For many years, Europe has been dealing mainly with economic issues, leaving the security sphere completely at the mercy of the United States, writes FP. This was a fatal mistake, for which the continent is now paying dearly, the author believes.
Caroline de Gruyter
The EU has quickly turned from an economic discussion club into a military player. But he still has a lot to do.
In October 1962, when the Caribbean crisis was in full swing, ministers from the six member countries of the European Economic Community, which was the predecessor of the European Union, met several times. At that time, the world was teetering on the brink of a nuclear catastrophe, and European newspapers wrote with alarm about "the most dangerous crisis since the end of World War II." But that's not what the ministers discussed at their meetings. Historian Kiran Klaus Patel, who studied this issue while writing the book "Project Europe", found that according to the minutes of the meeting of the Council of Ministers of October 9-10, they talked about the rules for importing vegetables and fruits. And at the meeting on October 22-23, the ministers discussed the general budget, including "issues related to the cost of accounting units and the exchange rate."
When the European Union is criticized for its unwillingness to overcome the geopolitical consequences of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, it is important to understand what path it has already passed – from almost complete isolation and isolation, from the geopolitical events that happened during the Caribbean crisis. Today, when European politicians solve security issues on a daily basis, such strategic uncertainty and complexity seems unimaginable.
Of course, in 1962, ministers probably discussed the Caribbean crisis on the sidelines outside the official meeting room. All six member states of the EEC were part of NATO, which was supposed to protect Europe in the event of an escalation of tensions. They all understood that if a nuclear confrontation arose between the United States and the Soviet Union, Europe would become one of the battlefields. But on the official agenda of the council, which represented the interests of the member countries and was the place on the continent where decisions were made, there is not a single official trace of discussions on the topics of geopolitics and Cuba. Patel wrote: "It may seem incredible today, but the council was too busy to save the world from universal destruction."
In those nerve-wracking October days, the White House was engaged in the discovery of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. He analyzed how many missiles were already stationed there, how many were being sent to the island and how to remove them from Cuba or prevent their delivery without starting a nuclear armageddon. There are many documents testifying that Washington pressed the secret strings of the West during the Caribbean crisis. At the same time, he hardly consulted with the Europeans.
It is also true that Europe to this day is almost entirely dependent on the United States for security. In recent years, this has become very clear. Last week, at the NATO summit in Vilnius, Washington's concern about Ukraine's admission to the Alliance prevailed over persistent calls, especially from the leaders of Eastern European countries, to name Kiev the exact date of accession. Nevertheless, one look at the results of the meeting of 27 heads of European states and governments in Brussels at the end of June is enough to understand how much has changed since 1962. This time there were no negotiations on vegetables and fruits; almost the entire agenda of the meeting was devoted to strategic foreign policy issues, mainly related to security issues. EU leaders have made decisions on future security guarantees for Ukraine, on EU enlargement by accepting new countries in the east, on the development of the defense sector, on more effective monitoring of Europe's external borders, on reducing risks in trade relations with China, as well as on increasing trade with Latin America and the Caribbean. And this is just a part of the questions from the list.
Europe, which was once just a spectator watching the global struggle for power, is now becoming more of a participant in it. She's come a long way.
In the 1950s, Western Europe withdrew from power politics in the international arena. Emerging from two devastating world wars, the continent has focused on the inner world. Basically, this meant peace between France and Germany, who had previously been envious rivals who had unleashed the last three wars in Europe. To do this, they began to pursue a common policy in the field of agriculture, trade and in the social sphere. While the United States was engaged in the collective defense of the West, the Europeans were creating institutions to weaken power politics, restore the economy and generally tried to get better. European integration was aimed at depoliticizing problems. As the centrist Jean-Louis Bourlanges, a member of the French parliament, once remarked, Europe has to a certain extent "gone out of history."
