Good morning, everyone. This session is hereby opened. It is the 56th session of our German Bundestag in this legislative period. And before I turn to the agenda, I would also like to offer congratulations. That is always an occasion here. And for those watching us, it is the round birthdays that we mention, and also with the consent of those celebrating an anniversary. And I would like to retroactively congratulate our colleague and Federal Minister Kassen Schneider on his 50th birthday. All the best. [applause]
And I congratulate our colleague Dr. Stefan Nacke as well on reaching half a century, his 50th birthday. Heartfelt congratulations. [applause]
And we also have young members of parliament — well, 50 is still young too. There are various stages of maturity when it comes to age. So for his 40th, I congratulate our colleague Felix Schreiner today. Heartfelt congratulations on behalf of the entire House. [applause]
And yes, it is nice to be able to celebrate a birthday with so many guests here and in a lively atmosphere. And so we now come to additional item 2: the delivery of a government statement by the Federal Chancellor on the results of the informal Council meeting on 22 January 2026 and on the current foreign policy situation. For the debate following the government statement, a duration of 90 minutes was agreed, and the floor for delivering the government statement now goes to the Federal Chancellor, Mr. Friedrich Merz. Please proceed. [applause]
Madam President, dear colleagues, we are all, in these weeks and months, witnesses to a rapid political transformation of our present. We all feel how, all around us, a new world order is taking shape at high speed. We all also feel a certain unease that comes with the daily new headlines. We all see the rising numbers of conflicts. We observe increasing violence between many states and, at the same time, within many societies. Many people — not only in our country, but also here among us — fear the loss of security and order. And many ask themselves: where is our place? How stands our security? What can I actually still rely on?
As Federal Chancellor, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, I have the responsibility to explain to you here in the German Bundestag and to the citizens of our country this situation, to set out which decisions we as the federal government are taking in these days and weeks, and which considerations guide us as the federal government in making those decisions.
And I want to assure you right at the outset that we will at all times be guided by calm reason and not by the excitement of the moment, nor by an excitement that is generated in this august House. [applause]
For several weeks now, we have been seeing ever more clearly that a world of the great powers is beginning to take shape. In this world, a rough wind is blowing, and we will feel it for the foreseeable future. But we also see ever more clearly where these changes simultaneously create new opportunities — new opportunities for our country, but also, and above all, new opportunities for us in Europe. For everywhere in this reorganizing world there are rising democracies with open and growing markets that are expressly seeking what we have to offer them, namely partnerships based on mutual respect, trust, and reliability.
And we ourselves — we have shown in Europe, in what we call the European Union, over the past years and decades, how far one can get with international trust in a space of cooperation and freedom. As an alliance of sovereign European states, we have created the world's largest free trade zone, a space that is historically without parallel for us in Europe on this continent, both in terms of the quality of life it offers its citizens and, above all, in terms of stability, security, and freedom. And dear colleagues, outwardly, Europe was in past decades the political force that insisted on the validity of law as the basis of relations between states and peoples. I want to say very clearly at this point, and this is what guides the federal government I lead, without any ifs or buts: all of this we want to preserve and also protect in the future. [applause]
We should not underestimate how attractive this European model can be for new partners and new alliances. After all, in the world we are also a normative alternative to imperialism and autocracy. We have something to offer our partners around the world, both economically and, above all, in terms of ideas. We are something of our own, something valuable, as Europe and as a parliamentary democracy.
And in recent weeks and months — at least that is how I have experienced it — we have perhaps been able to see for the first time with our own eyes that we can be a power, precisely on the basis of the values we do not want to give up. I will go a step further, also based on the encounters of recent days and weeks. In these weeks we have been able to feel something of the happiness of self-respect. Let us make something of this newly stirring self-confidence of Europeans? Dear colleague, [applause]
we will only be able to use this attractiveness and this self-confidence for ourselves, and we will only be able to assert our ideas in the world, at least in part, if we ourselves also learn to speak the language of power politics, if we ourselves become a European power. And that demands three things of us Europeans. First, we must take our security into our own hands. That requires measures to reduce dependencies — dependencies that we entered into far too carelessly over the past years and decades. Measures for greater sovereignty, especially technological sovereignty. It requires that we invest massively in our own European defense capability. It requires that we continue, as an example, to support Ukraine in its struggle for freedom in Europe and to stand by it. And that is exactly what we are doing. [applause]
Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, together with the majority of this House we decided last year to raise our national defense spending to up to 5%. That had a not-to-be-underestimated signaling effect for many European neighbors. We went first, and others in Europe followed us. Second, we must make our economy competitive again. The growth gap between the European Union and the USA, and compared with China, has been widening to our disadvantage for well over a decade. We must now reverse this dynamic. [applause]
For if we are serious about global political capacity to shape events, then that capacity depends, above all, on economic strength. We ourselves have blocked this economic strength. So we can and must now remove those blockages ourselves. And we are already doing so, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues — [applause] I will come back to that in a moment. Finally, third, we must stand together in Europe on these tasks, because we can only solve them together in Europe. Ladies and gentlemen, we have perhaps used the word too often in the past without adequately living up to it. The word is cohesion. Today we must act. Mere declarations of intent are no longer enough. And therein lies the great opportunity for us in Europe, for we have seen clearly in recent weeks how much we can achieve with cohesion. Cohesion is a factor of power in the world.
Before Christmas, here in Berlin, with European cohesion, we managed to keep the Americans with us once more in resolving the Ukraine issue, with their willingness to provide security guarantees that had not been on the table before. At the beginning of the year, we met in Paris with the so-called coalition of the willing, including most European states. 27 of the 35 states of this coalition of the willing were personally represented in Paris by their heads of state and government. That was European cohesion, dear colleagues. And last week we showed that within the European Union we can act very quickly when in doubt. We were agreed that we would not let ourselves be intimidated once again by threats. The European Council convened at short notice for a special meeting in Brussels. We showed cohesion and resolve, and we were able to avert the tariffs once again threatened by the American president. Whoever in the world believes — and I want to say this very clearly and very emphatically at this point — whoever in the world believes that they must make policy against Europe with tariffs must know, and now does know, that we are ready and able to stand up against that, even if it requires us to do so. [applause]
It is equally clear, and this applies to me too, that we should not recklessly put long-standing alliances at risk. I said it at the World Economic Forum in Davos and I would like to repeat it here once again. The transatlantic alliance, the transatlantic trust, is still a value in itself today. For us in Germany, in a very special way, by the way. We lived this transatlantic alliance also when, after 11 September 2001, we went to Afghanistan alongside our American partners within the framework of the NATO mission Enduring Freedom, bringing the country more stability and more security for many years. Ladies and gentlemen, 59 German soldiers lost their lives during the almost 20-year mission in Afghanistan. Over 100 were wounded in combat and attacks, some severely. We will not allow this mission, which we carried out in the interest of our alliance partner, the United States of America, to be disparaged and belittled today. [applause]
And I would like to say once again today to our soldiers deployed and at their home bases: your service was and is valuable. This service stands for our freedom and for peace in the world. The federal government of the Federal Republic of Germany stands behind our soldiers. [applause]
Despite some irritations, we do not want to lose sight of the actual value of this alliance. The NATO alliance and the trust built up within NATO over more than seven decades remain, for all those involved on both sides of the Atlantic, the best guarantee of freedom, peace, and security. And that is why, as Europeans, we want to preserve NATO and strengthen it from within Europe and within Europe. Dear colleagues, we will therefore always extend the hand of cooperation to the United States of America. The basis of this guiding principle remains the sentence I also said in Davos a week ago: as democracies, we are partners and allies, and not subjects. [applause]
And it follows precisely from this principle that we are also open to new partnerships. Ladies and gentlemen, we, the Federal Republic of Germany, want to be part of a dynamic, agile network of sovereign states that want to continue to uphold a rules-based order. We want free trade, and we want no tariffs or at most very low ones, because experience tells us that only open markets and free trade are the right path to prosperity and security for the nation.
And dear colleagues, that is why it was right and necessary to finally conclude and bring into force this Mercosur agreement. And dear colleagues from the Greens, it was more than irritating that European Green members of parliament from Germany, together with left-wing members of parliament from Germany and AfD members of parliament from Germany, tried right up to the end to prevent this agreement. [applause] What happened in Brussels, in Strasbourg, was more than irritating. [applause]
And that is why, dear colleagues, we support the European Commission and the President of the European Council in their joint efforts to now conclude a free trade agreement with India. With 1.4 billion inhabitants, the largest democracy in the world — together with Europe, over 2 billion inhabitants and consumers. We would thereby form the largest contiguous internal market in the world, after Mercosur the largest, and all that with around a quarter of the world's current population. This agreement must come about, and as quickly as possible, so that we can show that we are ready to conclude new major trade agreements with one another on the basis of partnerships. [applause]
That is the direction we are now taking with many other states around the world, and we are pursuing this path quickly and with staying power at the same time. Dear colleagues, we also see here that rules-based action, rules-based trade, are not dead. On the contrary, more and more states around the world recognize that in the current reorganization of the world there is also an opportunity for all actors who prefer rules to arbitrariness, and who see more advantages in free and fair trade than in the one-sided pursuit of their own advantage. By the way, on this occasion — something many probably do not know, and I did not know until a few weeks ago — almost three-quarters of global trade is still conducted under WTO rules. The World Trade Organization is still a successful organization that strives to enable open and fair trade around the world. We support this organization in its efforts to enable free and fair trade around the world. [applause]
Ladies and gentlemen, but this is also true: within the European Union itself we still have a number of things to put in order. We know where the problem areas are, and we are putting the reform ideas on the table. What matters now is the will to implement, and that will is finally there — also because we in the federal government pressed time and again in the European Union over the past year for the necessity of reforms. And exactly two weeks from today, on 12 February, the heads of state and government of the European Union will also come together, at my initiative, for a special summit in Belgium, where we will deal exclusively with how the European economy can become competitive again. Dear colleagues, there is no lack of proposals in this regard. The former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta, in a remarkable report, called for the completion of the European internal market. The former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi and former President of the European Central Bank, in a remarkable report, set out how European competitiveness can now be restored. Both are guests of our extraordinary Council on 12 February. The reports and proposals from both must not disappear into the filing cabinets of the European Commission. [applause]
And for exactly this reason, last week at the German-Italian government consultations in Rome, I agreed with Giorgia Meloni on points that have the highest priority and that we also want to see placed on the agenda on 12 February. We are pressing for a systematic review of all EU regulations, identifying simplification potential, the withdrawal of obsolete regulations, and proposals aimed at a new culture of legislative restraint. We will also propose very concrete measures for further integration of the European internal market. We want to, and must, use this potential more quickly.
