The EU already has a battle group: Irish soldiers during a certification exercise in Camp Gormanstown (County Meath, August 11, 2024)
The “cabinet” of EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, CDU, has been in place since Wednesday. This has appointed the Lithuanian Andrius Kubilius for the first time as a commissioner for “defense”. What steps in the institutionalization of joint rearmament preceded this?
The Lisbon Treaty of 2008 laid the foundations for the military union. Many articles were only activated after the United Kingdom decided on “Brexit”. Since the activation of PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation, jW) things happened in quick succession: start-up funds for the military, EDIDP (European Defense Industrial Development Program, jW), the defense fund, military mobility, increased armament in space, EDIP (European Defense Industrial Startegy, jW) and much more. Many small and large EU programs are creating instruments that are intended to create new, larger and faster military equipment and prepare the EU for war. The switch to a war economy is currently the central slogan.
Does this also apply to the annual report on “Coordinated Defense Planning for Europe”?
Its most central point is rearmament. People celebrate that they have increased spending by 30 percent in the last three years alone. The EU states are currently spending 326 billion euros, around 1.9 percent of GDP. Ten years ago it was 147 billion. But that’s not enough and more is needed, they say. The EU Commission is also taking steps to further expand the defense industry with cheap loans from the ECB and state funds. Meanwhile, there is a threat of social cuts everywhere, and social upheaval is getting worse. “Guns instead of butter” is the motto for the poor and working people in Europe. It is based on the lie that it is ultimately about our common prosperity and our security and freedom.
Don’t the European Treaties exclude the financing of military tasks?
According to Article 41.2 of the EU Treaty, measures with a military purpose may not be financed from the EU budget. Unfortunately, we on the left are the only ones who keep bringing this up and criticizing it. The Commission and the Member States are well aware of this, because it was precisely for this reason that the EU war chest called the “Peace Facility” was created outside the EU budget.
How is the upgrade justified?
Although most of these programs and projects predate the Russian attack on Ukraine, the uncertainty among the population has since been exploited to brush aside criticism of militarism. Even if the Ukraine war is frozen next year, the willingness and risk of war will increase. The proclaimed “turning point” is an expression of the robust power struggle for the redivision and reordering of the world. Incidentally, Ms. von der Leyen spoke about this power struggle in her speech on the State of the European Union in 2021.
What options does the EU Parliament have to take action against military financing?
The only sharp sword it has is budgetary control or approval. If Parliament wanted to focus on Article 41.2 or other priorities, it could actually stop these rearmament programs. Unfortunately, there is a large majority for this, even among the supposedly progressive forces such as the Greens and the Social Democrats.
Can this spiral of armament still be reversed after the election of Donald Trump as US President?
Trump’s election is a welcome victory for the arms lobby on both sides of the Atlantic. It is claimed that the EU and the Federal Republic of Germany need to arm themselves even more. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte rambles about four percent of GDP. We need broad mobilization against this armament madness and this war-drunk time. I warn against having any illusions about Trump or anyone else: those who serve the interests of capital – whether here, in America, in Russia or China – will not make the world more peaceful. Only the people themselves can do that if they stand up against war and exploitation.
