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 and Tino Chrupalla, May 16, 2024, Petr Bystron and EU Election

AfD Kompakt, May 16, 2024. 

The lifting of the immunity and the search of the office and private space of Petr Bystron are a serious proceeding. So far, no evidence has been presented for the accusations raised for weeks against Herr Bystron. The AfD delegation therefore hopes for a speedy conclusion of the investigations so that the suspicion does not arise that here officials and instructed state prosecutors are attempting to influence the European election campaign. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Marc Jongen, April 24, 2024, University Policies

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/165, pp. 21235-21237. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The Bologna process is, in the essentials, the attempt of an all-European unification, standardization and bureaucratization of higher education, thus the exact opposite of the variety and freedom which you always carry before you like a monstrance. 

Kai Gehring (Greens): You’ve already said that a thousand times! 

            Ria Schröder (FDP): That is nonsense!

In the past 25 years the variety of the European education traditions was ever further leveled. The Humboldt-type university, with the unity of teaching and research, the ideal of humanist education,           

Kai Gehring (Greens): And you learn nothing of that! Humboldt would turn over in his grave at your speech! Who was so very open-minded! An authentic cosmopolite!

was replaced by the guiding form of a tutelary, technocratic knowledge factory [das Leitbild einer verschulten, technokratischen Wissenfabrik], Herr Gehring. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Humboldt was a cosmopolite!

The essence of European higher education is endangered by the Bologna process. – That is written by no less than Julian Nida-Rümeln. And you all, as rotating governing parties up to now, are responsible for that. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): And may you never come into government!

It was desired to achieve comparability of conclusion of studies and a higher mobility between European universities. Neither has been made by Bologna, and the improvements were at most alloted. And at what price? The abolition of the internationally honored German Diploma-Ingenieurs, the Meisters – completely without necessity – instead, the introduction of bachelor and masters courses of study, the modulization of studies, and the fixation on the ECTS [European Transfer and Accumulation System] performance points have trained the students in a tutelary gathering of points. Independent [eigenständige] search for truth is penalized rather than rewarded. The conformity pressure today is enormous in German universities. The “freedom” science year cannot divert from that.   

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Says a Herr Doktor!

And this pressure to conform is thoroughly reinforced in that 80 percent of scholars [Wissenschaftler] in Germany are employed per term. They are dependent on external funds which the universities, since Bologna, need to additionally raise because their basic financing was reduced. 

            Laura Kraft (Greens): Since when did that interest the AfD? 

Kai Gehring (Greens): Yet you always put budget motions which place entire courses of study at zero! Ever the same nonsense!

And who pays, purchases, ladies and gentlemen. For a great part, that is the state with its lead ideologies: Man-made climate change, diversity, gender, etc. 

Ria Schröder (FDP): The only ones who ever again want to limit scholarly freedom are you!

Young scholars who, for example, want to research the natural factors of climate change, or who do not salute the Gessler’s cap of gender dogma, can similarly bend their careers; simply no corresponding research proposals will be presented. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): That appears to be a therapeutic problem!

The result is the policy of a compliant supply system of knowledge, as we needed to bitterly experience in the Corona times, and as was brought to light, at the latest, in the RKI files. Under political pressure, the Robert Koch Institute largely neglected data and facts, and furnished the absurd and harmful Corona preventive measures with the blessings of science. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Such nonsense! That’s just not right! Such rubbish! 

Kai Gehring (Greens): Did China write the speech for you? Does the speech come from Russia Today or from Chinese spies?

This may not remain without consequences. We will in that connection still debate. Our alarm clocks sound 

Kai Gehring (Greens): With your speeches, our alarm clocks sound! China and Russia propaganda!

when in the Federal government’s report there is talk of “common values” which should form the “foundation of cooperation” in the area of European universities, and which now shall be increasingly examined in the universities. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Your doctorate should be examined!

I recall that a young researcher was not allowed to make an address on the biological duality of the sexes at the Berlin Humboldt University because this allegedly contradicted the values of the university. 

Ria Schröder (FDP): What exactly has that to do with Bologna? I still do not understand that! 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Who actually? When and where?

The orientation of values begets attitude [Gesinnung] instead of knowledge, because cannot be what is not allowed to be [weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf]. That is highly dangerous, valued colleagues. 

            Alexander Föhr (CDU/CSU): What now has that to do with the Bologna process? 

Read Professor Nida-Rümelin:

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Do you still speak of Europe? 

“The instrumentalization of academia by state, clerical and business purposes has continually blocked the innovation potential of science.” 

That exactly so applies for supposed values of democracy. The fight against the right in the name of science, which the president of the Berlin Technical University now calls for, while there the lecture halls decay and the level ever further sinks, undermines science as a supra-party resort [überparteiliche Instanz]. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): That you cite the NZZ [Neue Zürcher Zeitung] is clear! 

            Lukas Köhler (FDP): Lack of theme!

I come to conclusion. What we need is a reform of the Bologna reform: Away from the tutelage and bureaucracy and EU control; instead, a Humboldt for the 21st Century! 

Many thanks! 

            Holger Mann (SPD): What rubbish!

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Mariana Harder-Kühnel, April 15, 2024, Abortion

AfD Kompakt, April 15, 2024. 

Federal Family Minister Lisa Paus already made clear, before the formation of this Commission, that her political goal is general impunity for aborted pregnancies. Even from its name, it may be concluded that for this Ampel government it has at no time been about an unbiased “Whether”, but only about the “How” of taking down the hurdles for a termination of pregnancy. Consequently, the thereby constituted working groups were extensively filled with women who themselves in the past either had attracted attention with politically approved positions, or had been active for corresponding associations like “Pro Familia” or the “Deustchen Juristinnenbund”. 

