Political scientists Gerald and Francesca Knaus: The European Union cannot exist without NATO
In an interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Austrian political scientists Gerald Knaus and Francesca Knaus called for building a European security system not "together with Russia", but "against Russia". Arguing that the European Union would not survive without NATO, they declared the need for the actual unification of the two structures.
Michael Martens
A conversation with Gerald and Francesca Knaus about the future of Europe: was Angela Merkel short-sighted strategically? What can the EU learn from its founders?
Founded in 1999, the European Stability Initiative (ESI) analytical center, created by Gerald Knaus, an Austrian sociologist and migration expert, deals with fundamental issues of European politics. Knaus is also called the "architect" of the EU-Turkey refugee agreement. Now he and his daughter Francesca Knaus have written a book about the EU.: "What kind of Europe do we need? A political miracle and how to protect it from enemies."
— In your book about the history of the European Union and the threats it faces, you cite Angela Merkel as an example of the fact that a significant part of the German elite has not learned to think strategically. As an illustration, Merkel's refusal to supply weapons to Ukraine. Do Germans still need a training course on strategic thinking?
Gerald Knaus: Friedrich Merz and Boris Pistorius are saying quite clearly today that we have entered a new era in which Germany must be capable of defending and deterring opponents. This is a new concept. In May 2021, only Robert Habeck said that Ukraine was defending Europe and it should be supplied with, as he believed, "defensive weapons." For this, he was beaten from all sides and from his own party too. In this we see the intellectual defeat of an entire generation. With the exception of the Balts and Poles, most Europeans did not realize that the great hope of the Paris Charter of 1990, according to which European states would resolve conflicts only peacefully and would not threaten each other, had ceased to be realistic.
— You are quoting Merkel's New Year's address in 2015, where she stated that Germany and the EU strive for security in Europe together with Russia, not against it. You write that the need to realize that in the foreseeable future, security in Europe is possible only "against Russia" was the main "psychological barrier" for Berlin. Has this barrier been overcome?
Francesca Knaus: Fortunately, today the provision of military assistance to Ukraine in Germany and in Europe is supported by the majority. Most people understand that Ukraine protects both our values and our security. In 2022, the Finns and Swedes realized that Europe's success rests on three pillars or instruments: the European Union for the preservation of prosperity and democracy, the Strasbourg Court and the Council of Europe for the protection of human rights, and NATO for external deterrence. Learning how to ensure this deterrence without the participation of the United States is a difficult task of our time. We don't need an abstract discussion about some kind of "European army", we need a NATO deterrent force inside Europe itself. <...>
— The founders of post-war Europe also had double standards: [former French Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, one of the founders of the EU] Robert Schuman advocated reconciliation with Germany and human rights in Europe, but he also guaranteed impunity to the security forces for repression and torture in Algeria.
Francesca Knaus: This is both the drama and the tragedy of his biography. In Europe, Schumann relied on equality and respect for human rights, but in the French colonies he betrayed these principles. Europe owes a lot to the founders of the Fourth French Republic: they achieved reconciliation with Germany, created European institutions, participated in the creation of NATO, the Council of Europe and the Geneva Conventions. But these same founders almost destroyed their great achievements: by 1958, French democracy was on the verge of collapse due to the colonial wars. The principles of human rights that Paris proclaimed in Europe were trampled on in Algeria with monstrous cruelty, as before during the suppression of the uprising in Madagascar and the war in Indochina. The negotiations on the Treaty of Rome, which marked the beginning of the European Economic Community, were underway when one of the most brutal battles of that war was raging — the Battle for Algeria, with mass torture and executions of prisoners. From 1945 to 1962, France fought wars continuously and still lost its colonies.
— What does this mean for Europe today?
Francesca Knaus: This shows that smart politicians are not enough to conduct good politics, but the quality of ideas is also important. With his faithful idea of European integration, Schumann created a great legacy in Europe. But he and French politicians of his generation, clinging to the belief that colonialism could be prolonged by force, were defeated everywhere outside Europe. Like the Dutch, who lost the long war in Indonesia. Or the British — in Kenya, Malaya and Cyprus.
— You also argue with the claim that the EU is an "empire"...
