War or peace (1). The pacifying virtue of Europe: true or false?

(B2) European construction has brought peace for years (70 years today) on the continent. This maxim, often heard, defended by federalists, vilified by sovereignists, does it correspond to reality? It depends on the points of view and the territorial scale that we take.

Has the Union brought peace between its Member States?

TRUE. The European Union has undoubtedly put an end to successive wars between the main countries of the continent, starting with the two great continental rivals - Germany and France - whose three murderous wars, in 1870, 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 (without going back to Napoleonic times) ravaged the continent. The most fabulous result of the European Union is there all the same!

The Union has also limited the resurgence of creeping nationalism in certain countries. Do not believe that all men have suddenly become good and political leaders "intelligent" because of their incorporation into the European Union. Some conflicts remain latent, such as the linguistic conflict between Hungary and Slovakia, or the territorial dispute between Croatia and Slovenia. Nationalist outbursts persist. Simply, they no longer find the warrior space to express themselves. Because the links of interdependence are too strong, the memory of old conflicts still lingering. And the virtue of being together still prevails, in peoples, over belief.

The real battlefield has been transformed into a legal and political battlefield. Notices of declarations of war have been transformed into thundering declarations at the start of a European Council. The long deadly battles have been transformed into long nights of negotiation. And heavy weapon duels now take place with speckled foils in legal forums. And when we don't agree, we make a press release, even a press conference, we go to the Court of Justice or we sulk for a while by practicing the policy of the empty chair. It does less damage! At worst, we leave the club as decided by the United Kingdom.

The European Union has established 70 or 75 years of peace * on the continent?

FALSE It's slightly false (to be nice), even a certain denial of European history (to be realistic). Many politicians or commentators still cite this sentence, forgetting that some of the member countries of the European Union only recovered their freedom since 1989 and freed themselves from "occupying forces". The various Soviet military interventions (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968) were not particularly "peaceful".

The civil wars in Yugoslavia between 1991 and 1995, and in Kosovo in 1998-1999 provide, even more, a cruel denial of this maxim. On its periphery, Europe has not been able to impose peace. At the time, Europe even turned its head modestly so as not to see the looming explosion. The European Union is certainly not guilty of this state of affairs; it is the various Yugoslav leaders who are the cause. But she has some responsibility for the aggravation of the situation.

It is misleading to say that Europe did not have the means to cope at the time. She had the means and the possibility and, even, for a moment, the will. She tried to do it, several times. But it did not then have the persistence in this desire to impose its peace solution, too divided itself and, above all, too monopolized by its internal situation, in particular the establishment of the Economic and Monetary Union and the new geopolitical situation with German reunification and the creation of new countries on its steps (1).

The case of Northern Ireland

The "dirty" war in Northern Ireland, with medieval practices on the side of the British police as well as on the side of the Republican "insurgents", left over 3500 dead (including nearly 2000 "civilians"). The "trouble" had begun before Ireland joined the European Union (in 1973). But it took years to sign an agreement. The European Union has pushed for an agreement. The existence of free movement, the absence of a real border between the two Ireland, the financial band-aids provided by the Union, have reduced tensions and facilitated certain compromises. This is a non-negligible point of the European peacemaking contribution.

The last 'wall'

It is not an open conflict but the separation of the island of Cyprus in two, the Turkish military occupation is still a serious gash in the pacification of Europe (even if it no longer generates victims). As with the conflict in Northern Ireland, the European Union has made every effort, with various civil instruments (financial programmes, structural support, etc.) to iron out the difficulties and the borders. But the responsibility for the negotiation and the leading role was not played by Europe but at the level of the United Nations (1).

In conclusion...

The European Union is a factor of peace between its members. It is not a guarantee of peace, sine qua non, on the European continent or on the margins of its borders. Would today's Europe be in a position to face an IRA-type conflict, a Turkey-type incursion into Cyprus, or a violent ethnic conflict? The answer is no. This is the whole question and the whole issue posed also for European defense (2). How, tomorrow, to deal with this type of conflict, internal or close, or a "foreign" incursion into a country that is not a member of NATO (3).

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

* Depending on whether we take as a reference the creation of the ECSC (1952) – which had a real pacifying objective between establishing interdependence in coal and steel (two of the main ingredients needed) to wage a war (at the time ), or that of the EEC (1957).

(1) It can be noted that NATO has not been more active or effective in this preventive function in the former Yugoslavia. But it was less present than the EU (or rather the EEC) which had ties of association with Yugoslavia. On the other hand, for Cyprus, with one of its members (Turkey) which is the occupying power and two other of its members (Greece, United Kingdom), involved as a guarantor power, it should have had a clearer and firmer role that she didn't want to play.

(2) Which also has other challenges, in particular stabilization in the more distant neighborhood or the restructuring of the European defense industry.

(3) A priori, an incursion into a NATO member country would be resolved by the Atlantic Alliance.