance coverage for Germany, and it is very good for that. It should not be an ideological spearhead in a fight against Russia, if we want to live in a peaceful world. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Joachim Wundrak, June 13, 2024, Arms Exports to Israel

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/175, p. 22716. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. A special greeting first of all to our guests from Thüringen in the gallery. 

But to the matter. The motion put forward demands stopping German armaments exports to Israel and imposing a weapons embargo against Israel. Israel has been accused of committing violations of humanitarian international law and of human dignity by its type of war conduct against Hamas in the Gaza strip. 

In that regard is to be called to mind and retained that Hamas and Iran deny Israel’s right to exist and routinely call for the annihilation of Israel – as in the act committed by the brutal massacre of October 7 of the past year, and by a perfidious plan of Hamas, namely, to force the Arab world into a war against Israel on the basis of an expected high number of Palestinian victims as a result of a harsh Israeli reaction. This perfidious plan of the Hamas leadership in a first stage has unfortunately unfolded. The high numbers of Palestinian victims and the extensive destruction of infrastructure in the Gaza strip are tolerable only with difficulty. The developing humanitarian crisis in Gaza has shaken the world. 

In the course of this war against Hamas, Israel has raised up against itself many critics due to its harsh and uncompromising way of proceeding, as the proposed motion rightly describes. And the protective power, the U.S.A., has increasingly criticized the Israeli government and demanded that international law be observed and disproportionate war conduct be avoided. Finally, the U.S.A. has evidently even imposed a delivery stop for one type of munition, namely heavy bombs, so as to compel a moderation on the Israeli war leadership. To what extent the Federal Government [of Germany] has joined in this delivery stop of specified weapons or munitions has not been publicly communicated. 

With the Security Council decision, reached a few days ago, for a three-stage armistice plan, to which Israel agreed, there since long is now hope in a rapid end of the death and the destruction. We may nevertheless not ignore that Israel is existentially threatened also on its northern border. Hezbollah, armed to the teeth, presents an incomparably higher threat for Israel than does Hamas. 

Israel remains reliant on its military strength which is dependent on German armaments exports. We therefore reject the proposed motion. 

I thank you for your attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

Tino Chrupalla, June 26, 2024, EU and NATO

German Bundestag, June 26, 2024, Plenarprotokoll 20/177, pp. 22860-22861. 

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear countrymen. 

We need security and cooperation on the continent of Europe. To create and maintain peace –  that will be the duty of the coming years and decades. For that, cooperative structures and alliances are required which delineate and represent the interests of the members. It is precisely these interests which are changing. 

It is the national interests which the peoples formulate vis-à-vis their state and inter-state actors. The maintenance and observance of these interests are the foundation for a successful and trustworthy cooperation at bilateral and multilateral levels. Only when the citizens are called upon, and feel themselves attended to, will they accept the institutions and the actors behind them. That is the reason for the slap, Herr Scholz, which you received at the European election; for that is precisely your problem. 

We are thus well into the midst of themes of today’s debate on the European Union and the North Atlantic pact. Both institutions should cooperate and guarantee security, freedom and prosperity in Europe. For both institutions in the time of their formation, there were counter-proposals on the other side, thus in the East. These presented a counter-proposal, but also a counterweight. 

In the time of the Cold War was placed right in the middle mutual deterrence – and by means of nuclear weapons. Today we need to re-evaluate whether these measures of force still present a promising and, before all, a negotiable [vermittelbar] strategy for pacification of conflicts. I think that is at least questionable. 

What nevertheless still remains for us, and what we should much more vigorously use, are the possibilities of diplomacy. Exchange, understanding and the willingness of individuals to understand, as well as opposed interests, will decide on war and peace. He who stops negotiating has already lost. For months, we of the AfD delegation seek to recruit for diplomacy and negotiations. Why do you not, as Chancellor and as Federal government, actively push this forward, Herr Scholz? Even today in your speech was there little of this to be heard. 

As a result, valued colleagues, both institutions – the EU and NATO – in their present form need to ask themselves the warranted question of their right to exist [Daseinberechtigung]. For quite a while, this question could be suppressed. The current security and economic policy problems in Europe however demand a discussion of precisely this problematic. 

The war still continuing in the Ukraine shows how urgently Europe needs a military alliance – no question – which represents, before all, our interests. In this difficult time becomes clear who with foresight formulates and represents our interests. A NATO in its present form can unfortunately no longer do this. Yet we are part of this alliance. Why does not the Federal government use this present status to pursue German interests? Why do not the partners help us  to bring about a clarification of the terror attack on our critical energy infrastructure? That would be the first demand that should be directed to authentic partners and friends – as we name them. That would besides, Herr Scholz, increase the credibility of which you always speak. Instead, the Ampel promotes the arming of Europe. In that regard, not a word on the NATO headquarters for the Ukraine in the middle of Germany, neither from Herr Scholz nor from you, Herr Merz. Thus is asked: To whom in that regard did you give the acknowledgement [Bekenntnis]? Exactly: To those who still have not withdrawn their nuclear weapons from Germany. You thereby fasten us still more to the maintenance of their military outposts. Better use the EU Council presidency of Viktor Orbán, and invite all warring parties to peace negotiations in Germany. That would be a sign of sovereignty. 

