Although health has been declared a security issue, pan-European approaches to dealing with the coronavirus pandemic have hardly been able to assert themselves. However, these are not the only problems that Thomas Roithner, peace researcher and political expert, sees in connection with European foreign policy.
Mr. Roithner, this year the second edition of your book “Verglühtes Europa? Alternatives to the Military and Armaments Union. Proposals for an active peace policy” was published. Has the current situation, which is also very exciting in terms of security policy, led to a change in your views or have they been confirmed?
In principle, I did not expect any major changes due to the personnel situation within the European Union. Overall, I would say that we have been dealing with a change in the character of the EU since 2016, which primarily stems from the Brexit referendum on June 23, 2016. This is because the UK has always defined European security to a large extent as transatlantic. In other words, without NATO and the USA, nothing would work in the EU from the UK’s perspective. France and Germany have always thought a little differently. Since 2016, all those who were already striving to create an autonomous security and military policy for the EU have felt vindicated. After the UK was no longer able to take part in the discussions, the debate about a military headquarters and a European Defense Fund quickly gathered pace. The projects were ready for decision within a few months. US President Donald Trump, China’s global policy and people running away from war and poverty also contributed to this development.
Are there any other examples?
The final Lisbon Treaty clearly states that measures with military and defense policy implications must not be at the expense of the Union and the Union budget. Nevertheless, money from the budget is to flow into an EU armaments fund, a military headquarters and a military Schengen. In my opinion, it was agreed for good reasons that the EU should not be a military project, but a project that brings the states of Europe together. That was the real idea behind the Union. That is why I am talking about a change of character here. This “new” arms policy is not an end in itself; it is about being able to carry out military missions abroad and to push ahead with arms exports.
What other points of criticism do you have?
What I find worrying in terms of foreign policy is that the member states are not pulling together on a number of key foreign policy issues. For example, there is no strategy for refugee policy. But there is also no strategy on how to deal with the Chinese Silk Road project. Or the issue of nuclear weapons. To a certain extent, not having a common position always leads to immobility. There is no chance of becoming really active. Military instruments and missions with no basis in foreign policy are highly problematic.
In your opinion, where are the opportunities to change things and become more agile?
It has already been said very often, but I also see an opportunity in multilateralism. However, when it comes to the question of what a common foreign policy should achieve, the focus should not be on the issue of military security, but on the issue of human security, linked to the needs of the people. We already have good instruments within the framework of the United Nations, such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, which in my view are to a large extent instruments of a comprehensively understood and civilian concept of crisis prevention. They are an important contribution towards not having to react militarily afterwards, but being able to act much earlier as part of an intelligent crisis prevention agenda.
How well do these goals stand up to economic interests?
That is a key point. If you look at the People’s Republic of China, for example, how much weight is actually attached to the access to human rights that prevails there when it comes to selling and buying goods? But also with regard to the African continent, where the export policy of the EU member states is making it more difficult for regional producers to make a living or, in some cases, depriving them of their livelihood. And it is a fallacy that this does not affect us in Europe. Especially in today’s world, which is moving ever closer together, the idea of common security should be brought even more clearly into focus. Security cannot be achieved against others. The most obvious example is arms exports: the EU-28 account for 26 percent of global arms sales. Values such as human rights cannot be reconciled with the economic interests of increasing arms exports.
It was also exciting to see how much of a competition has developed over the past few months as to which country is dealing with the pandemic best. Instead of looking for a common solution …
There have certainly been some efforts within the EU to consider what a pan-European approach to dealing with the pandemic might look like. What has primarily happened are national reflexes such as border closures and the like. At the same time, Josep Borrell has said that health is now a security issue. But how are PESCO and the European Defense Fund supposed to help us manage such crises in the future? Here, too, the focus should be more on prevention and, in my view, it would be very important to ask ourselves which instruments we want to use at all.
What do you mean?
It bothers me that there is a general tendency to resort to the military to deal with a wide variety of problems, even though they cannot be solved militarily. The question of which institution in a country is responsible for which problems should therefore be asked much more often. If one is of the opinion that the military is needed for a specific problem, then there should be a debate about it. If it turns out that more social workers, teachers and police officers are needed, then these people should also be brought in or more people from these professional groups should be recruited.
At this point, I would very much like to bring the Civil Peace Service into play. It is anchored in the government program. How do you feel about the future in this regard?
I am optimistic. There are institutions in Austria that have been campaigning for a Civil Peace Service for 30 years. At the end of May, a motion for a resolution was tabled and adopted. In the debate that accompanied the motion, many important issues were raised, including Austria’s role as a bridge-builder. I always try to emphasize that foreign policy, peace and security policy are not just matters for ministries, but tasks for society as a whole, in which civil society also has something to contribute. We can see from the German model how well this can work. Germany has had a civil peace service since 1999, which has been thoroughly evaluated several times. Overall, I am therefore very satisfied with the course of the discussion.
