Reactions to European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s embryonic “ReArm Europe” plan exemplify the polarisation that poisons current public debate.
Indeed, the issue cannot be reduced to a choice between rearmament and business as usual (“Europe must be prepared for Trump to walk away”, FT View, March 4). Rather, the point is how should Europe implement such a rearmament programme and, above all, for what purpose.
Seen from this perspective, it is crucial to distinguish between the objectives of having a common industrial plan aimed at increasing internal growth, employment and innovation capacity — inspired perhaps by the example of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) — and the mass importation of American weapons, platforms and software. Only a project aimed at freeing Europeans from their role as junior partners to the US, rather than one that simply sees the EU shouldering a larger share of expenses within Nato, can represent a true turning point towards a political union.
This requires the resolution, at the outset, of the thorny issues of a joint industrial policy financed by common debt and agreement on the modalities for sharing the French nuclear umbrella, particularly as it applies to Germany.
For these reasons, the European debate should begin to address the real issues at stake, rather than limiting itself to questions as to whether to allow military spending tout court (free rein).
Alberto Chies
Padua, Italy