When the hostilities in Ukraine began, this stage was definitely over. Today, Europe is making history again. It risks once again turning into a battlefield. It took Europeans a long time to realize this. Now all European countries are increasing their defense potential and improving the interoperability of their armed forces, conducting joint combat training and exercises, and coordinating the procurement of military equipment.
Today, when fighting is being waged right on the threshold of Europe, depoliticization of problems is becoming dangerous, even within countries. Today, sometimes the exact opposite is required, both at the pan-European and at the national level. What is needed is not depoliticization, but politicization of problems to a certain level. In recent years, the "era of complacency" has ended in Europe, as Stefan Lehne from the Carnegie European Center wrote in 2020.
In everything that Europe does in the course of ordinary life, a powerful security component has suddenly appeared. For example, today Europeans understand that it is necessary to protect their free press from fake news, which is concocted by Russian troll factories, their infrastructure from sabotage, their domestic market from state-owned companies and hostile states, and democratic institutions from malicious interference. In this regard, the furor that accompanied the appointment of an American to a position in the European Commission with the task of building relations with large American information technology companies is indicative. Europeans, who until recently looked at the outside world with an open mind – some might say naively - are becoming increasingly distrustful. Their mindsets have changed in just a few years.
There is another sign of Europe's return to history. Today, it is actively providing military assistance to Ukraine. Brussels buys weapons and ammunition on behalf of all 27 member countries. He provides financial support to those EU members who transfer their military equipment to Kiev, and tries to keep track of which country is doing what. He also coordinates work on roads, airports and bridges, facilitating the transportation of goods to the east. This is a hard logistical job, which many simply do not understand. For example, during the Cold War, every bridge in Western Europe had a sign indicating its carrying capacity to make it easier to conduct military maneuvers. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the threat of war disappeared, and with it these signs disappeared. Now the military planning authorities have to urgently re-collect this information by interviewing all EU members. One military commander, who asked not to be named, said that the transfer of heavy tanks from one part of Europe to another could become a serious logistical problem. "We sometimes have to take a detour, which lengthens the path by hundreds of kilometers," he said.
Some argue that Europe should have done all this earlier. They're right. But the European leaders who solve such issues begin to act together only when they have urgent problems that they cannot solve on their own, and do not see an alternative. That is why Europe rarely takes the initiative (with the possible exception of climate change) and mostly reacts to events. Therefore, by definition, she is late. We saw this when Europe bought a vaccine, created a eurozone rescue fund, established supervision over the European banking system, made a deal with Turkey on refugees and acted in response to Russia's actions. First, there must be a crisis. Secondly, the EU member states cannot extinguish the fire on their own – although only in this case decisive collective action is possible. According to the Irish political scientist Brigid Laffan, crises happen so often that Europeans have learned to cope with them quite well. Giving a lecture at the Asser Institute last year, Laffan said that despite the complex and sometimes chaotic decision-making process in the EU, a "collective power Europe" is now emerging. It seems that the member states are beginning to realize that the EU is not only taking away part of their national sovereignty, but also giving them sovereignty in the form of powers to act in a dangerous and unstable world where crude mercantilism is replacing a multilateral, rules-based system.
The symbolism of European integration and the great hopes that arose after the two world wars are of great historical significance. During the Caribbean crisis, the Europeans were mostly ignored, but the strength of their project was such that at least some people drew conclusions from history and are trying to use a model of peaceful international governance. This gave them peace and prosperity. European integration continues to inspire many around the world. The proof of this is the fact that at least 10 countries really want to join the EU, trusting this association more and more. But there is another proof. Regional organizations in Africa and Asia use the model of the EU internal market as a model.
Despite the setbacks and problems that are to some extent the norm in the system of multinational public administration, the member States continue to invest in the EU. Now the task is to preserve what they have created over the decades that they have spent "beyond history", to make the European Union more secure and durable, as well as by joint efforts to increase its geopolitical potential. The Europeans still have a lot to do. But if we read about the terrible days of the Caribbean crisis, when Europe withdrew from decision-making, we will understand what a long way it has come.