In the Commission report, the focus is one-sidedly shifted from defense of unborn life to the alleged self-determination rights of women. The hereto given jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court is thereby fully disregarded, and a liberalization of abortion law frankly presented as constitutionally imperative [verfassungsrechtlich geboten]. How the resulting defenselessness of unborn children to the end of the 22^nd week of pregnancy is reconcilable with their human dignity guaranteed by the Basic Law, the report nevertheless does not explain. 

The Ampel undertakes the public attempt to annul the defense of unborn life in favor of the right to abortion. The recommendations of its Commission merely serve as a first step of a long-term project to establish abortion as a natural “human right”. This hides the serious danger that the priority [Stellenwert] of human life in social consciousness will be generally degraded. This under all circumstances must be prevented. 

 

[trans: tem]

Harald Weyel, April 25, 2024, EU Opt-outs

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/166, pp. 21282-21283. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It can naturally only be welcomed when, after a forced pause of almost half a century, Mitteleuropa again grows closer together. At the same time, we want to ask ourselves: What actually happened from 2004 to 2024, and why into this Mitteleuropa package, so to say, was also mixed Malta and Cyprus? In regards, Cyprus, it is certainly seen: That is an apple of discord. It is seen that the situation is in no case really pacified by the EU accession, but previously existing problems – fully financed – persist, perhaps even worsen, a solution set back at a far distance. That is also to be expected in regards an expansion by acceptance of additional countries in conflict. 

What has been experienced? In 2005, the EU referenda on the EU Constitution fell through in France and the Netherlands. Thus this inclination to a central state was similarly an addition. The accession countries could not unconditionally have its shelter because they of course had before them the EU of the 80s and 90s, and there was already enough to criticize. 

The constitution referenda failed. Nevertheless, in December 2009 further – in quotes – “improvement” was introduced with the Lisbon Treaty; namely, the assistance obligation of Article 42, paragraph 7, whereby each member has the obligation to do all in its extant power when another member is attacked. That in fact goes beyond the NATO assistance obligation of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, in which mention is only made of doing all deemed necessary – thus ideally the provision of confetti for the victory parades which have been, ja, absent at all NATO undertakings in the last decades. 

            Christian Petry (SPD): That is sickening!

The economic and social effects have of course in part previously occurred; that is to say, investment flows by foreign investors, and by tourism and private investments. Primarily to be named is a pull of labor forces to the West, in part permanently. This labor migration is extensively replaced or supplemented by social migration to EU states, of which there is plainly more than at home. This is thus a rather negative development which is pursued or has been established. 

The EU monies which flowed in naturally have visible effects upon the infrastructure. And they were in part better invested than in the countries of the south. Thus, there, one sought to bestow superfluous golf courses and airports. It can be said that the new members invested better than many old members; in part, than many founding countries. I think of Italy. Nevertheless, these EU monies have harmed small business and especially small-scale agriculture, so far as it previously existed. 

And it is of course also to be observed that the thoroughly developed EU disease has spread to each new member country; namely, the politico-administrative complex has been fed – away from the productive economy, be it industry, be it commerce – into a party economy, to an over-dimensioned administration. All diseases of Brussels and the West were imported, have created a new class. That cannot really be seen as progress. 

Now these new member countries, especially those which have not yet accustomed themselves to all these abuses, can make a worthwhile contribution, exactly like the countries intent on acceptance; namely, an opt-out: An opt-out from the EU’s military adventurism; an opt-out from  a climate policy destructive of the environment; 

            Gunther Krichbaum (CDU/CSU): An opt-out from Russia!

an opt-out from a centrally planned agriculture and industrial policy, and a devastating foreign policy which only consists of boycotts and subventions; and an opt-out from a subsidized, treaty-violating, artificial currency. 

I thus come to a conclusion. Only so can the EU be basically, substantially and sensibly reformed. Only so can the uses of the expansion, or a contribution to the expected harms, be overcome. I thank all new and future members for assistance, particularly in regards this matter of a reform project. 

Thank you.

 

[trans: tem]

Ulrike Schielke-Ziesing, April 23, 2024, Pensions and the FDP

AfD Kompakt, April 23, 2024. 

That the reduction-free pension at 63 was an expensive election gift of the SPD to its – it needs be said, former – core voters is clear. Nevertheless, the problem is presently in abeyance, since alone the age limit is already continually pushed higher; for those born after 1964, to 65 years. What is overlooked by the entirety of these calculations: The focus on the fixed age limit is no longer suitable for today’s real life of employees. 

We of the AfD delegation demand more freedom and self-determination in regards pension entry. And to that pertains: 45 contribution years are enough. Who has collected this should also without a reduction be pensioned, which can but need not be at 63. To that extent, there is nothing “to abolish”. Only one thing is certain. No one should need to work longer than to 67 years. 

Concerning pensions, the FDP has never distinguished itself with especially original proposals which go beyond “we all need to work much longer”. To a pension reform belongs a socio-political concept and a solid financing. For both, the FDP has nothing to offer, which is seen in the fully under-financed “equities pension” [Aktienrente]. What the FDP now contributes to the pension at 63 is just more wind. “12 Point Plan”, that sounds snappy, only the question is: What has the FDP actually done in the last three years?

[trans: tem]