Dear colleagues, these course-setting decisions in Europe are necessary, but we also need them in Germany. The course set last year is showing initial effects, and we are building on it in 2026. We want to renew the substance of our country in a way that sustains it for many years and decades. We want our country, our economy, to become competitive again, innovative again, that we become a safe country again, that we remain fair, and that we become faster again. I say this deliberately in this order: our economy growing again is the precondition for everything else, and that is why last year we began to clear away, piece by piece, the obstacles to growth that had piled up. The economy is growing, ladies and gentlemen, slowly — I say too slowly — but in the first weeks and months of the year we have seen increasing investment activity. Investment by the private sector in Germany, ladies and gentlemen, is for the first time in years once again greater than capital outflows from Germany. These are first indications that our economy is beginning to recover. But we need reforms, including reforms of the social security systems.
May I also say this at this point? The day before yesterday we were presented with a report on the reform of our welfare state. It was not a report aimed at reforming the welfare state as a whole, but rather at first taking stock of the structures. This report, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the right foundation for all the further reforms that we want to carry out together in the coming years. [applause]
The reform of Book II of the Social Code, which turns citizen's income into the new basic security, is before this Parliament in parliamentary deliberation. The active pension came into force on 1 January 2026. We have agreed to adopt a fundamental reform of our pension insurance system this year. And I am confident that we will achieve something similar in health and long-term care. Dear colleagues, I take this as a sign that there is still a considerable willingness to change in our country. We must make use of this willingness to change. We are seeing the first effects: we see incoming orders, we see that company formations are taking place again. All of this can encourage us. It certainly encourages me, and it should also motivate us to keep moving forward on this path, for we see this very clearly: Germany and Europe are far from exhausting their possibilities. Within this European Union, and thus also in our country, there is so much potential that we can really turn something good out of this difficult situation in the world.
Europe has always grown when it was under pressure, when there were crises. Europe did not simply develop linearly, a little bit at a time. It was always eruptions, always events, always shocks that led to this Europe developing further. And in this world in which we live, a very rough wind is now blowing — I said it at the beginning — and for the foreseeable future we will have to feel demands that no national government can fully compensate for. But that is precisely why we must set priorities, and not everything can be a priority at once. We are under pressure from several sides, but under pressure a great deal of good can also emerge, and possibly it even needs that pressure. That is why the hour of politics that shapes things has now come. This applies to Europe, and it applies to Germany.
And ladies and gentlemen, we have something to defend. We live in a country of freedom, in a country of democracy. We have a strong economic foundation on which to build. We can also be proud of our country. And with exactly this awareness, I now turn to the tasks that will confront us in this world in the coming weeks and months. I am confident that we will succeed in meeting this standard. I thank you very warmly. [applause]
I now open the debate, and for the AfD parliamentary group, Member Dr. Alice Weidel has the floor. [applause]
Madam President, Mr. Chancellor, ladies and gentlemen, you claim in your speech that you are strengthening our competitiveness. But our economy has not noticed anything of that yet. The bankruptcy tsunami is sweeping unchecked across our country and will exceed a record figure of 30,000 this year due to chain insolvencies. The middle class is suffering most; the backbone of our prosperity is breaking. Our economy faces collapse. Your self-praise on tax cuts sounds to citizens and businesses like a bitter mockery. In fact, your coalition, driven by the anti-performance SPD, is discussing a confiscatory and anti-middle-class tightening of inheritance tax. With this you want to finally squeeze the middle class dry. And just recently you raised taxes for everyone once again drastically by increasing the CO2 levy by a full 20%. With this special burden you have already fleeced citizens and businesses of 22 billion euros last year. That is a plundering of our economy. [applause]
You touched on it where it hurts. You boast about modernizing crumbling infrastructure. The truth is that you approved a gigantic mountain of special debt for yourselves, which you disguise as a special fund. Half of this infrastructure special debt flows unlawfully into consumption and running expenditures. Your transport minister, meanwhile, already lacks the money again for the start of construction on urgent rail projects. An equally hollow promise is your reduction of bureaucracy. So far you have only created new bureaucracy, such as the Supply Chain Act and a massive expansion of public sector posts. As for the reform of the social systems that you promised the citizens and keep announcing, there too you have so far only further increased costs and, in the face of demands from your 14% coalition partner to enshrine even more tax- and debt-financed redistribution, you have shamefully capitulated. What actually needs to be done — namely reducing expenditures and eliminating abuse — you will never achieve with the SPD. [applause]
The welfare state concept of the Minister for Labour even wants to make access to social benefits easier. Savings on benefits are explicitly excluded. Everything will cost the taxpayer even more. It is simply supposed to go on with the sharp rise in child benefit transfer payments abroad — over 5 billion euros since 2010, half a billion in the last year alone. Social contributions are reaching record levels. You are plundering the working population, robbing them of their willingness to perform, their future, and their trust in the welfare state, and you also tell them they should work longer. That is absurd. [applause]
But this unfortunately also shows that you have not understood the actual problem in this country at all. It does not lie in working hours, but in the far too high costs created by politics — because of the green energy transition that you continue to pursue, the far too high taxes and levies for businesses, and the excessive bureaucracy. You yourself call the nuclear phase-out a mistake, yet you blow up nuclear plants in CSU-governed Bavaria. That is what double standards look like. You are deceiving your voters. [applause]
It shows that you are bowing to the dictate of the SPD and the Greens. There is a majority in society for a return to nuclear power, and if you wanted it, also in this House, in this Parliament. But you do not want it. You declare wind power a transitional technology, yet at the same time you want to complete Habeck's green madness plans — sinking further billions in subsidies into unprofitable wind farms in the North Sea, severely damaging this fragile ecosystem after already harming our domestic forests. As a last lifeline, you cling to new gas power plants. What will you run them with? And how do you explain to people that at the same time the German gas networks are to be destroyed and they are to rip out their gas heaters? You want to smash and destroy infrastructure that was built at immense effort by previous generations. That cannot be explained to anyone with common sense. [applause]
Your government is supporting the disastrous EU decision to ban imports of cheap natural gas from Russia for the future as well. The new one-sided dependence on expensive American liquefied gas is proving extremely inefficient and also dangerous. Even without additional gas power plants, the storage facilities are running empty. A gas shortage situation with consequential forced shutdowns looms. All these grotesque contradictions, false claims, and fantasies are responsible for Germany and this federal government no longer being taken seriously in the world. [applause]
And that is fatal, precisely in this global political situation. The USA is an important ally, but it pursues its own interests. We too must finally define our own national German interests and represent them self-confidently, especially when they differ from those of our allies and partners. [applause]
Sending a dozen soldiers to Greenland and redeploying them the very next day is, with all due respect, a farce and not serious, solution-oriented, and interest-driven foreign policy. [applause]
It is a mistake that you refuse to join the peace council initiated by Donald Trump. The body is an opportunity to dissolve the many blockages caused by a non-functional UN. [applause] On the contrary, it is in Germany's interest to end the war in Ukraine quickly. Germany must participate in the peace process in order to bring in its own interests — to prevent EU and NATO membership for Ukraine and further transfer payments from Germany. [applause]
Instead, we must demand compensation for the state-terrorist attack on the Nord Stream gas pipeline, infrastructure vital to Germany, which Kyiv evidently shares responsibility for. [applause]
The EU, whose cohesion you invoke as a cliché, is also part of the problem here and not the solution. If Germany is to regain its economic strength and thereby its political weight, we must tackle the misdevelopments that are weakening us. First, we must end mass migration and reverse it as far as possible. This path requires a restrictive immigration policy with no exceptions in border controls, pushbacks, and rigorous deportations, as well as eliminating the social and financial migration magnets. [applause]
In addition, we need a moratorium on immigration and naturalization, and we must — [applause] — and we must roll back the ruinous energy transition and exit climate protection policy. It is a German and EU solo effort that is destroying our economy. [applause]
Only if we leave these paths of error can we reduce the financial overload and overcome the burdensome bureaucratic straitjacket and overregulation. The path to a resurgence leads back to nuclear power, the abolition of CO2 levies, and the immediate repeal of the internal combustion engine ban and the heating law. [applause]
An AfD government will set in motion these reforms to which your government is neither willing nor able. I thank you. [applause]
For the SPD parliamentary group, Member Dr. Matthias Mersch now has the floor. [applause]
Madam President, dear colleagues, I think we heard one of the most impressive speeches ever given from this podium yesterday. [applause] Tova Friedman showed us that it is not even a lifetime ago that the worst of all things happened — fascism. She told us and made us see what human beings are capable of, and she appealed to our responsibility, which we bear as elected members of this august House. For me, this speech by Tova Friedman is also a benchmark for the present time, for we see — Mr. Chancellor, and you rightly pointed this out — we all feel it. We are at an epochal turning point. We see that the values for which we stood for decades are being called into question.
