
No Pride, no Palestine: Bundestag boss claims neutrality – DW – 06/30/2025
When she was elected to the post in March, Julia Klöckner — an archconservative who enjoys wading in to culture wars — was considered a surprising choice for president of the German parliament, and she has done little to allay those concerned since then.
In late June, she angered progressive Bundestag members by announcing that the rainbow Pride flag would not fly from the parliament building, the Reichstag, on Christopher Street Day on July 26, as has traditionally the case. Klöckner also decided that queer members of the Bundestag administration were not to attend the CSD parade in an official capacity. Her stance prompted Green and Left Party parliamentarians to mount a protest by wearing color-coordinated clothes in the chamber to create their own rainbow.
By that time, Klöckner had already shown that she was going to enforce a strict interpretation of the Bundestag's clothing rules — these state, rather vaguely, that members' clothing must simply be "appropriate to the dignity of the chamber."
In early June, that rule provided the Bundestag president with enough justification to send Left Party member Cansin Köktürk out of a debate for refusing to remove a T-shirt bearing the word "Palestine." Two weeks earlier, she did the same to Marcel Bauer, also of the Left Party, when he refused to take off his black beret.
A former agriculture minister under Chancellor Angela Merkel, 52-year-old Klöckner has long been a senior politician of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), and a confidante to Chancellor Friedrich Merz. "I have firmly resolved to always fulfill my tasks impartially, calmly and undauntedly, stay clear on the matter, while connecting with others," Klöckner said in her acceptance speech.
Impartiality is certainly a watchword for someone in her office: The president of the Bundestag is formally the second head of the German state (after the president and ahead of the chancellor). And, though there is no regulation stipulating this, the office is traditionally held by someone from the largest parliamentary group — in this case, the CDU/CSU.
Klöckner is known as a feisty conservative who is not shy of pushing buttons. In the run-up to February's federal election, she caused a stir by posting a combative statement on Instagram: "You don't have to vote AfD for what you want. There is a democratic alternative: The CDU." This was seen by critics as both a trivialization of Alternative for Germany (AfD) and a tacit admission that the CDU had adopted the far-right party's extreme anti-refugee stance.
It was not the first time that Klöckner had taken a hard line on immigration policy: In 2015, when refugees came to Germany in large numbers from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, Klöckner demanded that they be legally obliged to integrate into society. In 2023, she also reposted a false claim on social media that dental care for asylum-seekers had cost the German state €690 million ($746 million) in the previous year.
Klöckner is not above calling for more reticence from others, especially the Christian church: In an interview with the newspaper in April, she said the church should talk less about day-to-day politics and more about spiritual matters. "I mean, sure, the church can express its opinion on the speed limit, but that's not necessarily why I pay church tax," she said.
Nor was her appointment to the new Bundestag role without some detractors: Klöckner gave up her position as CDU treasurer after NGO Lobbycontrol pointed out that, as Bundestag president, she would be tasked with overseeing party donations. She said that she had planned to give up the post anyway before taking on the new job.
Klöckner is the daughter of a winegrower from the western state of Rhineland-Palatinate. Among her prestigious early roles was as German Wine Queen in 1995, an office that involves more than 200 public appointments a year.
Trained as a journalist, Klöckner led the CDU in her home state from 2010 to 2022, during which time she spent four years, from 2018 to 2021, as federal agriculture minister.
Environmental organizations criticized Klöckner for ineffective policymaking and a perceived closeness to the food industry — particularly Nestle: In 2019, she was accused of openly advertising for the international food processing giant by posting a video on social media in which she appeared beside Nestle's Germany chief and praised it for reducing the amount of sugar in its food — campaigners have long called on Germany to introduce a sugar tax.
The president chairs the Bundestag's plenary sessions and supervises the laws governing the parliament. He or she also represents the parliament as a whole, speaking at commemorative ceremonies such as the one held every year on January 27 to mark the Holocaust. The president sometimes also speaks during state visits by foreign heads of government or heads of state.
The president is obliged to respect the rights of all parties, which is why the post is often held by someone with extensive parliamentary experience who is held in high regard by all parliamentary groups and parties.