And in this connection: We need a Bundeswehr which can defend our country. You have bullied from the Bundestag a special fund – that is, special debts – in the sum of 100 billion euros. Much was promised, but nothing much has been realized. Quite the opposite: You prefer to demand the delivery of weapons in a war zone. Yet German weapons may serve the self-defense, not the support of foreign wars. 

The citizens were once made to believe that our freedom can be defended in the Hindu Kush. With which results? Destruction, suffering and a flow of migration which primarily endangered Germany’s domestic security. In that regard, you were often guilty of resolute action. The goal needs to be the immediate stop of uncontrolled immigration. Secure borders and consistent refusals are thereby indispensable. Simply look at the criminal statistics. There you see which problems we have with immigrants direct from Afghanistan. And we need no trivialization of the facts, as Federal Interior Minister Frau Faeser does almost weekly. The consistent deportation of culpable persons must be a consensus even so as for the rejected asylum applicants, ladies and gentlemen. 

The basic prerequisite for that is maintaining diplomatic relations with these countries; whether or not you wanted to recognize the governments is quite another matter. Yet so long as you apportion governments into first, second and additional classes, you will thereby run into scant success. As a result, you will again be disembarked, or left standing in the airplane. That is meanwhile the disastrous picture of Germany in the world which you leave behind. We are meanwhile simply ridiculed in foreign countries. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): On account of you!

Those are the present facts of your foreign policy. 

Year after year, you manage a sell-out of German interests. Your short-sighted policy disarranges growing bilateral relations and even divides the European Union without which you could not implement your policy in Germany; keyword: “Heating law”, or also the so-called climate policy. 

With the EU’s assistance, NATO’s security interests shall be implemented through the backdoor in the Ukraine and in Moldavia. I ever again say it: The European Union is not the extended arm of NATO, and is never allowed to become it. With all understanding for the individual interests, an escalation of the conflict and a prolongation of the war cannot be excluded. That applies to avoiding it. 

All of these are your duties. We would support you in that regard. You have the responsibility for Germany and its citizens. Finally do justice to this! 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, June 6, 2024, Immigration, Economy and War

German Bundestag, June 6, 2024, Plenarprotokoll 20/172, pp. 22137-22139. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

The foregoing speeches completely by-pass the core of the problem. The Mannheim knifeman ought not to be here. The bloodbath on the Mannheim market place brings to public awareness the decline of security in public areas and the murderous consequences of an irresponsible migration policy. 

The German state can no longer fulfill its obligation to protect the citizens and their rights. First, an Islamist attacker killed a young, on-duty, German police officer. A young father of a family could yet live, Herr Stürzenberger might not lie seriously wounded in hospital, if the authorities had fulfilled their duties and immediately deported the Afghan knifeman to his home after his illegal entry. 

The Mannheim police murderer, who came to Germany over ten years ago as an ostensibly unaccompanied minor and despite rejected asylum demands remained in the country all the years at cost to the taxpayers, is a prime example of the migration policy failures of this government and the CDU/CSU-led preceding government. It is a product of the politically willed loss of control over our borders. It is the product of the millions of tolerated abuses of the asylum system for illegal immigration into our country. It is the result of a fully out of control, pretend  asylum. And it is no single instance. He is one of many assailants and violent criminals who have come to our country as supposed refugees. 

The result is in the criminal statistics: Forty percent of suspects are foreign citizens – three times more than their portion of the entire population. In regards the exploding crimes of violence, the portion of foreigners is four times higher. Asylum seekers from the countries of origin of Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Turkey, are over-proportionately charged with a high criminality;  that is a fact. Since 2021, the number of knife attacks has increased by a third. There were almost 15,000 knife attacks last year, almost 40 per day. And in that regard, much of the knife crime  included in the State statistics, falls under the table. In the past year alone was registered the horror number of 761 gang rapes. That is more than two of these horrific crimes every day in our country, 111 in the City of Berlin alone. 

Half of the suspects are foreign citizens. How many suspects with a German passport have a migration background is still not recorded. Double and multiple citizenship counts in the criminal statistics as German. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Yes, they also are German. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): They are German!

That shows that even the horror numbers of the police criminal statistics are still considerably distorted. 

