Germany: Social Democrats urge ban on far-right AfD party
The debate on whether to ban the AfD, which forms the strongest opposition force in parliament, has gained momentum after it was reclassified by Germany's domestic intelligence agency in May as a 'confirmed right-wing extremist' group – an assessment that is now under court review after a legal challenge by the party.
What did the SPD say?
The SPD motion put forward at the close of its three-day congress in Berlin calls on the relevant constitutional bodies to lay the groundwork for filing a case to declare the anti-immigrant AfD unconstitutional.
'The moment at which domestic intelligence says this is a confirmed right-wing extremist party, there is no more room for tactics,' party co-leader Lars Klingbeil, who also serves as finance minister and vice chancellor in the conservative-led government, said at the congress.
The text of the motion reads: 'Now is the time for the constitutional bodies entitled to do so to create the conditions for immediately filing a motion to determine the unconstitutionality of the AfD.'
What have conservatives said?
German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt, a member of the conservative Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which leads the coalition, on Sunday threw cold water on the motion.
Speaking to the 'Table.Today' podcast, Dobrindt said: 'Decisions made at the SPD party conference are not yet a mandate for the interior minister.'
Dobrindt instead called for a cautious approach and for allowing the legal process to play out.
He said a working group of interior ministers from the German states will address the AfD issue if the 'right-wing extremist' designation is upheld in court.
The working group is awaiting a ruling from the Cologne Administrative Court on whether it agrees with the 'extremist' designation.
Dobrindt, as well as Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU), have previously said they are sceptical of banning the AfD, which is known for its nationalist, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim and Eurosceptic policies.
Chancellery head Thorsten Frei, from Merz's CDU, also said that he felt that a ban could not be justified, conceding that 'there are many good reasons for one'.
He told broadcaster ARD that a ban should not be pursued unless there is absolute certainty on the matter.
'That is why I urge caution. The AfD must be fought with political means,' he said.
DW
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
19 hours ago
- Observer
Iran committed to nuclear NPT, says Araghchi
TEHRAN: Iran on Thursday affirmed its commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, as it accused Germany of "malice" over its criticism of Tehran's decision to suspend cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog. "Iran remains committed to the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and its Safeguards Agreement," Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a post on X. "The explicit German support for the bombing of Iran has obliterated the notion that the German regime harbours anything but malice towards Iranians," he added in response to a German foreign office post criticising the move. On Wednesday, Iran officially suspended its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, a move the United States described as "unacceptable". On June 25, a day after a ceasefire took hold, Iranian lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to suspend cooperation with the Vienna-based IAEA. State media confirmed on Wednesday that the legislation had now taken effect. The law aims to "ensure full support for the inherent rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran" under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with a particular focus on uranium enrichment, according to Iranian media. — AFP
Observer
2 days ago
- Observer
Germany, UK to sign mutual defence pact
BERLIN: Germany and Britain will on July 17 sign a defence treaty that includes a mutual assistance clause in the event of a threat to either country, the Politico news outlet reported on Wednesday. The report came almost a year after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and then-German Chancellor Olaf Scholz issued a joint declaration promising closer cooperation on issues from trade to security. That broad agreement is now being finalised, according to Politico, and a key area is defence. It will include a section stating that any strategic threat to one country would represent a threat to the other and the accord is expected to be signed on July 17, it reported, citing two London-based officials. Although both countries are committed to Nato, the defence agreement highlights a shift among European states, including Germany under Chancellor Friedrich Merz, to work more closely together and rely less on the US under President Donald Trump. A spokesperson for the German defence ministry said on Wednesday that he had no new developments to impart when asked about the Politico report at a government press conference in Berlin. — Reuters
Observer
3 days ago
- Observer
Western politics, media bias on US strikes in Iran
On June 22, 2025, the United States launched a military operation called 'Midnight Hammer' against three nuclear facilities in Iran: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The US claimed the goal was to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. These strikes were the first direct American attack in the recent Iran–Israel conflict, which began earlier that month when Israel carried out its own strikes. Many experts in international law said the American action was illegal. According to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the use of force is forbidden unless it is in self-defence after an armed attack or approved by the UN Security Council. In this case, Iran had not attacked the US, and there was no Security Council authorisation. As a result, the strike is widely considered a pre-emptive attack, which is not allowed under international law. Despite this, Western governments reacted with silence or support. Nato's Secretary-General Mark Rutte claimed the strike did not break international law. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said there was 'no reason to criticise' the US action. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called Iran's nuclear programme a 'grave threat' and supported the strikes, even though the UK had no direct role. Only French President Emmanuel Macron said the strikes were illegal, but he still agreed with the idea that Iran's programme must be stopped. This is an example of the West applying double standards. When Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, Western leaders loudly defended international law and national sovereignty. But when the US ignores those same rules, many of these leaders remain silent. The law is treated as flexible depending on who is breaking it. This weakens the idea of justice and fairness in global politics. The Western media also showed bias. In the United States, newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post called the strikes 'necessary' and 'inevitable'. They focused more on technical damage than legal or moral questions. They repeated President Trump's claim that Iran's nuclear programme was 'obliterated', even though later intelligence reports showed the damage only delayed the programme by a few months. CNN, another major US network, highlighted Nato's defence of the strike, but gave very little space to international law experts who disagreed. Most American media avoided discussing whether the action was legal. They mostly supported the US government's version of the story. In Europe, some outlets like the BBC and gave more attention to legal issues. They reported Macron's concerns and included intelligence that questioned US claims. But even they often accepted the wider Western view that Iran is a dangerous state and that stopping its nuclear development is justified - even if the method is illegal. There is another issue often forgotten in these reports: Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and remains under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). At the time of the strikes, the IAEA had not confirmed Iran was building nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Israel has never joined the NPT and is believed to possess nuclear weapons. This important detail is almost never mentioned in Western coverage. The result is a picture that always shows Iran as a threat and Israel or the US as protectors. This is not balanced journalism. It helps to justify military actions and hides the legal and human consequences. Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan once said, 'If the rule of law is to mean anything, it must apply equally to all.' Today, that rule seems weak. Powerful countries are allowed to act outside the law, while weaker nations are judged more harshly. This harms the credibility of international law and may lead to more conflicts in the future. If the international community wants peace and justice, it must return to fairness. Law should not change based on politics. Media should question every government equally. And strikes like the one on Iran must be judged by the same rules we apply to others. Without this, the law becomes just another weapon for the strong.