Gerald Knaus: No one in Brussels — neither the European Commission nor the Council of Europe — can send police or military to any EU member state to enforce European law by force. The EU does not have a monopoly on violence. If the people choose a government that does not protect EU laws, as was the case in Poland before 2023, the union cannot act against this country the way an empire acts against a rebellious colony.
— Let's redefine the well-known formula: The EU exists on conditions that it cannot guarantee itself, and this is a huge risk.
Gerald Knaus: This is the basis of his success! If a country wants to leave the EU, then this is possible — unlike in colonial empires, where war would be necessary for this. When Viktor Orban argues with the EU and claims that it oppresses Hungary in the traditions of the Habsburg Monarchy or the Soviet Union, this is a lie. As soon as the majority of Hungarians want to leave the EU, Hungary will be able to leave. The EU relies on the willingness of States to voluntarily comply with jointly established law. Today, the EU has ten candidate countries. No one forces them to join. They want it themselves.
— You warn that the security of the EU is also threatened by some of its imaginary friends. As an example, you cite the manifesto of [German political scientist] Ulrike Gero and [Austrian writer and publicist] Robert Menasse, who says: since Europe, as a set of interests of nation-states, has been defeated, then for the sake of the "logical conclusion" of the EU idea, the interests of national governments must be overcome.
Gerald Knaus: I highly appreciate Robert Menasse as a defender of the European idea. But to claim that the European union is doomed to failure as long as the interests of national governments exist is a profound misconception. No one needs to "overcome" national interests. Ireland, Estonia, Finland or Greece did not join the EU to withdraw themselves.
Francesca Knaus: For Lithuania, membership in the EU and NATO was an attempt not to dissolve its own state, but rather to strengthen and protect it in a dangerous world. The discourse in which the achievements of the EU in recent decades are portrayed as a "betrayal of the European idea" plays into the hands of those who are opposed by both Menasse and us today: the enemies of the EU who want to destroy it.
— As an example of seemingly pro-European, but, in fact, anti-European rhetoric, you also mention the essay by journalist Heribert Prantl, "No matter what. You just have to love Europe," which says that the European Commission should be turned into a European government modeled on Switzerland or the United States.
Gerald Knaus: Modern Switzerland and the current United States arose from what European integration has always prevented: wars. Switzerland — from the Civil War of 1847, the USA — from the Civil War of 1861-1865. The American president can introduce the National Guard in any state. The EU does not have a national guard and never will. This is not a weakness, but a strength. The EU has neither martyrs who died "for it," nor generals who fought "for it." Yet he outlived all the violent European empires. The EU is often written off, but unlike the British, French, Dutch, and Soviet colonial empires, it still exists. For this to remain the case, the majority of citizens in all member states must be convinced that the EU is something great, and that its preservation is worth fighting with arguments.
Francesca Knaus: One of the tools for preserving the EU is the ability to tell the fascinating story of European integration in a way that makes it clear to everyone what a political miracle peace in Europe has been for many years. Jean Monnet, who invented and brought to life the first "European Coal and Steel Community," once said that for posterity, the birth of European institutions would appear as a bright adventure. But where is this adventure novel, what are the real life stories of those people who sat at the table in the first governing bodies in Luxembourg? One of them lost a leg in the Battle of El Alamein and fought for Mussolini, another for Hitler in the Wehrmacht, and the third supported the collaborationist Vichy regime. And the first general secretary of such a body, Max Konshtamm, survived a German concentration camp.
— Did their participation [in European integration] stem from their own biography?
Gerald Knaus: These people had a dramatic life filled with trauma. Dutch Konstamm, the son of a Jew, was arrested by the Germans in Amsterdam and survived the war only by a miracle. After 1950, he became Jean Monnet's closest associate and one of the key fighters for the creation of the "European Coal and Steel Community." He explained his life's work in the name of European integration by the experience of his generation, who learned what a divided Europe meant: "We learned what it meant: the law as the only barrier between us and chaos."
Francesca Knaus: Even today, all European democracies are interested in convincing the majority with real stories and clear arguments that if the EU breaks up, peace and prosperity will be at risk. People of my generation who vote for anti—European parties today have no idea that the rich, free and peaceful Europe they grew up in is not a given, but a human-created value. It's a miracle worth fighting for and arguing for.
