Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for EU

EU

EU Foreign Policy: More Grand Delusion than Grand Strategy

by

by Eliz Peck

24 May 2019

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron after the signing of a new Germany-France friendship treaty at the historic Town Hall in Aachen, Germany on Tuesday, 22 January 2019. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner).

Henry Kissinger once said that “no foreign policy – no matter how ingenious – has any chance of success if it is born in the minds of a few and carried in the hearts of none”. With the EU divided not just between – but within – its member states, a united EU foreign and security policy seems less likely than ever to succeed, regardless of the strength of its leaders.

The job title ‘High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’ sounds important. And yet, relatively few everyday people living in the EU have probably heard of Federica Mogherini, or her job. In June 2016, Mogherini’s office published a European Union Global Strategy. It projected its vision of the EU’s grand strategy. In its introduction she urgently called for a united EU foreign and security policy in the face of “increasingly fractured identities.” Her calls came following the crises in Libya, Syria and Ukraine, where the EU proved itself an inadequate foreign policy actor, incapable of coordinating amongst its member states an effective and timely response to international crises.

It is misguided to simply attribute these foreign policy failures to weak political leadership. At state-level, leaders of the larger European countries have been as pro-active as domestic contexts have allowed in seeking to combat international crises. Chancellor Merkel sacrificed her political longevity when she threw open Germany’s doors in 2015 in response to the migrant crisis, asserting Wir Schaffen Das (‘We Can Do This’). The growth of the far-right, anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party can be traced back to Merkel’s ambitious open-door refugee-policy. This domestic backlash pushed her to back-peddle on a liberal policy, instead striking a deal with Turkey in March 2016 that would curb the number of refugees arriving in Europe.

Although countries can cooperate in certain foreign policies, grand strategy is typically the preserve of an individual state. Hal Brands, Professor of Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, sees grand strategy as “a purposeful and coherent set of ideas about what a nation seeks to accomplish in the world”. At their very core, grand strategy and foreign policy are a projection of the values and identity of the state. We see this clearly in President Truman’s policy of ‘containment’ between 1945 and 1953, which Brands describes as ‘the golden age of grand strategy’. First articulated in George Kennan’s so-called Long Telegram, the strategy of containment sought to mobilise the military, economic and diplomatic resources of the American state during the Cold War in order to mitigate the rise of their ideological and strategic rival, the USSR. Viewed from this perspective, the Marshall Plan not only aimed for a peaceful post-war economic reconstruction of Europe but sought to promote capitalist notions of liberty and prosperity that lie at the very heart of the American Dream.

Launching a coordinated European grand strategy for multiple states and multiple identities was always going to be tough. What is more, the EU is vast. Individual strategic priorities differ because of the way that they are shaped by historical context and the geo-political landscape. Russian aggrandisement is a pressing concern for Eastern European countries like Poland, but not for Southern European countries like Italy who are struggling with the flow of migrants crossing the Mediterranean.

No issue more clearly illustrates the failure to coordinate a single EU grand strategy than the rise of China. Despite the recently published EU-China document deeming China a ‘systemic rival’ and calling for ‘full unity’ in EU responses, the member states have nevertheless prioritised national interests over falling in line with Brussels. This is seen in the growing bilateral links between China and the Central and Eastern European states – the so-called 16+1 group, eleven of whom are in the EU – who are hungry for Belt and Road investments. In March 2019, President Macron tried to show a united front when he invited Chancellor Merkel and European Commissioner Jean-Claude Juncker to his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. He triumphantly claimed “The face of a Europe that speaks with one voice on the international scene is emerging.” Only days later, this claim was undermined when Italy became the first G7 partner to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with China, endorsing the Belt and Road.

The new critical focus on EU foreign and security policy comes in the wake of the radically changed geopolitical landscape. Before 2016, there was little desire for a coordinated EU foreign policy as outlined in the EU Global Strategy. After plans for a European Army were abandoned in 1954, the European integration project was first economic and later political. Secure in their defensive NATO alliance, and on American support for individual foreign policy, the larger EU countries felt an officially coordinated foreign policy with their non-NATO neighbours was not a priority.

Yet Trump’s erratic ‘America First’ policies have thrown doubt on the previously steadfast NATO pact. In a somewhat frantic response, EU countries have had to look to each other for support. The 2017 formation of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) – an EU defence union – and Macron’s proposal of a European Intervention Initiative (E2I) at Sorbonne can be viewed in this light.

But this comes too little, too late. The time for establishing the groundwork for a common foreign and security policy was when times were good, not now. Euroscepticism dominates today’s political landscape. The rise of the far-right in Hungary and Poland, the populism of Brexit and Italy’s Five Star Movement and the domestic turmoil facing Macron and Merkel are calling into question certain values – multilateral cooperation and human rights, to name a few – that are the founding assumptions of EU cooperation. What we see now is a crisis of identity that goes to the very heart of the European project.

Collaboration between these countries is not impossible. The success of Europol and the European Counter Terrorism Centre show that states unite against a common-enemy. EU foreign policy has been even more effective in coordinating maritime missions aimed to disrupt acts of Somali-piracy based off the Horn of Africa, which threaten trade routes off the Gulf of Aden. But arguably, this success traces to the clear economic incentive for participation; most other foreign policy issues do not have such direct economic benefits. Without a wholehearted commitment to the European project, states will run into difficulty.

The last time the European territories’ foreign and security policies were coordinated under one single grand strategy was under Charlemagne, the ‘Father of Europe’ who died in the year 814 and was buried in Aachen. President Macron and Chancellor Merkel symbolically met there at the start of this year, in a show of solidarity and mutual commitment more than half a century after the Élysée Treaty was signed. Designed as a show of strength and renewed commitment, the limited progress made at the meeting only reinforced just how difficult foreign and security coordination is in the context of the current European disharmony.

