Markus Frohnmaier, November 23, 2022, Foreign Office

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/69, pp. 8070-8071.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Frau Baerbock, you have directly said: You stand on the side of the Ukraine, all the same what happens with the citizens in Germany,

            Jamila Schäfer (Greens): That is a lie!

with the nine year old schoolgirl or with the pensioner. I say to you one thing: We of the AfD, we stand at the side of the German people and we do politics for their interests.

More than half the expenditures for the Foreign Office serve for the securing of peace and stability. Yet does Frau Baerbock trouble herself about peace and stability in the Baltic Sea? On September 26, Nord Stream 1 as well as Nord Stream 2 were blown up: What have you done about that? I therein recall: As a couple of pieces of Ukrainian rocket debris fell on Polish territory and there were also unfortunately two deaths, all of NATO sounded the alarm. The Polish government even considered whether it called for the preliminary stage of an instance of the alliance. Baerbock on the same evening made known on Twitter that she found herself in close agreement with the Polish allies.

Ulrich Lechte (FDP): Then with whom else? You called upon your friends in the Kremlin!

Yet what did the Foreign Minister do when there was an attack, a terrorist sabotage against the Nord Stream pipelines? Nothing! She did nothing! And today this house still knows nothing of what actually occurred. Silence in the forest.

Thus was the Foreign Minister, who otherwise is always good for giving advice, quite silent. And more still: Up to today, the government has undertaken nothing for hastening further clarification. Four billion euros for the securing of peace and stability and nothing when a pillar of the German economic and energy supply is blown up.

The fourth largest economy on Earth – you yourself have also noted that – is either incapable, that we see when you send divers to the Baltic who lack the necessary equipment to dive 70 meters deep to be able to pursue a reconnaissance; or – this is the other conjecture which we have lately – you even do not want to clarify. Since whoever blew up Nord Stream 2, he actually has implemented your Green Party program, Frau Baerbock.

            Kay Gottschalk (AfD): Party politics before security policy!

You have wanted to make Germany dependent on fluttering electricity and hydrogen. Know that that has not escaped us: There was quite a clandestine joy of the parliamentary arm of the “Last Generation”, thus, of your party, the Greens, when Nord Stream was blown up.

            Jamila Schäfer (Greens): You should be ashamed!

When I take a look at your Instagram account – your story – you nevertheless are not dancing, that’s something – then I ascertain that you apparently interest yourself in all possible things in the world: Multikulti in Canada, feminism in Afghanistan, climate protection in Egypt, weapons donations to the Ukraine, a fight against rightist extremism in foreign countries

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): We will also fight you at home until                                        you are again gone!  

in regards to a contemporary elimination of foreign cultural work promoting dialogue. Only for German interests, nothing will be found in the Instagram story of the Foreign Minister. Since your foreign policy proceeds on the principle – I cite you word for word: “…all the same, what my German voters think”. That is the value-based, feminist foreign policy of which you are always speaking. We say: An end to that.

            Nils Schmid (SPD): Just listen to that!

When the Ukraine is attacked by its neighbor, then there is a sanctions orgy. When Azerbaidjan bombs Armenia, then there are no sanctions. On the contrary: Then you, Frau Baerbock, make a fat gas deal with Baku. When in Iran women remove the head scarf, then this government rejoices. When however in Germany anyone says something against veiling, then the Haldenwang pounds on the door.

            Derya Türk-Nachbaur (SPD): You haven’t caught it, or?

When Russia bombs, you call upon the Hague. When U.S. President Obama – as we recall – illegally attacks and kills hundreds of people with drones, then he may place a Nobel Peace Prize in the window. And, quite moved by values, the Greens of that time, Renate Künast and Jürgen Trittin, explained that was a “signal of revolt” and a demand for disarmament.

            Kay Gottschalk (AfD): Double morality!

I believe Germany has enough of this double morality, of this values-based, feminist foreign policy. We say quite clearly: No more meddling in the internal affairs of other states. Commerce and economic cooperation, yes; but, without giving ourselves over to dependencies, protection of German key industries from foreign takeover and primarily an end to the arrogant and tutelary Green foreign policy, ladies and gentlemen.

            Vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki: Herr colleague.

You here need not bellow so. Just listen for once, then you may learn something.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

Markus Frohnmaier, January 28, 2021, Supply Chain Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/206, pp. 26015-26016. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The German economy suffers under your lockdown measures. The proposed November assistance has still not yet been paid to half the firms in need. Hundreds of thousands of citizens no more know how they shall pay accounts or rent. Parents toiling in a home office are at the same time tutor and teacher, and in my home of Baden-Württemberg, may not again leave the house after 8 pm. 

And as if all that were not enough, you still adhere to your supply chain law. You sell the supply chain law to the citizens as a good deed. The supply chain law – it must ever again be said to the people out there – is an attempt to request payment from a German business for what is produced not according to German standards in developing countries. In an extreme case, that means: If a Schwabish tradesman in Sindelfingen drives into cabinet a nail manufactured in China, and cannot demonstrate that the manufacture followed certain social and ecological standards, then in the future he may pay. The Federal government’s draft legislation states that penalties in the millions can then be due. 

