German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/12, pp. 978-980.
Right honorable Frau president. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear countrymen.
Once again we have an additional center of conflict. This now extends in the Middle East. And once again we stand as more or less silent observers on the margin, and nevertheless since Sunday are once again in the midst of the parties to the conflict.
Our narrow knowledge is often confined to one-sided information. Our own news service sources are, as we in this house have heard, directed to friendly organizations. Even these now appear to need be scrutinized. Thus the U.S. American President let it be known that the information of his services in the case of Iran would not correspond to the truth. At the same time, there were reports that the attacked Iran would be apprised of the plans of the U.S.A.
All of this makes an objective categorization for us all today endlessly difficult. That was clear yesterday morning in the briefing by the chief of the Chancellor’s Office, Herr Frei. In so brief a time frame of events, just a little conclusive information is presented. For the open and informative atmosphere, I want in this place to thank the Chancellor’s Office.
Yet clearly remains one thing: The possibility especially of a danger of atomic war needs to be excluded. Should the one-time attack by the U.S. Americans have been successful, and potential sources of damage for the security in the Near and Middle East eliminated, this could help prevent the resulting retaliation by Iran of a widespread fire. One reason for additional attacks would thus no longer be present. One question which arises from the past days is of course whether or not any country which has at its disposal such potential abilities should voluntarily submit to international controls.
In the end, one again comes very quickly to the truly most important categories of politics: Trust and credibility. Besides all matters of interest, these need to be on hand so as to be able to conduct honest negotiations between individual persons, yet also states. In that regard, comes the position of mediators who moderate the speaking process. Here, Qatar for long takes an important role in the region, concerning which I myself in conversations could be convinced. So far, the efforts are certainly not estimated highly enough. It is now for the parties to the conflict to maintain the ceasefire.
There remains, valued colleagues: Each state has the right to exist, and thus the right to defend itself. The relation here also lies in international law. Like no other, this stands before the challenge to assert itself in the present time. Here and today it is the agreed guideline, and is valid for all.
All of us here are the representatives of the German population, and stand first of all on their side and on the side of our country. We always place ourselves behind states and their peoples. They decide – like us also – sovereign in elections, over governments and relationships. Yet what we as politicians may and need do when good relations to other states are attended to, is to confront them with the consequences of their actions. It is thus logical and correct to ever again refer to the importance of diplomacy as a guarantee for peace, and ever again remind.
Beyond that, every advice needs be well weighed and decided here in the German Bundestag. Exactly for that reason, we stand even so on the side of Israel as on the side of all other states with which we share common interests. Anti-semitism has just so little place with us as a blanket valuation of other religions.
Herr Chancellor, terms like “dirty work” are in the situation completely inappropriate and superfluous, even if they are overtaken from others. Therefore is one thing clear: Double morality brings no one together, but builds evident contradictions, divides and alienates.
In a particular instance, as always, the future will judge the writing of history. In so far as the so-called Twelve Day War had the potential to contribute positively to a contemporary end point of a long line of conflict, I follow the call of the Chancellor to all participants to therein maintain themselves.
Which contribution the United Nations, especially the Security Council, can make to this needs to be discussed – which the Chancellor today did not mention. Along this way are required comprehensive talks, multi-faceted respect and mutual recognition. Discussions of overthrows and regime change in this regard completely lack standing. Ladies and gentlemen, should the Iranian people vote for a change of government, it needs be done from their own power. We are not in the position to determine its future.
And we need ask ourselves, for example, how well-connected and desired by the people is a crown prince who now appears to almost stand in the starting blocks to have himself perhaps placed, generations after his father, at the head of this country? Do we have an understanding of that or, much more, reliable securities?
And to call upon our experience: Do we have, as part of the world population in the last decades, really good experiences in strongly intervening from outside in a change of power? What were the consequences of those actions? In that regard, think of Iran, of Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria! Have we really pacified the region and made it safer? Or have we thereby generated trust in us and our actions?
The core or our alternative policy in the German Bundestag is guided by the basic program of my party: No intervention in the internal affairs of other states. No delivery of weapons to war zones. And the central point is in diplomacy.
These are our guidelines with which we also want to maintain and primarily advance the domestic security and the economic power of Germany. In that regard, the greatest obstacles are well known to us, one of which is and remains Islamism and the terrorism proceeding from it. This is to be fought by consistent measures in the area of information and prevention, just so as with equipment of security officials and border security, with repatriations, yet naturally also with deportations. And he who does not want to identify himself with the values of our Basic Law can have no place in our society.
That – I emphasize it ever again – does not stand in contradiction to labor migration, to student residency in Germany, or to the cooperation in cultural-scientific areas. All of these people come because they esteem or want to get to know German Kultur and identity. For the Alternative für Deutschland, it’s about returning to their homeland people who are violence-prone, already convicted of violent acts without a basis to remain, or already refused admittance. Precisely that is only legitimate, and it protects everyone who thinks well of Germany.
It therefore applies in the present situation to ever again put the question: In which interests occur such events? For the whole and named reasons, it is in our own interest that in the Near and Middle East the weapons finally be silent. We can and want to accept no additional waves of refugees. Any further destruction to infrastructure therefore needs to be avoided. The Federal government needs to commit itself to that.
Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Then
speak for once with Putin, Herr Chrupalla! How would it be with that?
We all know that here diverge the interests between state and economic thinking. Reconstruction measures create economic opportunities, yet these would again burden the German taxpayer with special funds, special debts; see Ukraine.
We are again at the point of credibility. Chancellor Friedrich Merz accuses the SPD of a policy of debts and high taxes, and himself speaks of low energy prices and a strong economy, and again today. Of that, not much has remained. Only, where do we stand today? Friedrich Merz is the Union’s debts Chancellor in red clothes. A new indebtedness of, believe it or not, over 846 billion euros up to 2029 the coalition wants to bring through the Bundestag. The goal should be economic growth.
Let us take for example 100 billion euros for a comprehensive climate and transformation fund. There is ever still a theme of green hydrogen. Planned was the manufacture of green steel. Only, for whom do we still require these expensive forms of energy production? Besides, we of the AfD have ever again indicated these are fantasies. The German steel industry lies prostrate. When once the furnaces are extinguished, there is no more steel from German production. Therefore, finally take leave of these fantasies!
And the 5 percent goal of NATO has been agreed, and it is desired to fulfill it. Ladies and gentlemen, one cannot vote for it. We need first for once to know for what the present investments will be used, and against whom do we arm ourselves? On the whole, to where does NATO steer?
Herr Pistorius may recruit 10,000 additional soldiers. Are then within the Bundeswehr administrative and procurement channels cut back? Do we have sufficient functioning materiel? And before all: Have we sufficient qualified personnel to guarantee the defense of the country? We should all therefore hope that the alliance clause does not enter in.
Much more important is and presently remains the Strait of Hormuz. It is in our unconditional German interest this commercial passage be kept free without restrictions, especially for raw materials. The oil price has meanwhile already reacted; the previously known highest prices for benzine and diesel are nothing in comparison to what the consumer can then expect.
On the whole, the large countries of Europe need to come to an understanding of their role. We know nothing of the plans of the U.S.A. We were not drawn in, yet will be continually needed, primarily when the reckoning comes. Europe needs to be perceived as an active negotiations partner and finally clearly articulate its interests.
Valued colleagues, all wars have one thing in common: They have losers on all sides and need to be avoided. We all for decades live in peace. Let us leave it as is. Let us not become weary of peace, Herr Pistorius, but much more fit for peace.
Many hearty thanks.
[trans: tem]