Eliz Peck is an MA candidate in Conflict, Security and Development at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. You can follow her on Twitter @PeckEliz

Image source: https://www.apnews.com/02d7f1384f454f09b31a7c852d275e4e

Feature — Beyond the Strife and Rhetoric: Have the lights gone out for Theresa May’s Brexit Deal?

by

By Amber Boothe and Tasneem Ghazi

30 November 2018

Anti-Brexit groups protested the draft Brexit deal agreement outside the Houses of Parliament. (Image credit: AFP/Getty)

 

The Shock of a Finalised Deal

On the 14th November, in a moment of triumphant relief, Prime Minister Theresa May announced that the cabinet and the European Council had finally agreed to a ‘realistic Brexit Deal’. In her somber and resolute speech, May emphasised the primacy of such a deal to Britain’s national interests. Whilst this deal is dense and lengthy (some 585 pages), it may have been a victory for May — had it not been undermined by fellow Tories, beginning with her former ally, ex-Brexit secretary Dominic Raab. Raab’s damning statement following his resignation painted the deal as a pro-European attempt at appeasement. Likewise, rumour has it that Eurosceptic Conservative rebellion is amassing its ranks, as five cabinet colleagues, including Michael Gove and Andrea Leadsom, announced their commitment to changing the Prime Minister’s mind. Yet, it is worth considering the implications of this long-sought agreement, for inter-party strife may butcher Britain’s last chance before a ‘No-Deal’.

A Reality Check on Britain’s Bargaining Power

Following the deal’s vilification by Brexiteers, German Chancellor Angela Merkel steadfastly announced Britain will not receive a better — or even another — deal from the European Council. This damning fact of the matter ought to ground the British public’s expectations. For the surge of nationalism — from both the left and right — in the UK is to blame for the 2016 referendum’s outcome. Brexit is and has always been a non-partisan matter of extremes. When examining this deal then, one must consider not just its contents; but the implications of its failure; as well as Labour’s divided state and, crucially, Jeremy Corbyn’s stringent position of Pro-leave and Anti-People’s vote.

 The Terms of the Brexit Agreement

The deal’s two major weaknesses are, first, that the British taxpayer must pay a ‘divorce’ fee, estimated to be between £35-39 billion to cover existing financial obligations; and second, that Britain must abide by the majority of EU law during the transition period whereby both parties hope to secure a trade deal.

The agreement is, however, not without merit. First, the skillful concessions made in Protocol 1 pertaining to the Northern Irish backstop is a minor victory. The very phrasing of the article solves the issue of a ‘hard border’, while respecting the integrity of the Good Friday agreement and the Irish Republic’s sovereignty.

The deal also grants Britain the flexibility and time (until 2020) to negotiate a separate trade deal with the European Union.  Under this arrangement, Britain is granted free trade cooperation with the EU on goods, as well as a zero tariffs quota and the ability to strike other trade deals with other British partners. Short of remaining within the single market and the ‘Norway option, (rejected by Brexiteers), this is the best alternative Britain has.

Last— but most importantly for Brexiteers —  the deal ends Britain’s adherence to the European system of ‘Free Movement’ and long-vilified system of immigration. Appeasing the primary complaint of those who voted ‘Leave’, Britain may then transition to another, individual highly specialised, skill-based immigration system. In short, May’s Brexit deal is a flexible trade arrangement that allows Britain to pay its way through Brexit and abandon its most contentious commitment to the EU: Freedom of Movement. Put simply, it will deliver what many Brexiteers rallied for without wrecking a future relationship with the EU.

Yet, even though this draft agreement was unilaterally approved by EU27 as swiftly as 25th November, its future cannot be predicted without the arithmetic of parliamentary votes.

The Turbulent Passage of the Deal

The turning point now is the deal’s passage through parliament. Until it receives a simple majority, it is neither legally nor politically binding. Whether or not May will be able to obtain the necessary votes is uncertain. To secure Parliamentary backing, May needs 320 votes (discounting Sein Fein’s abstentionists, the Speaker and his deputies). Losing the Conservative Parliamentary majority in 2017 left May short of her majority. But in theory, the ‘confidence and supply’ deal with the Democratic Unionist Party should give her a 13-vote lead.

Nevertheless, recent events tell another story. In light of Arlene Foster’s fiery denunciation of the agreement and the DUP’s abstention from voting on the budget, many argue that the DUP will revolt.  But this assumption greatly overstates the DUP’s autonomy. The DUP has entered into billion-pound investment with the Conservatives that has afforded them more power than ever before. Bearing this in mind, it would be unlikely for the DUP to risk their future by standing against May’s proposal; thus, an abstention on their part is (realistically) the worst case possible.

These calculations indicate May might have a theoretical majority. But, unfortunately for the Prime Minister, strife within the Tory party risks crippling her deal. Realistically, around 80 hardline Tory Brexiteer are liable to vote against the party line. Add this figure to the eight or so Remainers in her party, May could have a deficit of nearly 90 votes. According to this, one could easily presume this deal shall not make it through Parliament.

However, another caveat remains forgotten: votes in the Conservative camp are half the story.

Labour: A Crippled Camp

The focus has been on whether May can obtain enough votes, and most calculations assume that the opposition will be united against the deal. In reality though, Labour’s poor choice of leader has left the party divided and ineffectual. Whilst some hope that calling a general election will be the opportunity Labour needs to take control, deep cracks exist within the party. ‘We can’t stop Brexit,’ said Corbyn. ‘We can stop Brexit,’ countered Sir Keir Starmer, the party’s Brexit spokesman. On one hand, polls suggest that 49 percent of the country are in favour of a public vote, but Corbyn maintains that a second referendum is ‘not an option for today’.  Ironically, Corbyn’s refusal to back a People’s Vote has undermined Starmer’s meaningful efforts to ensure that ‘we will vote down a blind Brexit‘. This ongoing inter-party strife prevents Labour from unifying into a force to be reckoned with.

Considering the conflict within the opposition, one may wonder how Corbyn will ensure that abstentions in the Labour party don’t make up the votes Mays lacking. One cannot and must not forget that if Labour were to come into power (unless there is a change in leadership), reversing Brexit would not be an option. Beyond Corbyn’s Euroscepticism, many Labour Remainers represent constituencies that voted Leave and would be unlikely to vote against a deal.

