Comments 5

Intégrer dès à présent la défense européenne

Sep 20, 2016 Javier Solana

MADRID – Lors du récent sommet de l’Union européenne à Bratislava, le premier sans la présence des Britanniques, plusieurs propositions ont été faites pour améliorer la sécurité européenne. Quoi qu’en disent certains, les discussions sur la consolidation de la sécurité européenne sont non seulement bienvenues mais nécessaires : après une période de paralysie et de doutes quant au projet européen, l’UE doit résoudre ses problèmes de sécurité et lancer des initiatives unificatrices.

Les citoyens européens considèrent de plus en plus la sécurité comme une question prioritaire et veulent voir l’UE faire la preuve de ses capacités. Les amis et alliés de l’Union attendent eux aussi un renforcement de sa sécurité.

La sécurité à l’intérieur des frontières de l’Union nécessite une plus grande stabilité à l’extérieur. Les événements récents le montrent clairement : la crise des réfugiés qui tourmente l’UE, par exemple, serait beaucoup plus simple à surmonter si la situation en Syrie était différente.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles from our archive every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

The New Disappeared

Oct 12, 2018 Nina L. Khrushcheva
The New and Not Improved NAFTA

Oct 9, 2018 Jeffrey Frankel
The Big Blockchain Lie

Oct 15, 2018 Nouriel Roubini
Does Modi Have a Pakistan Policy?

Oct 10, 2018 Shashi Tharoor
America’s Ongoing Civil War

Oct 16, 2018 Jeffrey D. Sachs

Javier Solana

Writing for PS since 2004
96 Commentaries

Javier Solana was EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary-General of NATO, and Foreign Minister of Spain. He is currently President of the ESADE Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics, Distinguished Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Europe.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 in all 8 Comments on this article

M M Sep 25, 2016

During these austere times under these cruel austerity policies, whoever wants to increase spending, especially on defunct armouries or military apparatus, can do so out of his / her own personal pockets.
- M M Sep 26, 2016
  
  JBS, I am very thankful for your kind comment and for your positive contribution to this and other debates on PS. Excellent quote from “Ike”, the world today is in bad need for good leaders and for genuine people like “Ike”, the question is where to find them? One cannot but to have the greatest respect for Javier’s vision for the EU project, for his public service and above all for his integrity and honesty. Reforms, progress, innovation, security, defence, migration, etc. they all come at a huge financial price. One cannot ask the population of the EU and elsewhere to tighten further their belts, put less food on the table, give shelter and pay for refugees and in some ways strangers to one’s culture and environment, walk or cycle to work instead of utilising public transport, pay more in taxes (direct and indirect), be subjected to endless years (nearly a decade now and possibly more to come) of austerity measures / policies and yet for the current EU leadership to have the audacity to ask of those same EU citizens to contribute more financially into a scheme that shall be counterproductive, provocative (to say the least), shall achieve nothing, and adds no value whatsoever to the daily life of the millions of EU citizens, many of whom had themselves to migrate and to leave their homelands in order to survive and here I am talking about EU citizens, like the Poles (who migrated to Germany and Britain, etc.), the Greeks who migrated to Germany, Britain and elsewhere, and so on. The EU (and the US for this matter) needs today more than ever, caring, understanding, knowledgeable, responsible, courageous and decisive leaders, but these are regrettably very much in short if no supply. If such a scheme, as proposed by Javier and others in the EU Institutions, is to go ahead, it must be self-funded by the same corporations that shall gain or benefit the most from it, and these being the arms / defence manufacturers and their associates. The EU citizens MUST pay nothing. JBS, it is always a pleasure exchanging views with you, wishing you the very best, MM.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- John Brian Shannon Sep 26, 2016
  
  Hi M M,
  
  In support of your words, I offer the words of President Ike Eisenhower...
  
  "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
  
  This world in arms in not spending money alone.
  
  It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
  
  The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
  
  It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
  
  It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
  
  It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
  
  We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
  
  We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
  
  This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
  
  This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower / Cross of Iron Speech 1953
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Sep 24, 2016

Javier Solana urges Europe not to lose sight of the security issue, despite political "paralysis and self-doubt for the European project," saying the EU must tackle "its security problems and propose unifying initiatives." He is suggesting that EU leaders could still agree on this issue even though they all have their national agenda relating other policies. Indeed, security has become "a high-priority issue," but it's doubtful if Europeans "want the EU to show greater leadership." They still rely on national leaders and military forces to "defend against external threats," but Solana says "it is no longer sufficient," and suggests the civil society to play a part.
It is obvious that Europe feels the spillover effects of violence and economic meltdown in its backyard - the Middle East and North Africa, and the "refugee crisis bedeviling the EU" will only be alleviated if a modicum of peace and stability be restored in the war-torn Syria. Many of the terrorist attacks are linked to ISIS et al, and in a sense "security at home and abroad are so interrelated." Critics say EU member states need to enhance intelligence cooperation, because the attacks on Paris and Brussels were seen as a result of intelligence failure.
The author is beating the drum for defence spending, which would involve a resource pooling of military forces and "civil capabilities (police agencies, intelligence units, the courts, and even non-governmental organizations)," to deal with "today’s threats and conflicts." Yet how feasible is it to have "the capacity for a fused civil-military response to crisis /to/ become integral to EU policy and that of its member states?"
Even though earlier efforts had been taken to "combine military and civilian capabilities," and "many measures along these lines" hadn't been "implemented in accordance with the EU’s Treaty of Lisbon. due to the 2008 economic crisis, there may still be no appetite to revive the project and improve its "efficacy," because growth in most EU countries is still fragile.
Despite "division between the domestic and external capacities of EU member states," many ordinary citizens feel that their economic interests - jobs, income, wellfare etc. - should take priority.
The author believes "an EU with security and defense as one of its pillars would boost Europe’s global weight," and a "deeper defense intergration" would not overlap with NATO and weaken the Alliance. On the contrary NATO would welcome "Europe’s ability to provide an effective collective response in a crisis." Still, many ordinary citizens will question this proposal and ask what will happen to their own national armies?
After Brexit, the EU will lose a member with Europe's most powerful military. Even though Britain will still be part of NATO, it will oppose a EU army - a common military force. Meanwhile France and Germany have jointly proposed a “more active and more useful” European defence policy. However the two countries are preoccupied with next year's general elections, the outcome of which will indicate which direction the EU is headed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Sep 22, 2016

