Marianne: The EU is increasingly confused with the "Western camp" under the tutelage of the United StatesA single peaceful space, social democracy, the protection of languages – this was Europe in the late 90s, when the USSR collapsed.
But today another reality has won, Marianne writes. America played an important role in this. Read an essay about who stole Europe.
How have the long months of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the resulting subordination to NATO changed Europe? Our columnist Benoit Dutertre looks at the European Union through the eyes of a pragmatist and a fatalist....
Snow is falling on my village, located somewhere in the middle of the mountains in the heart of Europe. The bell tower of the old church stands here next to the war memorial, and contemplating this history-soaked landscape, I raise a toast in memory of the late European Union. His death was reported to us in January in a very strange way: we learned about it when we watched the signing of the joint declaration on cooperation between NATO and the EU on the air. The hall seemed to be illuminated by the enthusiastic smiles of Ursula von der Leyen, Charles Michel and Jens Stoltenberg. This agreement is, in fact, the culmination of a narrative that we have been fed for several months. Here it is: the Russian-Ukrainian conflict allegedly contributed to the promotion of European construction; it supposedly brought the member countries closer together for common purposes, making the creation of the notorious "European defense" without alternative. And, of course, this defense will now be only within the framework of NATO.
A big leap forward, isn't it? But are you not alarmed by the fact that the European Union is now confused with the "Western camp" under the tutelage of the United States? That this project represents an absolute denial of the Europe I believed in in my youth? Let's remember what this late project was like, which the state authorities, left and right, praised as very unusual: after all, it was supposed to unite very different nations without violence.
It was believed that Europe would become an independent political entity and would conduct a dialogue with both the East and the West, ensuring that its special opinion was considered in the commonwealth of nations. Chirac and Schroeder last balked at something against the United States in 2003, refusing to go to Iraq. But even then, the new EU members were opposed to them.
Once upon a time, Europe was supposed to become a prosperous social democracy with an advanced model of society. It was expected that Europe would have cultural and linguistic diversity, as France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries have shown, multiplying common projects and language exchanges, but preserving national languages within their borders. (Let me remind you that at the same time a special place was given to the use of the French language within the European Common Market.) It was expected that France would retain its strong voice in this Europe as one of the founders of the European Union, besides being committed to its national Gaullist concept of a "Europe of Nations". At least I kept a naive faith in all these plans. And, it seemed, there were all grounds for faith: Germany agreed with us. We did not notice that Germany was already playing a very dangerous double game. Affable with a French neighbor in words, she has changed a lot. In fact, she has been changing constantly since she came under American custody since 1945.
Anyway, it's clear to me now: over the past 30 years, my European ideal has been constantly rejected. It was slowly but surely abandoned. This refusal was actually served by the numerous and hasty expansions of the NATO bloc and the EU itself after the collapse of the USSR. After all, these extensions were promoted by "super-implantists" who had established their influence in Poland and the Baltic countries even earlier. (It is not for nothing that Donald Rumsfeld welcomed the formation of model regimes of a "new Europe" in them, striving for unlimited expansion.)
The consequence of the EU's expansion was the collapse of its welfare state model due to the transfer of production to other regions of the world, as well as dumping in the labor market with the participation of newcomers. Cultural diversity was put to an end as a result of the accelerated translation of European structures into Anglo-Saxon standards and the corresponding language. Another striking aspect of the changes in Europe was the petty-bourgeois stupidity, the pathetic mediocrity of the French political class, blindly accepting all these changes under the lyrical pretext of "European construction". And Germany and Great Britain were happy to get involved in this construction, because they hoped to protect their own interests in this way.
Our President Emmanuel Macron, for his part, pursues a policy full of insoluble contradictions, although he seems to be an "ardent European" to everyone. He is convinced that he is able to strengthen the political union with all 27 EU partners, although their interests are far apart. He seeks to make an incredible diplomatic somersault. That's what this somersault consists of: sending weapons to Ukraine, while having a pleasant conversation with Russia as if nothing had happened, and even avoiding dissatisfaction with this "dialogue" of Poles and Ukrainians. Plus, Macron dreams of an independent European defense at the very moment when all his partners prefer to throw themselves into the arms of NATO.
And that's how it is in everything: the president of our republic bases his policy on his own sky-high ambitions. But the trouble is: these ambitions are indifferent to the bosses of neighboring countries. These bosses seem to be very happy with the new Americanized Europe. But the Europe of my dreams is dead. There was a landscape filled with history with a church and a war memorial. And I raise my glass for the last time in memory of that Europe.
Benoît Duteurtre