And that is why, Ms. Weidel, this speech by Tova Friedman yesterday is, for me, also an incentive to keep pointing out that we must not give the dividers in this society any chance. Dear colleagues, [applause] we are having a debate on the foreign policy situation. You said almost nothing about foreign policy, because you have nothing there, because you have thrown yourselves at the necks of the dividers. Dear colleagues, [applause] where is your answer? Your answer, you say, is nationalism. Do you think that Germany could play a role all on its own in this concert? You are nationalists, and that means you are egoists, with recipes that do not fit this time at all. Dear colleagues, [applause]
I think — and Mr. Chancellor, you rightly pointed this out and built directly on it — the remarkable speech in Davos was given, for me, by the Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney. He made it very clear that we must not give ourselves over to illusions, that as a community of values we must be very careful and not be naive, that we must not indulge in wishful thinking about our old alliances, but must now look reality in the eye. And he spoke of a strategic autonomy of the community of values. And that, dear colleagues, is in my view the answer to this time. It presupposes three things.
The first: that we do everything to get things moving again here in Germany. Just under a year ago we were still arguing about how far we must and may invest. I am glad that with the budgetary exemption for defense policy and with the 500 billion special fund we have created the conditions to face the challenges that exist globally and also nationally, in which we invest and which also creates growth. Dear colleagues, we are seeing the beginning of it now. [applause]
The second part of the answer is a strong Europe. Yes, and here too it is right that we develop dynamics, and in that respect I am grateful to the Finance Minister that yesterday with the E6 format he also set in motion dynamics within the EU. And we will have to ask ourselves whether the European Union is set up the way it currently needs to be. We cannot afford to wait for the last one on every question. There too we will have to find answers, dear colleagues. [applause]
And the third, finally, and here I am back to Canada: we are not few in this world, we are many. And that is why we will have to develop alliances beyond the European Union, within this community of values, with Canada, with Brazil, with Asian countries. And that is why I must also say this here, dear Greens: the Mercosur vote is an unforgivable mistake. That must not happen to us again, dear colleagues. [applause]
And in this context I am glad that the provisional application is now being examined, and the free trade agreement with India is an important next step, because it shows: we are not alone, we are strong, we must not bow down. But that also includes — and I want to say this in conclusion — the question of how far our democracy is currently being continuously endangered from the outside. And here I come to social media. For here we see that the free net, the free net, has long since ceased to be a free net, but is in the hands of a few. Yes, they are using it. And I think the dialectic is quite visible: Tova Friedman uses TikTok. On the other hand, we see that the algorithms at present no longer guarantee freedom, but quite the opposite — that AI no longer represents the truthfulness that is a foundation for democracy. And that is why we are also called upon, alongside the partnerships we need globally, to face this challenge so that our democracies do not start to slide. Thank you very much for your attention. Dear colleagues, [applause]
For the Bündnis 90/Die Grünen parliamentary group, Member Britta Hasselmann now has the floor. Please. [applause]
Madam President, Mr. Chancellor, ladies and gentlemen, while our gaze in recent weeks — particularly after Davos — was on Denmark, on Greenland, on the alarming developments also in the USA, on the question of how predictable or not Trump is these days, suddenly almost no one was talking about Ukraine anymore. The war winter in Ukraine. Massive, brutal attacks by Putin on Ukraine. Not a word about it from the Putin-understanders and Putin-allies, the AfD. [applause]
Ladies and gentlemen, these attacks were directed massively against the civilian population, against people who are living in their houses and not fleeing to another country, who do not want to leave their country. They are elderly people, they are sick people, they are families with children, and everyone knows that in this biting winter we are now having, people are without electricity, without heat — the children who are really trying, in their apartments with their families, to go to situations where at least a generator provides a few hours of warmth. It is a humanitarian catastrophe that is emerging there. And Mr. Chancellor, one sentence of commitment to Ukraine is not enough for me.
When you were in opposition, every week in the German Bundestag you said: we need more support, we need broader weapons systems, we need concrete sanctions against the shadow fleet. And now — now you are the Chancellor of this country, and now the government factions, the majority that admonished us every week to do more for Ukraine — where is your engagement? One sentence in this government statement. [applause] Where are the decisions you are going to bring about — that the sanctions against the shadow fleet come, that stronger weapons systems are made available for Ukraine, and that Ukraine consistently remains on the agenda of Europe and also of our Parliament? Ladies and gentlemen, I can only appeal to you: do not leave Ukraine in the lurch. [applause] And that one sentence did not give me hope that this is not simply going to drift along on the agenda. Ladies and gentlemen, and that would be irresponsible.
Do something, do more, and take responsibility for Ukraine now and very concretely. Ladies and gentlemen, the world is in turmoil. It has become more chaotic, more confusing, more dangerous. The war in Ukraine, so brutally waged by Putin, Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, Syria, the situation of the Kurds — one needs a hell of a lot of resilience, one needs a hell of a lot of inner stability to withstand and bear all of it. And I say that already for the people here in the country. As everywhere in the world, it is hardest for those who are directly in these war and crisis regions, or who have family and relatives there — like the many people from Iran who live here today, or Kurds who live here and have to watch what is happening to their peoples. It is terrible, and that is why the international community is called upon as never before, as rarely before, and at the same time the international order is breaking apart. And one of the drivers of that is also Donald Trump. We all know that, for the American president — he is breaking international law. He is forging alliances that cannot be justified to anyone. He no longer cares whether peace rests on rules, on our fundamental values in the UN and the international organizations. No, he is founding his own counter-body, into which one can buy a seat for a few billion dollars. And the AfD thinks that is fine too. Soon it will only be about business, about who is allowed to take part, and no longer about human rights, about value-based foreign policy. And that is what this outfit here, this AfD, supports. Ladies and gentlemen, you should be aware of that: it is a threat to our external security and our internal security. We must understand that. [applause]
And to put it clearly: the transatlantic relations matter to us. We owe the USA a great deal. We have worked in good cooperation for decades because we know what we owe the transatlantic relations and the USA after two world wars and the fascism in our country. We are aware of that. But we cannot close our eyes to what is developing in the USA with Donald Trump. And it takes more pressure — more pressure from here and more pressure from Europe. And the situation around Greenland showed that. Without a clear, unequivocal reaction with counter-tariffs, no movement would have come about. You simply cannot allow someone like Trump to say, 'I wanna own it.' That is not how this world works. And that is why it is so important to forge this counter-alliance with many, many other countries. And precisely against the background of the danger, we must, together with Europe, keep putting forward the strength of Europe, the common ground, the decision-making — not only on defense capability, but also in many other areas — because that is the future, and not relying on everything staying as it is. For unfortunately — and I say this very clearly, as it truly is — unfortunately the USA is no longer the guarantor of our protection guarantee. And everyone feels that, everyone knows that. And that is why Europe's strength is needed precisely in this time, ladies and gentlemen.
And because apparently only pressure and counter-pressure have an effect, I expect more clarity from the federal government, also towards Donald Trump. Mr. Chancellor, you just spoke here about the insult to the Bundeswehr, the disparagement, and I share that — I think it is irresponsible and I reject it in the sharpest terms. But why do you not say that it was Trump who insulted the Bundeswehr at this point over Afghanistan? It was Trump. Name things clearly for what they are — that is what this situation is about. [applause]
And since you raised the topic of Mercosur: Mercosur was a mistake. Yes, the decision on Mercosur in Brussels was a mistake. We want this trade agreement to be concluded and to enter into provisional application. Everyone has since stated that, and you can say it here five more times, pointing at the Greens. Both the Greens in the European Parliament and we here nationally have said it was a mistake — a wrong signal at the wrong time. We will bring Mercosur into provisional application. But anyone who exercises so much self-criticism — anyone who exercises so much self-criticism should, when pointing a finger at others, grab their own nose, Mr. Chancellor, and also Jens Spahn, who is already up next. Ladies and gentlemen, 43 EPP members of parliament voted the same way as the German Green members of parliament, and 34 SPD, that is Social Democrats. That does not make it better, but perhaps it leads to a small, modest capacity for self-criticism — the kind Manfred Weber is practicing there in the European Parliament — also becoming possible for you.
And I will say this in conclusion: your inability and your subservience towards the MAGA movement will come back to haunt you. Everyone remembers how you behaved towards JD [applause] and Grenell and Bannon. And today it is called for to speak plainly and take a clear line — and we expect that from you too; so far, nothing doing. [applause]
For the CDU/CSU Bundestag parliamentary group, Jens Spahn now has the floor. Please. [applause]
Madam President, dear colleagues, the world of the great powers is not a cozy place. That is what the Chancellor said last week in Davos. But that is our world. That is how our world is, and it probably has been for longer than we would like to admit. How uncozy it is, we were reminded of again last week, when certainties suddenly came into question, including in the relationship between Europe and the USA. The USA are our partner. That should remain so.
What unites us is greater than what divides us, culturally and politically. We profit from each other, on both sides. At the same time, such words are being spoken more quietly these days, more cautiously. What is happening right now in the USA, in Minnesota, disturbs everyone who loves the country, its freedom, its people. When the US President questions the territorial sovereignty of a NATO partner, then there cannot simply be more of the same. This is hard to bear and it destroys trust.
And yes, I know many people want — and we just heard it again — a hard showdown. Really lay the cards on the table, show Trump what a hook is a hook. I understand that. Politically, however, restraint is often the wiser path. Especially now, just wait, especially in a matter where trust has already been damaged. We will fight for this transatlantic partnership, because — and you did not say a word about this — because there will be no security in Europe now or for the foreseeable future without the USA.
We are closely linked to the USA economically and technologically. There will be no ceasefire in Ukraine without the USA. And Ms. Hasselmann, one thing I must tell you: it is this Chancellor, it is Friedrich Merz, it is this federal government that has done everything in recent weeks and months. And it is solely down to Friedrich Merz and this federal government that the USA is still on board in the talks about this war, that they are at our side, that Ukraine is even sitting at the table — that is Friedrich Merz's success. And what you just did here, trying to score points on this issue, was very cheap.
