
Democracy is Europe's first line of defence
Romania has a new president. And for a moment, Europe held its breath.
This was never just about one election. What hung in the balance was military aid to Ukraine, the territorial integrity of neighbouring countries, and a potential strategic and ideological pivot towards Washington on security and defence.
Nicușor Dan's victory may offer a temporary reprieve. But it does not erase the deep fractures across our continent, nor the powerful currents reshaping its future.
Just this past Friday, I joined more than 40 European heads of state and government at the European Political Community Summit in Tirana. Security, stability, and democratic resilience were at the top of the agenda.
Europe's security architecture stands exposed — and with it, the vulnerabilities we can no longer ignore.
Europe's security is inseparable from its values.
The Council of Europe, with its 46 member states, was founded on the conviction that true and lasting security depends on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Today, this means tackling issues like terrorism, migration and cybercrime.
The traditional divide between 'hard' and 'soft' security is outdated.
Europe must now define a strategy for democratic security — one that puts values at the heart of our defence. Because the very values that have made peace possible in Europe for over eighty years are under attack.
The European Union is right to commit €800 billion for military defence. Democratic security demands the same clarity, urgency, and resolve across the entire continent.
Not all threats come from outside Europe's borders.
One of the most insidious is the fragmentation of the political landscape. Traditional parties are losing ground. Political reference points are shifting — often to the benefit of extreme positions. Disruptive forces are rushing in to fill the vacuum.
Today's politics is, above all, anti. Anti-European. Anti-immigration. Anti-elite. Anti-woke. Anti-system.
Democratic debate is increasingly drowned out by so-called 'culture wars'.
There are always easy targets. In the UK, Conservative Party Chair Kemi Badenoch has highlighted the weaponisation of the European Convention on Human Rights, accusing it of weakening national identity and border security.
In the US, Vice-President JD Vance, doubling down on his Munich speech, has framed limits on free speech as a direct threat to Western civilisation.
The risk is using the tools of democracy itself — its laws, institutions, and freedoms — to restrict rights, suppress dissent, and create the illusion that security must come first.
Across Europe, foreign influence laws are being introduced. Their intent may be legitimate. But as I have made clear, these measures should not be used to stifle criticism or shrink civic space.
These laws must be scrutinised without double standards, especially by the judiciary. What is deemed unacceptable in Georgia or Hungary must be judged by the same measure in Germany or Romania.
Because double standards, whether real or perceived, erode public trust and damage Europe's credibility, not least in the eyes of the Global South.
It is not an isolated concern. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, a legal and constitutional crisis threatens to destabilise the Western Balkans. In Germany, a far-right AfD candidate recently claimed Adolf Hitler was a communist, a jarring reminder that lies continue to poison democratic life.
This is where the real danger lies: trading democratic security for the security of democracy, without even realising it.
In this new paradigm, freedoms are curtailed in the name of protecting them, institutions are hollowed out by cynicism or design, and rules are bent under the pretext of sovereignty or urgency.
The window for action is closing fast. That is why we need a New Democratic Pact for Europe, backed by all 46 member states and built on three priorities: education, protection, innovation.
To educate is to teach the difference between truth and falsehood.
Seventy-six per cent of young Europeans say they have encountered disinformation in the past week. Forty-two per cent rely on social media as their primary news source.
Europe cannot surrender the public sphere to algorithms. We need to pave the way for a Council of Europe Convention on Disinformation and Foreign Influence — to draw clear boundaries between freedom of expression and imperative for truth, between legitimate critique and destabilisation.
To protect is to reinforce democracy wherever it is in retreat.
From attacks on journalists to weakened elections and politicised justice systems, the warning signs are all around us.
A Democratic Resilience Fund would provide rapid support wherever democracy teeters, allowing us to prevent, rather than repair.
To innovate is to adapt our institutions to fast-moving, cross-border, hybrid threats.
No single organisation can face this alone. The Council of Europe and the European Political Community share the same continent and have the same ambition.
One brings legal standards, institutional experience, and technical expertise; the other, political momentum. Together, they can make democratic security a European priority.
Building Europe's democratic security will not be easy. But Europe has turned adversity into opportunity before.
