FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
European ambivalence towards Trump and the revival of the debate over a European "NATO"...
No one can say that Europe was unaware. For weeks in Brussels, some officials and diplomats, following the American reinforcements in the wider Middle East region and Donald Trump's constant "threats" against Tehran, simply wondered when the "strike" against Iran would happen. However, since last Saturday, when the American-Israeli attack on Tehran began, Europe seems to be caught in the vortex of a war that it did not ask for, but which it must face its consequences and, at best, appears uncoordinated, if not divided, in the face of the United States.
While in the case of Greenland, a few weeks ago, the “27” coordinated to condemn Washington’s “threats” to annex it, in the case of Iran the question of whether or not to condemn the violation of international law was left to the member states themselves. Spain was the first to directly condemn the US attack as “illegal”, refusing to facilitate American operations from its bases. Most member states joined in the now well-known exercise of “balancing” with the US, with the German Chancellor even declaring that “this is not the time to lecture our partners and allies”.
The contrast is significant. In the case of Greenland, member states came together because the threat was considered existential: it affected European territorial integrity and sovereignty,” says Alberto Alemanno, professor of European Law at HEC in Paris. “ However, the Middle East reveals something deeper: a structural rift between member states, reflecting domestic political pressures and fundamentally different interpretations of international law ,” he points out. According to him, this is because “some governments give absolute priority to the transatlantic relationship. Others, such as Spain and Ireland, insist that respect for international law is non-negotiable. This is not a diplomatic dispute; it is a rift of values at the heart of the European project . ”
A European diplomat disagrees with this approach. Commenting on the lack of a decisive “response” from Friedrich Merz to Trump last Tuesday at the White House to “threats” to sever trade relations with Spain, he stressed that it is difficult for any leader to sit in that chair opposite Trump, while adding that although everyone agrees that this is someone who only nominally defends the free world, these balancing exercises amount to realpolitik.
“ With Iraq, the EU faced a similar issue. President Macron said that no one will miss Khamenei, but that does not mean that we should not act within international law. There is concern in Brussels that the rules-based international order is being less and less respected by the major actors ,” recalls Philippe Perchoc, head of the Institute for Strategic Research of the French Ministry of Defense in Brussels.
The European stance, however, also causes embarrassment if we consider that it will be the EU and its member states that will have to manage the instability and uncontrollable consequences of the clash. This perhaps explains Ursula von der Leyen's initiative to speak to Middle Eastern leaders immediately after the start of the US-Israeli operations.
Security Council
Klaus Welle, president of the Academic Council of the Martens Center in Brussels and former Secretary General of the European Parliament, acknowledges the institutional weakness of the EU's joint representation, as member states have not substantially transferred sovereignty in foreign policy and defense. In response, he proposes the creation of a European Security Council, which would decide by qualified majority, i.e. with 15 member states, thus "disarming" Hungary and Slovakia from the frequent use of the veto.
The lack of a common foreign policy culture also explains the fact that the “mutual defence” clause has not been activated to date, which was brought back to attention after the bilateral requests that Cyprus addressed to several member states to strengthen its air defences, when Iranian drones hit the British base in Akrotiri. This is Article 42 (7) of the European Treaty, which stipulates that if a member state suffers an armed attack on its territory, the other member states have a clear obligation to provide assistance and support by all means at their disposal.
With the exception of France’s request, following the 2015 terrorist attack, this clause remains essentially unactivated. For this reason, Friedrich Merz stressed at the Munich Conference that “Article 42 (paragraph 7) must be made operational”, as it constitutes the basis for NATO’s European pillar – something we had not heard before. However, member states such as France did not wait for the clause to be activated to send aid to Cyprus./ Adapted by “Pamphlet” from “Kathimerini”
Lini një Përgjigje