Latest news with #NATO-mandated
Arab News
10-03-2025
- Business
- Arab News
Uncertainty surrounds Europe's rearmament plan
In what she termed the 'era of rearmament,' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week introduced a 'ReArm Europe' plan. The key goal of the scheme is to mobilize close to €800 billion ($867 billion) for European safety. Von der Leyen also expects to work in collaboration with the EU's NATO partners. The plan emerged at a time of increasing security concerns in Europe, especially given US President Donald Trump's decision to suspend Washington's military aid to Ukraine. What is Von der Leyen's plan about? What are the challenges to its implementation? And what will this suggestion mean for Europe and the rest of the world? In a press statement, Von der Leyen explained the necessity of the plan: 'The question is no longer whether Europe's security is threatened in a very real way. Or whether Europe should shoulder more of the responsibility for its own security.' She said the real question is 'whether Europe is prepared to act as decisively as the situation dictates. And whether Europe is ready and able to act with the speed and the ambition that is needed.' The European Commission president further stated that 'Europe is ready to massively boost its defense spending.' This connects to the short-term urgency to act in response to the Ukraine war, in addition to addressing the long-term necessity to take responsibility for the European security landscape. The plan is divided into three main themes. The first part involves the application of public funds for defense at the national level. In this regard, Von der Leyen suggested activating 'the national escape clause of the Stability and Growth Pact.' According to this suggestion, member states will be able to significantly boost their defense expenditure without initiating the bloc's Excessive Deficit Procedure. This would allow countries to increase their defense spending by up to 1.5 percent of gross domestic product, which could create fiscal space of close to €650 billion over four years. Among the criticisms of this step is that it is complicated because a larger deficit does not equal higher defense expenditure. Nonetheless, based on the European Commission's expectations, if all states were to increase expenditure it would generate €650 billion. However, this does not clearly indicate whether it will concern all member states or only those that spend more than the NATO-mandated 2 percent of GDP on defense. The second point involves the introduction of a new mechanism. The proposition includes €150 billion of loans to member states for defense investment. Von der Leyen gave a long list of highly expensive and sophisticated equipment and systems that could be financed under this initiative. For example, it relates to European capability involving artillery systems, air and missile defense, missiles and ammunition, and drones and anti-drone systems. She said this technique of joint procurement would decrease costs, reduce fragmentation, increase interoperability and boost the bloc's defense-industrial foundation. The third point is to apply the 'power' of the EU budget. Von der Leyen insisted 'there is a lot that we can do in this domain in the short-term to direct more funds toward defense-related investments.' This plan echoes Germany's 'Sondervermoegen' (special fund) framework, which offers a roadmap for more money for defense. Under this ongoing German experiment, which was introduced in 2022, the country can bypass its constitutional debt limits to enlarge defense investments. It is currently being revised by Berlin's political establishment. The Christian Democratic Union and Social Democratic Party are working on a plan to introduce new exemptions from the debt brake. Based on this plan, any defense expenditure over 1 percent of GDP would be exempt. For example, if NATO increased its goal to 3 percent of GDP, then 2 percent (€88 billion) would be exempt, while 1 percent (€44 billion) would still be affected by the debt brake. The Bundestag could approve this plan shortly, which would underscore the urgency of both the national and EU-wide defense investment attempts. Member states will be able to significantly boost their defense expenditure without initiating the bloc's Excessive Deficit Procedure. Dr. Diana Galeeva However, the NATO expenditure target remains unclear, while it is somehow the critical point of the plan. Trump declared that NATO's European members should spend 5 percent of GDP on defense (none of the countries are currently spending this much). Meanwhile, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has told member states they should reach 3 percent. Consequently, it requires time for further clarifications on how NATO will be involved in the plan. Another criticism of the plan is that the numbers are based on guesses. Furthermore, it is noted that the plan makes some controversial suggestions, including the right to enlarge national deficit levels and to move money around within EU accounts, rather than coming up with fresh money. Among other uncertainties, member states will also need to decide from which companies they will purchase weapons. Moreover, the question about the mechanisms under which the money will flow is important. The plan might involve loans from other funds. For example, the European Commission did not suggest redirecting the €93 billion of leftover money in the COVID-19 pandemic recovery fund. To sum up, the ReArm Europe plan involves the use of public funds, the introduction of a new funding mechanism and the application of the EU budget. However, the plan has already attracted concerns and remains littered with uncertainties. The question is whether Europe will effectively and swiftly implement the plan and how it will handle the Ukraine question in the near future. Clearly, the future of the European security landscape depends on how the plan is developed and implemented.