From the collapse of the domestic security can there be only one reasonable consequence, and that is a fundamental migration change, and indeed immediately. In clear text: Law and statute need to be consistently applied. The borders must be closed. Illegal entry must be prevented. Those without residency rights, primarily criminals and Islamist fanatics, must be deported, and certainly also to Afghanistan. 

Yet you do not think of ending your fatal policy. You do the opposite and naturalize in quick processes precisely these Afghans, Syrians, Iraqis and Turks. While citizens and colleagues still mourn the murdered police officer, and already you again speak of facilitating the immigration from Islamic countries and let in still more migrants from Afghanistan, you put off the victims, the traumatized relatives and terrorized citizens with empty phrases. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): You are instrumentalizing the victims! 

– That the interruptions come straight out of your delegation, from the Greens, does not surprise me.

You relativize the threat and, with unbearable trivialization, place religious fanatics on a level with drunken howlers, as your party chairman Ricarda Lang has done. You abuse the resources of the security authorities so as to proceed against oppositionists instead of addressing the greatest and most urgent danger for our domestic security: The imported Islamist extremism and its extreme left assailants. That is not only irresponsible, but cynical. Your hypocrisy is deadly. Your ideology of open borders and the unrestricted, uncontrolled mass immigration is based on illusion and lies which cost human lives. 

Your migration policy does not defend those politically persecuted, but criminals and asylum cheaters. You play with the lives and health of the citizens. You take from them their right to freedom and security in the public space. And with reprisals, tricks and defamation, you threaten those who remonstrate and name the abuses by name. That is also shown by the devious knife attack on our common council candidate Heinrich Koch in Mannheim. 

You leave in the lurch police officers who, with suppressed rage over your irresponsibility, must take the heat and, before all, are ready with their lives to stand up for the defense of law and freedom, like the murdered Rouven Laur. Yet you rob the citizens not only of their domestic security, you also take from them the economic and financial security and hard-earned prosperity. Inflation, rising charges and energy prices politically driven to the heights by a green transformation force the working population into a spiral of cold expropriation. And Habeck, the De-Industrialization Minister, drives the productive industry out of the country. Businesses weekly report massive elimination of positions, and displacement of production to foreign countries or insolvencies. The attraction of Germany as a business venue rapidly declines. The exodus of the flagship BASF is only one of countless alarm signals. The number of business closures in the past year has climbed to a gigantic 176,000 and strikes the productive core of our economy. 

You expend untold billions on the illusion of being able in a few decades to influence the climate; yet for the securing against real dangers in the here and now there is no money. German tax money goes to all the world, the flood and catastrophe protection in our own country is neglected and skimped to ruin; that belongs to the truth. And then you run in rubber boots to photo ops and promise state aid to those affected by the flood catastrophe. In Ahrtal, they are still waiting, after more than two years, for your state aid. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Where then is your protection concept?

While you destroy the economic foundation of our prosperity and allow the domestic security to erode, you sleepwalk to the edge of a Third World War. The war in the Ukraine goes into its third year. A military victory of the Ukraine is illusionary. The Ukraine cannot win this war; that belongs to the truth. The search for a diplomatic solution is in this situation the order of the hour. There must be a diplomatic solution, and not the endless prolongation of death as a result of your weapons deliveries. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): The AfD recommends capitulation!

Retired General Harald Kujat, the Bundeswehr’s former Inspector-general and chairman of the NATO military committee, expressed the fear that the Ukraine War could become the ur-catastophe of the 21^st Century. 

Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): The Alternative für Deutschland is the ur-catastrophe! 

            Markus Frohnmaier (AfD): Frau Zimmermann, when then do you volunteer?

And I am of this opinion. The irresponsible escalation rhetoric of the agitators in this government coalition and from the ranks of the Union has contributed an essential part to this danger, and daily the amnesiac situation is intensified. 

            President Bärbel Bas: Please come to a conclusion, Frau Weidel.

Yet we know that at the end of any war is the peace. Thus why prolong the bloodshed and suffering which increase the immense danger of a major war? Commit yourselves instead finally for peace negotiations, and bring the parties to the table, 

            President Bärbel Bas: Frau Weidel, come to a conclusion.

so as to end the dying and before all to avoid the danger of a Third World War. 

I am grateful. 

            Dorothee Bär: That was for TikTok!

 

[trans: tem]

Matthias Moosdorf, June 3, 2024, Ukraine Escalation

AfD Kompakt, June 3, 2024. 

It  began with the delivery of steel helmets and today we see where we stand. The future  prospects of the Ukraine and its people are today worse than ever before. The delivery of Western weapons has not prevented the death of hundreds of thousands of young people – just the opposite. The West’s refusal to correct the impossibility of its policy drives Europe ever deeper into the war. Already demanded is the activation of 900,000 German reservists, ever more and wider ranging weapons shall turn the tide. What a pig-headed policy, directed against our interests! It manifests a fateful pauper’s oath. 

