Talk soft and carry a big stick

2023-03-11T10:41:36.337Z

A troubled and dangerous world demands that the EU radically reconsider its approaches, with a more vigorous integration on a global scale

To go far, it is convenient to speak softly and carry a big stick, said US President Theodore Roosevelt.

The convulsive, dangerous evolution of international relations invites Europeans to reflect seriously on this doctrine.

Those who for a long time —rightly and with many arguments— thought that the EU could simply be a place of prosperity, rights, and promotion of international dialogue in the 21st century, substantially alien to the tools and language of hard geopolitics must ask themselves if the former is possible without the latter.

The inescapable starting point is that the world is advancing on a path of savage competition between powers and, as Vladimir Putin has shown us, of confrontation and aggression without limits.

It doesn't seem wise to just trust that it will change.

How are our values —democracy, rule of law, equality and social cohesion, etc.— protected and cultivated, and why not? Our interests —the economic strength that can bring us prosperity— in this threatening environment?

The most reasonable-sounding answer requires profound changes and, yes, a new leap of European integration that means giving up bits of national sovereignty.

The current crises worsen with a tenant of the White House who is the best that could be touched from the point of view of European values.

Even so, this does not prevent us from noticing the fierce competition that the US poses to us in key areas such as green technology, how it exerts pressure to lead us to positions that respond, probably, more to its interests than to ours.

And, of course, having lived through the astonishing experience of Donald Trump, no one should take for granted that the EU can count on the wise and generous support of the US in the future. We must take our destiny fully into our own hands. .

This has, of course, derivatives in terms of Defense.

The comfortable subletting of our security to an external guarantor can no longer be.

Steps are being taken towards increased spending and greater coordination.

Much more will have to be done if we want to be safe in the medium-long term in the face of unpredictable scenarios, from a potential conflict between the US and China that completely upsets the balance to the risk of a crazy totalitarian drift in Russia, going through less existential challenges, but also serious, such as conflict management in North Africa and the Middle East where, according to our values, it is important to do something, and not flee Afghanistan in terror, abandoning its citizens because the one who had the ability to keep foot the structure.

To do that more it will be necessary not only to increase spending, but also to break taboos.

Achieve much greater interoperability of weapons systems.

And, probably, an industrial concentration in the sector, which will mean that some capitals will lose the asset of having national champions, but which will be the only way to compete on a global scale, not to depend on others to sell things, to be subject to their conditions .

The formation of titans is something that also deserves reflection in other areas.

The mantra of free competition has dominated until now.

Seen

ex post

: did it make sense to prevent the Alstom-Siemens merger?

The weighting is delicate, but there is little doubt that, in this world, the EU needs actors capable of moving on the planetary scene.

No one says that abuses of a dominant position are not a risk;

but it is better to emphasize that the defense at all costs of free competition in the internal market can lead to a Lilliputian business horizon that will be swept away in the global struggle.

It's already happening.

A very muscular public stimulus policy is also necessary in multiple sectors, to compete with other powers that do the same.

Much better if it is community-managed, which would require increasing resources.

If not, and in the meantime, it is necessary to give much more room for State aid, as is beginning to be done, but this will require strong compensation to avoid imbalances in the internal market.

One way or another, more community resources to pilot common strategic undertakings.

These are just a few of the long list of elements that need to be rethought.

To deter bad intentions that enemies may have;

to defend oneself from the wild competition of rivals, and also of partners;

to develop in this century the shared project and ideals that have served us so well for decades.

Each one by his side can not.

And a chorus of white voices will not suffice.