In its long history, France has regularly found itself alone in the face of a Europe allied against it: the strength of its nation-state, its diplomatic and military genius and its cultural influence have always enabled it to face it. The wars of Louis XIV then those of the Revolution and the Empire, up to the diplomatic and military decisions of General de Gaulle, bear witness to this. History repeats itself today in other forms, less epic but just as decisive: the resurrection of the European Defense Community of 1952, the German-Italian alliance in the land domain (before its later extension in the naval), and the German-British agreement of Trinity House, taking the Treaty of Lancaster House and that of Aix-la-Chapelle in reverse, are three recent manifestations of this.
At the end of these developments, France is nowhere in a Europe that it claims to be building but which it has neither will nor consistency to guide it towards the direction of its interests.
Federal Brussels or the “kid aviary”
The soul of the first anti-French coalition is in Brussels. Arrogating to itself powers that no treaty recognizes, the European Commission, although guardian of the treaties, uses and abuses the same processes, denounced in its time by France during the policy of the empty chair (May – July 1965) : zealously using its right of initiative, it uses the internal market as a pretext to regulate the field of defense, an exclusive sanctuary of nation-states.
With its manners which are both arbitrary and bureaucratic but always opaque, because they advance in disguise, it promises this sector the same fate as the other areas it has dealt with since 1958: total ruin for the benefit of extra-European competition. Agriculture, transport, energy, metallurgy, automobiles have been sacrificed on the altar of its decisions and its convictions: the same remedies producing the same causes, defense will be no exception.
In this sense, the Draghi report and the appointment of a European Defense Commissioner accelerate the process, begun in 1952 with the CED. Von der Leyen's federal march consists of five clear steps whose common characteristic is to be based on principles that are as false as they are harmful to the defense systems of each member state:
- First, proclaim the emergency due to the war in Ukraine and the Russian threat (or even the feared result of the American elections) : this feeling of urgency, already used during the COVID crisis to make health – an intergovernmental domain – a community domain, is the accelerator pedal intended to avoid debates and take States by surprise that are still slow to react .
- Then confine States to only questions of doctrine and use of forces, carefully detaching questions of armament of these areas : the Commission thus asserts its competence in matters of defense industry in the name of its general prerogatives in matters of the internal market, particularly in the field of industry and technology; however, without an arms industry, there can be no question of defense policy and even less of military capabilities. This separation of defense components is a pure negation of French doctrine, which has always established that to wage war well, you must yourself be capable of designing, developing, producing and maintaining your own equipment as a national; this industrial policy has created two effective instruments: the DGA and national champions, managers of deterrence;
- Continuing the momentum with the creation of a single defense market in the name of efficiency ; governed with the same ultra-liberal principles that have always guided it, this single market will open without reciprocity to extra-European competition (American, Israeli and South Korean, even Turkish) in the name of international trade agreements concluded under the sole authority of the Commission; This ” single market for defence “, supposed ” increase production capacity and support joint purchases of European equipment » – will not solve anything because the roots of the European evil are not to be found in national monopolies, but rather in other reasons that the Commission obviously refuses to mention: in the generalized disarmament that each country deliberately wanted; in cowardly extra-European comfort investments, American, Israeli and now South Korean, acquisitions which ruin any European preference for the next 50 years; in the bad method of cooperation in programs where the most incompetent industrialists should always receive an equal share and which always end in delays, additional costs, underperformance (NH90, Tiger, A400M, Eurodrone, Eurofighter, etc.) and losses of qualified jobs (Airbus Defense & space currently).
- Create in parallel a centralized European authority for the defense industry (« centralised EU Defence Industry Authority ») to do “joint programming and purchases of weapons, ie to buy centrally for the benefit of Member States » (recommendation no. 9 of the Draghi report, cited as a reference in the mission letter from Mrs von der Leyen to Andrius Kubilius). This authority will obviously allow a “ improved coordination to aggregate the acquisition of American systems by groups of EU Member States » (recommendation no. 10 of the report Draghi): the European preference is thus sacrificed by those who should defend it…
- Finally complete the “ true European Defense Union », new expression of a European Defense Community which will see, at its peak, the creation of a European army under the direction of a European Defense Commissioner, himself taking his orders from the SACEUR American to NATO.
