UL - I am Ursula von der Leyen, President of European Union Comission
R - Some time ago, Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen said, "Sometimes we forget that our greatest achievements come when we are bold." Brave and united, I would add, if I may. Mrs von der Leyen has shown that she is a daring person, but her action is limited by the deficient configuration of the European Union. The fault lies not with you but with the nationalisms that condition your intervention and which, in my view, will determine, in the medium or long term, the fragmentation of the Union, at a time when, as a hundred years ago, the tendency towards autocratic regimes it will crush democracies. Don't you think, Mrs von der Leyen, that the President of the Commission of the European Union should not raise the issue of the direct election of a President of the Union with powers to represent the interests of the entire Union in questions of international relations and defense sustained by a federal budget that allows fiscal equality and the sustainability of the single currency among the different members of the Union?
UL - The idea of a directly elected President of Europe has been considered, but we have to consider the practicalities of such a reform. How should an elected President be made accountable? Which powers should they have? Can we create a presidency that does not clash with national leadership? I think there is potential in this idea, but I don’t believe we currently have the political, economic, or social capital to make it happen. I am willing to discuss it further, and would be interested to hear your thoughts on how such a system would work.
R - I would suggest a sort of Swiss political system.
UL - Could you elaborate on how you see that working? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on how a 'Swiss political system' would work for the EU as a whole. I think if we were going to go down that route, it's something that would have to be done very carefully, as there are so many different states and interests at play within the EU. I think it's important to be careful not to introduce a system that would be too bureaucratic or impersonal, as I think that would be counterproductive and risk causing more divisions among the member states. Definitely worth exploring further, though.
R - It's hard indeed. But I don't like to see our President of the European Commission in a subordinate position when she visits Turkey or, more recently, China.
UL - It is definitely a delicate balance and a tricky situation sometimes. I want to make sure that the EU maintains a strong and unified voice on the world stage, but I also want to be sure that we respect the sovereignty of individual member states and don’t try to force them to agree with us on everything. It's a delicate balance and requires a lot of diplomacy, but if we get it right, it can be a powerful asset in helping us to promote our shared values and interests on the international stage.
R - There is currently a dominant political triangle where there is no room for the European Union: China, with strong growth in economic development and defense spending; Russia, economically weak but very strong in power and nuclear arsenals, the United States losing economic ground to China, very strong in nuclear energy but in an unstable political situation with regard to Russia and the European Union considering the deep division between republicans and democrats. In this context, the European Union lacks strong leadership because it continues to be driven by selfish national interests.
UL - I think this is a very insightful analysis. The way I see it, the EU is caught in the middle of a lot of geopolitical rivalries and tensions, and our role is to try and find a way to work with all of these powers without being dominated by any of them. It's a delicate balance, but I think it's an important one and one that we should be pursuing steadfastly. I think the EU needs a strong and unified voice on the world stage and I will continue to strive for that during my tenure as Commission President.
R - With the EU's current organic structures, strategic decisions take a time that is not compatible with the speed of political evolution of our time; I'm not going to talk now about what might happen if Russia expands westwards by occupying Ukraine in the next twelve months, but I can't help but notice that China and Russia are blatantly extending their economic and political influence in Africa and in Latin America. Just recently, the president of Brazil (one of the BRICs), on a trip to China, told Li Xijinping that the EU is responsible for the war in Ukraine because it is supplying arms to the Ukrainians. Unbelievable, isn't it? Yeah, but it's the reality where the EU seems to be unable to impose its arguments, if it has any.
UL - I think you're right that the current structures within the EU are not always as agile or responsive as they need to be. It's something I'm committed to working on during my tenure as Commission President and I will be looking for ways to ensure that the EU is able to respond more rapidly and effectively to geopolitical challenges, while still honoring the principles of solidarity and fairness that are fundamental to the EU's mission. If we can find a way to balance the need for flexibility with the need for unity and integrity, I think we will be well poised to tackle the new world landscape effectively.
R - "The political direction of the Commission is exercised by a team of 27 Commissioners (one from each EU country), headed by the President of the Commission, who decides on the distribution of different portfolios among the Commissioners".