That we need the USA, that we need each other on both sides, does not mean that we have to put up with everything. And I am grateful that this was already raised. But because it also matters to us, I want to say it again: many German soldiers fell in the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Many were traumatized and injured. The families of the fallen must feel these mocking words from the USA. Our soldiers fought bravely alongside their NATO allies, and that is why these statements are unacceptable. And we are grateful, Chancellor, for your clear words.
It is the Chancellor, it is Friedrich Merz, who leads our country in this challenging time. He leads in Europe. He holds the heads of state and government together. He speaks with the US President on an equal footing. It was his clear and prudent policy that held the Western alliance together in the days of disorder, when the unthinkable seemed possible. This realpolitik course of Friedrich Merz has proven to be worth its weight in gold, and he has our explicit support in the coalition. Dear colleagues,
all of this also shows us that we have a choice. We have a choice about how we can survive long-term in this world of great powers. This choice requires insight, and insight only comes with honesty. It requires a clear look at the realities, at our dependence, and our choice is Europe. The question is no longer more or less Europe. The question is: are we united? Are we capable of acting? Only a united Europe capable of acting is a strong Europe. The cohesion of Europe is our greatest trump card.
When we talk about strengthening ourselves again — strengthening ourselves politically, militarily, economically — then we must of course now also align all decisions in Brussels and in the capitals according to this maxim. The EU single market is one of the largest in the world. We just have to use it correctly. And dear colleagues, only with a strong Germany will there also be a strong Europe. The responsibility we have here goes far beyond our own nation. We are the central economic factor of the EU, the fiscal protective power, the third-largest economy in the world, and one of the few countries with a triple-A rating — in fact, the only one among the G7. If Germany does not maintain its status, then Europe will not be able to assert its geopolitical and liberal interests.
Growth for Germany is not only a question of destiny for our nation, but a question of destiny for Europe. And that is why, dear colleagues, we must subordinate every decision we make in these days to one question: does it help growth or does it not? We need an economically strong Germany. We want sustainable and lasting growth for Germany, so that we can be strong in Europe.
Germany must be competitive so that Europe is strong, and Europe must be able to make Germany and the other states strong as well. And that is why February 12 is also so important, on the initiative of the Chancellor, when the European Council meets with proposals from Italy and Germany, agreed upon together in Rome last week. Our future will be decided by the independent capacity for action of Europe, of the EU. And I explicitly agree with Matthias Mersch. A Europe of pioneers, where we do not want to wait for the last one, is also an instrument to demonstrate this capacity for action. So we must reduce dependencies and strengthen ourselves.
And setbacks like the completely unnecessary delay to the Mercosur agreement, which is threatened by a decision of the European Parliament, weigh all the more heavily given the magnitude of the moment. It was the rebellion of the anti-Europeans and their willing helpers. Once again it became clear: the AfD wants a weak Germany, it wants a weak Europe. It wants us to end up presenting ourselves as weak before Putin, and we will not allow or accept that.
You are and remain a Putin party. You have a lead candidate in Baden-Württemberg who, by the way, is not even running for the state parliament. I believe that has never happened before, that a lead candidate does not even run for the state parliament in a state election. About your lead candidate Frohnmaier, the Kremlin wrote in 2017, quote: 'He belongs to us and we have him absolutely under control.' Markus Frohnmaier will probably rather end up in the Duma than in the Stuttgart state parliament. You are completely lost with your foreign policy and with what you are staging here and what you are telling people here.
Speaking of which, this week you decided — this is a new story — as a parliamentary group to officially express disapproval of MP Lukassen, because he defended the position of your election manifesto here at the podium. And Mr. Lukassen wrote in a letter to the group leadership, I quote: 'The statement by Björn Höcke that Germany is no longer worth defending calls into question the very raison d'être of your party, AfD.' He turns against, in a letter, I quote again, the denigration of our state and its institutions by the AfD.
Mr. Lukassen, if you notice what your party is doing, you should perhaps ask yourself whether it is still your party that is denigrating our institutions and the Bundeswehr in this way.
And Mr. Lukassen also calls in this letter for pluralism of opinion within his own party. Remarkable for a party that makes a pilgrimage to Washington every week and complains there that it is no longer allowed to say its opinion in Germany. So let me summarize: you officially express disapproval as a parliamentary group of the statements of your defense policy spokesman, because he substantively defended the duty of care and thus your election manifesto. You are doing this at the behest of Höcke and his far-right followers.
And Ms. Weidel, the only one, the only one who is no longer taken seriously, is obviously you in your own parliamentary group. Björn Höcke rules in your parliamentary group. That too has become clear once again in these days.
And with Mercosur, I cannot spare you, right in the middle of it are the German Greens. It was the eight votes of the German Greens that brought the far-right and far-left over the finish line with Mercosur. They hindered the creation of the largest free trade zone in the world. They hindered a stronger Europe, which would have been needed more than ever this week. The Greens were once again entirely themselves. Their longing for a world outside of reality had prevailed once again.
Ms. Hasselmann, you just loudly criticized the federal government and the Union again. Europe must finally be strong and act strongly. Whoever here, Ms. Hasselmann, is always quick to comment on everything and everyone — you are great at explaining to everyone here in parliament and in government how they should do their job. You can really do that well. But when it comes down to it, we hear nothing at all from you. After this decision, days of silence. Whoever helps far-right and far-left achieve a majority should not give us moral sermons here. Ms. Hasselmann, that is over.
The good thing is, you will soon have the opportunity to correct this course. The EU-India agreement is a ray of hope. It is on its way, prepared also and especially by the Chancellor. Support it, just as you support the provisional application of Mercosur. That is good.
Mr. Member, allow a supplementary question from... No, I will now, if you like. You have not been successful even once with that. Please, Ms. Brüge. Gladly.
Mr. Spahn, the character of politicians is shown not by never making a mistake, but by whether one is able to admit that one has made mistakes. All the Greens critically identified their own mistakes last week. I have not yet seen this kind of character from you. You spoke here today about US policy, and that is why I want to give you the opportunity to correct this image that I may wrongly have of your character.
You are among those who played down Trump in recent years. You traveled to a Republican Party Convention and said there that you saw no authoritarian tendencies, that the Democrats were heading for a dictatorship, as if the country were going under. And with this enemy rhetoric on both sides, you would not get anywhere. You said you would criticize Donald Trump's choice of words, but on substance he did have a point. You regard the Trump-loyal and MAGA politician Richard Grenell as a friend. As you told Der Spiegel, you met the far-right Steve Bannon, and just two weeks ago, when Trump threatened Greenland, you said Trump had a point there too.
And that is why I want to give you the chance to show us that you too are capable of self-criticism and simply say at this point: you were completely wrong in your US policy. Ms. Colleague Brüge,
I said it then, I say it today. First, yes, a part of the developments in the USA worries me very much, and I would not have thought them possible. Yes, I say that. But I also stand by it. And that is what always gets mixed up in the German debate. Wanting to understand what the other side wants and thinks does not mean having understanding for it. That is a difference. And I believe in the transatlantic relationship — and many colleagues from all factions here from the political center regularly travel to Washington to hold talks with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and Congress — it makes sense to understand what is happening in the USA and what is being thought in the US government.
But that is a different matter from having understanding for it or even finding everything right. And it would be good if you perhaps took my answer as an opportunity to stop making populist and blanket insinuations to me, which you have just insinuated once again. It is simply not true. It is simply not true.
It is also noteworthy once again that in a situation where you are on the defensive, where you could simply show that yes, last week was not good, in such a moment perhaps not immediately go about things again in such a distorting way. That would have been a good opportunity, but well.
Yes, it is a rough world. For too long we have closed our eyes to this world. We kept reassuring ourselves of an order that probably has not existed for a long time. We must find a European path that puts us on an equal footing with the great powers of our time. We will need partners for that, partners who live value-based realism with us. This can only succeed if Europe acts united. Here it depends on Germany, on our Chancellor, and on this coalition. We will do everything for a strong Germany in a strong Europe.
Madam President, dear colleagues, first the good news: 374 days of Trump are done. Now the bad news: there are still 1,009 days until the next election in the United States, if there will even be an election there by then. And frankly, I am fed up with constantly having to deal with this behaviorally disturbed lout from the White House in the news and here with his statements.
And unfortunately, the AfD's late Trump fan had made himself comfortable in the White House again. It was clear that this would be another catastrophe after the first term, but it has turned out worse than many of us thought or feared. Now the international community is called upon to avert the worst. If we do not succeed, then God have mercy on us, whoever that may be.
Dear colleagues, the Republican Party has radicalized further and further to the right in recent years, but esteemed CDU, you are still a partner party of these US Republicans in the International Democrat Union, even though they have meanwhile taken their leave of the American political system. Perhaps you should think more about that. Perhaps also a small argumentative aid: with the immigration authority ICE, there is now a rampaging arm of the US government. This ICE is terrorizing more and more innocent citizens of the United States of America. In the first two weeks of this year alone, six people died in ICE custody. Just a few days ago, it was the nurse Preti in the US state of Minnesota. These ICE henchmen are blindly enforcing the interests of Trump and his fascist MAGA movement. The federal government cannot go on acting as if this US government were in any way still a reliable partner.
That applies both to economic policy and to security policy. Consequences must now be drawn. Where is the export ban on German weapons to the USA? Do not cower any longer, act. That is not complex, that is simply logical.
And dear colleagues, three weeks ago the US military invaded Venezuela. In this violation of international law, the president and his wife were kidnapped. And the reaction of the federal government? The resounding silence of the federal government after this blatant breach of international law was telling, and not coincidental. I refer to the year 1999. It was the red-green federal government at the time that broke international law by participating in the NATO war against Yugoslavia. They created a precedent at the time. This is now being imitated in many ways. The disregard for Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter became the rule, and the NATO leading power, the USA, always played the main role in this.