Europe under the American caudine forks
This diagram is neither imaginary nor exaggerated: it is exactly the Europe of Defense that the Draghi report outlines and that Mr. Kubilius will endeavor, step by step, to bring to fruition during his mandate. By certainly ruining the arms industry in Europe, it will destroy the very objective sought: the defense of Europe itself. It is understandable that many member states did not protest: as General De Gaulle said [1]« lThe Germans, the Italians, the Belgians, the Netherlands are dominated by the Americans ».
But it is tragic to note that in France, there will no longer be communists and Gaullists – or a Mendès-France – to defeat this new version of the CED. The communists have disappeared and the Gaullists, since Jacques Chirac, have rallied to the federalization of Europe while maintaining the French doctrine of deterrence, refusing to see that one deliberately sacrifices the other. No party, including the RN, is going to play the key role it could have played on this issue, like that played by Gaullism in 1954.
This march towards supranationality will therefore not be slowed down by member states without geopolitics nor by sovereignist parties without courage, but will indeed be reframed by those very people who benefit from them. in fine : NATO and the United States, because what Madame von Der Leyen did not want to see or say is that her CED, by duplicating NATO, condemns itself .
- The abilities? It's NATO.
- Standards for the arms industry? It's NATO again.
- The command structure? It's still NATO.
- The intervention force? It's obviously NATO.
As Europe is no match for NATO, the only solution to this conflict, already palpable in Brussels, will be a supranationality carefully framed or reframed by the United States to, at the same time, establish its leadership politics in Europe (a major theater of operation for them whatever they say) and ensure dominant shares in the European Defense market. “To get the U.S in, the Soviets out and the Germans down » : this cynical definition of NATO formulated by the first Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Ismay, still remains relevant today.
Mrs von der Leyen's Europe of defense will therefore dissolve into the European pillar of NATO, thus proving General De Gaulle right: “ Do you know what supranationality means? The domination of the Americans. Supranational Europe is Europe under American command » [2].
The only initiative that will remain will be the forced communitization of the defense industry of the Member States, announced on July 8, 2017 by Ms. Goulard, short-lived French defense minister: “ If we want to create a Europe of defense, there will be restructuring to be carried out, choices of compatibility to be made and, ultimately, choices which could initially result in favoring consortia in which the French do not are not always leaders “. The loss of assumed industrial sovereignty is still current if we are to believe MM. Cingolani and Folgiero, respectively CEOs of Leonardo and Fincantieri who recently took up the same antiphon…while ensuring that this industrial Europe will take place under their supervision [3].
In summary, the only empty chair policy » that France will have made, was not the fruit of a decision of a French defense minister who appears to be Gaullist, but of a few French industrialists who refused to sign their death warrant on the altar of the federalization of the arms industry. Two of them are the prime contractors of deterrence: this is no coincidence as Mrs. von Der Leyen's CED is a negation of the doctrine of national deterrence which presupposes the full sovereignty and not the voluntary servitude in both Brussels.
—————————————————————-
[1] It was de GaulleAlain Peyrefitte, Volume II, page 296
[2] Op.cit.
[3] Extremely clear words from Mr. Cingolani, Corriere della SerraOctober 27, 2024, linking loss of sovereignty and leadership : “In space, as in defense, small is not beautiful and even an average size like ours is not enough: European companies must join forces, sacrificing their sovereignty over the small internal market to be able to compete together in the huge global market. Leonardo acts as a sherpa in this area and with Rheinmetall we have reached a first historic peak ».
————————————————————-
[*] The Vauban group brings together around twenty specialists in defense issues.
