Debates, 16th of November 2005

Tobias Pflüger, in the name of the GUE-NGL fraction , spoken – Mr. President! Tonight is so to say weapon’s hour in the European parliament. On our agenda, there are three reports: Romeva í Rueda on weapon’s exports, Kristovski on weapons exports, and Würmeling, on the European armament market. All three contain a lot of explosive power and all three have a lot to do with one anther.

From the point of view of my fraction, the report on weapon’s exports is by and large and in its basic thrust to be judged positively. There remains of course room for improvement, as for instance, for more precise criteria, and from peace-political reasons, I would prefer a completely defence of arm’s exports. Let us not forget that production, export and the use of weapons and armament belong together and are the prerequisites for war. Weapon’s exports are peace-threatening. All the more important it is that there will finally be a legally binding nature of the behavioural code, which is after all demanded in this report and which apparently everybody here in this parliament would welcome.

Raül Romeva has commendably taken over an amendment for change by my fraction, which makes it possible for this legal obligation to also refer to dual-use goods. The European Armament Agency, following the opinion of arms’ experts, does not only promote arms exports, but it also makes controls considerably harder. Therefore, we in our motion for change petitioned the elimination of the so-called defence agency. I want to appeal in particular to my Green and Social Democratic colleagues to join the Left Fraction and to set on its way, instead of an Armament Agency, an agency for the Control of Arms Exports.

In the case of the report by Kristovski, the matter is again a quite different one. Actually, it was supposed to have the fight against the spread of weapons of mass destructions as its topic. What is being submitted here, however, is an iron and fire report that even refers to the breach of international law in the Iraq war in a positive way. I appeal to you not to agree to this report and not only to abstain – as we just heard it from the Social Democrats –, and also, in the matter of Iran, not to agree to further even sharper motions for change by the UEN fraction – to which the colleague Kristovski belongs.

My appeal is directed at the conservative fraction not to join an interpretation that would say that in the matter of weapons of mass destruction, Iran has, for 17 years, only sown distrust and earned it – this is not justified this way. The report seems to use the war against Iraq almost as a blueprint for an attack against Iran, even though in the meantime, not even the former US foreign minister Powell claims that Iraq owned weapons of mass destruction back then and is sorry for his appearance before the UN Security Council making that claim.

Insofar as the question of weapons of mass destruction of the West is concerned, the report is hypocritical in the way typical of this House. We have, therefore, claimed the following points: That US nuclear weapons have to be withdrawn from Europe, that the French and British weapons of mass destruction have to be put in mothballs and that Germany finally renounces to its potential for uranium enrichments in the nuclear reactor of Garching.

As far the last report is concerned: Mr. Würmeling, you say, that our industry is not competitive internationally. At the same time, you state that the reports have nothing to do with on another. When it is a matter of competitiveness, then probably rather of competition in exports, and therefore, this Article 296 must fall. I think this report on the Green Book “Arms Industry” is simply very open and honest. It is a matter of close cooperation with NATO and with the USA, and our fraction will also vote No on this report.

Translated by Carla Krüger, November 26, 2005