For decades, representatives of the Greens, the SPD, the CDU and the CSU have repeatedly talked away one breach of international law by the USA after another, and the AfD is now following suit. But as the example of Greenland shows, whoever digs a pit for others falls into it themselves. The current US president has said, I quote, that only his morality prevents him from doing something or not doing something. What morality, pray tell, dear colleagues, does he mean? Only...
Member, allow a supplementary question from colleague Beiner Trakt.
Yes, please.
Thank you very much, Mr. Colleague Pellmann, for allowing the supplementary question. I do share quite a bit of your assessment of the US president, and I would genuinely like, similar to you, for the Union to find the strength — even from a proper transatlantic history, which they never had — to draw the right conclusions about the new America, about the new situation under Donald Trump. I only ask you in return: if you describe the changed security situation vis-à-vis America so eloquently, why do you not describe the changed security situation vis-à-vis Vladimir Putin in Russia with equal eloquence? What is your German and European answer to that? Why are you then not willing and able to question your own beliefs, your own traditions, and to give the right answer, that it takes European strength and resolve, and that this also means Europe needs its own defense capability to secure our peace and freedom?
If you do not believe that it is the USA — and I hope you do not believe that it will at some point again be Russia that is well disposed towards Germany, towards Europe — then why do you continue to pursue a rhetoric of 'panzers instead of children' and similar things that prevents our life insurance from having a chance, which means a strong and defensible Europe?
Mr. Beiner, first to your first question. The Die Linke parliamentary group, as well as the Die Linke party, has clearly spoken out against Russia's unlawful attack on Ukraine. It clearly named and condemned the aggressor. That is the first thing. The second thing: in contrast to you, attitude and morality do matter to us. Perhaps if you remember your own roots. The Greens, particularly in the west of the republic, emerged from the peace movement, among other things. Where do you stand today? After hearing the speech of your parliamentary group chair, that apparently more and more rearmament, ever heavier, ever longer-range weapons — if that is supposed to bring salvation, then you are on the wrong path.
Excuse me, just briefly. The colleague now has the chance to answer a question that was asked by your parliamentary group, and then he should also be allowed to do so without interruptions. Please.
Thank you, Madam President. And that is why I believe we are well advised — and this has been our agenda for many years — to focus more on diplomacy, more on negotiations, more on working together, and, to quote the Chancellor finally, to also act united.
Madam President, I will continue. The US governments of the past 30 years committed one breach of international law after another, and it was always politicians of the various federal governments who applauded and did not object. We as Die Linke have always criticized this clearly and unequivocally, because a breach of international law remains a breach of international law.
That does not change anything if one speaks of an alleged complexity of the facts. What about self-criticism? If we all want to seriously criticize US threats against Greenland in the future, we must also critically acknowledge what has gone wrong in the last three decades.
Member, I have to interrupt you once again. Allow another supplementary question from the SPD parliamentary group. Yes, please.
Madam President, dear Mr. Pellmann, first of all, thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask a supplementary question here. Over the past few sitting weeks, we have repeatedly heard — often from the far right — the narrative that a precedent was created in 1999 with the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia. And the fact that your parliamentary group keeps promoting this narrative, also today to a very strong... Let me finish first. Let me finish first. Okay, let me finish first. In an agenda item on the debate about the foreign policy situation of the Chancellor, to use this narrative here in order to possibly legitimize a unlawful war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine and other breaches of international law. I just want to tell you one thing: whenever you use this narrative, you forget the victims of Srebrenica in 1995, because there was no humanitarian intervention. When you use this narrative, you above all also forget the victims in Kosovo. Many thousands of people were also victims of the massacres of Milošević. What did not succeed in 1995 did succeed in 1999, thank God, through the humanitarian intervention of this German Bundestag as well, so that there would not be another genocide. Why do you always defend Milošević and other dictators in this august house — a narrative directed against democracy and human rights, and not for the victims and above all for the people in the western Balkans?
Mr. Pellmann, do you know what you are doing? You are confusing cause and effect.
Yes, yes, yes. Now you also have to put up with the fact that, on the one hand, what happened there, as you described it, we condemned just as strongly, but the answer in 1999 was without a mandate, a violation of international law. And that is confirmed now by your statement that international law obviously does not matter to you at all, and I criticize that. I will continue to criticize it. And in the context of today's further unlawful attacks and misconduct, the whole thing began with the breaches of international law that started in 1999 and that you supported, and that is why I am addressing this very clearly here.
I return to the criticism, to self-criticism of foreign policy. That would be honest. It would be a future in which international law — we just heard it — is strengthened again. A future in which diplomacy and international cooperation count, and not the right of the mightier. A future of respect and cooperation, a future of disarmament and the dismantling of enemy images. Germany bears a central role, a central responsibility, purely out of historical responsibility. Our future must consist of cooperation and diplomacy.
Dear colleagues, the European Union is currently in very poor shape. What did the various federal governments do when the government of Viktor Orbán in Hungary abolished liberal democracy? They looked away and they covered for it. Meanwhile, such a transformation of the state is not only a model for the Republican parties in the USA, but in many places also for right-wing governments, including in Italy. What does that mean? Restrictions on press freedom and undemocratic changes to electoral law, restrictions on the rights of minorities, and so on and so forth. Right-wing parties everywhere are dismantling democratic fundamental rights.
And when Chancellor Merz, in the face of such realities, speaks of, I quote, 'shared values' with the Italian government, then that is just lip service. Mr. Merz, finally make clear what kind of European Union you want. Where do you draw red lines? On voting rights, on press freedom, on the rights of minorities, on women's rights — many, many unanswered questions. Mr. Merz, finally make clear what you stand for in EU policy. Thank you very much.
Madam President, dear colleagues, sometimes you get the feeling when following the debates here — especially when you hear from the left and from the right what is said about European policy, what is said about Europe's sovereignty — that you are trapped in a parallel universe. And that is very clearly also the case with the interjections earlier, with an aggressiveness towards a coalition. You do not have to like the politics. We are currently doing the politics the way we believe is right. But this manner of dealing with it, this aggression, is not appropriate — not to this house, not to this debate, and not to those who support this federal government's policy. We can certainly argue about the substance, but not in this form. Dear colleagues,
then I also want to emphasize at the beginning that I am grateful to the federal government of the Chancellor for emphasizing the sovereignty of Europe, the strength of Europe, which we have neglected for far too long. You emphasized that too. That is the point where we must be strong. And Germany, as the largest economy and also the most important member state of this European Union, has a responsibility here. And if we do not take that on, then we would fail with this government. And I want to make this even clearer to you: Denmark guarantees the right to self-determination of Greenland and thus also the sovereignty of Greenland, and the European Union guarantees the sovereignty of Denmark. And that is the decisive point, that we can do this, that we are strong. We must be that too.
By the way, Article 355 of the European Treaties contains a solution, but Denmark and Greenland would have to want it. They would have to say: we want the territory of Greenland to belong completely to the European Union again. That can be done with a simple decision. But Greenland must say it wants it, and Denmark would have to apply for it. I would think that was a good way, but that is not for us to decide here. But allow me to make a remark that perhaps puts into perspective what is actually happening internationally right now.
I do not know if anyone knows the name Leif Eriksson. Leif Erikson landed in Newfoundland 1,000 years ago. He is the son of Erik the Red. And if we were now to follow Trump's logic in this house and in international politics, then Norway should really be saying soon: no, the USA actually belongs to us. So you can already see how nonsensical this debate partly is, and that is why we need this strength.
But I will also tell you: the tariff deal last summer between two golf rounds was not a smart idea. It was what first made Trump's delusions of omnipotence possible. It first made them possible, and we must say today that we regret that it came to this. Economically, by the way, this course is extremely dangerous for the USA, and you can see that. You can also see that this retreat has a lot to do with what is happening on the financial markets and what is happening economically there in the USA.
One has to take note of that, and that also means that we have the strength, the bazooka, the so-called anti-coercion instrument — someone laughed about that yesterday, I had already mentioned it in the Q&A with the foreign minister. That is an instrument that we used in the European Union years ago, that we can use if we need it. We can use it and we are strong with it. I believe that the hand, that the partners in the world — and the hand must be extended towards our transatlantic partner — but that we also have to show them where our limits are, where the red line is. And the red line is the sovereignty of Europe, and it is also the sovereignty of Germany in this question, and the sovereignty of us all.
These two always belong together. They belong together because Germany in this world would be too small and too weak without the European Union. But with this European Union, with 450 million people and with the largest single market in the world, we can achieve a great deal, and we have achieved a great deal. Our prosperity has to do with that, and that also has to be taken into account.
Europe must return to its own strengths. There seems to be no reliance on the old transatlantic partnership. But I do not want to give it up. And that is why it means keeping the hand extended and looking to the future, because in the end we will only manage this if we move forward together, sovereign as Europeans. Thank you very much. Glück auf.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, dear compatriots, the world situation has hardly ever changed as abruptly as in recent months and years. New wars and old enemy images have become everyday life again. All of this is to my greatest regret. After all, the citizens in our country, in Europe, want to lead a peaceful and secure life. Unfortunately, politics plays an inglorious role here in large parts. It is no longer about diplomacy and balance. Today it is obviously once again about the right of the mightier. This development must be noted. In the next step, this problem must be addressed, and that definitely does not work with permanent muscle-flexing and displays of power.
Whether it is the delivery of weapons to Ukraine or the constant emphasis on the one-sided good versus the one-sided evil, as we have just heard it in the preceding speeches. This simplistic logic no longer does justice to the events in the world.
