Language switcher

English EN Italiano IT
Italiano

Category: EU External Action

Europe on the Move

Posted on by claudia

By Alfredo De Feo

When you live a normal life, made up of daily worries, children, health, the need to solve the inevitable problems, small and large, it is difficult to focus, on what is happening in the world, the geopolitical strategies, the risks for our economy and therefore for our lifestyle and our well-being, for the future of our children. It’s difficult to focus but we must.

For many decades, coexistence among countries has been based on a series of basic principles: respect for democracy and the autonomy of the various countries, respect for international rules, the non-use of force to resolve tensions, the promotion of an increasingly free world trade without customs barriers that would increase the well-being of citizens in a generalized way. All guaranteed by a series of international organizations

Like it or not, the war unleashed by Russia against Ukraine in February 2022 triggered a turning point in the balance of the world. Tensions in the Middle East, on Europe’s southern border, have aggravated the situation.

The inauguration of Donald Trump to the White House in January 2025 has brought a further shake up to the world balance, with a strong impact on Europe and its states. I do not need to enumerate the proclamations and counter-proclamations of President Trump and his inner circle. European governments must face challenges and make difficult decisions, knowing how to look at the medium to long term, rather than immediate polls and have the ability to explain to citizens the meaning of choices that may appear unpopular in the short term.

The unanimous mandate given by the states and the majority of the European Parliament is a first sign that Europe is ready to stand together and start creating synergies in the field of defence. The other positive aspect, which transpires from the White Paper, is that Member States will start to build something, with the aim of better coordinating the production and purchasing war material, developing and sharing information of national intelligence services. The same goes for technology, communications and so on.

A large part of these initiatives, which will only become clearer when the proposals are presented, will probably be financed with common debt guaranteed by all states. Following the example of what has been done with the Next Generation EU. This plan, favored by the relaxation of the rules of the Stability Pact, should eventually allow European states to be more autonomous in the defense of their territory and their values, a first response to the American disengagement from the defense of Europe.

I addition, it is worth mentioning the turning point taking place in Germany where, under the leadership of the future chancellor, Friederich Merz, a constitutional reform has been voted to abolish the spending limit to finance expenses related to infrastructure, the environment and defense: a real revolution.

The second emergency is international trade. President Trump has begun to introduce tariffs on many imported goods, giving rise to retaliation by the affected countries, creating a strong impoverishment of their economy (European and non-European). It is difficult to say at this stage whether these tariffs are the final goal of the American President or just a negotiating strategy, but in either case these attitudes require equally strong positions on the European side. On the other hand, strong and decisive positions will facilitate negotiatiations.

It is difficult to say whether European leaders will be able to show solidarity with each other in the interest of defending national and European sovereignty. It is a great opportunity but it is not certain that everyone knows how to seize it. On the other hand, it should be remembered that the European Treaties provide for the possibility of carrying out actions with the so-called “enhanced cooperation” (with the participation of

at least nine states) or ultimately, through agreements among states, outside the legal framework of the European Union, which France and England are doing to guarantee support for Ukraine (the coalition of the willing).

To conclude, public opinion should be aware that the challenges we face do not concern others but ourselves, our freedom, our values. We do not want to leave our children the choice of whether to live under American, Chinese or Russian rules but to be proud to remain European with our national identities. The Erasmus generation is already a step ahead and this can be seen as a sign of great optimism.

Published in the Gazzetta di Parma 18 March 2025

The Reasons for ReArm Europe

Posted on by claudia

By Marzo Ziliotti

On March 6, twenty-six EU heads of state and the EU government, overcoming (finally!) the unanimity rule, approved the plan called ReArm Europe. Divided in five points, it establishes a common European financial instrument, which will provide 150 billion euros to member states for defense investment; it introduces a derogation (escape clause) to the parameters of the Stability and Growth Pact, which opens fiscal space to individual states for defense spending of an additional 650 billion euros; and it promotes the mobilization of private capital, through the European Investment Bank, in order to stimulate large European savings for the financing of domestic defense firms.

