An area where European unity does not exist. The discussions between the foreign affairs ministers of the European Union on the European attitude to the armed conflicts in the regions of the world near or even far do not give the impression - to say the least - of harmonious assessment and intentions. The case of the fierce war in Syria is telling - must Europe, or should Europe, supply weapons to the fighters? There are differing opinions, endless discussions and results that are not really decisions. The situation has been pretty similar in other cases too. France took action in Mali without informing the other member states about it, and the operations in Libya were decided upon and carried out without any European coordination at all. I could go on with other examples.
Honesty is therefore needed to recognise that, in this domain, European unity does not exist.
Starting point for a united Europe. Any debate about the current situation should not omit the starting point for European unity (even if it no longer speaks to the younger generations). The primary objective of the first European community, which unified the management of the participating countries' steel and coal, was clear - putting an end to the intra-European wars forever that had twice inflamed the world. This objective has been achieved - no armed conflict is imaginable within the EU. And, in principle, the EU does not want to take part in war anywhere else - except with the aim of pacification.
Negative experiences and differences. And here the trouble begins. Experience is not positive - certain member states have found themselves involved in far-off operations in which they did not act as a whole, but individually, under the aegis of NATO. And these operations were prolonged for years - without satisfactory results. We just waited for the right time to get out, while being considered as invaders by those whom we wanted to protect. Europe increasingly hesitates to get involved - the opinions of the member states differ. And we have the impression that the president of the United States, following a few negative experiences for his country, is currently acting with similar reluctance. Experience shows that the results are almost always negative. Conflicts drag on for years, creating additional enemies for Europe more than future friends. What is more, the costs of getting involved are exorbitant!
Aggravation. This summary about the past, which of course is very rough and ready, is also applicable to the current attitude of the EU in the face of the Syrian tragedy - with more visibility for the differences of opinion between the member states. The consultative meetings between the European ministers of foreign affairs, in search of common positions, luckily only concern the preliminary phase of an armed operation - in other words, the distribution of arms to the fighters. This is enough for endless night-time debates, sometimes concluded without agreement or with compromises that are so subtle that they are barely comprehensible or that allow each to interpret them in his own way. It remains to be said that no member state, itself alone, has all the instruments for a possible operation and that it must call on another member state - sometimes with the need to appeal to a third member state as well.
The time has come for clarity. Why should one be concerned about this complex situation right now - a situation which is not very clear and in any case unsatisfactory? Because the time has come to define a common European policy. We are well aware that at the end of the year the special session of the summit between the heads of state and/or government will take place that is dedicated to these subjects. The Community institutions, particularly the Parliament and Commission, have begun to discuss this. The bodies specialised in military cooperation are of course doing the same. And the approaches are not the same.
Problems arise. Should this domain depend on the institutions? Should its particular nature require the intergovernmental cooperation method? This double issue is not simply an aspect of the permanent dispute between the Community method and the intergovernmental method because in this domain the competences overlap - not only research, energy and space, but also trade, the environment and transport. The common foreign policy is not an issue of rivalry between the Community institutions and national authorities. One should objectively consider the effectiveness of a vital aspect of Europe's future in which all aspects are involved - the safety of the populations, scientific and industrial abilities and the defence of European civilisation.
This column will return to this in detail next week.
(FR/transl.fl)