Germany lives from its exports. Our main target countries are the USA and China, both the most important trading partners, so that we in Germany can maintain our prosperity. It must therefore be in our own interest to have good relations with everyone, but especially with our reliable partners. And that also includes acting in a morally right way, and that must first and foremost be towards one's own people. That should come first. One may therefore expect the German Chancellor to put the well-being of Germany at the center of this.
And I have to smile a little when I hear a lot in the preceding speeches, also Mr. Tönst, that you are now taking the words sovereignty, interests, and also independence into your mouths. These are all words that you have been demanding and saying for years, when you accused us of nationalism. And suddenly you start to articulate yourselves in these very phrases, but you still cannot define what German interests actually are. You still owe us that. You still cannot do that today.
And Mr. Spahn, perhaps a few words about Mercosur, especially in the European Parliament. The European Parliament has 720 members, and if an agreement of this magnitude does not manage to achieve a majority, then I simply have to remind you: that is democracy. You can see from that that this agreement apparently is not as good as you described it here. And what you did not mention: you mainly let the farmers go overboard, and that is the reason why it was not ratified.
And let us take the free trade agreement with India and the European Union. The Chancellor visited India and came back with a suitcase full of promises that are supposed to serve the German economy. He mentioned it here today.
Member, may I ask no supplementary questions afterwards? No. Trade agreements are first of all to be welcomed. However, they should apply in both directions, from Germany to India and back.
My visit to India in spring 2025 already showed where that path will lead us. India is more than happy to provide cheap land, inexpensive labor, and above all cheap energy. And with that, they want to create incentives for German and European investments in India's interest, which is certainly to be welcomed from an Indian perspective. But that in turn means that jobs are relocated abroad, as the saying goes. In reality, that means the further deindustrialization of Germany, and we experience that every day. Ladies and gentlemen,
who benefits if we lose even more industrial jobs in Germany? Last year it was about 1,000 jobs per day. Where are our workers supposed to earn their money? Where will value creation take place in Germany in the future? And dear SPD, that cannot be done in NGOs; they do not create value. That is done by the diligent workers who create and manufacture something in the companies in this country every day.
And the question is permitted: when will you finally create the framework conditions in Germany so that industrial companies settle here again? The Chancellor spoke very little about that today, and that is exactly what I expect answers from this federal government on. And Mr. Merz, the early years of the old Federal Republic are over. Back then, Konrad Adenauer combined the offices of Chancellor and Foreign Minister. Today, the German Chancellor must first and foremost represent domestic interests and solve problems in his own country. Finally start doing that, because that is what the German economy is waiting for above all.
And Mr. Chancellor, if the office becomes too heavy for you, you always have the option of giving it up. Germany certainly does not need a foreign minister chancellor with a permanent commentary function for the international crises of our time.
And if you can, and above all if you want to, then act confidently as the head of the German government. Finally call Moscow and negotiate for peace and prosperity on the European continent. If you want to continue hiding awkwardly behind potted plants, you had better stay in Berlin and dare to finally make policy for our citizens.
The example of part-time work shows very clearly that the Union simply has not understood this principle. You do not just want to restrict the right to part-time work; no, you actually want to prohibit it. That is not only incredibly undemocratic. This planned ban is also an expression of your powerlessness, in which you try to make politics. Whoever bans things also creates gray areas. Do you want to compensate for those again with more tax money and debt? Ladies and gentlemen, this policy and this way of making policy is also deeply unjust.
What do you want to burden young families with, to whom you do not provide childcare places? Or what about families who care for children or parents in need of care? Are they then faced with the decision of no longer being able or allowed to work only full-time? We will certainly not follow such half-baked proposals.
Dear colleagues, we have good and clever minds in Germany. We know how to get out of crises, and many do valuable work every day. And Mr. Chancellor, finally recognize the potential of the citizens. Let the craftsmen and business owners do their work. They are the pillars of our economy and our society. That is the real middle class that you neglect every day, and you did not say a single word about our supporting middle class today. That is a disgrace for a government statement.
And it is exactly these people, exactly these people, who work together with their employees every day, hard for Germany. They carry the main burden of our social insurance systems. For that, they finally deserve the respect of leading politicians, the respect from you, Mr. Chancellor.
People had confidence in you and your federal government to move our country forward. But it is becoming clear that this assessment was wrong. Mr. Merz, a state is not a business enterprise that is traded on an international stock exchange. A state is its citizens, and you must put yourself in their shoes. This is not about dividends; this is about rents and housing, electricity costs, health insurance contributions, food costs, childcare, and the care of our elderly. These are very normal and everyday things for which this federal government, and above all the SPD, has no ear.
Out there, citizens work day after day to finance their cost of living, perhaps to be able to afford a vacation or to buy a home. And the citizens have to see that the loss of prosperity is visible everywhere. With the work of one's hands, one can no longer afford an apartment, let alone a house. But in the future it will be less and less about precarious employment and much more about the social insurance expenditures that have been rising for decades. And that is no longer just the pension insurance.
The social state reform of Ms. Baas throws Bürgergeld, social assistance, housing allowance, and child supplement all into one pot. Ladies and gentlemen, what has become of the former workers' party SPD? What has become of social democracy? It must be about helping those who really need it. But you keep creating incentives for non-workers and pursue a leveling approach in the form of flat-rate benefits. That is not only unjust in individual cases; no, it also creates pull factors for immigration into our social insurance systems, burdens those who create value in Germany ever more, and finally ruins the idea of a social state based on performance and responsibility.
Performance and responsibility must go hand in hand. We know that as the Alternative for Germany, and all workers know it too. Only you do not understand that, and that is why fewer and fewer people are voting SPD. And the upcoming state and municipal elections will produce trend-setting results, and on election night you will stand there again and explain, after five lost state elections — you will lose all of them this year — you will stand there and say: we have to explain all of this better to the citizens. No, you finally have to make politics so that the citizens see that there is a change. That is why nobody votes SPD anymore.
And I hope then, I hope for Germany and its citizens, that Mr. Merz and his federal government will finally recognize reality and at least think about making a turn for the better, and above all with which majorities that would really be possible in this house. And that is why finally start increasing the attractiveness of Germany, so that high performers also come to us or can and want to return to Germany. Only in this way will we remain competitive and be able to pass prosperity on to the coming generations. Thank you very much.
Madam President, esteemed colleagues, Konrad Adenauer would have celebrated his 150th birthday on January 5 of this year. He was a visionary, a father of the European Union, and he signed Germany's accession declaration to NATO on May 9, 1955.
Konrad Adenauer's legacy is therefore the NATO, it is the European Union, but above all it is peace, freedom, and prosperity, dear colleagues. And that is why I say to you, from the AfD, when you fabricate these days that we will leave NATO, that we will leave the European Union, then you betray all of that. You betray everything Konrad Adenauer believed in, and you put peace, freedom, and prosperity at risk.
And the debate about Greenland has shown that Adenauer's legacy is not a matter of course, but that we have to fight for it anew every day. And it is a stroke of luck that we have a Chancellor who, in these challenging times, makes foreign policy wisely and prudently, who is firmly rooted in the Western alliance. Because the truth is: while others ideologically driven called for escalation within the Western alliance, it is thanks to our Chancellor Friedrich Merz, with a calm and prudent hand, that the way was cleared for this solution. And therefore, thank you very much, Mr. Chancellor, a historical achievement by you on this challenging issue.
And the look at the world worries us, because we realize that apparently everything is shifting. Somehow the saying seems to apply: eat or be eaten. And that is why in this coalition we rely on our own strength, because only in this way will we be able to hold our own in this new world order. We define our own strength in internal security, in external security. We have done a great deal for both, and we also define it in the economy, in economic growth.
And when we look at that area, we find that there too there is a global competition where we must try not to be left behind. We have Russia switched to a war economy. We have the United States, which is acting with a hard course of protectionism. And we have China, which is quite aggressively trying to span the globe economically, also with the model of free trade. Think of the year 2022. China founded the world's largest free trade zone there. Over 15 member states and 30% of global economic output.
And that too is a competition where we must try to hold our own with our standards, with securing raw materials, and also with securing supply chains. And if we are weak on that, others will dictate these questions to us. And free trade is the means for us par excellence. But before I say something about free trade, back to the topic of economic growth.
Also the look at our democracy, dear colleagues, must reveal that democracy is only ever stable when people in the country are doing well economically. Because people want to feel — in their work, in the family sphere, but also in their own wallets — that...
Democracy is indeed the best of all models of government. That is why democracy researchers say that democracy always needs stable economy and economic growth for stability.
Herr Abgeordneter, do you allow a supplementary question from the AfD faction?
Unlike the faction leaders of the AfD, regularly and gladly. Please go ahead.
Yes, esteemed colleague Hoffmann, thank you for allowing this interjection. I have a question. You just said — and now I am quoting you — that somehow it now seems to apply in the international context. You are referring to foreign policy, that it is a case of eat or be eaten. I actually listened closely to that twice, because you then went on to say, that is why we rely on our own strength. Well, that shakes me somewhat. I and my party, the AfD, see it rather the other way around. Even in the international context it should be: live and let live. But since you say eat or be eaten, whom do you mean by that? Germany — are we supposed to eat someone, and if so, whom do you want to eat?