In April 1945, Buchenwald survivors scrawled two simple words on makeshift signs: 'Never again.' They became the post-war rallying cry for an entire continent. From that moral pact emerged a new Europe — and with it, the Council of Europe.
Eighty years later, if Europe is to avoid reliving 'Never again', it must unite around a new pact and make democratic security its first line of defence.
Alain Berset is Secretary General of the Council of Europe and former Swiss president.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


France 24
2 hours ago
- France 24
US slaps sanctions on four ICC judges over Israel, US cases
The four judges, all women, will be barred entry to the United States and any property or other interests in the world's largest economy will be blocked -- measures more often taken against policymakers from US adversaries than against judicial officials. "The United States will take whatever actions we deem necessary to protect our sovereignty, that of Israel, and any other US ally from illegitimate actions by the ICC," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement. "I call on the countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices, to fight this disgraceful attack on our nation and Israel," Rubio said. The court swiftly hit back, saying in a statement: "These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 States Parties from all corners of the globe." Two of the judges, Beti Hohler of Slovenia and Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin, took part in proceedings that led to an arrest warrant issued in November for Netanyahu. The court found "reasonable grounds" of criminal responsibility by Netanyahu and former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant for actions that include the war crime of starvation as a method of war in the massive offensive in Gaza following Hamas's unprecedented October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. The two other judges, Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza of Peru and Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, were part of the court proceedings that led to the authorization of an investigation into allegations that US forces committed war crimes during the war in Afghanistan. Neither the United States nor Israel is party to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court. But almost all Western allies of the United States as well as Japan and South Korea, the vast majority of Latin America and much of Africa are parties to the statute and in theory are required to arrest suspects when they land on their soil. Return to hard line Trump in his first term already imposed sanctions on the then ICC chief prosecutor over the Afghanistan investigation. After Trump's defeat in 2020, then president Joe Biden took a more conciliatory approach to the court with case-by-case cooperation. Rubio's predecessor Antony Blinken rescinded the sanctions and, while critical of its stance on Israel, worked with the court in its investigation of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. ICC judges in 2023 issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over the alleged mass abduction of Ukrainian children during the war. Both Putin and Netanyahu have voiced defiance over the ICC pressure but have also looked to minimize time in countries that are party to the court. The ICC arrest warrants have been especially sensitive in Britain, a close US ally whose Prime Minister Keir Starmer is a former human rights lawyer. Downing Stret has said that Britain will fulfill its "legal obligations" without explicitly saying if Netanyahu would be arrested if he visits. Hungary, led by Trump ally Viktor Orban, has parted ways with the rest of the European Union by moving to exit the International Court. Orban thumbed his nose at the court by welcoming Netanyahu to visit in April. Set up in 2002, the ICC seeks to prosecute individuals responsible for the world's gravest crimes when countries are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. The United States, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, has argued that it has its own independent judiciary that eliminates the need for an international court of last resort.


Fashion Network
3 hours ago
- Fashion Network
US textile and apparel imports surge on the eve of Trump tariffs
The United States boosted its textile-clothing imports by 9.4% in the first quarter (January-March 2025). This increase is explained by the then uncertain prospect of new customs taxes, which Donald Trump finally announced on April 2. This acceleration mainly benefited Asian suppliers, up 15.4%, to the detriment of China, Latin America, and the European Union. Over the first three months of the year, the United States imported $26.9 billion worth of goods, including $20 billion worth of clothing (+10.9%) and $6.9 billion worth of textiles and materials (+4.9%). However, the countries most targeted by Donald Trump at the beginning of the year did not benefit from this last-minute acceleration, with principals likely anticipating the trade war promised by the Republican president. China is one of the countries not to benefit from this early-year acceleration. As the leading supplier of textiles and clothing to the United States, China's sales rose by just 3.6% over the period. At a time when other key Asian suppliers have seen significant increases. These include Vietnam (+14%), India (+20%), Bangladesh (+25%), Indonesia (+20%), Cambodia (+15.8%), and Pakistan (+10.5%). The European Union, the USA's sixth-largest supplier, remained stable in terms of textile-clothing exports to the USA, with 1.3 billion euros worth of goods shipped over the quarter. Italy, which alone ranks tenth among suppliers, even saw a contraction of 2.7%, ahead of Portugal (+0.9%) ranked 23rd and France (-1.9%) ranked 29th. Mexico, the United States' 8th-largest supplier of textiles and apparel, posted a positive variation of just 1% over the quarter. The Trump administration's repeated attacks on Latin America as a whole also partly explain the falls experienced by Honduras (-10%), Nicaragua (-5.6%), Guatemala (-1%), and El Salvador (-11%). Only Peru seems to be doing well, with orders up 25%. Vietnamese garments and European textiles lead the way If we look solely at the ranking of clothing suppliers, the figures show that China, the leading supplier in 2024, falls behind Vietnam in the first quarter of 2025, with a gap of almost $300 million. Mexico also posted 2.6% growth in this specific market. In terms of fabric imports, the EU leads the way with $278 million worth of materials, at a stable level. However, the Old Continent was followed by China, which grew by 2%, to within three million dollars. Their first challenger, India, came in at just 174 million, but posted growth of 12.5%.


