Pistorius defends missile deployment – 2024-08-03 00:02:35

by times news cr

2024-08-03 00:02:35

The USA and Germany have agreed to deploy long-range US weapons from 2026. The Chancellor’s SPD party has concerns in the traffic light coalition. Critics are calling for an open debate.

In view of the planned stationing of long-range US weapons in Germany, representatives of the Chancellor’s SPD party continue to express concerns. Federal Defense Minister Boris Pistorius – also SPD – defended the plans again. The Green coalition partner and the Union have criticized the communication of the decision to station the weapons by Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD).

Pistorius said on Tuesday (local time) on the sidelines of a visit to the US state of Hawaii that the stationing was about conventional weapons, not weapons with nuclear warheads. “This must be made very clear to reassure all those who are worried.” Russia has had weapons of this and other ranges for some time and has violated and terminated the INF arms control treaty, which regulates medium-range nuclear systems. The stationing of longer-range weapons with conventional warheads is now about “real deterrence,” said Pistorius.

We must not “make the world more dangerous, we must not enter into a new arms race,” warned SPD Bundestag member Ralf Stegner on WDR 5’s “Morgenecho”. “We must ensure that we enter into negotiations with Russia. That is difficult, I know that, but rearmament is the worst option we can use.”

Stegner is not the only critical voice in the SPD. Parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich had warned of the risk of military escalation. Former party leader Norbert Walter-Borjans criticized the lack of debate about the federal government’s decision.

On the sidelines of the NATO summit three weeks ago, the USA and Germany announced the stationing of Tomahawk cruise missiles, SM-6 missiles and new hypersonic weapons from 2026 onwards and justified this as a response to threats from Russia. The joint decision came as a surprise to many members of the Bundestag. Criticism and demands that the issue be on the Bundestag’s agenda came from several parties, including Pistorius’ SPD.

Green Party leader Ricarda Lang was open to this in the RTL/ntv program “Frühstart”: “I think it would be sensible to have a more socially and politically intense debate about this.” She criticized the communication on the topic: “It would have been good if Olaf Scholz, as Chancellor, had taken the opportunity to communicate this decision transparently to the population and to reveal the motives behind it.”

Lang called for open communication in view of possible concerns among the population. Her party colleague, the defense politician Agnieszka Brugger, told the “Rheinische Post”: “Even though I think the stationing is understandable and right, I am very irritated by the way it has been communicated. The Chancellor must urgently explain and classify a decision of such significance.”

Criticism also came from Saxony’s Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer (CDU), who is about to take part in an important state election. We need to talk to the population about it, he said on RTL/ntv. “This policy par ordre du mufti and we’ll just do it, that won’t work.” He supports a missile defense shield for Europe. “But to just do it and not talk about it, on the contrary, to use words like ‘war-ready’, that then raises questions, raises criticism, creates uncertainty and probably also leads to wrong thoughts.”

According to the Federal Government, the Bundestag has already formally dealt with the issue. A good week after the NATO summit, on July 19, a letter to this effect was sent from the Ministry of Defense and the Foreign Office to representatives of all parties in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committees, the Federal Press Office reported. However, a debate in Parliament is also being called for.

Defense Minister Pistorius said there was nothing wrong with speaking openly about this issue in the Bundestag. “But it is not originally a topic that needs to be discussed in parliament beforehand. It is also not comparable to the NATO double-track decision from the 1980s. So we should keep things carefully separate here.”

You may also like

Leave a Comment