A recent Opinium poll  found that Leave voters are defecting from the Conservative party, evidenced by a drop-in points by 10 to 49 percent of the proportion of Leavers backing the Tories. Meanwhile, Labour has seen a 4-point increase to 24 percent. A further 22 percent of Labour supporters felt the party should back the deal. This tension between the will of the people and the widespread hostility towards May’s deal crucially incentivises neutrality on the part of Labour MPs. As diverging opinions fracture the political landscape, it is in their best interest not to pick a side. So widespread abstentions could be a reality that would benefit the Government.

Predicting the Deal’s Parliamentary Passage

Doing the arithmetic demonstrates that this agreement might survive, albeit narrowly. The question then ought to be why this agreement should survive. It is hardly an ‘easy Brexit’. Although it negates Britain’s unpopular obligation to ‘free movement’, it is inevitably shaped by the EU’s interests, particularly because of Britain’s lack of bargaining power. The European Council will not, for its own sake, give Britain another deal. If it did, Britain would be setting a precedent for rising right-wing parties in Europe to painlessly withdraw their membership of the European Union. [1]

Thus, a ‘No-Deal’ is Britain’s most likely alternative.  Labour, under Corbyn, has refused otherwise. While a second referendum with the outcome of ‘Remain’, would undoubtedly be a better option for Britain, the likelihood of this is very uncertain. This outcome of another ‘People’s Vote’ is the hope of brilliant optimists like Keir Starmer, alongside a string of former prime ministers and prominent politicians, including Brown, Blair, Clegg, Cable, Major, McDonnel, Hague and Heseltine.

As their statements imply, the support a second referendum commands is rooted in the realisation that by leaving the EU in the current socio-economic climate, Britain stands to lose more sovereignty than ever before. Likewise, optimists emphasise that the Prime Minister did not rule out reversing Brexit in her speech. But, realistically, until a united front of prominent politicians working together against Brexit appears, another referendum is both constitutionally dubious and uncharted territory.

To this Deal or to ‘No-Deal’?

As it stands, Britain’s position is best realised by considering the implications of a ‘No-Deal’. An economic  catastrophe for Britain is the first ailment, and tellingly, the pound has already begun to drop. Exacerbating matters, a recent UN report revealed an appallingly rife level of poverty and homelessness across the United Kingdom. With the current disastrous cuts on welfare, the decapitated NHS and almost non-existent legal aid, Britain will suffer further. Wages will inevitably drop, and taxes will increase. Reports have shown that a ‘No-Deal’ would cost young people up to 3,000 pounds per year. Such a dire state of economic affairs will undoubtedly compel Britain to look for cooperation and aid abroad.

Foreign policy-wise, a vacuum must be filled. Britain will be left with no choice but to rely upon less dependable foreign partners, many of whom are notorious for blatantly disregarding human rights, such as Saudi Arabia. By giving in to such an arrangement, Britain would abandon European allies and re-align British interest with those who, like Saudi Arabia, trample on dearly-held national values: democracy, freedom of speech, and human rights.

In sum, a ‘No-Deal’ does not just entail betraying steadfast European allies with shared values; it shall prolong the age of austerity, poverty, and an ailing economy, all of which are painful consequences that Britain should not endure. Looking closely at May’s deal demonstrates that it is a compromise protecting the EU’s interests (as well as an Anglo-European relationship) while delivering the promise of Brexiteers. So, if one does not support resurrecting Britain’s membership of the EU — and the gamble of another referendum — one should hope that this agreement survives. The fact of the matter is that this deal is the uncomfortable medicine prescribed to Britain by Europe to cure a bitter bout of nationalism. Only now can we genuinely see the dark irony behind the Brexiteer mantra of ‘restoring sovereignty’, for as Britain leaves the EU, we stand on the brink of losing more sovereignty than ever before.

Amber Boothe and Tasneem Ghazi are fourth year students reading Politics, Philosophy and Law (joint honours LLB) at King’s College London. They serve as Communications Director and Manager Editor (respectively) of the Dickson Poon School of Law’s postgraduate Law Journal: The King’s Student Law Review. Amber and Tasneem are also passionately involved in a number of public law projects. Their research specialises in UK constitutional law and legal theory.

The authors would also like to thank Dr. Elin Weston for her advice. 

Notes:

[1] Since the beginning of the Brexit campaign,  Le Front Nationale’s Marine Le Pen (amongst others) proudly announced a plan to follow the UK’s example.

 

 

Image source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-interview-labour-momentum-2022-general-election-leader-theresa-amy-dup-local-council-a8124766.html

The buck passing stops here on European norms for drones

by

By Delina Goxho

The nEUROn, an experimental drone currently developed under an international cooperation, led by the French company Dassault Aviation, and involving France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. (Credit Image: Dassault Aviation)

 

The most recent Trump administration changes to the policies regulating drone strikes are still secret, but what we do know sets a dangerous precedent on the use of armed drones and the use of force broadly, with strong implications to the USA as well as Europe. . The current U.S. policy reportedly removes the condition of immediacy of the targeted threat, among other things, challenging the limits of international standards regulating the use of force[1].  Most European states are not willing to regulate their acquisition and the use of armed drones in ways that would preserve compliance with both international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL), blaming lack of consensus internationally and at home. Indeed, the UK has so far admitted one civilian casualty in an air campaign (through both conventional and drones strikes) in Syria that started  four years ago and has no end in sight[2]. France is currently acquiring armed drones to be deployed in the G5 Sahel countries, but has no safeguards[3] in place to prevent the use of such weapons contravening international law. In addition, Italy, Germany, the UK and the Netherlands are all aiding the US drone war in the Middle East and Africa both with intelligence and infrastructure.

European states should challenge the US precedent of drone use and establish norms that are accountable, transparent and legal. This article will first clarify why armed drones can be considered to be a controversial weapon, it will then outline what is currently unfolding at the EU level in terms of defence budget and it will delve into the buck passing game that is occurring at the UN, EU and Member state levels and finally recommend that the EU finds a Common Position on the use of armed drones that is respectful of international norms.