Thus, an 800 billion euro package of public resources alone, in addition to private resources, which, on the one hand, (with the 650 billion euro waiver effectively) sends the constraints of the newly created Stability and Growth Pact into the attic; and on the other hand, (with the 150 billion euro European fund) takes the first step toward the establishment of a true common defense system, necessarily financed by common resources.

The project, by its scale and especially by the nature of its objectives, can clearly be called historic in scope. But it is equally evident that “ReArm,” moreover “at home,” is a word that should arouse no one’s enthusiasm. Well understandable, then, that the initiative has provoked heated debate, not only in the halls of professional politics, but also among the public and in the very consciences of citizens. This is positive, wanting strongly to continue to believe that free dialectical confrontation between ideas is the most precious value of our liberal democracies.

But, at such an objectively complex hairpin turn in History, it is essential to be clear about some crucial contextual elements. The first fact is the very rapid and relevant increase in geopolitical risks for European countries. Mind you: this is not to evoke scenarios with the Cossack cavalry in St. Peter’s Square; but the disturbing crescendo of the use of force against Europe by Putin’s Russia is undeniable: the outright military violence, mobilizing all available human and economic resources, in Ukraine. But also violence in the insidious form of hybrid warfare: continuous cyber-attacks, increasingly aggressive and widespread, on the computer systems mainly of public entities; increasingly pervasive interference in public opinion, especially at election time, with massive and scientific dissemination of fake news and through support – more or less covered – for openly anti-European, when not explicitly pro-Russian, political formations and parties. Restoring historic Russian influence with a perimeter similar to that of the U.S.S.R. days is a stated goal; and it is certainly not comforting that, as Kremlin spokesman Dimitry Peskov stated a few days ago, “the new U.S. administration’s vision regarding foreign policy configurations largely coincides with our vision.”

Second point: the above poses an urgent problem of deterrence. Urgent: it would certainly be better to start first with the establishment of a single European defense system and only then proceed to rearmament. But there is no time. Making the Euro took at least ten years (from the European Monetary System crisis to January 1, 2002, when the single currency began to physically circulate). The European Army needs a long process of construction, which is inextricably linked to the building of a common political house. Deterrence, which does not at all mean a bellicose will, but, exactly the opposite, i.e. the strengthening of negotiating power. This is the only way to make realistic – and not just a vacuous invocation – the prospect of diplomatic solutions on the most lasting and least unfair basis possible.

The third aspect, perhaps the most delicate one: the oft-cited alternative claim of spending on butter instead of guns. Who, a priori, would not prefer government spending to favor schools and hospitals over military purposes? But, put in decontextualized terms, the question once again risks being dangerously – or, worse, guiltily – misleading. First, it should be remembered, because spending on defensive systems nowadays does not so much consist of bombs and guns, but predominantly of research and development of advanced technologies (cybersecurity, intelligence), with proven positive externalities in terms of innovations that can be widely used in the civilian sphere (think, just to cite two possible examples, of drones and cybersecurity systems). Not only that, but the substantial amount (800 billion euros) of resources mobilized can enable massive reconversion operations of industrial sectors in crisis (automotive, for example), generating employment support and multiplicative economic effects (in the past, multipliers of military spending -especially when directed to innovative technologies – have been calculated as high as 1.5: spending 1 euro generates an increase in GDP of 1.5 euros, i.e., it creates an income that exceeds the self-financing of the spending itself by 50 percent).

But even before the claim – unsightly as much as you like, but true – that investment in defense systems can be an effective driver of employment and economic growth, the dreaded conflict between military spending and social welfare starts from a basic misunderstanding. Security – guaranteed precisely by defense systems – is an indispensable prerequisite with respect to every other constituent element of collective welfare. Any right (to education, to health, to work) necessarily rests on the subsistence of the most fundamental right there is: the security of the physical integrity of the person and his property (material and immaterial).

