Who is more useful and faster between the EU and NATO in guaranteeing new partners against aggression?

30 June 20222 years ago babelfish

Despite the great diversity of objectives, common needs that the Putin regime has highlighted are increasingly prevailing between the two international organizations. The intervention of Emilio Lonardo

The admission as candidate country to the European Union of Ukraine and Moldova (soon, it will also be Georgia's turn) has seen a strong conviction of the countries of the Union, together with the grievances of other countries still blocked after years. The request of the three countries is strongly motivated by the need to have protection from the threatening attitude of the Russian Federation, which has already attacked Georgia, depriving it of part of its territory, attacked in 2014 and is again attacking Ukraine with unprecedented violence. and that it supported, even with its own troops, the constitution of a new state, Transnistra, in an eastern region of Moldavia. None of the three countries in question is currently a member of NATO.

At the same time – and with the same idea of "discouraging" the threatening attitude of the Russian Federation with which they border – Finland and Sweden, which are already members of the European Union, have applied for membership of NATO. In this transitional phase, the United Kingdom (which has no longer been in the EU since 1 January 2021, but remains one of the founding countries of NATO) appears to be taking on a task – completely not formalized – with respect to possible military extensions of the Ukrainian crisis. – of military protection and coordination towards the two Scandinavian countries.

As for the joining times of the two supranational organizations, those of joining the EU appear very long, those of joining NATO, shorter, but exposed to the veto of a member country: in the specific case of Finland and Sweden, Turkey.

Objectives and ways of joining the two international organizations are partially different. At the heart of the EU constitution is the objective of free competition between the adhering countries in a single economic market for goods and people. This basic purpose includes, in the accession process, the adaptation of the legislation of the single requesting country to the Union regulations and the demonstration of being a country that practices the basic rules of political democracy. The request for membership of Albania, North Macedonia and Montenegro is running aground on this last obstacle, but, above all, those of Erdogan's Turkey and Serbia appear to be compromised.

The founding objectives of NATO are political and military: to promote democratic values and to allow member countries to consult and collaborate on defense and security matters for the resolution of disputes and, in the long term, to prevent conflicts. Should diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military power to undertake crisis management operations. Such operations must be conducted under the collective defense clause in NATO's founding treaty (Article 5) or under a mandate from the United Nations, alone or in collaboration with other international organizations.

Yet, despite the strong diversity of objectives, common needs prevail between the two international organizations, which the Putin regime has highlighted: 1. The homogeneous democratic-liberal political connotation of the adhering countries; 2. Mutual solidarity in one's own military defense (explicit in NATO, implicit – but evident – in the EU).

If the European Union does not clarify these overlaps and its own political future, it risks, however, to lead a race, in the long run, losing from a political point of view: joining the EU takes longer than that of NATO; it does not give an explicit military defense advantage; does not have the broad geopolitical scope that NATO membership has, intertwined, through the US partner, with the AUKUS pact (between the USA, Australia and the United Kingdom) and the QUAD partnership, which includes – in addition to the United States – Australia, Japan and India (with increasing involvement of South Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia), with the aim of containing China's political and (potentially) military action. In an ever smaller and faster world, therefore, the EU has some disadvantages compared to NATO's more explicitly political and – if necessary – military action.

Looking at the experience of recent months, determined by the obsessive resumption of attacks and threats by the Russian Federation and the need to protect other European countries in a political and military key, the EU has to make some innovations. In a period of severe geopolitical crisis, the EU has done well, with a lot of cohesion and a certain speed.

However, it would be necessary to take cover with respect to certain mechanisms of participation of the States in the Union and the strategic definition of one's own purpose. Let's start with the first ones.

Albania is right to complain about the timing of accession. And so should Ukraine too, which needs military and economic protection, with the reconstruction that sooner or later will have to be done. Let's talk about the membership rules and their interpretation. For Albania there is no small problem with its political system, poorly democratic-liberal and with one of the most corrupt policies. Focusing on this in the dialogue with Albania could quickly bring to the EU a partner, small but important, and very close, geographically and historically, to Italy. The great attention of the EU to the presence of criteria of substantial democracy at the time of accession, then, must imply rules that are manageable even with respect to the loss of those requirements after accession has taken place. To be clear, there must also be a way to threaten to "throw out" from the EU an increasingly less democratic (and increasingly pro-Putin) partner like Orban's Hungary.

As far as the strategic definition of its own goals is concerned, Europe must trivially – and quickly – pass from a tradition linked specifically to free movement and the market to a completely political perspective: to become the United States of Europe, with ample autonomy at the level of individual states, but with a common central power in matters of environmental policy (and the procurement of primary resources), fiscal, foreign and defense policies. And, I add, dismantling (let's say, with "savoir faire", regenerating) an inefficient bureaucracy, very self-centered and inattentive to the concrete effects of its policies rather than to the well-done and sometimes not very useful "homework" of the Member States and their regions .

This Europe will be an equal and credible partner in the eyes of the other countries of the free world, a strong partner of NATO in the Atlantic area, a large country involved in the policies of the Indo-Pacific area and a possible reference for parts of the great African continent, which must be helped in its economic growth and in the affirmation of political democracy.

This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/chi-e-piu-utile-e-piu-veloce-tra-ue-e-nato-nel-garantire-i-nuovi-partner-contro-le-aggressioni/ on Wed, 29 Jun 2022 05:22:11 +0000.