*** CHRISTIAN DEUBNER: Security and Defence Cooperation in the EU. A Matter of Utility and Choice. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft (3-5 Waldseestrasse, D-76530 Baden-Baden. Tel: (49-7221) 2104-0 – Fax: 2104-79 – Email: haeuser@nomos.de – Internet: http://www.nomos.de ). 2018, 271 pp, €54. ISBN 978-3-8487-4529-6
As member of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies’ scientific council, Christian Deubner published two reports in 2015-2016 on European cooperation on defence and security. Substantially revised and updated, these two reports are brought together in this book which very usefully examines the state and future prospects of a domain in which the EU28 has ‘shown a remarkable power of resisting integration initiatives within the EU frame.’ Why did this happen when that decade brought with it crises and threats in the EU's immediate environment – Ukraine, Crimea, the civil war in Syria, not to mention the destabilising factor of the election of Donald Trump – and even within the EU with a series of terrorist attacks on the one hand, and the pressure of refugees, not to mention the internal shock of Brexit on the other; ii) together, did all these elements drive European leaders to pay attention to the apparent support paid by most European citizens to the idea of common defence? It is to this fundamental political question that the author provides enlightening answers in two sections, focusing on the choices made in this connection by the member states rather than the various projects that the institutions and/or the supporters of ever greater European integration might fuel.
In the first part of the book, that author start with the threats to the EU that have emerged in recent years to the East, South and South-East of the continent in order to assess the EU's Common Foreign, Security and Defence Policies’ reaction to them. His answer is unambiguous – ‘a clear common preference’ to use them did not emerge. Why not? Because the Common Foreign and Security and Defence Policy has the disadvantage, in the mind of many national leaders, of ‘the availability and the superior utility value of the alternative cooperation frameworks’ of the United Nations and, above all, NATO, which ‘remains clearly and unequivocally the EU-member states' preferred cooperation framework for Europe's collective territorial defence and for an increasing number of out-of-area crisis-management missions.’ Moreover, comments Christian Deubner, even the overarching strategy unveiled in 2016 by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini enacted this preference, which he says stemmed from the ‘the stark and persisting differences’ in the member states’ responses to the security challenges facing them, and which prevent them from building effective common forces capable of leading military operations.
The second part of the book looks at the connections that exist between domestic and foreign security policies, which leads the author to analyse the operational links with countries of Africa and Asia from which flows of migrants originate or pass through. He points out how the member states are finding it difficult to adjust their internal structures to deal with this, which brings them to try as far as possible to restrict problems to outside the EU's borders. Will the desire to stem flows of migration push through a new cap on integration? Or would it risk on the contrary leading the more reluctant states to play their personal card? Once again, Christian Deubner’s answer is not tinged with rosy-tinted optimism. The way he sees it, the level of treat would even have to strongly increase and certain forms of alterative cooperation disappear or change in order for the EU’s security policies to reach a new level of integration. Which is not really something to be desired. However, isn’t this the direction that President Trump has been going down in recent days?
Michel Theys
*** L'Europe en formation. Revue d'études sur la construction européenne et le fédéralisme – Journal of Studies on European Integration and Federalism. Centre international de formation européenne (‘L’Adriatic,’ 81 rue de France, F-06000 Nice. Tel: (33-4) 93979397 – Fax: 93979398 – Email: europe.formation@cife.eu – Internet: http://www.cife.eu ). 2017, No. 382, 127 pp, €20. Subscription: €50.
This issue of the review founded by Alexandre Marc, the high priest of full-scale federalism, is of the moment because it is mostly devoted to the challenges that the election of Donald Trump has brought in its wake for the United States and Europe. Edited by Prof. Dimitrova (of the Paris School of Management of the Ecole supérieure des sciences commerciales of Angers), in this special report, experts and academics provide answers to various question raised since the arrival at the White House of a man who got himself elected using ‘nationalist, isolationist and anti-immigrant’ discourse, which he has since been busy applying in practice. Political scientist Eddy Fougier starts to analyse the results of the last US presidential election in order to understand the reasons for Donald Trump’s ‘surprise victory.’ Fougier, who lectures at Sciences Po Aix-en-Provence and Lille, examines here whether the victory meshes with a wave of populism in Europe, of which Brexit is a symbol, or whether it is simply a phenomenon linked with the specific nature of the US electoral system. One of his conclusions is that this victory emerged from the problem traditional government parties have in getting themselves heard by both the ‘winner and losers of economic and technical elections in recent decades, and therefore graduates and non-graduates.’ Anna Dimitrova asks whether a ‘Trump doctrine’ exists for foreign policy and argues that the doctrine of the current occupant of the White House will mark a degree of return to a ‘Jacksonian America,’ that of President Andrew Jackson from 1829 to 1837. The current situation and future prospects for transatlantic relations see two authors focus on the risks that President Trump represents for Europe, and also in what way Europe is responsible for the current deterioration in relations with Washington, also looking at the initiatives Europeans should take to ‘improve the situation for the transatlantic alliance’ while there’s still time.’ Finally, two other contributions look specifically at relations between the United States and China.
(MT)
*** THIERRY DE MONTBRIAL: Vivre le temps des troubles. Editions Albin Michel (22 rue Huyghens, F-75680 Paris cedex 14. Tel: (33-1) 49791000 – Internet: http://www.albin-michel.fr ). 2017, 170 pp, €15. ISBN 978-2-226-39801-7.