In the view of the AfD delegation, the solution lies exclusively in the prioritization of diplomacy. An armistice, a peace settlement under a grant of mutual security guarantees, the revival of the OSCE [Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe] – there is not alternative. Europe’s security is not to be won militarily. The sooner we all understand that, the quicker the bloodletting will end. 

 

[trans: tem]

Sylvia Limmer, April 24, 2024, Israel and Iran

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, April 24, 2024, P9 CRE-PROV(2024)04-24(3-036-0000). 

Herr President. 

Not just today with my last speaking contribution in the European Parliament do I stand here as a free member, and not particularly as a representative of the AfD delegation, due to a cowardly and malicious drone and rocket attack on Israel by the Iranian terrorist mullah regime. Yet not only the AfD and also the EU: Europe needs to understand that Iran’s attack on Israel and Putin’s attack on the Ukraine are two sides of the same coin. Yet the readiness to place oneself at the side of Israel is here often only hesitantly defined. 

Thus it is for me to designate the EU foreign minister’s acknowledgment of Israel’s security as  only half-hearted, and it is very disappointing. Herr Borrell, the epicenter is not Gaza but the terror attack of October 7 on Israel. Of course the concluded intensifications of the sanctions are right. Yet if a stabilizing effect in the Near East is really desired, states must be supported which guarantee aid to Israel in regards its defense. 

To write of Western values, it must be worthy of them. And most important: Strong resolution is required to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Atomic weapons in the hands of these mullahs will sooner or later be directed not only against Israel but also against us. 

 

[trans: tem]

Joachim Wundrak, April 11, 2024, Arctic Strategy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/163, pp. 21013-21014. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Herr Dr. Stegner, I remain in constructive cooperation and collaboration here in this sovereign house. 

The economic and security policy importance of the Arctic region for Germany and Europe is regularly underestimated – plainly also by the Federal government. So accentuated the Federal government in an answer to a minor inquiry, that Germany’s interests in the Arctic have been primarily directed to climate and environmental policy. Yet the rich reserves of oil and gas of this region can also in the future essentially contribute to a more secure energy supply for Germany. In addition, there are at hand large deposits of valuable metals like copper, nickel and zinc, as well as rare earths, which can make a significant contribution to covering the raw materials needs of our industry. 

The guidelines of the German Arctic policy of 2019 are not fundamentally distinct from those of 2013. There were therein exhibited not any concrete steps in regards the implementation of economic and energy policy interests. Beyond that, Germany as a continental middle power and export nation needs to have a strategic interest in secure and usable maritime routes in the Arctic area. 

It is not to be wondered that competing great power interests in this region again establish an increasing military presence and activity. Thus the U.S.A. for its Thule base in Greenland concluded already in 2018 a new, well-endowed use agreement. Russia also constructs its military support points in the Arctic and carries out large exercises there. The already mentioned Arctic policy guidelines of the Federal government on the contrary reject any militarization of the Arctic. Nevertheless, the Bundeswehr for some years increasingly takes part in military exercises in the region. 

It is obvious that the present geo-strategic developments especially increase the Arctic’s importance for Germany’s security and prosperity. This enormous economic potential of the Arctic is not acknowledged by the Federal government and consequently not sufficiently taken into account in the practical policy. 

We thus demand [Drucksache 20/10972] of the Federal government to develop a new, integrated Arctic strategy which distinctly defines and pursues Germany’s interests, especially the energy policy and economic interests. As an observer at the Arctic Council and in the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable, Germany should moreover use its influence in the region to prevent a further escalation due to the increasing military activities. 

Germany should more intensively contribute to strengthening the Arctic Council and to solving security questions in regards the Arctic by means of dialogue and diplomacy. Beyond that, Germany should actively participate in the international Arctic forums like the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable, the Euro-Arctic Barents Sea Council, the Arctic Circle, the Arctic Economic Council and the Arctic Frontiers. And finally Germany should strengthen its diplomatic engagement in the Arctic by the naming of a German commissioner with rank of ambassador. What is right for the south seas should all the more apply for the far more relevant Arctic. 

I thank you for your attention. 

            Ulrich Lechte (FDP): We’ve understood that!

 

[trans: tem]

 

Alice Weidel, March 20, 2024, War and Peace

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/159, pp. 20331-20332. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

The omens under which you set out for this European Council are dark. The Ukraine war is already in a third year. Serious efforts to end the fateful bloodletting in the midst of Europe are  not in sight. Warmongering and war rhetoric determine the tone in Brussels as well as in Berlin. 

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): Not in Moscow?

Michel, the President of the European Council, demands: Europe needs to prepare itself for war and change over to a war economy. 