Ladies and gentlemen, not only in Corona times would this be an unbearable imposition for many citizens. It is also completely ill-advised to privatize the making and enforcement of laws. We cannot expect German businesses to assume duties which are the inherent responsibility of governments and authorities everywhere on this Earth. You shift the competence of the state onto German business. Certainly by the larger firms, the supply chain, already in the second and third stage with its thousands of parts from suppliers and subcontractors, cannot be surveyed. Your law would pertain only to German firms. That would be in international comparison an absurd competitive disadvantage. We know, ja: You ever again present yourselves as advocate for the global south. In truth, for the sake of Marketing and Wellness, you destroy workplaces in these countries. When in the U.S.A. a kind of “supply chain law light”, the Dodd-Frank Act,  was introduced which foresaw a documentation obligation for conflict minerals in the Congo basins, the consequence was plainly not that the American firms had begun to uninterruptedly document the supply chain. No, they simply withdrew themselves from the developing countries. That costs workplaces, that damages developing countries and, in the end, China comes and buys up everything. 

If you are really concerned that people in developing countries will not be exploited, then there are in my opinion two clearly more reasonable charges: End the cooperation with highly corrupt governments and end your political correctness. Who today still seriously believes and ponders to thereby overcome the donor-recipient relationship, he has understood nothing. Do you actually believe that, outside your development assistance bubble, we can go to the local bank and say: “Dear banker, thus, with the credit we now make as equals, I now decide when the next re-payment is due”? That is just utterly absurd, ladies and gentlemen. That is just utterly contrary to reality. 

A donor always ties his assistance to conditions. That is correct, that is good, and that is primarily one thing: A self-evident fact, ladies and gentlemen. The supply chain law is a law for the plundering of the German economy and not one trade association has not critically monitored it. Yet you, again as always, know better. I therefore say to you quite clearly: Finally renounce this law, once and for all. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

Markus Frohnmaier, November 5, 2020, State Insolvency Procedure

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/189, pp. 23839-23840.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

218 billion euros of new indebtedness, 600,000 workplaces destroyed, three Moslem terror attacks in four weeks in Europe: It could be thought we have enough problems of our own on our doorstep. Yet what do the Greens again lay before us today? They want to relieve the debts of half the world.

A payments postponement was already in April decided on for 73 states. That is not enough for them. The Greens now want to let it really rip. They now wish to introduce an insolvency procedure for constrained states which are in debt to us. The Greens’ focus is once again antideutsch: Antideutsch because they do not concern themselves with our innkeepers and restaurateurs, antideutsch because they do not trouble themselves over the single mothers in part-time employment, and antideutsch because they dismiss our farmers.

Instead, the Greens now concentrate on extorting debt reductions for corrupt dictators and African family clans. They will even again revile the position of the AfD as social populism. Yet thereby is one thing clear: To trouble oneself for one’s own people is not social populism; that is our obligation, for which we were elected. There is therefore on our parliament “To the German People” and not “To the Global South”.

Germany itself has a national debt of over 2 trillion euros. The specter of bankruptcy circles over us and you seriously wish to relieve the debts of other countries.

            Uwe Kekeritz (Greens): He who has understood nothing at all!

That must be paid by our children. Even if you could do that, it would really not be purposeful.

Why then are many African states indebted? Clearly not because we have forced them to borrow money. The debt spiral in developing countries has structural origins: Dependence on raw material exports, no legal security, poor government leadership, corruption and violence. Under such conditions, certainly no creation of value can take place. 

Besides, in these countries there has been in the past relief of debts multiple times. First in the year 2005, there was a debt reduction in the sum of 55 billion U.S. dollars. And did that help? Naturally not. If a debtor knows that every ten years the bank relieves the debts, why should he then exert himself to bring his house into order? You cement irresponsibility and plainly not the often affirmed self-responsibility.

In the Greens’ motion, it is particularly perfidious that they wish to indemnify European creditors by means of the ESM [European Stability Mechanism]. If the Africans do not pay, it thus means that the green debt reduction will be financed with the money of the German taxpayer.

           Uwe Kekeritz (Greens): Nonsense!

Who actually profits from your antideutsch policy? China. I am glad that the Union is teachable; since not once have I heard this argument from the Union in committee; it only comes from us, you can look that up. China is one of the largest creditors of the global south. China will under no circumstances agree to a debt reduction.

Thus when the Greens pull on the spender pants, German and European creditors will make amends for their antideutsch policy. The Chinese on the other hand will smile and cash in. Why actually do the Greens learn nothing from China? Have the Greens not paid attention in their Maoist K-groups? China does not hate the Chinese. China does not squander the money of its own citizens. China advocates national interests. We can learn from that, ladies and gentlemen. 

 

 

[trans: tem]