France 24
3 hours ago
- France 24
Pakistan, India bring heavy-hitters to persuade US after conflict
After crisscrossing the world, the delegations descended this week at the same time on Washington, which played a key mediatory role in a ceasefire after four days of fighting between the nuclear-armed adversaries in May. In strikingly similar strategies, the rival delegations are both led by veteran politicians who have been critical of their countries' governments and are known for their ease in speaking to Western audiences. Pakistan has embraced an active role for the Trump administration while India, which has close relations with Washington, has been more circumspect and has long refused outside mediation on the flashpoint Himalayan territory of Kashmir. "Just like the United States and President Trump played a role in encouraging us to achieve this ceasefire, I believe they should play their part in encouraging both sides to engage in a comprehensive dialogue," said Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the scion of a political dynasty whose Pakistan People's Party says it belongs neither to the governing coalition nor opposition. "I don't quite understand the Indian government's hesitance," he told AFP. "I'm the first to criticize the United States for so many reasons, but where they do the right thing, where they do the difficult task of actually achieving a ceasefire, they deserve appreciation." India's delegation is led by one of its most prominent opposition politicians, Shashi Tharoor, a former senior UN official and writer. He said he was putting the national interest first, despite disagreements domestically with Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Tharoor said he heard "total support and solidarity for India" during his meetings with US lawmakers and a "complete understanding of India's right to defend itself against terrorism." 'No equivalence' Gunmen on April 22 massacred 26 tourists on the Indian-administered part of Kashmir, most singled out as Hindus, in the deadliest attack on civilians in decades in the scenic region that has seen a long-running insurgency. India accused Pakistan of backing the assailants and launched strikes on Pakistani territory. More than 70 people were killed in missile, drone and artillery fire on both sides. "There can be no equivalence between a country sending terrorists and a country having its civilians killed -- holiday-makers, tourists, men shot down in front of their wives and children after being asked their religion," Tharoor told a news conference. He said he was "puzzled" by those who believe denials of responsibility by Pakistan, pointing to how US forces found Osama bin Laden in the country. Tharoor also noted that former Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari -- Bilawal's father -- had advocated peace with India but was in power during the siege of Mumbai on November 26, 2008. "If they can't control what they're doing to us, why bother to talk to them?" said Tharoor, who pointed to the outsized role of the military in Pakistan. 'A new normal' Trump has repeatedly credited his administration with averting nuclear war and said the United States had negotiated an agreement to hold talks between the two sides at a neutral site, an assertion that met India's silence. Pakistan had cool relations with Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, whose aides bitterly resented Islamabad's role in the Afghanistan war, but Pakistan has quickly worked to woo Trump including with the arrest of a suspect in a deadly 2021 attack that killed more than 170 people, including 13 US troops, during the withdrawal from Kabul. Bilawal -- recalling how his mother, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, was killed in an attack -- said Pakistan was ready to discuss terrorism with India but that Kashmir as a "root cause" also needed to be on the table. He said that India was establishing a dangerous new precedent in South Asia where whenever there is a terrorist attack in any country, "you go straight to war." "I think that the fate of 1.7 billion people and our two great nations should not left in the hands of these nameless, faceless, non-state actors and this new normal that India is trying to impose on the region," he said.