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): In which world do you live, actually?

The French state President Macron speaks of the mission of NATO troops in the Ukraine theater  of war, and boasts that France would be in the position for that. 

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): What you say, Putin could not say better!

In the ranks of the Union, in a remarkable historical amnesia, –  Herr Merz, because you the entire time interrupt – 

            Till Steffen (Greens): That’s in your manuscript, but he didn’t do that!

one dreams of carrying the war to Russia. The Union stands for that. In lock-step with the FDP armaments lobbyist Strack-Zimmermann forms a black-green coalition of warmongers which flatters itself with martial rhetoric – even you, Herr Chancellor; a shame that you are not here – and accuses others of defeatism. 

            Till Steffen (Greens): I believe that was a failure of translation from the Russian.

The bellicose over-bidding competition rings the more absurd against the background of the desolate state of our own armed forces. The Bundeswehr has at its disposal, as before, not one, single mission-ready army brigade. Nevertheless, the debate revolves steadfastly around new weapons deliveries and financial aid in the billions to Kiev, while the reconstruction of our own army and the recovery of capability for our own national defense is here obviously of no priority. It was right, Herr Chancellor, that you spoke against the delivery of the Taurus cruise missile to the Ukraine. 

Dorothee Bär (CDU/CSU): Yes, praise from the AfD! That is super for the SPD! Madness!

It would not be in the German security interest to strip our armed forces of an additional important weapons system. In that regard, the Bundeswehr does not even have at its disposal a sufficient number of these cruise missiles so as to fulfill its obligations vis-à-vis NATO. The delivery of this system, which as an offensive weapon may have effect far into Russia and can even reach the Kremlin, would be a quite clear participation in the war. The commitment of German soldiers for servicing would necessarily follow after it and thereby dramatically increase the potential of escalation. 

And even you, Herr Scholz, have ever again fallen down and have let yourself be forced into escalation. First should German armored howitzers bring the war’s turning point, then German defensive panzers and finally German combat panzers. None of that fulfilled the ratcheted-up expectations. Now the escalationists extol the Taurus as a game-changer or wonder weapon. Even with the Taurus, the Ukraine has not the faintest breath of a chance to achieve its war aims. The truth is needed for that. 

Even if this time you remain steadfast, the Nein to Taurus does not suffice. Germany is acting de facto as a war party. Germany participates by means of the sanctions in an economic war against Russia. Germany delivers weapons to the Ukraine. Germany gives to considerable extent financial assistance, 

            Christoph Meyer (FDP): Has the Kremlin written down all of that for you?

and Europe expropriates capital income on Russian reserve deposits – from my viewpoint, that is forbidden. 

Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): Russia Today speaks! Here is the latest news from Russia Today!

Instead of driving forward the escalation with warmongering and weapons deliveries, the German policy needs to call to mind its strengths. That means: It needs to venture all to step forward as a mediator and get negotiations underway. To that, we are besides also obligated by the peace precept in the German Basic Law. 

Without question is Russia’s war in the Ukraine an attack contrary to international law. 

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): Ach ja? 

            Christian Dürr (FDP): Ah!

Just so without question has the Ukraine the right to self defense. 

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): Aha!

The decision in that regard to support it does not however release us from the obligation to rational policy in the well understood interests of our own country and our own people. 

German interests are represented and defined in Berlin, not by chance in Kiev or in Washington. Even in the U.S.A. are there long since signs of an exit [Ausstieg]. To believe the Europeans could alone continue to conduct the U.S.A.’s proxy war against Russia would be folly and hubris in one. 

            Kordula Schulz-Asche (Greens): Proxy war?

The Ukraine war has long since run aground. It devours month by month billions in money and material and countless soldiers’ lives. The talk of victory and endurance from Kiev is unrealistic. This war must not be frozen in, it must be ended. 

            Katja Mast (SPD): Putin can pull out!

A Ukraine as a theater of war, de-populated and devastated for years, helplessly dependent on foreign payments and under the continual danger of the escalation to a Third World War, is neither in the German nor European interest. It can also ultimately not be in the interest of the Ukrainian nation. 

Germany’s interest is peace in Europe, the normalization of economic relations with all countries, Russia also, and the ending of the sanctions war which most harms us alone. The way there leads through negotiations. You cannot execute this charge, in that you glorify one of the war’s opponents and demonize the other. Realistic foreign policy has the duty, in the propaganda thunder of the war parties which we here everyday hear, 

            Patrick Schnieder (CDU/CSU): Just from you!

to find the contact points for a durable exchange of interests. Certainly, when the weapons speak, diplomacy is not allowed to be silent. 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Your time is expired, Frau Weidel.

Act for the best of one’s own people and the peoples of Europe. Seek the way to peace 

Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Frau Weidel. 

so as to prevent a major European war.