 

A controversial tool

Despite allowing for potentially more precise strikes, presenting a strategic advantage and minimising risk to troops’ lives, armed drones are particularly controversial because they facilitate escalation of a conflict: by making war a less costly resort, armed drones are a powerful means for states to intervene where they would not have the political support, resources on the ground or a legal mandate to do so[4]. The proliferation of armed drones within and outside Europe, including their use to execute targeted killings and complicity in US strikes, as recently pointed out in Amnesty International report[5], presents a challenge to the international legal order. Drones are not only used in battlefield theatres, where IHL applies, but also outside of areas of armed conflict, where IHRL applies, which implies that strikes are paramount to extrajudicial executions[6][7]. In addition, from a more counterterrorism perspective, there has not been enough debate on whether drones may be “creating more terrorists than we’re killing”, as former Defence Secretary Rumsfeld famously put it[8]. Discussions around a Common European Position[9] regarding the acquisition and use of armed drones are of vital importance[10], especially after reports of targeted killings as a counter-terrorism technique[11] have become the norm. New European Union spending in the field of defence risks exacerbating these worrisome developments.

 

New European defence budget and Multilateral buck-passing

On 13 June 2018, the European Commission released its proposals for the Security and Defence heading under the next EU long-term budget. The new “militarised” EU Multi Annual Financial Framework foresees an increase of the Defence Fund by 2200%.[12] Additionally, the EU will allow companies developing the so-called ‘lethal autonomous weapons’ to apply for EU funding. The European Parliament had originally wanted to bar controversial new weapons, such as weapons of mass destruction (WMD), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones), cluster munitions, anti-personnel landmines and fully autonomous weapons from receiving EU subsidies, but without success. The proposed regulation simply stated that projects would not be eligible for funding if their end product was “prohibited by international law”. This is a matter of controversy becuase the UAV platform itself would not be prohibited, but its uses outside international law would be. In exchange, the Council of Ministers of the EU offered the European Parliament a formal rationale for the norm, in which “the eligibility of actions … should also be subject to developments in international law”[13]. In other words, controversial weapons could be banned from the European Defence Industrial Development Programme once agreement is found at the international level.

This presents two issues: first, that armed drones, despite their negative impacts on the battlefield, are not even mentioned in the document and secondly that State representatives at various UN fora are only willing to reach an agreement if there is the political desire to do so within their respective governments. The same happens within the EU, where state representatives are not willing to make decisions if there is no lead from their political leaders. European member states on the other hand play rebound, and suggest that consensus should be reached multilaterally before they can come to an agreement internally. This buck passing game is slowing down the decision making process, while drone technology rapidly improves and drones are used by more and more states and non-state armed groups globally, in ways that are often unlawful, as recently explained in a PAX report on new drone producers and users[14].

 

Trump’s Shadow War

All this buck-passing is operated against the backdrop of the new US Principles, Standards and Procedures (PSP), which further loosens policies around the use of armed drones in the US[15]. Fears that Trump would tear up Obama-era regulations governing the use of direct military action were justified[16]: Trump removed the condition  that a terrorist target has to pose an imminent threat to U.S. persons to be individually targeted, which lowered the ‘threat standard’[17] applied to people the United States can kill. The Trump administration is yet to provide information on the new threshold for action and whether this threshold is uniform. Additionally, proposed drone strikes and counterterrorism raids no longer undergo the same vetting they did under Obama. Instead, Trump will permit the delegation of decision-making to lower levels of seniority before conducting a strike[18].

 

Towards a European Common position?

Against this backdrop in the US, more UAV investment at the EU level is especially problematic: if the US modus operandi has been the most common policy for the use of armed drones in the West, why should the EU behave differently? It is thoroughly understandable that the EU would want to prioritise European industries and move away from US dependency as far as its own defence is concerned, given the security challenges within the Union and US disengagement. ‘With this agreement, we are building the EU’s strategic autonomy and boosting the competitiveness of the EU defence industry’ said industry Commissioner Bienkowska[19]. This however must be done without sacrificing what the Union is founded upon, i.e. a shared understanding of human rights principles. According to Catalan Research Institute Centre Delas, by 2027, the EU will have spent more on military research than on humanitarian aid[20]. If we look at US policy regarding the use of military drones, it is of vital importance to ask EU member states not to follow that path blindly but instead to distance themselves from a policy which is unlawful – as far as IHRL and IHL principles are concerned – and which sets a dangerous precedent.

 

A similar issue can be identified with regard to European arms exports: different Member states apply different principles when exporting weapons to third countries who violate international law, making the European Common Position on arms exports disharmonic. As stated in the Call to Action of the European Forum on Armed Drones (EFAD)[21] European states should articulate clear policies, prevent complicity, ensure transparency, establish accountability and finally control proliferation.

On armed drones Europe has only achieved a Parliamentary Resolution and does not have a Common Position yet. The EU was built on a set of values that would end up becoming empty words if Europe does not put in place safeguards and choose rules of engagement on the battlefield different from those of its transatlantic ally.

 

Delina is the consultant on armed drones and targeted killing at the Open Society Foundations office in Brussels. Prior to this, Delina worked for the European External Action Service in the Task Force Iran, focusing on Security and Humanitarian issues, the Defence and Security and the Economic and Social Committees at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, focusing on the Syrian civil conflict and CT operations against Daesh and the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, doing research on the humanitarian intervention in Libya.

Delina holds a B.A. in French and English literature from the University of Verona and the University of Cambridge and an M.A. in International Security from the University of Bologna and the University of California, Berkeley. She speaks English, French, Italian, Albanian and is currently learning Arabic.

Notes: 

[1]https://www.stimson.org/sites/default/files/file-attachments/Stimson%20Action%20Plan%20on%20US%20Drone%20Policy.pdf

[2] http://appgdrones.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/INH_PG_Drones_AllInOne_v25.pdf

[3] The French government refuse to confirm or put policies in place to clarify that they will not be adopting practices/legal interpretations deployed in the use of drones that have been legally controversial and caused considerable civilian harm.