Therefore, just as we are all fully aware that, in order to guarantee this right to security with respect to “internal” dangers, it is indispensable to allocate adequate resources for the funding of the appropriate law enforcement agencies (Police, Carabinieri, etc.), it is necessary to regain an equal awareness – clouded for a long time by the illusion of an eternal and gratuitous American umbrella – that the armed forces (Army, Air Force, Navy) are likewise indispensable to protect exactly the same right with respect to “external” risks.

To those who invoke the ideal of a “neutral Europe,” it would be salutary to remind them that the neutral country par excellence, Switzerland, has based its vocation for neutrality (in addition to a geographic location that has never interested anyone and a banking secrecy that has suited everyone) on an ancient warrior skill – not coincidentally, the popes for more than five hundred years have chosen the Swiss Guards to defend the Vatican – and on a universal conscription obligation in which, after one’s first service under arms, for ten years one is required to return to the barracks for periodic repetition courses.

Adequate defense capability represents the insurance policy placed to guarantee peace, a supremely valuable commodity; and, as is the case with all insurance, one pays the premium precisely with the intention of never having to use it.

Published on Gazzetta di Parma on march, 11th 2025

Automatic translation edited by Edward Lynch

The American Administration and European Sovereignty

Posted on by claudia

Alfredo De Feo

There are dates in history that have an impact on citizens and public opinion. For example, how can we forget March 2020, when almost simultaneously the world stopped due to a pandemic that reminded the whole world of the fragility of human beings especially in a globalized world; or February 22, 2022, when the aggression against Ukraine by Russia broke a balance of peace putting an end to some basic principles of international law such as respect for the sovereignty of a State with the concrete risk not only of extension of the conflict but also the risk of violations of national sovereignty, through military actions or sophisticated cyber interference. Or again October 7, 2023 when the brutal attacks by Hamas against the Israeli people reopened the never-ending Israel-Palestinian conflict, with its burden of massacres and tensions and the risk of destabilizing the entire region with human and economic consequences that are difficult to calculate.

 

January 20, 2025 could become a date that will be remembered in the history of European countries. The entrance into the White House of the newly re-elected President Trump risks in fact to the life of us Europeans. Obviously we do not know if and how the electoral proclamations will translate into concrete actions and policies, but even admitting that much evidence does not make proof, there are enough reasons to be concerned. I will limit myself to pointing out three concrete threats to which European countries must be ready to give effective responses.  These threats are: 1) the introduction of duties on European products, 2) global deregulation from the use/abuse of artificial intelligence, social media and customs clearance of cryptocurrencies and 3) the American military disengagement from Europe.

 

The issue of duties is what could tempt European states to go and negotiate bilaterally with the American administration. A separate negotiation of the individual states would allow them to extract some concessions but the price to pay would be high both in terms of imports and in increasing American influence on national policies in the various countries. European states should defend their sovereignty by trying to prepare a common response to American initiatives, trying to avoid a trade war, harmful for all, and trying to establish a negotiation to reach a global trade agreement, which can only be achieved with the ability to find objectives shared by all states.

In the technology sector, Europe has a large production delay but has been at the forefront in regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI act) to allow responsible use for the benefit of consumers and for the defence of copyright. At the same time, measures have been adopted to regulate Digital services and the Digital Market. These measures are aimed at limiting the excessive power of digital platforms, such as Amazon, Facebook, TikTok, Google and others. To this must be added the probable pressure exerted by Trump’s powerful advisor, Elon Musk, to formalize and liberalize the market of cryptocurrencies (he is also the owner of one of these). European states have every interest in regulating the sectors of services and the digital market and cryptocurrencies, so as not to be caught unprepared and resist the probable deregulation pressures that will likely come from the new American administration. Only with a strong position will European states be able to protect their citizens and maintain their national sovereignty.

Finally, the problem of security and protection of the European territory from external attacks. The protection guaranteed so far by the American shield within NATO risks disappearing. The United States has long been asking for a greater financial commitment for defence within NATO, requests that have only found a distracted ear from most European governments. The new American administration risks not making any concessions and forcing European states to increase defence spending.