Arab News
21-02-2025
- Business
- Arab News
A ‘Vision 2030' for Europe's security
Last weekend, the 61st Munich Security Conference took place in Germany. The agenda was linked to a 'pivotal' moment of change, including a new US administration, a new cycle of European legislature in Brussels and the upcoming German parliamentary elections. One of the panels was titled 'Ready, Steady, 2030? Accelerating the Balkans' EU accession.' I would like to adopt the same logic and link it to some familiar narratives for Middle Eastern politics, based on the conference's outcomes, to offer my own predictions for the future of Europe up to 2030. In other words, this article aims to suggest a 'Vision 2030' for European security. Firstly, it seems the trend in Europe is toward a more neo-realist approach, with the prioritization of defense. This will certainly be developed, as expenditure will increase. Most speakers agreed that Europe needs to increase its defense spending: currently, the NATO-mandated minimum is 2 percent of gross domestic product, but this is expected to increase to 3 percent. US President Donald Trump has urged NATO's European members to spend 5 percent of their national income on defense. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has also urged member states to increase their defense spending. And in her address, 'The EU in the World,' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed an increase in public investments, including defense expenditure. Secondly, relations between Europe and the US are at a transformative stage. Panels that involved the US included titles such as, 'Doing More with Less US? Strengthening European Defense,' 'The US in the World,' 'Strategic investment: The Future of US-Ukraine Security Cooperation,' 'Pitfalls and Priorities: The New US Administration's Middle East Policy,' and 'Pay or Prey? NATO, the US and Transatlantic Security.' In his speech, US Vice President J.D. Vance discussed the importance of shared values, which he accused European countries, including the UK, of retreating from, while ignoring voter worries on free speech and migration. This speech was labeled 'brilliant' by Trump, but it was met with silence in the hall. This can be seen as illustrative of a period of growing tension and uncertainty in Europe-US relations. Markus Soeder, the minister-president of Bavaria and leader of the Christian Social Union party, acknowledged that Europe's relations with the US need 'a fresh start.' He added: 'We should not be complaining … We need a change.' The European Vision 2030 might require an alternative method to deal with this US administration. Zanny Minton Beddoes, the editor-in-chief of The Economist, who moderated the session on 'Building or Burning Bridges: Economic and Development Cooperation Amid Multipolarization,' argued that within three weeks a new administration in the US had ended the previous geopolitical status quo in many fundamental ways. It did this through very different approaches to conflict areas (e.g., the Middle East and Ukraine) and a fundamentally different approach to foreign assistance and how the global trading system and tariffs should look. Trump's plan to enforce a 25 percent tariff on all steel and aluminum imports from next month was a sign there are very clear rifts between Washington and Europe on several matters, from trade to dealing with Russia. The third point on European security concerns policies toward saving the EU's economies, securing its interests and offering agreements that would work for all, ensuring all members are prosperous and secure. The European Vision 2030 might require an alternative method to deal with this US administration Dr. Diana Galeeva Fourthly, expansionist Russian policies are another major point of concern for the future of European security. One of the dominant concerns is the outcome of the Ukraine war. The new US administration's approach does not make it any easier, as American and Russian officials met in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday to lay the groundwork for peace talks. The Ukrainian and European leaders were not invited, but they noted that they must be included for any ceasefire to be reliable. Instead, on Monday, an emergency summit of European leaders took place in Paris to discuss the Ukraine war. There, Von der Leyen noted that Ukraine deserved 'peace through strength.' In both cases, talks without key players (in the first case, without Ukraine and the EU and, in the second, without Russia) further complicate the European security agenda. Therefore, Russian wars, including hybrid conflicts such as in the Baltic Sea or in the post-Soviet space, including Georgia, Armenia and Moldova, are a complicated and urgent question. This was seen in Munich during discussions in panels such as 'Down to the Wire: Countering Hybrid Warfare in the Baltic Sea,' 'Nuclear Multipolarity' and 'Spotlight on Georgia.' One of the central themes was multipolarization. In the panel on 'Building or Burning Bridges,' the growing number of actors with importance in terms of global decision-making was noted. The conference discussed matters relating to the Middle East, in addition to China and Venezuela. This links to another direction and challenge that has been discussed in Europe: the growing importance and influence of the countries of the Global South. It can be further discussed within the expanding BRICS agenda. Finding a collective approach based on pluralism, democracy and 'defending philosophical ideas, which behave as the engine of our prosperity or stability here in Europe,' as suggested by Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares Bueno, would offer another dimension of the Vision 2030 for European security to share with the rest of the world. While Russia, which is part of BRICS, is perceived as trying to burn bridges, the Europeans should try to rebuild them. This can be another fundamental agenda for Europe up to 2030: rebuilding bridges with the rest of the world. To sum up, the Vision 2030 for European security is based on a neo-realist approach, increasing defense spending and prioritizing security matters. This is because, as Von der Leyen stated, peace comes through strength. And Europe must be stronger than ever. It faces challenges with the US administration, which could require Europe to find new ways to maintain its defense, as well as challenges in the economic system, with the US and other actors aiming to reshape the existing financial systems. The imperialist vision of Russia also directly challenges European stability and security by conducting hybrid wars on European territory. In addition, it needs to continue finding ways to attract the rest of the world, while other players aim to challenge the existing global order. • Dr. Diana Galeeva is an academic visitor to Oxford University. X: @Dr_GaleevaDiana