 

[trans: tem]

 

           

 

 

 

Tino Chrupalla, March 14, 2024, Peace and Cruise Missiles

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/157, pp. 20089-20090. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear countrymen. 

A delivery of Taurus means the prolongation of the war. Yes, it harms perhaps Russia, yet the Ukraine as well, and primarily it endangers Germany. As the Alternative für Deutschland, we condemn the Russian attack on the Ukraine. We stand for the territorial sovereignty of each country and honor the will of the respective population. For that, is required a peace which we want to attain by all peaceful means. It therefore ultimately needs to be about discussing various solutions in common at the negotiations table. 

The delivery of Taurus harms primarily Germany. Yet we still are not perceived as a war party – still! You have it hand, Herr Chancellor. Therefore, we request of the Chancellor to consistently further pursue at this point the line of peace in Germany and in Europe. And before all, do not allow yourself to be extorted by the warmongers in the CDU, in the FDP and of the Greens. That, we request of the Chancellor. 

Valued colleagues, 75 years ago the German people fortified themselves with a Basic Law – cite – “as a member of equal right in a united Europe to serve the peace of the world.” And precisely that still needs to be the commanding guideline. 

A so-called voltage drop [Spannungsfall] was posited here in parliament. Then came into play the Bundeswehr as a defense army. Except: We are not allowed to let it come even so far, ladies and gentlemen. International involvements are just so to be avoided as a self-provoked status as a war party. Both, we of the AfD do not want. 

We want to provide humanitarian assistance in a proportionate framework – and that, consistently. For that, however, we require an efficient economy. Yet instead of being concerned for durable infrastructures, the Federal government tells tales of a war economy, of novelties even in the health sector. 

A defense-ready Bundeswehr we still cannot put forward. A 100 billion euros special facility – special debt – is ready and cannot be invested. Why actually not, Herr Pistorius? Instead, one-way frigates will be deployed to the Red Sea. 

Allow me to say a few sentences on the theme “Security in the Bundeswehr”. From an unprotected discussion on the potential delivery of weapons and their employment, a necessary measure of respect, morality and professionalism was missing. The loose connection with security standards has brought forward a situation which could be understood as an open meddling [offene Einmischung] in the war. 

Today, it’s about Taurus. And what would be the next step? Do the colleagues of the so-called middle of the house want to send soldiers to the combat mission? Think primarily, in regards your decisions of conscience, – I know, there is no conscience in regards Herr Kiesewetter and Frau Strack-Zimmermann – in the interests of your families, friends and acquaintances! 

We as members of the German Bundestag decide here in the end on war or peace. I therefore demand of you to take in hand your own responsibility for the peace and to reject this war motion of the CDU. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Joachim Kuhs, February 27, 2024, EU Finance and Ukraine War

European Parliament, Strasbourg, P9 CRE-PROV (2024)02-27(2-025-0000). 

Herr President, esteemed Commissioner Han, valued colleagues, Herr State Secretary. 

Even this laboriously negotiated and stripped down revision of the seven year financial framework will fail. Whereon do I fix this? Now, if Herr Orban needs be sent to drink coffee so that all negotiation leaders thus agree, then everyone recognizes: Here, something is not in order. Is this a rotten compromise? 

When in the second round, two-thirds of the 50 billion euros for the Ukraine facility is financed by debt, and it is supposed this would not burden the EU budget, then, valued colleagues, one is self-deceived. Do you really believe that the Ukraine following this frightful war will be in a position to service the interest payments, to say nothing of the paying back the principal debt? 

When a third of 21 billion euros is scraped together from all sides and new gaps are thereby everywhere opened up, then every Schwabisch Hausfrau knows: That can only cause discord and irritation. 

Yet what most depresses me personally, and this I’ve said already in committee: Have you, honored colleagues, even once asked the people in the Ukraine what they really want? Do they really want more money? That, I do not believe. These people want peace for their country. If we here in plenary session – just recently, Herr Gahler, you said it – continue to promote the war with weapons deliveries, and not work towards peace, then we thus make ourselves culpable for the people in the Ukraine, and also for the soldiers, who daily die or are crippled by the hundreds. Dear colleagues, let us finally stop this war! 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Gauland, February 22, 2024, Russia, Munich and Realpolitik

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/154, p. 19630. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

“War is a mere continuation of politics with other means” [„Der Krieg ist eine blosse Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln“]. Everyone knows this sentence of Clausewitz. In traditional international law, a war therefore ends with a political result, a conclusion of peace. If however one party to a war excludes the other from the civilized world with a judgement of unworthiness [Unwerturteil], a conclusion of peace becomes impossible. 