This poses three types of problems: financial, productive and military. The public finances of almost all states do not have, individually, the resources to sustain expenses, which would also raise strong criticism and resistance from public opinion. The solution could be found, on the model put in place in the post Covid period, in the issuance of common European debt to finance a greater European presence in its military defence.

The second problem is of a productive nature: if the European states do not want to continue financing the American arms industries, they must agree to direct production and towards a reduced number of weapon models, and renouncing their claim to national excellence. This is not easy but essential to invest in European industry as recommended in Enrico Letta’s report.

Finally, the military aspect: the simple coordination of initiatives is not enough. A qualitative leap is necessary, creating decision-making structures capable of taking measures to guarantee the security of our countries and the sovereignty of our States.

If Europe will positively take up the challenges that will come from the United States, the date of January 20, 2025 could be remembered as that of the qualitative leap of Europe, otherwise … better not think about it!  

English version edited by Edward Lynch

Published by the Gazzetta di Parma 11/01/2025

EU Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy with a focus on the Western Balkan countries

Posted on by collegio

Dejan Kralov, DAES alumni

The topic of the European Union enlargement is one of the most relevant and significant issues facing the Union, particularly in times of war and destabilization in Europe mainly caused by the Russian aggression against Ukraine. The EU’s enlargement and neighborhood policy play a crucial role in shaping the future stability, prosperity, security and progress of both the European Union and the entire European continent. By expanding the zone of peace and development, the European Union extends its presence and influence, striving to become the most influential global power. However, the thesis elaborates how the requirement for unanimous decisions within the EU poses one of the main obstacles for achieving the above-mentioned future challenges. Additionally, the thesis advocates for introduction of clear reasons due to which a certain EU candidate country can be vetoed in order to establish a more democratic, effective and efficient membership process without blackmails, within a strengthened and united EU accessible equally to all European countries. It is a fact that we have witnessed quite unprincipled blockades without competent, democratic and legitimate reasons for veto by compromising the Copenhagen criteria and EU treaties, while interfering in the candidate countries’ sovereignty, which is uncharacteristic for the European Union. Moreover, the thesis focuses on the Copenhagen criteria, essential benchmarks that must be met by candidate countries to progress in the accession process. They indicate if the candidate countries are politically, economically, and legally prepared in the accession process, while emphasizing that bilateral issues must not be a reason for veto according to EU treaties. However, this is not the case in reality, where such bilateral issues often take precedence. Such inappropriate vetoes, as the current Bulgarian veto of Macedonia and Greek veto of Albania, as well as the previous Greek veto of Macedonia marked by blackmails and a misuse of stronger and more assertive position as EU member states, while compromising the principles of the European Union and its treaties.

The thesis focuses on the history of every Western Balkan candidate country’s path to EU accession. It highlights all main disputes, agreements and statements, while providing potential solutions for resolving the actual disputes. Supported by facts and arguments, Macedonia’s path to EU accession represents the most difficult, undemocratic and unique accession process that must not happen to any EU candidate country. At the same time, the EU accession process of Macedonia is an example of how the accession to the European Union should not look like. With such types of vetoes like the Greek and Bulgarian ones towards Macedonia, the European Union is violating its values without which it cannot survive as a community. The Greek veto, which pertained to the non-recognition of the Macedonian national and constitutional flag and also the name “Republic of Macedonia”, contradicted the conclusion provided by the European Union Arbitration Commission, that the name “Macedonia” does not represent any territorial threat for Greece. At the same time, Greece also violated international law by not respecting the “Interim Agreement” signed between these two countries. In addition, Greece does not respect the judgment of the International Court of Justice related to this case, where 15 votes were in favour of Macedonia and only one vote from the Greek judge in favour of Greece. Furthermore, Greece acted contrary to the stances of all European institutions, all the positive reports provided by the European Commission and against the resolution from the European Parliament in 2010, which emphasized that the Copenhagen criteria were fully satisfied by Macedonia for the start of accession negotiations. Despite the EU’s promise to Macedonia that this would be the final obstacle before EU membership, the current Bulgarian veto has proven otherwise. This veto was imposed in pretty much the same way by compromising the Copenhagen criteria, EU treaties, regulations and obviously blackmailing Macedonia once again only for self-interests and benefits because of the better assertive position as an EU member state, not thinking about the common interest, stability and future prosperity of the European Union. Additionally, such actions violate the fundamental European values and this interference in the candidate country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and citizens’ nationality is contrary to international law and EU Treaties.

