Joachim Wundrak, July 6, 2023, NATO

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/115, pp. 14195-14196. 

Her President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The CDU delegation 

            Johann David Wadephul (CDU/CSU): CDU/CSU!

thus wants the upcoming NATO summit to lead to success. A laudable intention, if it would then serve the interests of Germany and the German citizens. 

The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany in Article 24, paragraph 2, specifies that the Bund may arrange for the guaranty of peace in a system of mutual, collective security and can willingly agree to restrictions of its sovereign rights. A look at the AfD’s program of principles shows that we also regard Germany’s membership in NATO as a central element of our security strategy. 

We nevertheless understand NATO as a purely defensive alliance in regards the alliance territories according to the NATO treaty and basically reject interventions outside these territories. The recent experiences with foreign missions should here be a strong warning for us. Alliance solidarity alone cannot replace vital national interest for a mission of armed forces outside the treaty territories. We therefore also reject the globalization of NATO in the direction of the Indo-Pacific, especially the meddling in Chinese affairs regarding Taiwan. 

            Wolfgang Hellmich (SPD): Where does it meddle there? 

The Federal government should instead strengthen its diplomatic efforts for a peaceful solution of the Taiwan question. 

We support the endeavor for a fair burden-sharing in NATO 

            Ulrich Lechte (FDP): Against freedom and democracy obviously!

and thereby also the so-called two percent goal. The strengthening of the European pillar of NATO is in the German interest so as to strengthen the weight and say of Europeans and also that of Germany vis-à-vis the dominant leading power, the U.S.A. Nevertheless, these additional fiscal means need in fact to be invested in armament and the Bundeswehr’s sustainable capability. It unfortunately is a fact that in the last 15 months the already reduced mission readiness of the German armed forces, as a result of donations to the Ukraine, has still further worsened. This is unacceptable.   

We welcome the membership of Finland and also soon that of Sweden in NATO because this will increase Germany’s security. On that account, we reject the acceptance of the Ukraine into NATO because that would mean not more security but less security. 

We also welcome that the NATO-Russia basic document of 1997 will not be seen as obsolete, despite the Russian aggression. In can in the long-term form a nexus for a new security structure which needs to be based on the principle of common security in Europe. Yet foremost must be sought practical ways for a rapid ending of the Russian war of aggression against the Ukraine. For that are to be used, in my opinion, NATO’s communication channels to Russia, as they were maintained for the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. 

We are critical in regards the announced long-term stationing of a German brigade of approximately 4,000 soldiers in Lithuania; colleague Wadephul has more precisely expressed that. This decision was certainly knit together quicktime with a hot needle. The question presents itself, At whose pressure was this done? From our viewpoint, the existing rotation solution for deterrence is fully sufficient. 

On the whole, we reject the motion put forward by the Union on account of the offensive character of the overall approach for NATO, although we thoroughly share in some of the points in regards the strengthening of the Bundeswehr. NATO needs to again concentrate itself on the its core duty according to the NATO  treaty: On the defense of the alliance territories. 

I thank you for your attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

Joachim Wundrak, March 3, 2023, NATO and the Mediterranean

German Bundestag, March 3, 2023, Plenarprotokoll 20/89, pp. 10681-10682.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

For the seventh time, the Federal government now moves a robust mandate according to Chapter VII of the UN charter for the continuation of the NATO Operation Sea Guardian – this, although it has become clear in the previous years’ debates on the theme that this mandate is a deceptive packaging, is an empty shell, a “cardboard comrade” [“Pappkamerad”], as the colleague Tobias Lindner, today State Secretary, then in opposition quite pertinently stated. The colleague Lindner rightly then further stated that a mandate of the German Bundestag serves for the parliamentary control of the Federal government, especially if it is a robust mandate. A robust mandate may be granted if the substantive dangerous situation requires it. Robust supply mandates are to be strongly rejected; since they might amount to the same as a blank check for the government.

If the specific missions of Sea Guardian are now looked at, it is ascertained that two of them are purely routine missions which are ordinarily fulfilled by NATO naval forces in all operational areas and without a robust mandate. A third mission, which would not be obligatory, arises only from a conjuncture, namely the possible support of the EU mission Irini. And: Other than as you have presented it, Frau State Secretary, the necessary agreement for that between NATO and the EU has for years not occurred.  

And for years Sea Guardian primarily does duty in a secondary function. That is to say, sea-going units of NATO members report for the length of passage through the Mediterranean to NATO’s permanent Maritime Command at Norwood near London and thus contribute to the overview. The mission relevant to the robust mandate, namely for the fight against terrorism and against weapons smuggling, does not occur and has never occurred.

And the predecessor operation Active Endeavor of 2001 to 2016 which was based on Article 5 of the NATO treaty, according to the information of the Federal government, has never amounted to a threat or an application for the robust mandate.

That means that the German Bundestag for 22 years at the motion of the respective government decided on a robust mandate for fighting terrorism and weapons smuggling without there existing a real necessity for that.

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Hear, hear!

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Unbelievable!

And the argument that robust proceedings were not necessary because of the functioning deterrence of Sea Guardian’s presence is contrived and unworthy of credence.

Finally – this was already mentioned – it is not evident to me how, according to the motion, a robust Operation Sea Guardian shall promote a just, green and digital transition in the southern Mediterranean. Here, for me, access for a feminist foreign policy is lacking.

            Karamba Diaby (SPD): You can even pronounce the word! Crazy!

Nevertheless, the German Navy step by step is removing presence forces for Sea Guardian. In the present security policy situation, these forces should better increase the security in the principal mission territory of our Navy, namely the North and Baltic Seas.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Jawohl!

This is indeed urgently necessary – it was already mentioned – as shown by the explosion of the Nord Stream pipelines.

We will not vote in favor of the presented motion for a robust mandate for Sea Guardian. Sea Guardian can continue without problem the hitherto fulfillment of the mission without a robust Bundestag mandate as a NATO operation.

I thank you for your attention.

 

[trans: tem]