This essay by French economist and geo-politician Thierry de Montbrial is described as ‘a contribution to better understanding of our epoch,’ which is a ‘time of troubles’ that worry our contemporaries because ‘the fascinating developments in knowledge of the twentieth century have led to a brutal loss of all traditional landmarks.’ Member of the Académie des sciences morales et politiques of the Institut de France, the author conceives of ‘the present as the intersection of a future that is already here and a past that is still here,’ namely ‘two sorts of tectonic plates’ which, for the moment, do not get on so very well together. Initially, he discourses in an erudite manner on various phenomena that the says already bear witness of the ‘presence of the future,’ be it the geological Anthropocene period with climate disturbances and their consequences, of energy which is the ‘natural agent of change,’ the implications of the rising power of the information society and artificial intelligence, of the civilisation that is being born with digital, ‘emotions that take precedence over reason’ in national and international political life... Once the décor of a plausible future has been set and, in the process, the notion of progress has been questioned, the man who founded the Institut français des relations internationales looks at the ‘imprint of the past,’ his reflections leading him to point out that ‘it is religion that occupies the forefront of geopolitics’ while science and technology have never before been so triumphant, but it is an undeniable lesson of History that there is ‘certainty of a great danger when governments fan the flames of people’s passions.’ He invites readers to ‘never lose sight of the fact that barbarism is potentially never far removed, even from the most highly evolved peoples’ and stresses the fragility in the long-run of institutions which, like ‘the Commission system,’ are ‘instruments of progress, at least temporarily.’ He also points out how ‘societies do not mature at the same speed,’ which naturally leads him to take interest in the return of religions when it comes to managing the world. In the third part of the book, he analyses ‘the shock of the present’ by observing by way of preliminaries that ‘the protectionist temptation’ is now the greatest danger and, moreover, that the relationship (by which he means balanced relationship) between the economy and politics is fundamental because a major lesson to be drawn from the period between the two world wars is that ‘fascists fed on depression,’ which is a way of slipping in that the existential crisis born in 2008 could have similar consequences. To protect against this, he calls for a world government to be constructed to build on the best of human genius and the diversity of cultures and civilisations. To this end, he examines and comments on various aspects of recent developments on the international scene, from six complementary viewpoints: the primacy of the United States, the emergence of China and Asia more generally, tricky world economic governance, the failed exit from the Cold War, the structure of the international system and ‘the crisis of the European construction.’ In terms of the European construction, however, he sees (only a slight victim of its incessant enlargements) a ‘laboratory for drawing up a new type of political unity,’ which brings him to hope that this construction ‘is recognized one day as a decisive aspect of the march towards geopolitical unity extended to the whole planet.’ Which would be a way of sanctifying the vision of the federalists who thought that the first steps made in Europe could and should lead on to a global federation.
(MT)
*** GEORGIOS DOUDOUMIS: Les Balkans dans l'ombre d'hier. Editions Anastatikes (35 rue Asklipiou, GR-10680 Athens. Tel: (30-210) 3620465 – Fax: 3620465 – Email: karaviareprints@ath.forthnet.gr – Internet: http://www.rarebooks.com.gr ). 2018, 160 pp, €8.50. ISBN 978-960-258-134-6.
An economist and diplomat with long practical knowledge of the Balkans who is now an economic analyst for the Greek foreign ministry, the author of this book defends the idea of setting up a Balkans Cooperation Council to allow questions to be dealt with such as debt, productive investment, energy efficiency, a ban on using the region as a battlefield for other interests (for example in a war against Russia directed by the United States). Such an inter-Balkan body would also make it possible to promote cooperation among countries in the region and, therefore, to consolidate peace in the region while speeding up the development of each country and thus also of the Balkans as a whole. This would also facilitate a convergence of foreign policies, which would at least be necessary against the backdrop of the current refugee crisis and also, more generally, to try to reconcile the migration problem with the demographic problem experienced by the region. However, warns Georgios Doudoumis, it’s no good hoping for success without the region’s leaders agreeing to give these prospects for the Balkans the principle of ‘one for all and all for one,’ while taking pains to absolutely avoid any one of them reaping the benefits for his or her own country and own personal power.
(AKa)
*** ALEXANDROS MALLIAS (Ed.): Grèce et Albanie: départ vers l’avenir ou retour au passé? Editions Sideris (116 rue Solonos, Gr-10681 Athens. Tel: (30-210) 3833434 –Fax: 3832294 – Emaill: contact@isideris.gr). 2017, 296 pp, €15. ISBN 978-960-08-0781-3.
This book brings together three former Greek ministers (Giannakou, Pangalos and Papadopoulos), three university professors and two journalists, headed by Alexandros Mallias, a diplomat who used to be Greece’s ambassador to Albania. All of them believe in the crucial aspect of relations between Greece and Albania and in their respective careers, have worked in this connection, for which they have been recognized for their deep knowledge of the new and historical problems weighing on bilateral relations between Greece and Albania. Also, they have all taken action to ensure solutions were found or at least a framework for a solution was developed. With in-depth knowledge of Albania ‘on the ground’ for decades, some of them have maintained their contacts with the country until the present day - close, operational contacts. It is gifted with this knowledge and resources that they have been constantly pleading for a strengthening and development of bilateral relations with Albania. In these pages, they do not hide critical reflections, fears and even the anger generated in them by the adventurist policies entertained by the Tirana political establishment towards Greece and the Greek minority in Albania. The most important thing, however, as far as the authors are concerned, is to come up with solutions, which they proceed to do. The reader will, however, understand from the writers that Albania is no longer the unknown country that it was at the start of the 1990s and its relations with Greece have now reached the stage of a hard core of issues that will take time to be eliminated.
(AKa)