FLASH
Shkruar nga Paolo Mauri
The continent is facing a historic test. Without a new security architecture, it risks remaining fragmented and dependent on the great powers. The creation of a European Security Council could be a decisive step towards strategic autonomy and strengthening its global role.
The questioning of transatlantic ties by the new Trump administration in the US, as well as the continued and rapid deterioration of the international security landscape, should be the final alarm bell for the European Union.
This requires greater integration and a review of the EU's own fundamental system, which is overly tied down by bureaucratic constraints that hinder rapid action.
The challenge for Europe is epochal.
To emerge victorious means to remain a protagonist on an international stage where “giants” dictate the ways and timing of changes. These changes are occurring at an almost insane pace, disrupting the international order that had held the destinies of the world for decades.
The messages from Washington are crystal clear: alliances survive only if they serve the immediate American national interest; everything else is negotiable.
By openly questioning NATO's credibility, labeling it "ungrateful," questioning mutual defense commitments, threatening allies with tariffs, and broaching the idea of buying Greenland, the US's implicit message to Europe is that defense is no longer free and sovereignty is conditional.
On the other hand, a Russia increasingly focused on regaining its sphere of influence is watching the new American policy with caution and interest. It aims to catch crisis signals in order to intervene, to divide historical allies, to divide the European front and thus eliminate the Old Continent from the list of its economic and political threats.
If there were no longer a free trade area in Europe, if the European model were to fail and with it NATO as we know it today (i.e. if American security guarantees were missing), Moscow would have more opportunities to attract - in one way or another - the countries of the old Soviet space.
From this perspective, the White House has also revealed its cards. In the latest National Security Strategy, published in December of last year, it is clearly stated that the United States intends to support European sovereign movements with the aim of destroying that supranational entity (the EU), which risks becoming a global competitor, not only economically.
Washington has known this for a long time: if previously a European defense was viewed favorably for sharing the security burden and having additional support in American wars, now the opposition to this possibility is open.
There is a fear that the EU could become a political actor, not just an economic one. There have been many alarm bells, but they have not been properly understood by European leaders, with a few exceptions.
After the hasty US withdrawal from Afghanistan, French President Emmanuel Macron openly declared the need for strategic autonomy for Europe. The EU's response was to create a European defense core: an initial contingent to intervene if necessary.
NATO itself is changing. Exercise Steadfast Dart, launched in recent days, is the Alliance's largest exercise planned for this year that does not involve US forces.
In this general framework, Germany has revived an old idea for a more effective EU, to avoid the traditional process of consensus decision-making (unanimity), in order to accelerate cooperation in the field of defense and industrial competitiveness.
The idea is a "two-speed" European Union, where a bloc of six economically strongest countries (Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain and the Netherlands) decides the fate of the entire community.
However, this approach risks fracturing European cohesion by distancing members who want deeper integration but are not part of the “six.” But is there another solution?
Yes, and this is the creation of a European Security Council, where in addition to the 6 countries mentioned, another country of the Union, chosen through an annual rotation, would also participate.
Unlike the UN Security Council, the fundamental step would be the absence of a veto right and decision-making by majority vote. What about the European Parliament? Its task would be to ratify non-emergency decisions of the Security Council and to serve exclusively as an advisory body for the most urgent cases.
In this way, we could see the rationalization of military purchases, which the “ReArm Europe” plan aimed for, but which has not yet been fully realized. Perhaps we would see the emergence of regional centers within the EU for the production of the necessary capacities, the spread of a common network of technology companies with academic-industrial poles selected according to competencies, or the creation of an independent production chain for microchips. / Adapted from “Pamphlet” by “Inside Over”
Lini një Përgjigje