Since 1648, as the peace treaty of Münster and Osnabrück ended the ideological war between protestants and catholics, the rule applies that all subject to international law are alike in the sense of a like ability to speak. Even in the times of the Cold War, there were talks between both sides. The expression that one is not allowed to let the line of communication to rupture,  belonged until recently to the standard vocabulary of German foreign policy. 

            Kurt Abraham (CDU/CSU): Who then has broken the line? 

Why, ladies and gentlemen, does this no longer apply to Russia?

            Kurt Abraham (CDU/CSU): Because the Russians have broken the line! 

It was a political failure that Russian representatives were uninvited at the Munich Security Conference, a conference the motto of which is “Peace through Dialogue“ – not through weapons deliveries. 

Realpolitik, ladies and gentlemen, is the art of the possible. The possible is often not to be had without painful compromise. Values-led foreign policy on the other hand, as we lately manage it, does not know the lesser evil. When values-led foreign policy leads to that communication and negotiations stop, or are simply just not undertaken, it needs to be replaced by Realpolitik. And when the values-led foreign policy leads to that the war will then be continued when the war aims are not achieved, it needs to be replaced by Realpolitik. 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the central distinction between Realpolitik and that which we meanwhile have come to know as “values-led foreign policy“. 

Marianne Schieder (SPD): It is a lie when you assert that there were no talks. You know that! 

Values societies feel themselves obligated to fight against unworthiness [Unwert]. With a representative of unworthiness, values societies conduct no negotiations. The opponent of war becomes an absolute enemy. His interests are criminal. 

            Marcus Faber (FDP): That is called war crimes! 

The enemy must be annihilated. That unfortunately leads, with a known consistency, to that the war escalates. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): That is your vocabulary, not ours!

Ladies and gentlemen, Putin conducts a war which can be held to be unjust and wrong, 

            Agnes-Marie Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): “can be held”! 

or needs be. So as to end it, however, nothing is served by assuming his criteria; but on the contrary, by again recalling Münster and Osnabrück and by overcoming the Western inability of speech [Sprachlosigkeit]. Yet, ladies and gentlemen, for that is required a Metternich at the Vienna Congress or a Kissinger in Peking, instead of a presenter of war. It’s too bad that no one in Munich wanted to undertake that role. Therefore, we will also have no peace if we so continue. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Rüdiger Lucassen, January 19, 2024, Populism and Cruise Missiles

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/148, pp. 18939-18940. 

Frau President. Frau Defense Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The CDU/CSU this week carves out motions in which it demands, free of charge, “more weapons for the Ukraine”: Day before yesterday Taurus cruise missiles, today one million artillery shells. What comes next? Atomic weapons?

             Marcus Faber (FDP): That is just rubbish!

Some of my colleagues name this CDU/CSU motion “populistic”. I find this not apt. The populist listens to what the people want and then implements it. Basically, the populist, as a politician, is an authentic employee of the people. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): O Gott!

Yet what the CDU here demands, the majority of Germans do not want. 

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): And you are a pacifist?

I know: Direct democracy is to the super democrats of this house a horror. But imagine for once a referendum as in Switzerland, and indeed on the question: Should Germany deliver to the Ukraine cruise missiles and one million artillery shells? My prognosis: You would receive not ten percent for this nonsense. 

Nein, ladies and gentlemen of the Union, with this motion, you do not want to make foreign policy – you want only to irritate the government. 

            Markus Grübel (CDU/CSU): Nein, we represent German interests!

And that as opposition is of course your good right, and it, ja, also works out well. For almost two years, the FDP’s lead candidate for the European Parliament, Frau Strack-Zimmermann, passes by no microphone without demanding more weapons for the Ukraine. Yet the day before yesterday she needed to submit to party discipline and vote against the delivery of Taurus cruise missiles. It is plainly so with the FDP’s convictions: At four percent in the polls and in a government which at anytime can fly apart, for a Strack-Zimmermann also is the shirt closer than the trousers. 

Politically, the CDU/CSU motion put forward is for two reasons nonsense. In the motion text is quite correctly stated the Bundeswehr’s stock of munitions is at a dangerously low level. Yet then the CDU demands under point 2, “to comply with…the Ukrainian request…for munitions… of all calibres…from the Bundeswehr’s stock to the greatest extent possible.” Here, colleague Otte apparently does not know his own motion. The CDU thus knows that the Bundeswehr is not defense-capable – yet despite this, it wants to further disarm. That surely has features of treason [Das hat schon Züge von Landesverrat]. 

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): You just had to say that!

And second: The war for the Ukraine will not be decided on the battlefield. Everyone knows that. It would meanwhile thus be a German responsibility to start a diplomatic great offensive from the Bundestag, 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Oh ja!

instead of here calculating munitions needs. Were you statesmen, you would, immediately and with regard to the impending U.S. elections, begin such diplomacy and not waste additional time with such senseless motions. 

