Two treaties provide the legal basis for what is commonly referred to as the European project. These are the “Treaty of Rome” (1957) and the ” Maastricht Treaty” (1992). In view of President Trump’s recent actions, it is pertinent to ask what the chances are of the European project surviving and continuing in its present form.
But first, what is the European project? It is interesting that when the Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community in 1957, there was no mention of defence and security. That is because in 1949, NATO was set up by the US along with eleven allies: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the US. So, it was well understood that the European project at that time was a political and economic one, not a military one. The Treaty of Rome therefore, talks of a common market, common economic and competition policies and political unification. This last mentioned point is important. The Treaty of Rome which established the European Community had as its objective stated in the preamble: Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe. This has since become a loaded expression in terms of European integration and how much countries should surrender a bit of their sovereignty to Brussels. Indeed, one of the arguments in favour of Brexit was precisely this “ever closer union”, a term vehemently objected to by Brexiteers. The irony is the expression was about ever closer union of peoples, not administrations or bureaucracies.
It is however the Maastricht Treaty, signed in 1992, that fleshed out the concept of the European project and in that sense updated the Treaty of Rome. This Treaty outlined a three pillar system: economic integration, common foreign & security policy and cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs. The Treaty not only established the European Union (as opposed to the European Economic Community) but also set the foundation for a common currency, common citizenship, common agricultural & industrial policy, common European parliament and most of all, a common foreign and security policy. This had a profound impact on European integration which has since come to be known, in layman’s terms, as the European project.
It is interesting to note that the European project made huge advances in every single area, namely, common currency (euro), common citizenship (Schengen), common agricultural & industrial policy and of course a common European parliament. Where the European project did not make sufficient progress is in the area of common foreign and security policy. There were substantive reasons for this. In 1954 a European Defence Community was attempted, but the French parliament refused to ratify it, ensuring the proposal was dead on arrival. Individual countries like France but also the UK (at that time) had nuclear deterrence and were keen to safeguard it. While they were members of NATO, they were not willing to completely submit to a supranational authority, when it came to defence. Meanwhile, the US underwrote the security expenditure of the EU to a substantial extent, cementing the transatlantic alliance.
As countries of Europe started taking the American security umbrella as a given, they started implementing the other aspects of the European project in full. Foreign and in particular, security policy, consequently lagged behind. Kissinger is reported to have famously asked what is the telephone number of the person in EU that he can call if there is a crisis. In view of all this, it has become common to call EU, an economic giant but a military pigmy. European states (not all but many of them) also built a massive and expensive social safety net for their citizens when it came to healthcare, education and pension.
President Trump, in just a matter of few weeks, has called into question the entire European project. He has done this mainly by threatening to withdraw the American security umbrella which has protected Europe from 1949 onwards. As if to prove he is not bluffing, he has completely sidelined Europe when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine (by talking directly to Russia and Ukraine) and has threatened to stop military and financial aid to Ukraine. For the EU, this has been a rude shock and has sent them scurrying for action. Partly in response to this, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed a European defence plan i.e. ” ReArm Europe” amounting to a whopping 800 billion euros. It remains to be seen how the Member States will react to this. For one thing, this will mean suspending EU’s Stability and Growth Pact rules which limit budget deficits of Member States to 3 per cent of GDP, limit national debt to 60 per cent of GDP and promote fiscal discipline. Even countries like France are already close to 5 per cent of GDP as budget deficit. With this plan for a defence fund of 800 billion euros, all fiscal discipline will go out of the window. The other big change that Trump’s policy has brought about in Europe is on the nuclear question. The new German Chancellor Merz has already requested that the French nuclear deterrence be extended to his country. French President Macron has stated in response that while the French nuclear deterrence is comprehensive, sovereign and entirely French, he is open to discussing the question of extending this deterrence to allies in Europe. Far-right French leader Marine Le Pen has vehemently objected to this, thus exposing the faultlines that are likely to occur.
American leaders like Trump and Vance firmly believe the bloated welfare state in Europe is made possible by and is in fact financed because of the US security umbrella. They are therefore determined to pull back the security umbrella, substantially, if not wholly. It is also true that many Europeans will agree that expenditure on their welfare state is excessive and must be scaled back. The question is if the proposed European defence plan takes up most of the monetary resources available, then there will be very little left for the welfare state and consequently, for the European project as it was originally envisaged.
Europe truly confronts a hinge moment in its history.
Diplomacy and Geopolitics 