The diplomatic-military developments in the Ukraine conflict are accelerating once again. It is essential to exercise caution before analyzing a situation that is more volatile than ever. One thing is certain, however: the European Union will be left out of the game – and that is good for peace.
Their leaders may be desperately trying, but they were not invited to the important meetings. And it seems they are doomed to the attitude they most feared: that of the audience.
To avoid this disappointment, they are crafting a plan called “Europe’s Resurgence.” The European Council confirmed on March 6 the principle of a plan with this title, proposed by the European Commission two days earlier, worth 800 billion euros. Some capitals even think that this astronomical figure is not enough. In contrast, the Dutch parliament spoke out against the plan on March 12, as three of the four parties in the government reject the principle of joint debt.
“Europe’s Resurgence” and not “Europe’s Rise.” The expression has the advantage of reminding us of the origins of the “European Rebuilding”: the unification of Europe (then Western Europe) emerged from and in the Cold War.
In 1949, the Atlantic Alliance was founded under the patronage of the United States, a year later followed by the establishment of its militarily integrated instrument, NATO. In 1950, the “Schuman Declaration” was announced, marking the symbolic beginning of the European integration process, from which the Treaty of Rome emerged in 1957, forming the basis for the European Economic Community (EEC). Already in 1954, there was the first attempt at a military Europe: the European Defence Community (EDC). This was vetoed in the last minute by the French parliament, where communist and Gaullist deputies united their votes against this US-inspired project.
However, their supporters never gave up. The EEC (later the EU) and NATO developed like twin sisters, with the second, of course, holding the leadership role in Washington. The DNA of both institutions was the same, the successive “expansions” ran parallel and they often exchanged leadership personnel. One of the most notable examples was Javier Solana, who was the Secretary-General of NATO (1995-1999, during the Yugoslav Wars and NATO airstrikes) and then the High Representative of the EU (1999-2009) for foreign and defense policy.
It can also be remembered that the successive European treaties explicitly name the NATO as a privileged partner. And that a clause in the Lisbon Treaty, which regulates the current EU, foresees an automatic military engagement of the member states if one of them is attacked – a clause that is even more binding than its counterpart for the Atlantic Alliance.
In short, the EU was never a “peaceful and benevolent union” as its propagandists often praised and whose loss some well-meaning citizens lament. The current military commotion in Brussels is not a departure from a grand project, but the faithful continuation of the political Europe since its foundation.
And one can thank Donald Trump for unwittingly providing interesting confessions in this regard. In one of his provocative statements, the US President, to justify his policy of tariffs on European goods, expressed the view that the EU was founded to “betray” the United States.
Outraged, pro-European politicians and major media outlets cried out in response, rightly recalling that European integration emerged on the initiative and under the patronage of Washington, to secure markets for the US and to contain communism.