Time for decisions. The time for difficult decisions is coming. The EU must define the - partly controversial - approaches that will largely determine its future. Opinions are divided, and political leaders will have to make decisions on a few fundamental aspects.
In a nutshell, it can be noted that the majority of the European Parliament and the other European institutions, including the Council, are oriented towards the priority of relaunching economic activity and gradually recovering budgetary deficits, while partly cutting back on military spending. Yet the bodies responsible for security, like NATO, believe at the same time that it is crucial to strengthen armies and their effectiveness. Both aspects - economic recovery and military security - are essential and no one contests this. However, as soon as one goes beyond the big principles for sharing out the funding and investments, differences in opinion can be noted. And they are deep - each opinion has its reasons.
What must never be forgotten is the basis for European unity. In his book Notre européanité, which has just been published and of which EUROPE'S European library supplement will give a detailed account, Alfonso Mattera has spoken of it like this: “One of the most extraordinary adventures that man has ever undertaken: reconciling the nations of our continent after over a thousand years of fratricidal wars, building a common home to accommodate all European peoples, offering them a privileged space for peace, freedom, and prosperity, building a better world”. Mattera adds: “It will be up to the new generations, the heirs of this legacy and guardians of memory, to make a success of the most deeply human political project in the last two thousand years”.
In this context, Europeans have deeply assimilated the idea that armed conflicts are over for the EU. In young people's view and that of their mothers, armed conflicts for the EU do not exist any more. Political circles and social organisations are concerned about jobs, economic growth and public debt. The institutions themselves are worried about public debt sustainability and about states reducing their public debt. The president of the Council has even explicitly spoken about cutting back on military spending. EUROPE publishes discussions aplenty in these areas.
Concerns of military organisations. Agence Europe also publishes its twice weekly Europe Diplomacy & Defence, which reports on the activities of NATO, with fitting comments. In issue no 730, Europe Diplomacy & Defence published Anders Fogh Rasmussen's last public speech in his capacity as NATO secretary general. He underlined that NATO should now address challenges of an intensity and danger never seen in over two decades. This is a battle between tolerance and fanaticism, between democracy and totalitarianism, between open and closed societies. The instability and crisis are a threat to our populations and our territory. If Moscow does not present an immediate threat, other forces in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) are a threat for our democracy and risk exporting terrorists to our countries. Faced with this situation, NATO must be more robust and more able to act, and Rasmussen concluded: “We must not only develop the capabilities we need. We must also demonstrate the political will to use them when required.”
Crucial but difficult balance. The problem for Europe is striking a balance between the different demands, which are not reconcilable as such. The institutions must proceed to analyses and debates - which for the moment are pretty much non-existent. It should not be forgotten how far military spending spontaneously decreases when disagreements and conflicts are appeased.
A telling case. The Russian case is telling. The return to normal relations between the EU and Moscow would in itself include the end to ruinous wastage - the absurd cost of which has been amply underlined in this column (see EUROPE 11156 and 11159). Of course, it's not about giving good reason to Moscow with regard to these disputes, but about discussing and working out solutions and compromises, which is, moreover, very much under way with regard to Ukraine, although the costs and losses in the agricultural domain are increasing, as EUROPE has again just underscored (see EUROPE 11160).
The discussion which is to be opened within the EU institutions on the balance between economic recovery and military security will of course have to take account of these different aspects. (FR)