Language switcher

English EN Italiano IT
Italiano

Tag: international relations

Europe on the Move

Posted on by claudia

By Alfredo De Feo

When you live a normal life, made up of daily worries, children, health, the need to solve the inevitable problems, small and large, it is difficult to focus, on what is happening in the world, the geopolitical strategies, the risks for our economy and therefore for our lifestyle and our well-being, for the future of our children. It’s difficult to focus but we must.

For many decades, coexistence among countries has been based on a series of basic principles: respect for democracy and the autonomy of the various countries, respect for international rules, the non-use of force to resolve tensions, the promotion of an increasingly free world trade without customs barriers that would increase the well-being of citizens in a generalized way. All guaranteed by a series of international organizations

Like it or not, the war unleashed by Russia against Ukraine in February 2022 triggered a turning point in the balance of the world. Tensions in the Middle East, on Europe’s southern border, have aggravated the situation.

The inauguration of Donald Trump to the White House in January 2025 has brought a further shake up to the world balance, with a strong impact on Europe and its states. I do not need to enumerate the proclamations and counter-proclamations of President Trump and his inner circle. European governments must face challenges and make difficult decisions, knowing how to look at the medium to long term, rather than immediate polls and have the ability to explain to citizens the meaning of choices that may appear unpopular in the short term.

The unanimous mandate given by the states and the majority of the European Parliament is a first sign that Europe is ready to stand together and start creating synergies in the field of defence. The other positive aspect, which transpires from the White Paper, is that Member States will start to build something, with the aim of better coordinating the production and purchasing war material, developing and sharing information of national intelligence services. The same goes for technology, communications and so on.

A large part of these initiatives, which will only become clearer when the proposals are presented, will probably be financed with common debt guaranteed by all states. Following the example of what has been done with the Next Generation EU. This plan, favored by the relaxation of the rules of the Stability Pact, should eventually allow European states to be more autonomous in the defense of their territory and their values, a first response to the American disengagement from the defense of Europe.

I addition, it is worth mentioning the turning point taking place in Germany where, under the leadership of the future chancellor, Friederich Merz, a constitutional reform has been voted to abolish the spending limit to finance expenses related to infrastructure, the environment and defense: a real revolution.

The second emergency is international trade. President Trump has begun to introduce tariffs on many imported goods, giving rise to retaliation by the affected countries, creating a strong impoverishment of their economy (European and non-European). It is difficult to say at this stage whether these tariffs are the final goal of the American President or just a negotiating strategy, but in either case these attitudes require equally strong positions on the European side. On the other hand, strong and decisive positions will facilitate negotiatiations.

It is difficult to say whether European leaders will be able to show solidarity with each other in the interest of defending national and European sovereignty. It is a great opportunity but it is not certain that everyone knows how to seize it. On the other hand, it should be remembered that the European Treaties provide for the possibility of carrying out actions with the so-called “enhanced cooperation” (with the participation of

at least nine states) or ultimately, through agreements among states, outside the legal framework of the European Union, which France and England are doing to guarantee support for Ukraine (the coalition of the willing).

To conclude, public opinion should be aware that the challenges we face do not concern others but ourselves, our freedom, our values. We do not want to leave our children the choice of whether to live under American, Chinese or Russian rules but to be proud to remain European with our national identities. The Erasmus generation is already a step ahead and this can be seen as a sign of great optimism.

Published in the Gazzetta di Parma 18 March 2025

The Reasons for ReArm Europe

Posted on by claudia

By Marzo Ziliotti

On March 6, twenty-six EU heads of state and the EU government, overcoming (finally!) the unanimity rule, approved the plan called ReArm Europe. Divided in five points, it establishes a common European financial instrument, which will provide 150 billion euros to member states for defense investment; it introduces a derogation (escape clause) to the parameters of the Stability and Growth Pact, which opens fiscal space to individual states for defense spending of an additional 650 billion euros; and it promotes the mobilization of private capital, through the European Investment Bank, in order to stimulate large European savings for the financing of domestic defense firms.

Thus, an 800 billion euro package of public resources alone, in addition to private resources, which, on the one hand, (with the 650 billion euro waiver effectively) sends the constraints of the newly created Stability and Growth Pact into the attic; and on the other hand, (with the 150 billion euro European fund) takes the first step toward the establishment of a true common defense system, necessarily financed by common resources.

The project, by its scale and especially by the nature of its objectives, can clearly be called historic in scope. But it is equally evident that “ReArm,” moreover “at home,” is a word that should arouse no one’s enthusiasm. Well understandable, then, that the initiative has provoked heated debate, not only in the halls of professional politics, but also among the public and in the very consciences of citizens. This is positive, wanting strongly to continue to believe that free dialectical confrontation between ideas is the most precious value of our liberal democracies.

But, at such an objectively complex hairpin turn in History, it is essential to be clear about some crucial contextual elements. The first fact is the very rapid and relevant increase in geopolitical risks for European countries. Mind you: this is not to evoke scenarios with the Cossack cavalry in St. Peter’s Square; but the disturbing crescendo of the use of force against Europe by Putin’s Russia is undeniable: the outright military violence, mobilizing all available human and economic resources, in Ukraine. But also violence in the insidious form of hybrid warfare: continuous cyber-attacks, increasingly aggressive and widespread, on the computer systems mainly of public entities; increasingly pervasive interference in public opinion, especially at election time, with massive and scientific dissemination of fake news and through support – more or less covered – for openly anti-European, when not explicitly pro-Russian, political formations and parties. Restoring historic Russian influence with a perimeter similar to that of the U.S.S.R. days is a stated goal; and it is certainly not comforting that, as Kremlin spokesman Dimitry Peskov stated a few days ago, “the new U.S. administration’s vision regarding foreign policy configurations largely coincides with our vision.”

