THElast European Council extraordinary has given a notable acceleration to the European plans for convergence towards a common defence policy. The package prepared by the Commission led by Ursula von der Leyen, called ReArm EU, with 800 billion to spend for war production has obtained an initial general approval from all member states. The next meeting, which will probably go into more detail, is set for the European Council on 20 and 21 March.
The shock given to Europe seems to be so strong that it has triggered a new political phase of European integration, this time on the ground of military cooperation. Richard Sessa He is president of the prestigious Italian Society for International Organization (SIOI) and in his long diplomatic career he has been ambassador to Belgrade, Teheran, Beijing, Italian permanent representative to NATO, as well as having been a very close collaborator in the various ministerial and government experiences of President Giulio Andreotti.
Ambassador Sessa, what is the political value of this latest European Council?
“The awareness acquired by Europe that common defense completes its historical process of construction. The acceleration in this direction was given by the increasingly clear American disengagement, or if we want to call it another way, the redefinition of the role of the United States within NATO and towards Europe”.
The integration process will resume no longer on an economic theme but with the ReArm EU.
“The military dimension was already part of the initial plan of the founding fathers of Europe. Alcide De Gasperi was well aware, however, that the European military dimension would take decades and would be built only when it was perceived as a primary need by European citizens, not only by the political classes. Today it has become so under a double push: that of the United States, but also thanks to Putin, the same one who revitalized the Atlantic Alliance, into whose arms first Finland and then Sweden rushed. Some time ago I argued that they should have built an equestrian monument to Putin in front of NATO headquarters, today they should also build one in Rue de la Loi, in front of the buildings of the European Commission and the Council”.
Moreover, the major European political families are in fact on the same page.
“Well yes. Especially among the Populars and the Socialists there is a certain unity, which is the fruit of a consensus on what can and must unite, rather than on what could divide. What can unite is simple: let's organize ourselves in Europe to have total strategic autonomy. Which means in even simpler language: be ready to defend ourselves, if necessary”.
European socialists have written that we are facing the greatest threat to European security since 1945. Is a multi-speed Europe possible on defense policy?
“The logic of a multi-speed Europe will become increasingly important in future integration processes, I say this as an old convinced Europeanist. The alternative is a Europe that just gets by, content to make news, rather than being a protagonist of history. The time for ambiguity is over, we have seen what Putin did in Ukraine and what he is continuing to do, taking advantage of America’s disengagement. This can constitute a real threat for us Europeans too. Net of those who today are still hesitant to use the exact name to define what Putin is doing”.
Who are you referring to?
“I am referring to those who think that war is like a football match, where a coin in the middle of the field decides who kicks off. In war, you always know who starts.”
How far will Emmanuel Macron's activism on peacekeeping troops in Ukraine, the French nuclear umbrella and defense spending go?
"We should not be too surprised by his activism. This also applies to the English who appear to be among the most determined in this phase, to the point of clearly moving closer to Europe rather than the United States. If we have to build a European army, an objective that certainly cannot be achieved in a few months, we cannot ignore that France and Great Britain have approximately 500 nuclear warheads, which must already be considered today in the logic of a nuclear deterrence with a European focus. In such a delicate historical phase, the member states will have to make an enormous effort to overcome understandable jealousies, having clear, especially among the founders of the European Union, the common objective of the need for strategic autonomy".
Among the founders of Europe there is Italy…
“Certainly, Italy is the bearer of great values, such as Europeanism and Atlanticism, shared since the birth of the community process and even today”.
La How long can the Italian government's mediating position between the US and the Union last?
"The Atlantic and European choices have been the two fundamental references of our foreign policy for decades and in 1979 these choices were reaffirmed by Parliament with two identical resolutions in the Chamber and Senate. Our Prime Minister, by underlining the importance of the Atlantic component, is moving in continuity with Italy's international commitment. And it is even more important to do so at a time when the United States seems to really want to redefine its role within NATO and Europe. It is clear that we Europeans must take note of this situation, which none of us would have ever imagined could be reached, and I say this in this case as an old convinced Atlanticist".
But in such a framework, among other things, of realignment of the major European partners, does it make sense for Italy to play the game fully in Europe or in the balancing act of an Atlanticism that seems to have aged by decades in a few days?
“I recalled what the cornerstones of Italy's international action are. It is right, understandable, that Italy seeks to reaffirm the centrality of a historic relationship with the US. But the tragedy here is that it is precisely the United States that tells Europeans, in no uncertain terms, that they must think independently of their defense. In the last two months all the principles that had regulated international relations in these last 80 years have been called into question and have fallen apart. I am arguing that today the world has 'disassembled': the old rules defined in 1945 and in the years that followed appear completely outdated”.
Is it plausible to think of a decoupling in the common defense policy between Washington and the member states of the Union?
“New balances are emerging, perhaps a new Yalta. Roosevelt took into account what Stalin supported and even today it seems to me that there is a situation with many similarities. Decoupling? If we look at the latest statements and measures taken by Washington, perhaps it is already happening. Trump is certainly giving the processes a very sustained speed, but let's not forget that his predecessors also increasingly asked us to think more about our defense”.
The old thesis that the United States must take care of the Pacific…
“From a certain point of view, yes, in an anti-China function. But as I said, the idea of disengagement from Europe was born well before Trump. The Americans have made it clear to us on more than one occasion that they no longer intend to support the enormous effort of a widespread military presence in Europe and the world. We forget that since 1941, Americans have been sending their children in uniform to every corner of the globe”.
In an old interview on Limes, President Francesco Cossiga explained why foreign policy had made Italy progressively lose influence. If in the near future Europe manages to realize its military dimension, will a great opportunity open up for Italy?
"Italy has a role to play in Europe and in international politics. It is important, however, to show coherence and continuity, which today can only be Europeanism and Atlanticism, knowing however that Atlantic solidarity could undergo profound changes. We must therefore be ready to take concrete decisions, even unprecedented ones, strengthening the European component of our foreign policy".
Should the Italian Armed Forces Prepare for a Role in Ukraine?
“It is good to be clear on this point. President Meloni said it and President Mattarella reiterated it with his usual clarity: it makes no sense at this time to think of an Italian military presence in Ukraine. We must first reach a truce, then we would all like a peace, which we innocently already define as just and lasting, knowing that from 1945 to today there has not been a single conflict that ended with a peace treaty. Then we will necessarily have to build a scheme of international security guarantees. Only then can we hypothesize a military presence as a guarantee. A presence that will require a European political consensus, at which point all the European national articulations will have to organize themselves. In my opinion, it is premature to also talk about military presences under the umbrella of NATO and the UN”.
Why?
"Let's be honest: the Americans and the Russians do not want NATO and will never want it. The UN? Of course it would be the ideal umbrella for a mission of this kind, but let's not forget that such a umbrella must pass through the Security Council and we know very well who the permanent members of that council are."