If the EU intends to complete the ongoing process of joining the European Convention on Human Rights and recognise the jurisdiction of Strasbourg, then should decide whether Macedonia is the guilty party and should really be vetoed due to unsubstantiated and alleged claims about disrespect for human rights, although there are no such judgments and it is an example of a multi-ethnic state where all the rights of minorities are fully protected, or Bulgaria may be the true party at fault, using the veto as a cover-up for its own actions or responsibilities. The fact that Bulgaria has 14 judgments from the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg related to the non-recognition and violation of the human rights of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria, that have not yet been implemented is the strongest proof of this case. However, we need to delve deeper into this process to find out the real reasons behind this veto. According to the number of judgements from the Court of Human Rights for these two countries, one thing becomes evident, the Bulgarian demand for the inclusion of the Bulgarian minority (less than 1% of the total population in Macedonia) in the Macedonian constitution serves as a mask behind which the real underlying demands lie. Behind this condition lie numerous others, primarily concerning historical issues, as articulated by several prominent Bulgarian politicians, including the current President Rumen Radev and Bulgarian MEP Angel Dzambaski, who have even expressed territorial pretentions towards Macedonia. The political pressure should be directed towards Sofia instead of unilaterally towards Skopje, mainly due to the facts that Bulgaria has faced criticism from the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination for its failure to implement the judgements concerning the human rights of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria. The need for strict involvement in this process by the EU is necessary, otherwise the union itself will break its own values because after all Bulgaria is part of the EU. Nevertheless, while Macedonia has been better prepared for the start of accession negotiations in specific previous years, these were the primary reasons driving the accession process and bilateral disputes together with many blackmails took precedence.

I have presented four potential solutions for resolving the current dispute between Bulgaria and Macedonia. The first solution implies signing of a resolution that will contain the inclusion of the Bulgarian minority in the Macedonian constitution, as well as the implementation of the judgments from the Court of Human Rights which will follow immediately after the ratification of the Accession Treaty, following the example of the resolution between Croatia and Slovenia related to their territorial dispute. The second potential solution is a provision of written guarantees by the EU that will not follow additional future demands from Bulgaria. The third solution, includes extreme measures such as suspending European grants to Bulgaria, which are vital for its functioning. My last but not least solution aims to prevent the exploitation of the EU by Bulgaria in future and to protect the security, dignity and democratic principles of the EU, which means acting with four-fifths of EU members, to suspend and relativise the decision-making rights of Bulgaria as seen in procedures initiated for Hungary and Poland, deciding that by violating the fundamental values, Bulgaria creates risks in EU foreign policy, because after all the right of veto is not an absolute right.

In order the process of EU enlargement be successful, the political doublespeak must stop, either in the EU and Western Balkan countries. The EU must stop its doublespeak for so many years that is open for enlargement and war had to happen to understand how important the enlargement is for the EU’s future. The EU enlargement and neighborhood policy must become a priority again because only with a completed and unified EU could become the most powerful global factor. On the other side, Western Balkan countries must stop with doublespeak about their readiness for the needed reforms because we are witnessing numerous low evaluations in the European Commission reports, and their challenges remain the same for so many years such as the rule of law, fight against crime and corruption, as well as independent judiciary. If the EU wants to achieve future security, stability and prosperity as well as complete removal of Russian influence and presence in these areas that significantly contribute to destabilisation, a sincere and concrete offer specifying a precise date for accession to the EU need to be offered alongside clearly defined democratic conditions for enlargement. Additionally, gradually inclusion of the Western Balkan countries into the European single market and Schengen zone before their full membership, giving them an equal opportunity to progress as all the EU member states.

Contact us for more information