Roads To War: The EU's Security Action For Europe Fund

Scoop

a day ago

As the world was readying for the Second World War, the insightful humane Austrian author Stefan Zweig made the following glum observation: 'Openly and flagrantly, certain countries express their will to expand and make preparations for war. The politics of rearmament is pursued in broad daylight and at breakneck speed; every day you read in the papers arguments in favour of armaments expansion, the idea that it reduces unemployment and provides a boost to the stock exchange.'
This is not so different from the approval by European Union countries on May 27 of a €150 billion loan program known as the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) borrowing scheme. A press release from the European Council stated that the scheme 'will finance urgent and large-scale investments in the European defence technological and industrial base (EDTIB)' with the intention of boosting 'production capacity, making sure defence equipment is available when needed, and to address existing capability gaps – ultimately strengthening the EU's overall defence readiness.'
The statement also makes a central rationale clear: that SAFE will enable continued European support for Ukraine, linking its defence industry to the program. Despite not being an EU member, Kyiv will be able to participate in the scheme. Interestingly enough, the United Kingdom, despite leaving the EU, will also be able to participate via a separate agreement.
Disbursements to interested member states upon demand, considered along national plans 'will take the form of competitively priced long-maturity loans, to be repaid by the beneficiary member states.'
The scheme further anticipates the types of weaponry, euphemistically titled 'defence products', that will feature. As outlined by the European Council on March 6, these will comprise two categories: the first covering, amongst others, such products as ammunition and missiles, artillery systems, ground combat capabilities with support systems; the second, air and missile defence systems, maritime surface and underwater capabilities, drones and anti-drone systems and 'strategic enablers' including air-to-air refuelling, artificial intelligence and electronic warfare.
The broader militarisation agenda is confirmed by linking SAFE with broader transatlantic engagement and 'complementarity with NATO.' It will 'strive to enhance interoperability, continue industrial cooperation, and ensure reciprocal access to state-of-the-art technologies with trusted partners.' Significantly, the emphasis is on collaboration: a minimum of three countries must combine when requesting funding for SAFE defence projects.
There seems to be something for everyone: the militarist, the war monger and the merchants of death. Global Finance, a publication dedicated to informing 'corporate financial professionals', was already praising the SAFE proposal in April. 'The initiative has the potential to transform the business models of many top European defense groups – like Saab, which has traditionally relied on contracts from the Swedish state to grow its sales.' What a delight it will be for such defence companies to move beyond the constraints on sales imposed by their limiting governments. A veritable European market of death machinery is in the offing.
The fund is intended for one, unambiguous purpose: war. The weasel word 'defence' is merely the code, the cipher. Break it, and it spells out aggression and conflict, a hankering for the next great military confrontation. The reason is traditional, historic and irrational: the Oriental despotic eminence arising from the Asian steppes, people supposedly untutored in the niceties of European good manners and democracy. Not that European manners and democracy is in splendid health. A mere glance at some of the candidates suggests decline in institutional credibility and scepticism. But we can always blame the Russians for that, deviously sowing doubt with their disinformation schemes.
The initiative, and its tightening of ties with arming Ukraine, has made such critics as Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán sound modestly sensible. 'We need to invest in our own armies, but they expect us to fund Ukraine's - with billions, for years to come,' he declared in a post on X. 'We've made it clear: Hungary will not pay. Our duty is to protect our own people.'
The approval of the fund by the European Commission has also angered some members of the European Parliament, an institution which has been treated with near contempt by the European Commission. European Parliament Presidente Roberta Metsola warned Commission President Ursula von der Leyen earlier in May to reconsider the use of Article 122 of the EU Treaty, which should be used sparingly in emergencies in speeding up approvals with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. Bypassing Europe's invigilating lawmakers risked 'undermining democratic legitimacy by weakening Parliament's legislative and scrutiny functions'. The Council's resort to Article 122 potentially enlivened a process that could see a legal case taken to the European Court of Justice.
The European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) has also supported a legal opinion repudiating the Commission's cavalier approach in approving the fund. According to that tartly reasoned view, Article 122 was an inappropriate justification, as the threshold for evoking emergency powers had simply not been met.
Ironically, the rearmament surge is taking place on both sides of the Atlantic, at both the behest of the Trump administration, ever aggrieved by Europe not pulling its military weight, and Moscow, characterised and caricatured as a potential invader, the catalyst for decorating a continent with bristling weaponry. The former continues to play hide and seek with Brussels while still being very much in Europe, be it in terms of permanent garrisons and military assets; the latter remains a convenient excuse to cross the palms of the military industrial establishment with silver. How Zweig would have hated it.