Your supplementary question is now a fine example of the way you do politics. Because quite apart from that — [applause] also in your direction, I have said it here several times, I allow every supplementary question, I even allow them from the Left. So you will not object when I also allow one from the Right. So, now back to you. Your question is a very fine example of how you do politics, because you start — Mr. Chupalla, you said it earlier — you always say this is democracy. You are manipulating, and this is an attempt at manipulation. Because I said that somehow the saying seems to apply: eat or be eaten. That means, purely in the wording, I made clear that this is not something I am adopting one-to-one. But I want to continue on the topic of manipulation, because you naturally want to create a mood that gives the impression that we are completely on the wrong track here. Quite apart from the fact that, in your case, the model of one's own weakness is evidently at the centre of things. I want to say something again about the topic of manipulation. Mr. Chupalla said earlier, on the subject of free trade, that we had let the farmers go through the meat grinder. With that you are manipulating the public debate, because with Mercosur it is the case that... Watch out. Watch out. You know, Mr. Chupalla, and also for you: every fourth euro in agriculture is earned abroad. Every third euro in the food industry is earned abroad. Three out of four euros in agricultural machinery technology are earned abroad. And now to Mercosur. With Mercosur comes an opening of the milk market in South America in favour of German agriculture. We are opening the soy market, which leads to soy prices falling in favour of German farmers. We have capped the quantity of meat that may be imported, for the first time accompanied by standards and real control mechanisms. And then we also have a special mechanism that allows certain things to be suspended if we notice a market getting into difficulties. The truth is therefore that Mercosur is a historic opportunity for German agriculture, and you are manipulating people by always claiming the opposite. [applause]
And that is why Mercosur is an opportunity, almost for a generation and for a country that grew up on exports. In 2024 we exported goods worth 1,560 billion. Our foreign trade quota has developed from 37% in 1993 to 80.3%. And that this opportunity is being fought by the EU enemies from the right and from the left is hardly surprising, because both know that the fringes are only elected when things are going badly for the country. Only when people are dissatisfied, when things are not going well for people, when people are worried, do they start to vote for the fringes. And that is why it is no surprise. But, dear colleagues from the Greens, that you join in this concert of shrill EU enemies — that is reprehensible. No, Ms. Hasselmann, I cannot spare you this. It is about something else. You are now acting as if this had somehow been a misunderstanding and yes, and now we are suddenly in favour of it. The truth is, you fought this agreement for months, if not years. Your trade policy spokesperson of the Greens in the EPP faction fought this agreement. And it is about something else. The problem is that the Greens per se have a problem with growth. Their kind of economic policy is always a policy of shrinking. We saw that with Robert Habeck, because you are essentially convinced that a policy of shrinking leads to a reduction of the CO2 footprint. And that is your problem. And you always talk about stance. You can have that stance, Ms. Hasselmann. But then tell that to the people in this country, and tell it to the people, for example, in Baden-Württemberg at an automotive site where it really is about the business location, about economic growth. [applause] This coalition will continue down this path undeterred, because the course is right and our compass is correct. It is about moving Germany forward, and doing so with a strong trade policy and a strong foreign policy emphasis. [applause]
For the Alliance 90/The Greens faction, Ms. Sarah Nani now has the floor. Please. [applause]
Self-righteousness. Madam President, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, Jens Spahn said something earlier in his speech that I cannot let stand. He said that without the USA, Europe would not be capable of defence. I consider that a signal of willingness to capitulate that sits very badly with the Union. [applause] Security — and that would be your responsibility as the governing coalition, also yours, Mr. Jens Spahn — to ensure security for the moment, even if the USA were no longer at our side, is precisely your responsibility, and you are not fulfilling it. That is the real problem. [applause] European security must be taken into Europe's own hands. That is what your Chancellor said. I even applauded that, quite loudly in fact, because he is right in what he said. I do, however, see a contradiction there, and if I may pick up on something Mr. Merz said: one's own power, one's own strength — that comes from cohesion. We do not see cohesion even within the Union on the essential questions of our time. [applause] We still have 35 months. 35 months. The Inspector General and many experts agree: in 2029 Russia could attack NATO. And regardless of what Washington says, whether they are involved in the defence or not. 35 months remain, then it is 2029. I ask you: what are you doing until then? What will be settled? When will the shadow fleet be detained? When will Taurus be delivered? When will total defence be invested in? And when will the population be prepared for the fact that an emergency could occur? [applause]
For the Left faction, Ms. Transur now has the floor. Please. [applause]
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this federal government speaks of values, but I search for these values in vain. For 20 days this federal government has failed to condemn the war crimes in Syria against the Kurds. For 20 days this federal government has failed to name the siege and the humanitarian catastrophe in Kobane for what it is, and it has failed to condemn the desecration of the bodies of Kurdish women. Very weak, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] The Kurds were good enough for you to fight against the Islamic State, but apparently they are not good enough to live in peace and freedom and democracy. The Kurdish resistance is now being criminalised by you, and you are relativising, you are recognising and courting Islamist terror and whitewashing it. That is — [applause] that is not even a betrayal of the Kurds, because we know that from our history through all the massacres, with the silence of the federal government and also with the support of the perpetrator states. That is a betrayal of your own values. You are betraying your own values and you are applying them selectively — [applause] when it fits into your package of interests or does not fit. We know it from history in Halabja. Remember the gas attack. 5,000 Kurds choked to death in agony. In Turkey, Kurdish mothers are still searching for the vanished bones of their children. In Iran, Kurds are being hanged en masse. In Syria, we were thrown into mass graves. We were buried there. They have not even been opened. New ones are already being created, and the screams of the children who were buried alive by the Islamic State — they still ring in our ears. And that may be a footnote for you. For us it is a collective trauma, ladies and gentlemen. And you are continuing — [applause] currently. People are still trying to deny our identity. People are still trying to destroy us. They cut off our braids because they believe they can humiliate us that way. But they are wrong. You cannot cut off our dignity, nor our history, because the history of the Kurds is also a history of resistance, but also a struggle for democracy, peace, freedom, women's rights in the Middle and Near East. And for that, these Kurdish women sacrificed their lives. They fought for it, and also to make Europe safer from the Islamists. And that is your thanks for that. And that is the thanks they get for it. One should roll out the red carpet for them, and not for an Al-Qaeda terrorist, a decapitator known for his crimes. [applause] You say integration, but you mean the capitulation of the Kurds. These women did not sacrifice their lives to submit to an Islamist system. In that spirit — [applause]
If I may make a remark: if one speaks several sentences in a foreign language, it would be good to have them translated. This is not a prohibition, but it would also be good for those who — naturally we know the freedom slogan — but it would be quite good, because there are also viewers present. Please go ahead. For the CDU/CSU faction, the member Jürgen Hart now has the floor. Please. [applause]
Madam President, dear colleagues, I would like to briefly address the understandably very emotional speech of my colleague. None of us denies the suffering of many people in the region. Germany is one of the strongest supporters and partners of the Kurds in Iraq, you know that. And Germany is clearly advocating for Syria an inclusive process in which all groups, all ethnic groups in this country have their rights in a kind of federal structure. And that naturally applies to the Kurds just as much as to other ethnic groups in Syria. And that is also something we would put to the current President of Syria if he were here. And this is precisely the opportunity to tell him that face to face when he visits us. And that is why it is good that this visit has only been postponed, not cancelled. That on this topic. But I want to address the foreign policy of the federal government. In the first weeks of his term of office — and indeed also before, already as party and faction leader of the CDU — the Chancellor first repaired what had unfortunately been lost in the previous three years, namely a good, trusting relationship with the French head of state, with the British Prime Minister, with the Italian Prime Minister — there was radio silence between his predecessor and the Prime Minister — but of course also with Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister of Poland, and I add also with the US President Donald Trump. The visit he made there was a great success and its effects continue to this day. One should not weigh every word of the American president on a gold scale, but the fact that he speaks positively about the German Chancellor is certainly something on our side of the ledger. And there are now the first fruits of this policy, which lead to a cohesion of the European stance. If someone had told me 10 weeks ago that at the end of January we Europeans would have successfully stood up to Donald Trump twice and in addition concluded two important trade agreements, I would have said to them: you are a hopeless, naive optimist. But it has succeeded. We have managed to get down from the unacceptable 28 points of a so-called peace plan for Ukraine to a common position between the USA, Ukraine, the European Union and the European NATO partners. That was above all the merit of the German Chancellor with the conference in Geneva, then with the subsequent conference in Berlin, and of course also of the French head of state with the conference in Paris. And on the Greenland question, in the matter of the US President annexing Greenland into US territory, we also saw the success of the cohesion of the European stance. What fascinated me most about it was that it was not only the European Union — it was also Canada, and it was also the European NATO partners who are not members of the EU. We can fully rely on Norway and on Great Britain, and of course also on the NATO Secretary General, which has to do with the good, intensive cooperation. And so it will be, I hope, and so it has been with the trade agreements as well. And I just want to say on the subject of Mercosur — it has already been discussed — that it must now enter into force, and I hope that the hiccups we had around Mercosur will not occur in relation to India, with the adoption of the India agreement. I find it, by the way, remarkable that the AfD speaks against the India agreement here, but the AfD in the European Parliament says it would agree to it. So somehow you need to think about where you want to go. So Mr. Chupalla is obviously on the wrong boat as far as his colleagues in the European Parliament are concerned. I am counting on us having a good European Foreign Council today, because there is an issue that concerns us all massively. How can we help the people in Iran? A look at this massive, brutal repression. Thousands shot, in some cases machine guns fired into demonstrations by the government. And presumably hundreds of thousands in prisons. I could imagine and would wish that we actually achieve a breakthrough in listing the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organisation. There are positive signals after the German-Italian government summit last weekend that the Italians have changed their minds, and there are positive signals that there may also be movement on this question in other capitals that are still on the other side. And I also hope — and this is another point — that on the measures against Russia, Russia's sanctions, we in the European Union can build on the momentum we now have, new and additional momentum, for perhaps even further tightened sanctions. Thank you very much. [applause]
The next speaker in this debate is for the SPD faction, Adis Ahmetowitsch. [applause]