This was particularly the case with Wolfgang Schäuble, a CDU veteran of several Cabinet posts, who was Bundestag president from 2017 to 2021. Klöckner, by comparison, is a less experienced and some would say a more divisive figure.While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


DW
8 hours ago
- DW
US drone war: Berlin not absolved of all responsibility – DW – 07/15/2025
Germany's top court has decided that the US air base in Ramstein may be used for lethal drone strikes, but Germany also has a duty to protect. Does the "right to life and physical integrity" guaranteed in Article 2 of Germany's Basic Law also apply when people are killed far away from Germany by another state with at least indirect German assistance? The Federal Constitutional Court, the equivalent to the US Supreme Court, was tasked with answering this tricky question on Tuesday. The case was brought by two men whose relatives were killed in a targeted US drone strike in Yemen in 2012. The technical infrastructure of the US air base in Ramstein was also used in the strike. In this specific case, the lawsuit was dismissed as unfounded. However, the ruling is not a complete carte blanche for potentially lethal drone missions in the future. According to the court's official reasoning, Germany must also protect fundamental human rights and the core norms of international humanitarian law abroad. However, the court also granted the federal government considerable leeway to determine its foreign and security policy. The mandate now announced is subject to two conditions: A sufficient connection to German state authority and the serious risk that international law could be systematically violated. According to the Constitutional Court, this was not the case with the drone strikes in Yemen. The court ruled that the US took sufficient account of the protection of civilians in its fight against international terrorism, and referred to "legitimate military targets." However, innocent people were killed alongside the suspected terrorists in the attack controlled from Ramstein, which brought criticism from legal scholar Paulina Starski of the University of Freiburg on the TV channel : "If they don't know exactly who they are attacking, they have to assume that it is a civilian." That is why targeted killings carried out by state actors are often highly problematic from a humanitarian and international law perspective. If the US Air Force could guide its missiles remotely from US territory straight to their targets, it would not need logistical support from its Ramstein airbase. But direct radio links between the US and Yemen are not possible, due to the curvature of the Earth. This is why signals are redirected via Ramstein, which makes the base indispensable for attacks in the Middle East. And they are very simple: A drone pilot sits in Florida, connected to the Ramstein hub via fiberoptic cables, guiding the deadly weapon to its target. The lawyer representing the unsuccessful plaintiffs from Yemen, Andreas Schüller, called the Constitutional Court's decision painful and disappointing. But he added that the duty to protect now formulated also provides guidelines for future conflicts: "Following today's ruling, there may be situations in which violations of human rights and international law abroad are brought before German courts." The federal government reacted with relief. State Secretary Nils Schmid of the Ministry of Defense emphasized that compliance with international law was always a priority. At the same time, he said, the ruling gave German security policy "the necessary leeway" to be a reliable you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.


DW
12 hours ago
- DW
US drone war: Constitutional Court exonerates Germany – DW – 07/15/2025
Germany's top court has decided that the US air base in Ramstein may be used for lethal drone strikes, but Germany also has a duty to protect. Does the "right to life and physical integrity" guaranteed in Article 2 of Germany's Basic Law also apply when people are killed far away from Germany by another state with at least indirect German assistance? The Federal Constitutional Court, the equivalent to the US Supreme Court, was tasked with answering this tricky question on Tuesday. The case was brought by two men whose relatives were killed in a targeted US drone strike in Yemen in 2012. The technical infrastructure of the US air base in Ramstein was also used in the strike. In this specific case, the lawsuit was dismissed as unfounded. However, the ruling is not a complete carte blanche for potentially lethal drone missions in the future. According to the court's official reasoning, Germany must also protect fundamental human rights and the core norms of international humanitarian law abroad. However, the court also granted the federal government considerable leeway to determine its foreign and security policy. The mandate now announced is subject to two conditions: A sufficient connection to German state authority and the serious risk that international law could be systematically violated. According to the Constitutional Court, this was not the case with the drone strikes in Yemen. The court ruled that the US took sufficient account of the protection of civilians in its fight against international terrorism, and referred to "legitimate military targets." However, innocent people were killed alongside the suspected terrorists in the attack controlled from Ramstein, which brought criticism from legal scholar Paulina Starski of the University of Freiburg on the TV channel : "If they don't know exactly who they are attacking, they have to assume that it is a civilian." That is why targeted killings carried out by state actors are often highly problematic from a humanitarian and international law perspective. If the US Air Force could guide its missiles remotely from US territory straight to their targets, it would not need logistical support from its Ramstein airbase. But direct radio links between the US and Yemen are not possible, due to the curvature of the Earth. This is why signals are redirected via Ramstein, which makes the base indispensable for attacks in the Middle East. And they are very simple: A drone pilot sits in Florida, connected to the Ramstein hub via fiberoptic cables, guiding the deadly weapon to its target. The lawyer representing the unsuccessful plaintiffs from Yemen, Andreas Schüller, called the Constitutional Court's decision painful and disappointing. But he added that the duty to protect now formulated also provides guidelines for future conflicts: "Following today's ruling, there may be situations in which violations of human rights and international law abroad are brought before German courts." The federal government reacted with relief. State Secretary Nils Schmid of the Ministry of Defense emphasized that compliance with international law was always a priority. At the same time, he said, the ruling gave German security policy "the necessary leeway" to be a reliable you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.