[4] Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, The New Press, New York, 2015 [“drones project power without projecting vulnerability”]

[5] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/04/european-assistance-to-deadly-us-drone-strikes/

[6] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/ArmedDrones.aspx

[7] https://www.thenation.com/article/how-the-us-military-came-to-embrace-extrajudicial-killings/

[8] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/killing-more-innocents-we-admit-23266

[9] Document can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/578032/EXPO_STU(2017)578032_EN.pdf

[10] The European Forum on Armed Drones (EFAD) represents an interesting tool to monitor and challenge current practices around the use of armed drones: https://www.efadrones.org

[11]Bruno Oliveira Martins, Global Affairs: The European Union and armed drones: framing the debate, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23340460.2015.1080930?scroll=top&needAccess=true

[12] The fund has two strands: Research (€90 million until the end of 2019 and €500 million per year after 2020) and Development & Acquisition (€500 million in total for 2019-20 then €1 billion per year after 2020); EU Observer https://euobserver.com/science/141885

[13] https://euobserver.com/science/141885

[14] https://www.paxforpeace.nl/stay-informed/news/global-military-drone-industry-expands-rapidly

[15] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/us/politics/trump-drone-strikes-commando-raids-rules.html

[16] A group of NGOs (Center for Civilians in Conflict, Airwars, Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Amnesty International, American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, Center for Constitutional Rights, Reprieve amongst others) have warned against the increased use of strikes and the loosening up of norms: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/trump-deadly-drone-policy-ngos-180307204617166.html

[17] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/03/07/ngo-statement-reported-changes-us-policy-use-armed-drones-and-other-lethal-force

[18] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/us/politics/trump-drone-strikes-commando-raids-rules.html

[19] http://europa.eu/rapid/midday-express-23-05-2018.htm

[20] http://www.centredelas.org/en/press/news/3641-the-european-defence-fund-will-merely-benefit-the-industry-and-trigger-arms-race-in-autonomous-weapons-says-enaat

[21] EFAD is a civil society network of organisations working to promote human rights, respect for the rule of law, disarmament and conflict prevention https://www.efadrones.org/call-to-action/

 

Image Source: https://euobserver.com/news/115283

NATO is wounded, this Summit could break it

by

By Dr Zachary Wolfraim

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg ahead of the Summit (Credit Image: NATO HQ)

In light of the recent chaos consuming British politics and the looming NATO summit, I revisited an article I wrote on the eve of the US election in 2016 hoping it would outline a worst-case scenario, rather than reality. At that time, NATO was heading into uncertainty with the reality of Brexit and the Conservative Party’s significantly reduced majority in Parliament just starting to sink in. Turkey was moving steadily towards autocracy and Donald Trump was a long-shot, but nonetheless threatening Presidential candidate. This scenario has since come to pass and with the critical ongoing summit  (on the 11th and 12th July 2018), NATO has again been pushed into a corner and forced to defend its existence. This is a frequent occurrence for the alliance, particularly since the end of the Cold War.  With the collapse of the Soviet Union, rather than disbanding, the alliance found new purpose both as a vehicle for promoting US interests in Europe but also as a security organisation capable of undertaking coordinated multilateral interventions. In occupying this role, NATO has reinvented itself from collective defence organisation established to prevent Soviet expansionism into one able to execute complex, coordinated multilateral military interventions. In doing so it has responded to crises in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Libya and has now reoriented back towards countering Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. The threat it faces now is not from an external crisis, however, but internal within the alliance and the effect of radical realignments in policy both in the US and the UK.

As a backdrop to current events, suspected Russian interference into both countries have undermined mechanisms of political campaigning and cast doubt on democratic outcomes while delivering policies that dramatically upend decades of Western international security policy. President Donald Trump and specifically his transactional view of international alliances and a complete lack of consistency in policymaking present an existential threat to the organisation and consequently, creates another way of undermining US influence in Europe. Concurrently, Britain has been rendered politically unstable, consumed with Brexit which adds to years of austerity that have diminished much of its defence capability. Both countries play a central role in providing military support and a diplomatic vision to NATO and are struggling to define their respective relationships within the broader international order.

In the UK specifically, both major parties, the Conservatives and Labour, are completely riven by Brexit with the Conservative party engaging in open conflict over the UK’s future relationship with the EU, most recently losing its Foreign Secretary and its Brexit minister. This has not yet spilled into the UK-NATO sphere but nonetheless has planted seeds of doubt in the minds of allies over the type of reliable member the UK will continue to be. Despite the country’s position as a framework nation contributing to vital capabilities and forces alongside meeting its 2% budgetary commitment, it has continued to under invest in maintaining its military capabilities and by extension limiting its ability to act as a capable partner in NATO operations. This is now reaching  a point where its future effectiveness could be called into question. Stagnant economic realities mean that future defence investment decisions are likely to be pushed down the road until there is a clearer UK-EU relationship. As a result, one of Europe’s critical NATO members is effectively in a holding pattern for the next few years.

The US, on the other hand, presents an even more fundamental question. President Trump has made it relatively clear that he does not believe the values that underpin NATO are sufficient to justify its existence. Trump’s sole emphasis has been on the disparity between US defence spending and the continuing 2% spending target, disregarding the agenda setting influence this spending has bought. While this has often been a point of contention in NATO, the President’s willful misunderstanding of how this spending target works has only compounded his sense of grievance with NATO allies. Fundamentally, the President seems willing to dismantle the security architecture that has underpinned the safety and security of Europe, the North Atlantic and the West more broadly since the end of the Second World War over the issue of spending and budgets. Despite reassurances from the US Permanent Representative to NATO and US Defence Secretary, James Mattis, about the alliance’s central role to US defence priorities, no one actually knows what President Trump will say as he has no defined priorities or identifiable value structure when it comes to international relations.

Regardless of what happens in this summit, NATO remains in serious trouble during the tenure of the Trump presidency and until Britain has decided its future relationship with the EU. For the time being NATO member states must remain defensive about their continued increases in spending, proactive in their policymaking and vocal about what NATO’s value added is to international security. The 2% spending goal, while admirable, should be adapted to place emphasis on effectiveness and thus increase coordination between Allies to enhance the capability of NATO as a whole. Though the UK has made its commitments to NATO clear, its ability to follow through on them is variable and thus the ability to coordinate with similarly effective NATO forces creates a way of preserving influence and capability. Ultimately, despite the UK’s diminished international presence, NATO can potentially continue to limp along with US disengagement until the next presidential election. However, there is no doubt that this is one of the lowest points for the transatlantic relationship since the beginning of the Iraq War. At that time, major NATO members both publicly rebuked the US invasion of Iraq and refused to support US efforts in mobilising NATO to defend Turkey. This previous rift in the alliance seems minor in hindsight, however, it nonetheless demonstrated that the organisation can endure difficult diplomatic relations and carve out a relevant international role.