However, none of these commissioners have specific defense duties. This means that the EU is a large territory, from an economic and population point of view, but practically unarmed, continuing to shelter under the hat of NATO, or even the United States of America, a hat that can fly away in the event of a strong or unexpectedly storm, leaving the EU entirely at the disposal of the designs of the other two great powers: Russia, because it is very strong from the point of view of nuclear war power, and China, economically and militarily strong, on the rise. What should the EU do in the current circumstances of current or imminent conflicts likely to become global? Nothing?
UL - The Commission does not have direct control over defense or foreign policy, but we have seen recently how influential our voice can be when it comes to issues like the Ukraine conflict. We have been clear in supporting the Ukrainian people and condemning Russian aggression and I will continue to advocate for a strong and united response from the EU to these challenges. We must also be prepared to defend ourselves if necessary, but I believe that our best chance of preserving security and stability in Europe is through diplomacy and dialogue. I know it's not always easy to negotiate with those who have very different views, but I truly believe that it is worth the effort.
R - Without its own front of defense and common foreign political representation, the European Union does not have its own identity that could guarantee its perpetuity: in matters of external representation it tends to be dismantled by the nationalist interests of its members; in terms of defense, dependence on the United States of America suffers from the imponderability resulting from the moods of American politics subject to the radical confrontation between republicans and democrats. In the European Union, nobody (almost nobody...) claims to be European. A native of Texas, Arkansa, or any other US state is called an American. Same as Chinese, Indian, Japanese, etc. people. The absence of a European identity for the peoples of the European Union does not unite them in defending the European Union, except in the event of an external threat to the whole, as is the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which threatens to spread to all countries of the European Union. It is an unprepared defense not subject to a unity of command and, therefore, susceptible to being attacked on its most vulnerable fronts. It cannot be ignored that there is a lot of anti-Americanism (and even anti-Europeanism) in the European Union, just as there is a ballast of latent indifference on the part of North Americans regarding the fate of Europe. Should the European Union move towards joint rearmament? In what way? The destructive potential of the main nuclear arsenals (Russian and American) is more than enough to destroy the human species from one moment to the next. Throwing more fuel into the fire would be stupid anyway. Doing nothing about rearmament seems ill-advised. What does our President of the European Union think about all this?
UL - I see the value of a strong European defense identity and I think we should absolutely consider a collective action approach to defense within the EU. This could include initiatives in areas like common procurement, sharing of resources, and improving coordination on issues like NATO cooperation and military training. As the EU becomes more integrated, I think it's essential that we develop a shared understanding and sense of identity as a European community, and I see a strong and unified European defense structure as a key part of that. I will certainly be working on finding ways to explore these options further during my tenure as Commission President.
R - Once, you, Mrs. von der Leyen, said that "The world needs our leadership more than ever. To keep engaging with the world as a responsible power. To be a force for peace and for positive for change" How does (the European Union) intend to be a force for peace and positive change?
UL - The EU's leadership role in the world is predicated on a commitment to democratic values and principles of liberty, equality, and solidarity and respect for human rights, as well as a willingness to engage in a rules-based international system. The EU can help to promote peace and positive change by providing a model for other nations to follow in these areas, as well as by fostering economic prosperity through cooperation and trade, and supporting the development of countries in need. I believe that the EU can be a strong global force for good and I will continue to work to see that vision realized during my tenure as Commission President.
R - I beg your pardon, Mrs von der Leyen, but your words seem to me not to take into account the extreme imbalance in the current world political-military situation: in Europe, war on the doorstep of the European Union, with no search for peace; in Asia, China's demonstrations of strength to achieve political leadership in the most economically dynamic part of the world, starting with the occupation by force (because not by the will of its people) of Taywan. What can be the role of the European Union in this political context and nuclear threat, in which the third, and very likely the last, world war is looming around the corner?
UL - The situation in the world is definitely a volatile and uncertain one, and the threat of war and nuclear escalation is very real. I think in this context it is more important than ever for the EU to maintain its commitment to diplomatic solutions and de-escalation of conflict. This means continuing to pursue dialogue and discussion with all parties to the current crises, including Russia and China, to try and find peaceful solutions. It is also important to remain united in support for Ukraine and those affected by the war and to continue working with partner nations to ensure that international law and norms continue to be respected.