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe faces a clear choice. Everyone has already said it here: either we are a factor of order, or we become the object of someone else's order-making. And I actually wanted to put the current part at the end of my speech, but the government statement by our Chancellor Friedrich Merz led me to put it at the beginning. Mr Chancellor, you said it correctly and formulated European power clearly in a triad. We must become sovereign and independent when it comes to providing for Europe's security. Secondly, you rightly said that we must regain in economic policy the strength that an economy like Germany's and Europe's needs in order to keep up internationally. And thirdly, you made a very, very important point that is important not only for the international order and for the European Community, but also for Germany and for this Parliament. It is about cohesion. Out of cohesion arises determination and also the ability to act. Your predecessors — if you look at the history of CDU Chancellors — every Chancellery stands in its historical line. Konrad Adenauer had the task, after war and dictatorship, of reunifying this country and leading Germany into the European Community. Helmut Kohl completed unity and consolidated the trust of our neighbours. And you, Mr Chancellor, you have the historic task of defending liberal democracy against its internal and external enemies, preserving European unity, and securing Europe's capacity to act in a world of power politics. And I want to guarantee you from this lectern that you have us as a coalition partner for this task, to the best of this Parliament's ability. Because these tasks, ladies and gentlemen, are not tasks that can be subordinated to a coalition. The party is never more important than these three historic tasks. Rather, it is about taking responsibility for our history and for our present, to ensure that this Chancellor — and until 23 February 2025 we all campaigned, but now it is about taking responsibility — this government and this Chancellor with this federal government must succeed, so that we can save this democracy in Germany and unity in Europe. Ladies and gentlemen. [applause] And there are good reasons to devote oneself to this task. I say this not only because I am a coalition partner, and anyone who knows me and follows my constituency work knows that I am not too proud to find critical words. It is about ensuring that we can continue to work and live in a system that is the foundation for our prosperity, freedom, peace and, as I said, for this democracy. Our world order is not only being called into question, but it is being attacked day in, day out. Yes, it began with the Russian war of aggression in 2022 at the latest. Russia attacked Ukraine in violation of international law, and that is why it is right, Mr Chancellor, that since day one of your chancellorship you have been doing this jointly with this federal government — and that is why I do not understand the criticism of your Ukraine course. This Ukraine course is clear, and it has never been as clear as it is now, and that is why I am very grateful for all the European initiatives that have run so far, and I think that the federal government has set clear accents in Ukraine policy, and that is exactly how it must continue, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] Yes, we must always get better. Day by day we must get better. There are things that may be going well and other things that may not be going so well yet. That is why they have to be optimised. That is why there are exchanges like this one here, and if there is criticism from the Green coalition partner, we have to talk about it. But I think that in the Foreign Affairs Committee — and here I want to praise the Foreign Minister very, very intensively in his absence, who regularly takes us along on all his foreign policy initiatives. I have not experienced for a long time a Foreign Minister shaping and co-determining this country's foreign policy course so intensively at eye level with his coalition and even the opposition. So, Mr Johann Wadephul, it is a pity you are not here today. You are currently abroad, but this cooperation also stands for this coalition. Federal government and Parliament are going this path in foreign policy together, united and determined. Mr Colleague, there is a supplementary question [applause] from the Alliance 90/The Greens faction. Do you want to allow it? Not anymore. Yes, given the time I will not allow it, but we can of course debate it in committee and elsewhere, as I said. And it is also right that European cohesion has led to the fact that in the end the partnership with the USA, which is historical, did not lead to speechlessness or to subjugation. This German and European cohesion has led to the fact that we did not allow ourselves to be blackmailed. Germany showed it, and Europe too. We do not allow ourselves to be blackmailed — not by Putin, but also not by a Donald Trump, ladies and gentlemen. That is why the clarity was exactly right. And on this course we will continue. And to conclude, Madam President, my [applause] time is running out. We will experience a great deal this year and in the coming months. All the more important it will be to get Europe back on track together in the area of security, in the area of economy, and here as Germany, as Parliament, together with this government, showing cohesion in the European context. Mr Merz, we are ready to walk this path together with you and your federal government, and together with the people out there as well, because they expect solutions to problems. Thank you very much. [applause]
Mr. Dam now also has the opportunity for a short intervention.
Thank you very much, Madam President. Mr Colleague, since you did not allow the question, but simply said things that are not correct, I want to use the opportunity to point out once again that it was the Chancellor who, in a very impressive speech here in this august House from the lectern last November, said that Germany would practically tie the Ukrainian president's hands behind his back if the civilian population were bombed by Putin in winter, shot at with rockets, and if important aid such as Taurus were no longer provided. And that he, if he were Chancellor of this country, would be the one who on the first day after would call out towards Moscow: one more day, and if the civilian population is bombed and shot at with rockets like that, then we will deliver Taurus, then we will detain the shadow fleet in the North and Baltic Seas, then we will ensure that Russian agents cannot enter Germany and that this country becomes safer. In your opinion, what is a consistent Ukraine policy of this federal government if none of this has happened to this day, and if people are now, after a year, freezing in subway tunnels, living in cellars, fearing for their children and for the elderly, and are being permanently bombarded from Moscow? Is that a consistent Ukraine policy, or is it not time to deliver Taurus and to consistently support the Ukrainian government, which is under attack by an autocratic dictator? [applause]
Mr. Dam, first of all, many thanks for the opportunity. You used the middle of the intervention, and that is why it is right, and I am still grateful that I can respond to it. I am not the press spokesperson and government spokesperson of the Chancellor, and yet I simply want to recount the genesis of today chronologically. Since day one, this federal government has been there to continue defending Ukraine, to support Ukraine. No country in this world provides as much financial support as Germany does. [applause] It is true that, for example, the USA co-finances, but you also know that within Europe, every support from the USA — above all we ensure that it is paid for and financed so that it benefits Ukraine, especially when it comes to providing air defence. Thirdly, at the moment you are right. This Russian war of aggression against Ukraine is brutal. Why has it become even more brutal in this fourth winter of war? Because it is no longer just about bombing military sites, but now civilian targets are also being selected. And what was the immediate reaction from the Foreign Office and from the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development? That energy supplies are immediately delivered from Germany so that the civilian population in Ukraine, and above all explicitly in Kyiv, is supported. And as for weapons systems and weapons — in this area too, Germany is at the forefront. You know exactly that we are investing billions, not only in our own equipment but also in supplying Ukraine. And the last point: that after the pro-Russian American plan to end the Ukraine war, nothing of this 28-point plan seems to remain, has to do with the fact that this federal government, in the person of the Chancellor, immediately picked up the phone, brought all European partners together — 27 EU states plus Great Britain plus Canada and many other states around the world — to make it clear that this pro-Russian plan to end the Ukraine war, penned by Donald Trump in consultation with Putin and without consultation with Europe, is no longer a subject of negotiation. I know it sometimes hurts to praise a CDU Chancellor, but in this matter it is important because it is not about party interests and not about populism. It is about making clear that Germany and Europe will not let themselves be intimidated by Putin, nor by Trump, nor by anyone else in this world. We stand behind Ukraine. [applause] And as for the military — you have to come to a conclusion. I am coming to a conclusion. As for Taurus, you can put that question in writing to the Chancellor; in the end, the Chancellor answers it. If you believe that Taurus is a game changer, then we can discuss it, but I believe that Germany does among the most in this world, and we can be proud of our country because together with Ukraine we are defending freedom on this continent. Thank you very much. [applause]
Closing this debate now for the Union faction is Diana Herbstreut. [applause]
Madam President, Mr Chancellor, dear colleagues, the events of recent weeks show once more: the rules-based world order is under heavy pressure. Power, strength and, unfortunately, also violence increasingly shape international politics. We have to be honest: the era of power politics is back — openly, strategically, increasingly also between partners. But we are not at the mercy of this development; rather, we can actively shape it. But for that, Europe must act decisively and above all cohesively. We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated, nor must we be goaded into ill-considered counter-reactions. Frankly, it shocks me how loud the calls are right now that we should finally break away from the USA. Yes, Europe must emancipate itself. We should have done that, or should have done it much more consistently, long ago. Yes, Europe must be more capable of defence — yes, much faster than before. But one thing is equally clear: the transatlantic partnership is and remains an indispensable pillar of our security for Germany and for Europe. [applause] Decades, decades-long partnerships — you do not simply cancel those recklessly just because things are getting difficult. That would be very short-term, short-sighted, irresponsible and strategically very, very unwise. The USA rightly expects a strong Europe, a Europe that is conventionally capable of defence, remains alliance-capable within NATO and takes on responsibility, also with a view to the Indo-Pacific. That lies not only in America's interest, but quite expressly in our own interest as well. And that is why it is important that you, Mr Chancellor, repeatedly set very clear accents, most recently at the special summit of the European heads of state and government. Especially on the alliance capability of Europeans within NATO, the federal government is setting the right priorities here. Dear colleagues, capability for defence is no longer an option. It is a prerequisite for preserving peace, freedom and democracy. [applause] That is why we are investing massively. We are investing massively in our security, financially as well as in personnel. With significantly increased defence spending and with the new Wehrdienst, we are taking the first necessary steps. At the same time we know that security means far more than conventional defence. Hybrid threats, cyber-attacks, sabotage of critical infrastructure and targeted disinformation challenge us daily. We can only meet that with a solid total defence and above all with a resilient, and above all with a socially resilient foundation. One that does not think security only in military terms — no, quite the contrary, it is a shared task of the state, the economy and society as a whole. We are working on this, among other things, with the new KRITIS-Gesetz for better protection of critical infrastructure, with the planned establishment of an inter-agency centre for countering hybrid threats, and also with the European free trade agreements, with the Mercosur states and above all with India. They create open markets. Yes, that means change. They secure jobs, promote innovation and make Europe more economically resilient. Dear colleagues, Europe must become bolder, more decision-capable, more capable of defence, and Germany must be the secure and reliable anchor in that. Because only one thing is clear: only together within Europe and in alliance with our transatlantic partners can we master the challenges of our time. Thank you very much. [applause]