Second point: the above poses an urgent problem of deterrence. Urgent: it would certainly be better to start first with the establishment of a single European defense system and only then proceed to rearmament. But there is no time. Making the Euro took at least ten years (from the European Monetary System crisis to January 1, 2002, when the single currency began to physically circulate). The European Army needs a long process of construction, which is inextricably linked to the building of a common political house. Deterrence, which does not at all mean a bellicose will, but, exactly the opposite, i.e. the strengthening of negotiating power. This is the only way to make realistic – and not just a vacuous invocation – the prospect of diplomatic solutions on the most lasting and least unfair basis possible.

The third aspect, perhaps the most delicate one: the oft-cited alternative claim of spending on butter instead of guns. Who, a priori, would not prefer government spending to favor schools and hospitals over military purposes? But, put in decontextualized terms, the question once again risks being dangerously – or, worse, guiltily – misleading. First, it should be remembered, because spending on defensive systems nowadays does not so much consist of bombs and guns, but predominantly of research and development of advanced technologies (cybersecurity, intelligence), with proven positive externalities in terms of innovations that can be widely used in the civilian sphere (think, just to cite two possible examples, of drones and cybersecurity systems). Not only that, but the substantial amount (800 billion euros) of resources mobilized can enable massive reconversion operations of industrial sectors in crisis (automotive, for example), generating employment support and multiplicative economic effects (in the past, multipliers of military spending -especially when directed to innovative technologies – have been calculated as high as 1.5: spending 1 euro generates an increase in GDP of 1.5 euros, i.e., it creates an income that exceeds the self-financing of the spending itself by 50 percent).

But even before the claim – unsightly as much as you like, but true – that investment in defense systems can be an effective driver of employment and economic growth, the dreaded conflict between military spending and social welfare starts from a basic misunderstanding. Security – guaranteed precisely by defense systems – is an indispensable prerequisite with respect to every other constituent element of collective welfare. Any right (to education, to health, to work) necessarily rests on the subsistence of the most fundamental right there is: the security of the physical integrity of the person and his property (material and immaterial).

Therefore, just as we are all fully aware that, in order to guarantee this right to security with respect to “internal” dangers, it is indispensable to allocate adequate resources for the funding of the appropriate law enforcement agencies (Police, Carabinieri, etc.), it is necessary to regain an equal awareness – clouded for a long time by the illusion of an eternal and gratuitous American umbrella – that the armed forces (Army, Air Force, Navy) are likewise indispensable to protect exactly the same right with respect to “external” risks.

To those who invoke the ideal of a “neutral Europe,” it would be salutary to remind them that the neutral country par excellence, Switzerland, has based its vocation for neutrality (in addition to a geographic location that has never interested anyone and a banking secrecy that has suited everyone) on an ancient warrior skill – not coincidentally, the popes for more than five hundred years have chosen the Swiss Guards to defend the Vatican – and on a universal conscription obligation in which, after one’s first service under arms, for ten years one is required to return to the barracks for periodic repetition courses.

Adequate defense capability represents the insurance policy placed to guarantee peace, a supremely valuable commodity; and, as is the case with all insurance, one pays the premium precisely with the intention of never having to use it.

Published on Gazzetta di Parma on march, 11th 2025

Automatic translation edited by Edward Lynch

The Members of the EP at work

Posted on by claudia

Alfredo De Feo, Scientific Director of the European College of Parma Foundation

Now that the European citizens have elected the 720 Members of Parliament, how can the newly elected Members influence the decisions of the Parliament?  

First, they will discover that the so-called multilingualism, where everyone can speak their own language, is a chimera. Indeed, theoretically, speaking one’s own language is a right certainly guaranteed in plenary sessions but not sufficient to ensure good integration into the parliamentary work. The administration provides Members with interpreter and translation services; additionally, each Member can hire assistants to help them in communicating with their peers. However, if a Member cannot express themselves in one of the “vehicular” languages, or rather “in the vehicular language”, they risk being marginalized in the parliamentary work. 

The new Member will then discover that the organization of political work in the EP revolves around two pillars, two sides of the same coin: political groups and parliamentary committees.  

The parliamentary committees are divided by thematic areas, mirroring the committees of national parliaments. Members will be assigned to parliamentary committees based on their competencies and preferences. The composition of the committees will thus be proportional to the composition of the plenary assembly. Having specific expertise in a certain area will increase the possibility of influencing decisions. 

In the committees, besides the President and Vice Presidents, a central role is played by the spokespersons of the groups, one or two per group, who have the task of finding the most unified positions within the group and then defending the results achieved in the committee within their own political group. The groups’ spokespersons also decide the group responsible for each report or opinion and choose the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs. Those positions are key to leave a mark on parliamentary work. 

For this reason, specific expertise in the European issues addressed by the parliamentary committee is essential to be able to aspire to hold one of the aforementioned roles and influence the decision-making process. Indeed, expertise counts; the impact of each Member will be proportional to their competence and way of interacting with their peers. 

Work in the committees is certainly fundamental, as the EP’s position on the legislation to be adopted is prepared in the committees, but it is not sufficient, as the plenary votes are determined by the positions of the political groups. 

To be influential, the Member must know how to find their points of reference within the group. Obviously, each group has its own organization, which generally includes a role for national delegations and some thematic areas, which generally cover the competencies of several parliamentary committees. Again, Members who want to assert national specificities must find the support of the political group, which will then have to negotiate compromises with other groups to achieve the required majority in the plenary. 

In conclusion, we hope that the new MEPs will rapidly adapt to the EP working method to value their expertise and to integrate well into the parliamentary committees and their respective political groups to actively participate in the democratic construction of Europe. 

Contact us for more information