During this summit and beyond, Canada and European NATO Allies will need to prioritise the relevance of NATO, invest in maintaining the organisation and prepare to speak up in its defence. There remains considerable support for NATO in the US and Allies should make every effort to maintain links with aligned US Senators and Representatives to continue making the case for NATO. In terms of operations, NATO must continue its presence in Eastern Europe and continue to be a proactive force in international affairs, driven by the initiative of Canada and European members, otherwise it runs the risk of becoming a discussion forum rather than an active force for stability and progress. More generally, NATO member states will need proactive strategies to deal with Russian disinformation and spend time on reaffirming and rebuilding trust with voters. With time and perhaps a different administration, the alliance will recover somewhat, however, the damage that has already occurred will take time and dedication, particularly on the part of the US, to recover.

 

If you have come to the end of this piece, we are interested in what you think about our Blog. We have launched our first readers survey just so that you can tell us how we are doing and what we can do better. You will find the survey here. It takes just a few minutes, but your help will be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Dr. Zachary Wolfraim graduated from the War Studies department where he examined how narratives shape foreign policy behaviours. He has previously worked in NATO headquarters on operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as well as political risk and intelligence sectors in London.

Image source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_156597.htm

L’impeachment che non fu. Tre appunti per i mesi a venire

by

by Andrea Varsori

Il Presidente della Repubblica Sergio Mattarella arriva nella sala stampa del Quirinale la sera di domenica 27 maggio (Image Credit: LaPresse)

Per l’Italia, gli ultimi giorni del mese scorso sono stati estremamente movimentati, anche per gli standard a cui la politica nazionale e internazionale ci ha abituato negli ultimi anni. Tra il 28 e il 29 maggio, abbiamo assistito all’impennarsi di tensioni interne e esterne. Politici, osservatori e cittadini hanno preso parte a uno scontro senza precedenti tra il Presidente della Repubblica e le due forze politiche che stavano formando il governo, la Lega e il Movimento 5 Stelle. Quest’ultima ha seriamente proposto la messa in stato d’accusa del Presidente. Alla chiamata nelle piazze da parte del M5S ha risposto il Partito Democratico, in una escalation di mobilitazione. Nel frattempo, esponenti politici nazionali si sono scontrati con membri della Commissione Europea e parlamentari europei. Investitori stranieri hanno perso fiducia nella capacità italiana di ripagare il debito, con immediate conseguenze sul valore dei titoli bancari e sul costo pagato dal Paese per rifinanziarsi sui mercati. Almeno in questo senso, sembrava di essere tornati nel caos del novembre 2011.

A vedere, invece, quello che è successo nei giorni successivi, c’è di che stupirsi. Una frattura che, lunedì e martedì, sembrava insanabile e capace di dividere il Paese, si è ricomposta con il semplice spostamento di Paolo Savona, economista fortemente critico della partecipazione italiana all’euro, dal Ministero dell’Economia al meno importante Ministero agli Affari Europei. Il veto del Presidente è stato così superato. Tra giovedì sera e venerdì pomeriggio, un governo tecnico nato morto è stato accantonato, e un governo politico è nato e ha giurato fedeltà alla Repubblica. Quello stesso sabato, Giuseppe Conte, il neo-premier, sedeva sorridente al fianco di Mattarella. E ora, con la fiducia ottenuta in entrambe le camere, il governo Conte è una realtà solida, al contrario di quello che si poteva pensare solo qualche giorno prima.

Sarebbe sbagliato, però, pensare che tutto questo non conti più. Gli eventi degli ultimi giorni di maggio possono ora sembrare sepolti dalle dichiarazioni di quelli che adesso sono esponenti di Governo, soprattutto considerando quanto poco durino le notizie nel clima mediatico in cui viviamo. Per quanto la nascita del governo Conte abbia cambiato la situazione politica nazionale, però, non ha cambiato di certo alcuni fattori strutturali. Questi fattori persistono, e riguardano l’instabilità politica interna, che può tornare in qualsiasi momento; la debolezza economica italiana, che conta ancora moltissimo; e il rapporto tra Italia ed Unione Europea, ormai più di scontro che di confronto.

 

Politica italiana: mai davvero stabile

La prima osservazione che si può fare è che, almeno per i prossimi mesi, non potremo dire che la situazione politica italiana si sia davvero stabilizzata. Questo punto di vista può sembrare molto pessimista, considerato che il governo Conte è nato e ha una maggioranza relativamente solida e un contratto di governo già pronto. La mia risposta a queste obiezioni si limita a evidenziare due eventi accaduti dopo che è emerso il veto di Sergio Mattarella su Paolo Savona. Il primo è la scelta di Matteo Salvini di abbandonare il tavolo dei negoziati e far saltare, in un primo momento, il governo Conte. Sull’opportunità politica della mossa di Mattarella, ovviamente, si può discutere: ma non è quello che interessa qui. La crisi tra M5S, Lega e Quirinale, infatti, si poteva benissimo evitare, soprattutto nel caso sia vera l’ipotesi che Mattarella avesse proposto Giancarlo Giorgetti, storico esponente leghista, come alternativa a Savona. È probabile che la mossa di Salvini sia stata motivata dalla crescita in popolarità che ne sarebbe seguita per la Lega, fotografata da molti recenti sondaggi. Anche se questo non fosse vero, però, la crisi di rapporti si poteva benissimo evitare. La nascita del governo Conte con Savona agli Affari Europei dimostra che un’alternativa era possibile. La reazione di Salvini ha mostrato, nel caso peggiore, opportunismo, nel caso migliore mancanza di capacità di gestire negoziati politici.

