display
Before the end of the legislative period, armament of Bundeswehr drones is once again on the brink.
The SPD leader Norbert Walter-Borjans has spoken out against a corresponding decision because the armament has not yet been sufficiently discussed.
Hans-Peter Bartels (SPD), Defense Commissioner of the German Bundestag from 2015 to 2020, objects.
WORLD:
Mr Bartels, the use and possible arming of drones was discussed in Germany for almost ten years.
For your party chairman, Norbert Walter-Borjans, the debate has not been conducted sufficiently.
Do you understand the objection?
Hans-Peter Bartels:
It is the third election period in which the armament of Bundeswehr drones is being discussed.
This is not a new topic for the SPD either.
The SPD defense politicians have dealt with it extensively and controversially.
Your and my recommendation is clear to purchase armed drones for the Bundeswehr.
It is about a small number of new Israeli systems that have already been ordered, initially without weapons.
display
WORLD:
Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (CDU) had expert discussions on armament this year - as agreed in the coalition agreement.
How do you rate them?
Bartels:
As a military representative, I was a participant in one of these roundtables.
There I recommended the possibility of arming.
There were then further assessments from international lawyers, ethicists, soldiers and from the military chaplaincy.
Nobody wanted to make it easy for themselves.
But Germany would take a rather lonely path here if we withheld this resource from the troops.
WORLD:
Until May 2020, you were a contact person for the soldiers as the defense commissioner of the German Bundestag.
How does the Bundeswehr view the discussion?
display
Bartels:
Our soldiers would like this additional weapon option.
The argument goes: if you have reconnaissance drones in the air that have recognized a danger to a patrol, for example, it would be better to be able to combat this danger directly.
If the drone cannot do that, a combat helicopter, fighter-bomber or artillery will be deployed with some delay.
However the danger was fought, it would be fought with weapons - just maybe too late for our troops attacked outside.
WORLD:
The SPD has negotiated some red lines in the resolution that is now on the brink: the exclusion of targeted killings, as carried out by the CIA, leadership in the operational area and a ban on autonomous weapons systems.
Can you explain where, despite the social democratic stamp, your party leader's turnaround comes from?
Bartels:
Not really.
Perhaps there will be renewed discussions and resolutions on the drone issue in individual sections of the party.
Something like that could be heard from the Bavarian SPD, for example.
This then increases the pressure on the party executive and the top of the parliamentary group.
display
WELT:
The parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich had also called for all US nuclear weapons to be withdrawn from Germany.
With this policy, is the SPD giving up the claim to want to shape its own defense policy?
Because a withdrawal of US nuclear weapons and a no to the use of drones is the line of the Left Party.
Bartels:
The SPD would at least give up having a common line.
Foreign Minister Heiko Maas takes a clear position on the issue of nuclear participation.
That lies in the continuity of social democratic foreign ministers and federal chancellors since Willy Brandt.
Social Democrats advocate mutual disarmament, confidence building and negotiation diplomacy - but always from a position of strength, not as supplicants.
I dare to doubt that a departure from this line will benefit the SPD.
WORLD:
Is the topic suitable for the 2021 election campaign?
Bartels:
U-turns in defense policy would be just as suitable as the longstanding self-torture in matters of Agenda 2010. Again and again the party itself points out to the audience that it is not at peace with itself.
After all these years of discussion, the drone question could be decided positively today.
You don't have to make it a highly symbolic theme of conflict.