Macron’s New Vision for European Security

An independent Europe is good for Europe, good for India, and perhaps in the long run, good for the world

By Anil Madan

French President Emanuel Macron delivered on April 26 a lengthy speech at the Sorbonne in Paris, laying out his vision of Europe’s future. It was the second major speech he has given at the Sorbonne, the first in 2017. He outlined some major and decisive steps that Europe has taken and among these are taking responsibility for and protecting its external borders. He also asserted that Europe sees itself as a geographically coherent whole in the wake of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. This includes that Ukraine and Moldova “are part of our European family and are destined to join the Union when the time comes, as are the Western Balkans.”

Macron’s idea of a new Euro-centric world power responsible for its own economy, manufacturing, social fabric, and security is not new. He has articulated some of these ideas in the past and his words echo or find echoes in the words of other European leaders. But he has not articulated his vision for Europe in as comprehensive a fashion as before, and neither has he included in it, a notion that Europe must provide for its own nuclear security. In doing so, he suggested that Britain will be an indispensable part of the European nuclear umbrella, and he has drawn German Chancellor Olaf Scholz into the club, not as a nuclear power, but as an endorser of the idea of European security. 

As we look at a dysfunctional United Nations Security Council unable to reach agreement on solving problems around the world with vetoes coming from the US, China, and Russia, it is well to remember that Britain and France are also nuclear powers with Permanent Member status and veto rights. As one looks back at the time when the five major powers tried to form an exclusive nuclear club and propose non-proliferation for the rest of the world, it seems that Britain and France showed prescience in insisting that they be members of the nuclear club.

Who would have thought that a day would come when a US President would threaten to abandon Europe and NATO and not honour Article V of the NATO charter? Yet here we are.

During the presidential campaign in 2016, then candidate Donald Trump voiced his dissatisfaction with NATO, calling it “obsolete” and lamenting that it was costing the U.S. too much to protect Europe. He called on NATO’s European members to increase their defense spending, referring to this spending as “paying their bills.” Trump’s statements about NATO were disjointed and he even suggested that NATO’s focus should change from guarding against a Russian threat, to fighting terrorism. Trump acolytes who cheered his supposed “vision” now see the folly of his ways… and of their own failure to perceive the seriousness and reality of the Russian threat.

Trump’s outbursts and incoherence

As we know, Trump’s outbursts and incoherence led European leaders, particularly Macron, to rethink reliance on the US for security.

In January this year, European media outlets reported that at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2020, Trump said to the President of the European Union Ursula von der Leyen: “You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you.” Trump reportedly added: “By the way, Nato is dead, and we will leave, we will quit Nato.” It was jarring to hear a US President abandoning America’s alliance with and commitment to Europe in such stark terms.

The fact that Trump is once again the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party and may once again be the US President, reignited concerns about whether it is prudent for Europe to rely on America for its security in the event of a Russian attack. Belligerent comments by Putin and his proxies, which include threats of using tactical nuclear weapons, have heightened those concerns.

In February this year, at a political rally, Trump, while speaking to a crowd, said that he recalled that the leader of a “big country” had presented a hypothetical situation in which he was not meeting his financial obligations within NATO and had come under attack from Moscow. Trump said the leader had asked if the US would come to his country’s aid in that scenario. Trump, who was most likely fabricating the exchange, claims to have rebuked the unidentified leader: “I said: ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’… ‘No, I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.’”

Fabricated (most likely) or not, Jens Stoltenberg was quick to note: “Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk.” He added: “I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election the US will remain a strong and committed NATO ally,” and stressed that any attack on a NATO country would be “met with a united and forceful response.”

But even as Macron has declared Ukraine a part of the European family, back in the US, candidate Trump was pulling strings and manipulating the Republican-led House of Representatives to hold up American aid to Ukraine. Although the aid bill eventually got through, the delay of several months severely compromised Ukraine’s ability to counter Russian missile and drone attacks and to strike back at Russian targets. Ukrainian forces are depleted of ammunition and manpower.

In the face of these developments, Macron’s call for a different Euro-centric approach is neither surprising, nor as I have said new. EU states are ramping up defense spending and there is a decided shift in its focus from an alliance aimed at maintaining peace through economic and social advancement without emphasizing military capabilities to becoming more militarily self-reliant and self-sufficient. So, the EU countries have committed to more investment and cooperation in establishing defense capabilities, producing more weapons and more ammunition. Macron’s call to protect Europe’s external borders is a clear recognition that it must not rely on the US when it comes to defending against Russian aggression.

A nuclear umbrella for Europe

What is significant about Macron’s approach is his effort to embrace both the UK and Germany in his vision. The history of Europe through the end of World War II is one of wars between and among neighbours: Britain, France, Spain, Germany, and more. So, when Macron proposed that France would commit to a nuclear umbrella for Europe with about 300 nuclear weapons, he knew that he could not propose a French monopoly. It simply would not sit well with the rest of the EU members, and certainly not with Britain. Indeed, what about Britain? As another nuclear power and neighbouring nation, it remains a NATO member and a staunch ally of the US, despite its departure from the EU. Somehow, Macron had to bring the U.K. into the European fold and make it a part of his vision for a new European security regime.  

This is smart and well thought out by Macron. Europe’s security is Britain’s security. And it is not in the interest of either Britain or the EU to exclude each other from trade. In fact, Macron has declared Brexit a disaster. Whereas it is possible, indeed likely, that the Tories and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will no longer be in charge at Downing Street after the next election later this year, and that the Labour Party will look to reverse Brexit, the process could be arduous and fraught.

Britain’s concerns about unrestricted travel and European citizenship, and about what many Britons view as excessive oversight by Brussels and the European Court of Human Rights will not be easily resolved. But the imperative of a cohesive and coordinated addressing of Europe’s security concerns dwarfs the economic and social issues that unwinding Brexit’s effects present. And focus on those security concerns will underscore that economic cooperation between the EU and Britain will produce a win-win result.

Any credible nuclear umbrella for Europe would be enhanced by augmenting France’s nuclear deterrent with Britain’s arsenal. To the extent that German unease about nuclear armed France and Britain has been kept in check by the notion of an impartial nuclear overlord, the US, when the US is no longer part of the picture, would Germany be content with a subservient position? British participation with a German voice in the trifecta, is Macron’s answer. It may just work.

Of course, Macron’s vision must also include Europe’s economic revival. To a large extent, Europe faces many of the same problems that the US faces on the economic front vis-à-vis the emergence of China as the potentially dominant economic power of the future. Europe must restore its manufacturing base and the stability of its currency. And Europe must not be content to become a distant third player in the technology matrix of the future.

Here, a European alliance with India is not out of the question. That remains an unexplored dimension. Europe is in a weak position compared to the US and China when it comes to providing investment capital. But the natural Indian antipathy toward China and India’s resistance to America’s embrace even if it is nothing more than stubborn, provide an opening for Macron and Europe.

These are interesting times. Whether Macron’s vision will play out remains to be seen. But an independent Europe is good for Europe, good for India, and perhaps in the long run, good for the world.

Cheerz…
Bwana

---

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 10 May 2024