: ) … A
kalpa later: thank you.
The French PR is aN Euro-enthusiast person who pushes for european efforts in defence purposes. In this way, PR Macron has been the initiator, in 2019, of the
European Intervention Initiative.
Unfortunately, I am far from being a believer in This hypothetic “European Defence”. I assume this deserves some explanations …
First of all, basically:
“
the philosophy of the European project is historically dominated by a refusal of power”(1). Genetically, I’d say. The core problem. “
Cooperation between nations, wrote
Jean Monnet,
solves nothing. What we need to strive for is to merge European interests and not simply to balance them. This very definition contains an explicit desire to get beyond the traditional balance of power”(1). In this way, “
building the rule of law, protecting civil liberties, guaranteeing the free functioning of the market, preventing the risk of war are all essential components of the European project”(1).
This is
governance, but That’s not
power. At best: softpower (“values”, And all that
puss diplomatic stuff).
As a recent (dec. 2020,
just before the Biden’s administration intrusts the White House) Example of this European “will for powerlessnes”: the
Comprehensive Agreement on Investment, which, if ratified, will for a large part,
be of benefit to China… and Germany.
For Europe to become a Hardpower, it would take some form of federalization of its foreign policy. But in Europe, contrary to
Bharat, Nations precede the Union, and each one has its own interests.
That is my second point about Europe:
divisions.
From defence purposes to economic competition, allow me to illustrate these divisions with two examples:
- [li]After the 1952’s dead-born European Defence Community, in ’63, the German parliament (Bundestag) added to the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lys%C3%A9e_Treaty]Elysee Treaty than the defence of the European Community would be NATO integrated. Despite the then France’s PR Charles de Gaulle’s will for autonomy, the French parliament ratified the treaty… ‘Eternal return” of the dead-born embryo of an European Defence: today, France still try to promote autonomy, sovereignty, powervis-à-vis the US (last avatar: the EEI above), while Germany and other countries still prefer rely on NATO.[/li]
- [li]2020’s events in Eastern-Mediterranean Sea are the context of my second example: « Qatars’hood » backed, pan-islamic, pan-Turk Turkey’s
rogue reckless behaviour by violating Greece’s EEZ and maritim conventions (note to myself: that reminds me some Asian country), spreading Syrian jihadists in Armenia, Libya (and where else? (note to myself: that reminds me another Asian country)), and blackmailing EU with Muslim migrants. On The one hand, France’s reaction was very firm, destroying Turkish SAM’s at Al Watiya, Libya, in an air raid (i shouldn’t write that, i don’t have the accreditation to do so, and neither am i a predictologist of past events), and France is still supporting Greece, as i wrote in a previous post. While on the other hand the European Concil was indulgent, obliging, and on the errr other other hand Germany Sells 6 214Type SSKs to Turkey. No comment.
Divisions…
Thank you, this will introduce my third and last point about the so called “European Defence”:
Do you believe the US, Trump or else, dem’ or rep’, really want a Sovereign and powerful Europe? Of course they don’t! The reason why is pure logic: the increasing of a European power (towards sovereignty) would mean for the US, relatively, a diminishing of their own. They want us (France, or Europe, or any country willing for autonomy) to stay dependant, and they have “Trojan horses”, here in Europe, see above.
So please, be kind to me, don’t talk with me about “European Defence”, or European sovereignty” anymore: that thing is always-already dead. An aporia. Shukriya.
———
Now I will try to be positive and constructive.
Considering France’s partnerships in the area, considering France’s anNounced ambitions in Indopac, first of them:
“First, our actions take place in the area of security and defence. We want the Indo‐Pacific to remain an open and inclusive area, with each State observing each other’s sovereignty. In this zone, which is the epicentre of global maritime trade and where tensions are appearing regarding maritime borders, it is essential to ensure freedom of navigation and overflight, in full compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” (PR Macron, 2018, France’s
Indo‐Pacific Strategy)(2),
It would be logical, coherent, consistent and honest that future (2025) budgets&allocations for the French Armies prioritize our Navy (Marine Nationale, « MN »).
Particularly by building more (LEU propulsion tech.) SSNs; create and produce a new MAWS; and, for logistical aspects and permanence on zone issues: extend our naval bases in IOR and PO: La Réunion Island & New Caledonia. A minima.
But it remains true thaT thE islands are both far from Malacca & SCS. Long transits, so short playtime on zone for:
- RafAle and MRTT (AAE (French Air&Space Forces)),
- Atlas (AdT, (French army)),
- grey or black boats, and future MAWS (maybe a Falcon? (MN))
« France’s Tri-Services ».
To resolve this geographical and logistical issue, France need to have access to an ally’s naval/air base (like Fr-UAE do) in Gulf of Bengal, or Adaman Sea. In a strategic partnership frame. Or somewhere in Suvarnadvipa…
About that, i hope i’m not too late to wish an happy Diwali!
Thank you for reading and pardon mi French.
Notes:
(1): Norms over Force. The Enigma of European Power, Zaki Laïdi, Palgrave MacMillan, NY, 2008 [first edition: Presses de Science-Po, Paris, 2005]
(2): https://au.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/e...3678/a892c4f93ab0687400274085650d6d72973af817