Ancora più grave è stata la reazione di Luigi Di Maio, con l’immediata proposta di mettere Mattarella in stato d’accusa. Questa idea, infatti, è stata chiaramente lanciata senza pianificazione alcuna. Ne è testimone il fatto che la Lega da subito si sia dimostrata scettica, pur criticando fortemente il Presidente, e se ne sia tirata fuori già lunedì 28 maggio. Di Maio ha scommesso una parte rilevante del suo capitale politico e delle possibilità di successo del suo partito su una mossa rischiosa, polarizzante, e senza molte possibilità di ottenere risultati tangibili. Ha perfino convocato una manifestazione a Roma che, man mano che la settimana passava, ha dovuto assistere a una paradossale inversione di toni. Chiedere la messa in stato d’accusa è stata una mossa autolesionista per Di Maio e il M5S; il che è grave, dato che denota, come nel caso di Salvini, opportunismo oppure mancanza di capacità di gestire delle crisi.

Queste dimostrazioni di inabilità politica non fanno ben sperare, viste le differenze di storia e retorica tra Lega e M5S. La coordinazione tra le due forze, nei giorni peggiori della crisi istituzionale, è stata scarsa, per non dire inesistente. Questo aspetto potrebbe migliorare se le due forze politiche sapranno imparare a coordinarsi e a guadagnare una la fiducia dell’altra. Ma, stante come si sono comportate la settimana scorsa, questo non succederà certo nel breve periodo. Ancora per qualche mese non potremo dire che l’Italia sia davvero stabile. Un qualsiasi inciampo può accadere di nuovo, con tutte le conseguenze negative che abbiamo visto.

 

Economia italiana: una continua debolezza

Le conseguenze negative sono state, principalmente, di natura economica e hanno dimostrato che l’Italia è ancora molto fragile sotto questo punto di vista. Questa affermazione è basata su dati, piuttosto che pregiudizi. La situazione attuale di moderata crescita non deve infatti mascherare il fatto che i fondamentali economici sono ancora deboli. Innanzitutto, la crescita economica italiana è ancora minore di quella degli altri Paesi dell’Eurozona e, secondo stime del Fondo Monetario Internazionale, probabilmente rallenterà l’anno prossimo. La produttività italiana è bassa e stagnante ormai da decenni. L’Italia non è considerata un buon ambiente per fare impresa e non ha molto successo nell’attrarre investimenti esteri, con Regno Unito, Francia e Germania in una posizione molto migliore, nonostante alcuni miglioramenti recenti. La pressione fiscale è tra le più alte d’Europa; il tasso di povertà è in aumento; il tasso di disoccupazione è ancora relativamente alto, specialmente per i giovani, e anche la sua recente diminuzione è dovuta perlopiù a creazione di posti di lavoro a tempo determinato. Infine, la crescita economica italiana è principalmente trainata dalle esportazioni, che saranno particolarmente vulnerabili alle guerre commerciali che gli Stati Uniti stanno iniziando con l’Unione Europea.

Tutto questo aggrava la situazione del debito pubblico. L’Italia ha il secondo rapporto tra debito e PIL più alto d’Europa, superata in questo solo dalla Grecia, e il quinto più alto nel mondo. Il 32% del debito sovrano italiano è in mano a investitori esteri. Questo è un fatto fondamentale, poiché, nel momento in cui questi hanno ragioni per temere che l’Italia non possa o non voglia ripagare il suo debito, il costo che il Paese affronta per finanziarsi sui mercati si alza, limitando immediatamente la disponibilità di soldi del governo. A partire dalla crisi del debito sovrano del 2011, in realtà, la quota di debito in mano a investitori esteri è progressivamente diminuita. È passata dal 51% del 2010 al 36.1% del 2016; in questo, le operazioni di Quantitative Easing della BCE hanno costituito un’occasione che gli investitori esteri hanno sfruttato per liberarsi di circa 78 miliardi di euro di titoli di stato italiani tra il 2015 e l’inizio di quest’anno. Da una parte, questa diminuzione è un fenomeno positivo, poiché riduce in una certa misura il rischio di contagio tra Italia e Unione Europea e rende Roma meno dipendente dai mercati esteri. Dall’altra parte, però, le banche italiane ora possiedono una porzione maggiore del debito sovrano nazionale. Questo significa che qualsiasi crisi del debito italiano si traduce immediatamente in una crisi bancaria, comportando minore accesso al credito per imprese e famiglie.

È molto difficile che questi fondamentali economici cambino nel breve periodo.

 

Rapporto Italia-UE: i pregiudizi hanno la meglio

Infine, gli eventi della scorsa settimana ci hanno dimostrato che il rapporto tra Italia e Unione Europea probabilmente sarà di scontro, piuttosto che di cooperazione. Si tratta di uno scontro che riguarda innanzitutto le regole europee. Per quanto ci siano notevoli differenze tra Lega e Movimento 5 Stelle, queste due forze politiche hanno un obbiettivo comune: convincere Bruxelles ad allentare i limiti sulla spesa pubblica e a rimandare qualsiasi tentativo di riduzione del debito sovrano italiano. Carlo Cottarelli, qualche giorno prima di essere coinvolto nello sfortunato tentativo di formare un governo tecnico, aveva pubblicato con l’Osservatorio Conti Pubblici dell’Università Cattolica di Milano uno studio in cui analizzava costi e coperture del contratto di programma M5S-Lega. Lo studio evidenziava che le proposte avanzate dalle forze di governo costeranno tra i 108.7 e i 125.7 miliardi di euro, con coperture previste per solo mezzo miliardo. Anche se il neonato governo Conte dovesse decidere di realizzare solo parte del suo contratto, difficilmente risolverà questo problema. È probabile allora che il nuovo esecutivo cerchi di ottenere, anche con metodi energici e poco ortodossi, un allentamento dei vincoli europei.

