Europe bashing. Little letter to my favorite France
(BRUXELLES2, opinion) The bashing on “Europe of defence” has become the favorite sport of some commentators, they tire out the length of the article. And all the arguments, then, pass there: the good ones, the bad ones. These attacks do not come from Europhobes or Eurosceptics. Nay. They are "well-meaning", well-informed people, for whom "breaking" the European is a sport of relaxation, like archery or squash. The anti-European side of the salon is "very fashionable" not in London but in some Parisian and provincial circles. We like to emphasize how "all that is complicated", "all that does not work", "is not very serious", "that it is dead". And, by the way, we make fun just as cheerfully of these countries which remain at gunpoint", of "this Europe of Defense (*) which does not exist" or of "this pooling and sharing which does not work "Fortunately France is there, alone, strong. Cocorico! It's easy. It's a point of view. It's a bit of reality. But it's not quite the reality...
show, demonstrate, point
B2 have never had the habit of being complacent with European structures. We have demonstrated this in the past (read: mali. A certain failure of the concept of battlegroups). And we will continue to do so (article to be published). You have to point the finger where it does not work, where it is slow, try to identify the differences. But we must also not hesitate to highlight what works. It is not misleading to say that the virus Brussels reacts (sometimes) well... Yes, European Defense is difficult. Yes she does not have a single view. And yes there are problems, failures, anger (...). If I had the time to tell everything I see and hear, it would take a volume 🙂 Yes, Europe stands up sometimes to get beaten. But you have to be honest. There are also prowess. While everything would tip the balance in division or inaction, the European machine is waking up.
Napoleon's Europe is over
We can dream of a single continent, have a blissful vision of a dream Europe, where everyone would have the same opinion, the same history, the same fears or the same hopes, would be kind and would like the same thing. A "Walt Disney" Europe in a way. But this is not Europe. We could also dream of a single French-style army, with a leader, a command, equipment, a habit of waging war, and a national consensus, around the King. However. Europe was not unified under the boot of an emperor and kings (or not for long 🙂 ) who set up a network of efficient prefectures and competent administrations all reporting to a centralized capital. Napoleon's Europe has been over for 200 years. Wake up ! The 27 (28) European countries have differences — economic, political, strategic —. They are real and deep. And they won't stop tomorrow. They also have their pride, national, and do not intend to be stepped on or shown the right way (in the French way).
Expectations are different
The pasts but also the presents, the trajectories, the visions, the hopes are different. In a country, like the Baltic countries or Poland, "occupied" by the Russian neighbor for decades and which did not see the last Russian tank leave barely 25 years ago (not even a generation), we cannot have the same approach to this neighbor and to defense as a country like Ireland, which designed its state on strict neutrality, or Cyprus, part of whose territory is still occupied by its Turkish neighbor (so-called passing NATO member). Between former colonial powers (France, United Kingdom…) and former eastern countries - where the anti-colonial fund dominated the political class and the absence of real African culture - the difference is also "objective".
The decision-making method: not very democratic
The very conception of the state, of democracy, of military engagement is very different from one country to another. In fact, almost no country is based on the French model with its own head of state, its particular chief of staff, and presto, here we go... France has a rapid politico-military reaction system. This is its strength (see also: The ability to enter first...). But it is also a weakness... Seen from abroad, France is somewhat considered an exception to democracy, how can I put it... a bit backward! Hardly any European state behaves in this way, where the Parliament is seen as a low-class rump that is consulted — that is, can vote — three to four months after the first shot. One can criticize the German authorization model by the Bundestag. It is criticizable and amendable. But its severity stems from a tragic history. To mock it is to mock history... And if it were not respected, we would immediately cry out for the resurgence of a Prussian Germany... This "German" model is followed, more or less, by all of Europe: from the United Kingdom to Finland, via Spain, the Netherlands or Italy. Consulting your parliament when soldiers are engaged abroad is, if not a legal obligation, at least a politically obligatory point of passage. When it's not both.
(*) We can have a slightly more political reading of this regular exhaustion. Overall, it is not possible to criticize the (socialist) government for launching the operation in Mali. At least, it is not conceivable for traditionally pro-interventionist parties or people like the UMP or certain Greens (Dany Cohn-Bendit for example). So we are attacking "Defence Europe". As it is also a project at the heart of government policy (Defence Minister JY Le Drian is very attached to it), it is a way of criticizing the government. And so much the worse for Europe if it toasts. She was - as they say - in the collateral fire angle...