Int'l Business Times
13 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
German Court Rejects Yemenis' Claim Over US Strikes
Germany's highest court on Tuesday threw out a case brought by two Yemenis seeking to sue Berlin over the role of the US Ramstein airbase in a 2012 drone attack, ending a years-long legal saga. Plaintiffs Ahmed and Khalid bin Ali Jaber first brought their case to court in 2014 after losing members of their family in the strike on the village of Khashamir. The case has since been through several German courts. But the Constitutional Court on Tuesday ultimately ruled that Berlin is not required to take action against such attacks, which were not judged to be in breach of international law. Washington has for years launched drone strikes targeting suspected Al-Qaeda militants in Yemen, an impoverished country that has been torn by fierce fighting between its beleaguered Saudi-backed government and Iran-backed rebels. The two Yemeni men, supported by the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), had argued that Germany was partly responsible for the attack because the strike was aided by signals relayed via the Ramstein base in western Germany. "Without the data that flows through Ramstein, the US cannot fly its combat drones in Yemen," the group said. The ECCHR's Andreas Schueller argued that "the German government must put an end to the use of this base -- otherwise the government is making itself complicit in the deaths of innocent civilians". The court found that Germany "does have a general duty to protect fundamental human rights and the core norms of international humanitarian law, even in cases involving foreign countries". However, in order for this duty to be binding, there must be "a serious risk of systematic violation of applicable international law". "Measured against these standards, the constitutional complaint is unfounded," the court said. The ECCHR said the ruling had "failed to send a strong signal" and meant that "instead, individual legal protection remains a theoretical possibility without practical consequences". However, Schueller said the verdict "leaves the door open for future cases". "Violations of international law can be subject to judicial review, even if the court imposes high hurdles. This is an important statement by the Constitutional Court in these times," he said. According to the ECCHR, the two Yemeni men were having dinner ahead of the wedding of a male family member in 2012 when they heard the buzz of a drone and then the boom of missile attacks that claimed multiple lives. Their case against Germany was initially thrown out, before the higher administrative court in Muenster ruled in their favour in 2019. However, the government appealed and a higher court overturned the decision in 2020, arguing that German diplomatic efforts were enough to ensure Washington was adhering to international law. In a statement shared by the ECCHR, the two men called the ruling "dangerous and disturbing". "(It) suggests countries that provide assistance to the US assassination programme bear no responsibility when civilians are killed. Our hearts are broken, and our faith in international law is shaken," they said. The German government welcomed the ruling, which it said showed that Berlin had "a wide margin of discretion in assessing whether the actions of third states comply with international law". "According to the ruling, the government has no fundamental duty to protect foreigners abroad who are affected by military action by third states if, in the government's assessment, these attacks are within the bounds of what is permissible under international law," the defence and foreign ministries said in a statement. Washington has for years launched drone strikes targeting suspected Al-Qaeda militants in Yemen AFP Two Yemeni men have lost their case against the German government over the role of the Ramstein airbase in US drone attacks on Yemen AFP