Non sembra, però, che a Bruxelles ci sia molta voglia di concedere ciò. Anche se altri Paesi mediterranei dovessero unirsi al tentativo italiano (cosa affatto scontata), alcuni Stati settentrionali, come Paesi Bassi e Finlandia, si opporranno alle richieste di Roma. La Germania farà altrettanto. Concedere tempo e margine economico all’Italia, infatti, sarebbe visto come una resa nei confronti di un Paese che poco ha fatto per rimettere i conti a posto, nonostante il massiccio aiuto offerto dalla Banca Centrale col Quantitative Easing. Una mossa conciliatoria nei confronti dell’Italia sarebbe dunque immediatamente criticata dal partito euroscettico Alternativa per la Germania, il principale rivale della CDU, il partito della cancelliera Angela Merkel. Per quanto riguarda la Francia, l’impulso del Presidente Emmanuel Macron sembra essersi per ora esaurito. Le sue proposte di riforma hanno trovato più ostacoli del previsto, soprattutto nei Paesi citati sopra, e sono state considerevolmente ridimensionate da Merkel domenica scorsa. Il nuovo governo italiano può fare poco per cambiare questa situazione, anche se decidesse di abbandonare il progetto di alcuni suoi esponenti di usare la minaccia di uscire dall’euro come strumento per ottenere concessioni.

Lo scontro tra Italia e Unione, però, non sarà solo di regole, ma anche di idee e pregiudizi. Lo abbiamo già visto nei giorni successivi al veto di Mattarella alla nomina di Savona. A Bruxelles, esponenti politici europei si sono lasciati andare a commenti di dubbia utilità politica, con commentatori, giornalisti e politici italiani pronti a brandirli come prova che l’Europa stesse condizionando la politica nazionale. Tra gli episodi più noti c’è senza dubbio la frase “i mercati insegneranno agli italiani come votare per il lato giusto”, attribuita al commissario europeo Günther Oettinger martedì 29 maggio. La frase, però, era solo una sintesi molto semplicistica scritta dall’intervistatore in un tweet. Il giorno dopo, un membro tedesco del parlamento europeo, esponente della CSU, partito alleato alla CDU di Angela Merkel, ha dichiarato in un’intervista che, in caso di bancarotta italiana, “bisognerebbe invadere Roma e prendere possesso del Ministero dell’Economia”. Anche questo commento, certamente eccessivo e irrispettoso, è stato denunciato in Italia, col risultato di ingigantirne l’importanza. Allo stesso modo, dall’altro lato delle Alpi, stereotipi sui tedeschi hanno cominciato a riemergere. L’esempio più famoso ha riguardato Milena Gabanelli, che, in un video per la Dataroom del Corriere della Sera, ha usato un copricapo militare nazista per rappresentare i tedeschi. Accomunare la Germania di oggi a quella degli anni ’30 e ’40, però, viene fatto in maniera più esplicita da molti, incluso il nuovo Ministro agli Affari Europei. È evidente che, in questo contesto, è molto facile per tutt’e due le parti non solo lasciarsi andare a dichiarazioni colme di pregiudizi, ma anche denunciarle e amplificarle, dando così l’impressione che l’intera nazione le condivida.

Questo contribuisce ad accrescere la distanza tra Italia e Germania, oltre che tra Italia e Unione Europea. Questo avviene in un terreno già fertile. Studi annuali dell’Eurobarometro, che si occupa di registrare l’evoluzione dell’opinione pubblica europea, mostrano che l’Italia è tra i Paesi meno convinti dell’appartenenza all’Unione. In un sondaggio di quest’anno, solo il 44% degli italiani crede che l’Italia abbia beneficiato dal fare parte dell’Unione Europea. In un altro studio recente, la maggioranza relativa degli italiani (il 46%) ritiene che l’Italia avrebbe un futuro migliore fuori dall’Unione; in questo, sorpassata solo dal Regno Unito. Questo non vuol dire, ovviamente, che Roma seguirà le orme di Londra. Lo scetticismo verso Bruxelles, però, è ormai un fatto conclamato. E il risvegliarsi di rivalità nazionali, che vanno dai semplici stereotipi a un vero e proprio nazionalismo, può rendere il contrasto tra Italia e Unione ancora più difficile da risolvere.

 

Lo scontro a venire

A mio parere, è proprio questo scontro il fattore più importante per i prossimi mesi. I primi giorni della crisi lo hanno rivelato, con il pronto ricorso a pregiudizi da ambedue le parti. Sappiamo da tempo che le rivalità nazionali in Europa non sono scomparse. In Italia, la loro esistenza era stata mascherata per anni da una retorica europeista ideologica, e forse un po’ ingenua, adottata dalle maggiori istituzioni nazionali. Il velo di questo europeismo è stato probabilmente squarciato nel novembre 2011, con il governo Monti. A quell’epoca, l’idea che l’Unione Europea consista in restrizioni e interferenze, piuttosto che libertà e benefici, ha cominciato a farsi strada. È un’idea, questa, portata avanti con forza dalla Lega e, in passato, anche dal Movimento 5 Stelle. Ora che queste due forze politiche tenteranno di realizzare il loro contratto di governo, può farsi ancora più forte.

Si può già delineare un possibile scenario. Prima o dopo le elezioni europee del 2019, Lega e M5S cercheranno di fare più deficit per avverare le proprie promesse elettorali. Facendo questo, si scontreranno con l’Unione e, in particolare, con i Paesi del Nord, più fiscalmente conservatori. In questo contesto, sarà difficile resistere alla tentazione di ricorrere alla retorica delle rivalità nazionali per ottenere voti e consenso in patria. Naturalmente, è possibile che Salvini e Di Maio si fermino prima, consci dei rischi a cui esporrebbero il Paese andando a uno scontro frontale. Da come si sono comportati la scorsa settimana, però, è lecito dubitarne. Si correrà dunque il rischio di cadere in una spirale di accuse reciproche. Convincere gli italiani che la colpa è della Germania e di Bruxelles, però, può colpire la partecipazione italiana all’Unione nelle sue fondamenta ideali.

 

The English version of this piece is available here.

 

Andrea is a PhD candidate at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, as well as the Editor-in-Chief of Strife. His research focuses on the strategy of urban armed groups in the Global South, in particular on their decision-making processes and their methods of territorial control. Andrea holds an MA in International and Diplomatic Sciences from the University of Bologna; he is also an alumnus of the Institute of Advanced Studies at the same university. His main interests include criminal organisations, drug trafficking networks, urban riots, and urban insurgencies. You can follow him on Twitter @Andrea_Varsori.

Image Source: https://www.repstatic.it/content/nazionale/img/2018/05/28/034107183-8b461394-435c-4763-beaa-fa88f54be243.jpg