The EU's €800 billion plan to increase defence spending under consideration by the European Council this weekend is a sign of the times. Undesirable in principle, but inevitable in view of the prevailing circumstances. It is obviously the result of warmongering and the increasing militarism which has been going on for some time in the EU. It is a response to the Trump doctrine: that Europe must be capable of defending itself, as the priorities of the United States of America have now shifted elsewhere.
Contrary to what has been stated by some EU leaders, the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has nothing to do with European values. It is a Russian aggressive reaction to NATO's eastward expansion, right up to Russia's borders. In effect it is the direct result of a NATO miscalculation. It was a predictable reaction which the Pentagon strategists opted to ignore.
Give peace a chance. The Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in the early 1990s, as a direct result of the unification of Germany and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Following the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact there was an initial international understanding that NATO would not expand eastwards. This understanding was a pragmatic recognition of the need to send a clear signal to Russia that there were no plans threatening its security. It was also a reply and a reaction to those who then maintained that NATO should follow the Warsaw Pact into dissolution.
All this changed during the Presidency of Bill Clinton who, as advised by his National Security Advisor , gave the green light for NATO's expansion. Today's problems between Ukraine and Russia are a direct result of this policy direction.
Donald Trump's and Marco Rubio's dilemma is that there are no easy solutions to this problem created by previous US administrations. Ukraine, justifiably wants its territory back. Russia on the other hand wants a buffer zone shielding it from NATO.
In this context one has to understand the preoccupation of the Baltic and Eastern European states. Their populations are terrified that they could be next after Ukraine.
Warmongering will however not solve anything. Increasing spending on armaments will not lead to peace. Peace is much more than the absence of war. Giving peace a chance around the negotiating table may, however, in the long-term lead to long lasting solutions. It is not easy to negotiate peace with Russia. It is however essential, notwithstanding its being considered as near to impossible at this present point.
The defense policy of the European Union was a subject focused on during the last EU Parliament electoral campaign. This was understandable as it coincided with the continuing Russian invasion of Ukraine and the preoccupation of the Baltic and Eastern European states
Defense is however not a competence of the European Union. This was a clear intention of the founding fathers of the EU, even though over the years, many attempts have been made to follow a different path. Attempts which, so far, have been unsuccessful. Defence spending and defence policy is not a competence of the European Union and should remain so.
Notwithstanding, it would be appropriate to remember that Manfred Weber, the Bavarian leader of the European People's Party (EPP), has spoken at length on what he considers as a need to have an EU investment in nuclear deterrence. France already has 300 nuclear warheads!
This is what peace on the European mainland is up against.
Within this context Malta's position within the EU involves considerable tightrope walking. However, as an EU member state which is constitutionally neutral by choice, one expects Malta's leaders to actively oppose militarism and warmongering within the European Union.
The fact that the EU member states are predominantly also members of NATO does not make matters any easier for the Prime Minister. As a result, notwithstanding his declarations about peace, Robert Abela ended up endorsing the €800 billion increased defence spending plan. It would be thus more than appropriate if, for a change, Parliament had discussed these issues before the European Council meeting. He would have the opportunity to explain as to why he intended to and eventually voted in favour of the von der Leyen defence plan, notwithstanding being in principle opposed to it.
Parliament rarely if ever discusses defence and security issues. The last time the matter was on the agenda, Parliament ended up using just 69 seconds of its time to approve associate membership in NATO's Parliamentary Assembly in breach of Malta's constitutional neutrality.
We definitely deserve much better.
An architect and civil engineer, the author is a former Chairperson of ADPD-The Green Party in Malta. [email protected] , http://carmelcacopardo.wordpress.com