R - It does not seem to me that diplomacy and dialogue will prevent Mr Putin and Mr Li Xi Jinping from achieving the domination objectives they have in mind and which, moreover, they do not even hide or disguise. On the other hand, it does not seem that the United States of America is refraining from intervening in areas of the globe that it considers strategically of the greatest importance. I admit that a republican administration (Trump or one of his followers) makes a pact with Putin's Russia, leaving Europe at Putin's disposal. It no longer seems to me that they easily cede control of Asia to the Chinese. I hope I'm wrong.
UL - I agree that diplomacy and dialogue alone may not be sufficient to deter Russian or Chinese aggression, but I do think they have an important role to play in diffusing tensions and finding pathways to solutions. In the face of authoritarian regimes, it is critical that the EU stands firmly and united on the side of democracy and international law. I think the EU must also be prepared to use economic leverage and sanctions as a tool to deter aggression and punish bad behavior, or to provide support to countries or institutions that are working towards more democratic and inclusive societies.
R - It will be more the same. Someone said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results." No, Mrs von der Leyen, it is absolutely necessary to look outside the box. It is important for people all over the world to know that existing nuclear arsenals are more than sufficient to annihilate all living species in the world. Humanity is behaving like sleepwalkers amidst the greatest disaster ever seen on Earth. It is absolutely necessary, Mrs. von der Leyen, wake the humanly sleeping hiker. It is important for humanity to know that the destructive power of nuclear arsenals is equivalent to 135,000 bombs like the "Little Boy" that destroyed Hiroshima overnight. That was 77 years ago. How many people in the world today know that this could happen tomorrow, but with more than 135,000 times destructive power?
UL - Nuclear arms are indeed a threat to humanity, and the prospect of nuclear war is something we must avoid at all costs. I think it's important to continue promoting awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons and the need to prevent the spread of such weapons to non-nuclear states. I also believe that it is essential to pursue dialogue and diplomacy as a means of preventing a nuclear conflict, as nuclear war is something that must be avoided at all costs. As you said, it would be insane to continue doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. We must work urgently to find new ways to tackle this challenge.
R - Good! What is astonishing to me is the fact that no one political leader in this world, including the President of the European Union Comission, so far is not tackling the challenge to avert people all over the world about the risk of the the global extermination overnight of all alive species on Earth, if, deliberately or occasionally, is triggered the first nuclear warhead, starting a short last global war. That will be the last because there will be no survivors. There are, following what publicly known, 9 nuclear powers, of which two of them, United States and Russia, possess almost 95% of the total diabolical arsenal. There are 193 officially recognized countries in the world. The overwhelming majority do not have nuclear weapons, and even people residing in nuclear powers are subject to the same risks, or even greater than those where there are no nuclear arsenals. As long as nuclear arsenals exist, the high probability of a nuclear war always remains, for the simple and elementary reason that nuclear warheads exist to be fired and not to make art for a future museum of universal human stupidity. So why not to avert people all around the world that they, or their successors, risk to be burned in a icommsurable fire or frozen under under a cloud of radioactive dust?
UL - The risks associated with nuclear weapons are indeed very serious. It is vitally important that all leaders and nations understand how crucial it is to work together to prevent the use of these deadly weapons. I agree that the continued existence of nuclear weapons presents a constant threat to humanity and I believe it is our shared responsibility to work to ensure that this threat is eradicated. We must continue to pursue global nuclear disarmament, while also working to ensure that we have in place the necessary deterrents to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. This includes continued investment in our defence capabilities, as well as developing new non-proliferation initiatives.
R - Is it better for the world not to think the worst or for the world to act to avoid the worst? There will be around eight billion people on Earth today and countless other living beings. How many individuals can make a decision that eliminates all living beings on Earth? 10? 100? 1000? Not much more. If eight billion ignorant people become aware of the danger of global extinction, won't they have enough strength to force these 10, 100 or 1000 to dismantle the irremediably lethal arsenals for all of humanity from one moment to the next? Am I being exaggerated? Am I being overly alarmist? Am I being a crazy old man?
UL - I think the threat of nuclear war is a serious one and something that we should all be working to avert. I believe it is important to raise awareness of the risks of nuclear weapons and to work together to dismantle these deadly arsenals, as any use of nuclear weapons is utterly unacceptable. I think it's important to continue to fight for the goal of a nuclear-free world and I am committed to working for a world where no one has to live in fear of these weapons being used. It's critical that we do what we can to avoid nuclear war and save humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment