Squares, rearmament and the balance sheet of Europe

The two demonstrations in Rome on 15 March and 5 April were memorable. From what used to be known as civil society came unequivocal, spontaneous, authentic and comforting signals attesting to a substratum of genuine democracy often seemingly dried up, obliterated by the media and other ubiquitous information channels. On 15 March, the common fabric was the watchword 'Europe'. On 5 April, the watchword was 'Peace'.

Two alternative ideals or instead compatible? We would not doubt the basis of the second answer. The European Project has been a peace project since the Ventotene Manifesto, not to mention the Kantian idea of a 'perpetual peace', which is extraordinarily topical. However, on one essential point the positions in the field today diverge. On 15 March, the United States of Europe was called for. On 5 April, there was a clear rejection of the Project to provide the European Union with a stronger and more secure armed defence than at present, radically condemning the Project announced by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. This second protest, however, combines two positions that do not coincide, not to say oppose each other. On the one hand, it calls for immediate disarmament within the Union, without ifs and buts, with a view to absolute non-violence in the Gandhian mould. On the other hand, one disputes the choice of the draft, which reserves most of the resources for the states (650 billion out of 800) and only 150 billion for the European Union for common defence. In other words, it is not the need for European defence that is contested, but rather the plan to strengthen national defences.

The first position appears unrealistic based on the historical experience of millennia. Only states that can also ensure their own security militarily will survive. Only a world order under the operational leadership of a reformed UN without veto powers will be able to ensure world peace through coordination between states and where necessary by force. But even before then, a united Europe with its own credible defence will be able to put itself at the service of peace under the leadership of the UN, according to the original design that saw it come into being.

The second objection, on the other hand, is justified. For two reasons. Only if all or a decisive part of the Project's resources are ceded by the states to the European Union and become part of the Union's budget will it be possible to achieve a true European defence instead of the growth of 27 national defences that are not only expensive but inefficient and completely unsafe without the contribution of US weapons within NATO. This risk is real and we do not know whether and how far it will be overcome in the direction indicated.

However, there is also a second risk. Only if all or at least most states, starting with the largest ones including France and Italy, contribute their share to the project will Germany's relationship within European defence be balanced, as it is now within the Union's budget. Only then will it be possible to speak of a truly European Germany and a common European defence under the control of the European Parliament and the other institutions of the Union. We must be aware that it will not be possible for one country alone to build the overwhelming part of future European defence. The way to overcome these risks exists. It will be necessary, therefore, to supplement the sum of 150 billion foreseen by the New Technologies Project with the resources subscribed by the states, with the substantial investments and corresponding reforms foreseen by the farsighted projects of Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta, in principle now shared by the Commission, the Councils and the European Parliament. And this not only with European loans but with new own resources. Investments and reforms are essential not only for defence but for a balanced economic development of tomorrow's Europe, which already risks not only a very serious internal economic crisis but subordination to China and the USA in almost all sectors on which the future of the economy will depend. The policy initiated by Trump exacerbates these risks. The Union's resources for new energies, for the environment and for social policies starting with health and education must under no circumstances be sacrificed. Europe is in the vanguard for these policies and is today also the area where the future of democracies is least uncertain. These are certainly not easy goals. But in a planet in crisis as never before, the need is pressing. And this could make all the difference.