If this were a good idea, then the timing is wrong.
We now want more results from the EU instead of another big idea.
Yes people would like more security.
But I do not read any specific goals that are to be achieved.
Would it not be better if all member states are going to meet the NATO targets on Defense spending ?
- Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Sep 23, 2016
  
  @Henk Crop
  +1
  Right on all counts.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Lintner Sep 21, 2016

The high mark of european integration is over, what EU now must focus to is european disintegration. Europeans dont want to live in European federalized superstate. Anytime europeans get a chance to vote on federalisation (EU constitution referendums, Brexit etc) they reject it. It´s a high time our "leaders" finaly get the message and start acting accordingly.

The author seem to me like another deluded elitist detached from reality. We dont need your utopian dreams, thank you very much.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Sep 20, 2016

Hi Javier,

Of all the people on the planet, I'm one of the most ardent supporters of the European project -- yet, that doesn't mean we must pretend that everything is perfect, and that we must never criticize failing EU models. Rather, we must give credit where credit is due, while still turning our attention to those matters that need resolving.

The EU will never be perfect, nor do they need to be. All they need to do is to reflect the needs, wants, and aspirations of their respective peoples. This statement applies to all nations not only the EU.

The EU is a relatively new entity and it must move with the times.

In times of Democratic Deficit, they will lose member nations. That is to be expected, not feared, not glossed-0ver, and is no reason for anger. The fault for countries leaving begins at the Democratic Deficit, blaming the symptom instead of the cause is a falsehood. No improvement will come from playing the blame-game.

Yet, even though the EU will occasionally lose a member-state, many more states will aspire to EU membership.

I'm talking about all of the eastern European nations and all of the north African nations. (Oil, dates, grain, cheap labour for the EU -- and for those potential EU members, real opportunity to belong to a developed-nation bloc)

1. By far the most important EU goal, must be to reinstate the Schengen border controls and re-energize them with purpose and funds. If anyone can simply *walk into the EU* then it isn't a real country, it's a theory about a country. Revitalizing Schengen must the the EU's highest priority, if it wants to survive as a real entity and not merely a theoretical construct.

2. Migrants who break any law must be returned to their home country within hours of being found guilty of their crime. If that takes a free airline ticket and armed escort onto the plane, so be it.

3. Migrants that integrate well should be offered citizenship after 2 years.

4. Migrants that don't integrate well should be sent back to their home country after 4 years. Again, if that takes a free airline ticket and armed escort onto the plane, remember, that's what it will take to create a unified bloc.

5. Migrants must make a decision on what country they want to reside in, and be assisted to stay in that country, instead of becoming permanent transients in Europe. That paradigm is not conducive to peace, order, and good government. To say nothing of allowing citizens to feel safe in their own cities/communities.

6. Creating an EU Army now, is very premature. We don't even know if Italy is going to stay within the EU, and other countries are at the crossroads trying to make a decision on continued membership, waiting for the Democratic Deficit to be fixed (or not) and waiting to see if Schengen is reinstated (or not) All of these things and more, are of far more importance than trying to create a harmonious EU Army, out of a decidedly un-harmonious political situation. It is the 21st-century's best case yet, of putting the cart before the horse. Yes, eventually, it must be done -- assuming the EU doesn't collapse in on itself, first.

7. Nations that decide to transfer out of the EU via democratic referenda should find an EU body full of cooperation to help them on their way -- likewise, a smooth transition for nations wishing to join the EU. The EU is either the great statesman among the nations, or it's a scrappy kid from Napoli, it can't be both at the same time.

8. NATO membership should be restricted to ONLY those nations north of the equator, that front the Atlantic Ocean. The other European nations should join the EU Army, once it's created. Let's work on the same timescale to attain those two goals.

Rushing to create a military, when the EU can't even control it's borders is lunacy. Rushing to create a military when it isn't even certain that Italy and other countries will remain as EU members is premature.

I enjoyed reading your fine essay, Javier.

As always, very best regards, JBS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/gudQrJj/fr;

Intégrer dès à présent la défense européenne

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

The New Disappeared

The New and Not Improved NAFTA

The Big Blockchain Lie

Does Modi Have a Pakistan Policy?

America’s Ongoing Civil War

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

The Case Against National AI Strategies

America’s Ongoing Civil War

PS. Explain This: The Animal Spirits of Women Entrepreneurs

The Brexit Endgame

Just Say No to Agricultural Gene Drives

The US-Saudi Relationship After Khashoggi

An AI Wake-Up Call From Ancient Greece

The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register