Many thanks. 

            Joe Weingarten (SPD): That is again the speech of the Russian press office! 

            Götz Frömming (AfD, turned to the CDU/CSU): Show window motions! 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Tino Chrupalla, October 19, 2023, Peace

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 210/131, pp. 16344-16345. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear citizens. 

One almost feels returned back to February 2022 and the subsequent time. The world security situation has again intensified, and again a new war is ignited. Each war situation is different; similar consequences nevertheless yield death, destruction, flight and suffering. We thus mourn with the relatives of all innocent victims of this war. I also want to wish the relatives present all the best, united with a hope that they can again enclose their loved ones in their arms. 

We most sharply condemn the attack of Hamas on Israel. For the murder and kidnapping of civilians, there is no justification, on any side. We all therefore need to endeavor to avoid one thing: That the war in the Near East powder keg not be allowed to expand into a wildfire. To that also pertains resisting the war incitement and, even when it is awkward, to give a voice to diplomacy. And yes, Israel self-evidently is allowed to defend itself against attack. The right of self-defense is provided for in international law and is coherent with the UN Charter. Yet Israel in this regard needs to pay heed to proportionality. Humanitarian catastrophes are not permitted to arise, and the regional states need to avert this escalation. The Federal government therefore needs to work helpfully and supportively, instead of further heating up the atmosphere. 

Chancellor Scholz this time proceeds in exactly this way. With his visits in Tel Aviv and Cairo, he has shown that negotiation and mediation are the order of the hour. The basic provision for the civil population in Israel and Palestine is to be secured. Hamas must free its hostages, and the Federal government needs to commit itself to the immediate release and secure return of removed Germans. For that, you so far have done too little. 

I am nevertheless concerned over voices which push outward from the Union delegation. Herr Merz, you have spoken of “jargon”. It appears here as if one simply could not wait for the intensification of the war. Colleague Kiesewetter blusters through the world with his words, We should be ready “to defend Israel’s security with our lives”. This verbal warmongering, which is a matter of discord even in the CDU, we hitherto knew in the Ukraine war only from the Free Democrats, from Frau Strack-Zimmermann. For my delegation and me, in the case of Israel and Palestine, it is proximately about that peace be reconstructed in this region worn down for decades by conflict. In Herr Kiesewetter’s direction: Understand please, we want peace. We do not want to send our children into a military intervention [Kriegseinsätze]. Yes, we also want solidarity. Yet your words are irresponsible and not reconcilable with our values. 

Look around, how the world community reacts, and primarily at what that could mean for Germany and Europe. Politicians need to understand what happens if the Near East powder keg is set afire, what happens if Lebanon or Iran are involved in this war. Then quite quickly are the U.S.A. and the BRICS states at hand. This situation no one can or wants to put forward even just in estimates. Since how shall Israel then again be able to live in the region in security and peace? I ask everyone in the parliament to answer for himself this question and to verbally disarm. 

Valued colleagues, let us also include in the situation analysis the reactions, the opinions of the the affected regions. Thus, Egyptian President el-Sisi is opposed to the resettlement of Palestinians in Sinai; the peninsula would become a base for attacks against Israel. The normalization process of Israel’s relations to Saudi Arabia is stopped. The Iranian foreign minister calls on members of the organization of Islamic cooperation for an oil embargo and for an expulsion of Israeli ambassadors. Saudi Arabia calls on its citizens to leave Lebanon. Therefore, here there is allowed no further escalation. 

In this place, I demand of the Federal government to find just so clear words. Finally place in the foreground our own, the German interests! Additional or new migration waves to Europe and Germany are not in our interest. You must in any case prevent that, Herr Scholz. I ask you to work in that regard in Brussels at the European Council. Terror organizations and anti-semitism have no place in Germany. And in addition: Those posing a potential danger need to be immediately and consistently deported. Hamas and structures close to Hamas are allowed neither to be financed from Germany nor become a security risk for Germany. Therefore, finally examine a ban, and issue it in a timely fashion! 

With regards to the war regions, it concerns humanitarian support and durable solution possibilities. Thus China and Russia have proposed a humanitarian ceasefire. This resolution was indeed rejected in the UN Security Council. An overriding objective – this is surely beyond an all-party consensus – is nevertheless that further deaths must be prevented. A peaceful solution must be further pursued beyond political differences. Only so will the bloodshed be ended and long-term structure projects in the region be possible. The goal of diplomacy must be to find a durable solution for long-term peace in the Near East. This also is in the German interest.   

The only means which Germany, which the German Bundestag can here effect is the call for peace. The Federal government should not be able to be made co-responsible for a war in the Near East. We need an interests-led policy. We need free and peaceful commerce with oil and gas. We need trade routes and secure corridors instead of war and enmity. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]