The European Union has announced, with great fanfare, the ‘Rearm Europe’ project.
I will not delve into the political or military aspects of this multi-billion-euro plan. However, it is evident that Europe finds itself in a precarious position: a despotic bully to the East and a raving bully across the Atlantic.
To make matters worse, the transatlantic bully was once Europe’s strongest security defender. This is a crisis that demands a drastic, collective response. In truth, the issue extends far beyond Ukraine.
My concern lies with the communication strategy employed to launch the project. Whoever chose the slogan ‘Rearming Europe’ committed a significant communications misstep. A more suitable slogan would have been ‘Defending Europe’ or, better yet, ‘Defending You; Defending Europe’.
‘Rearming Europe’ is a slogan that can easily be criticised, as it evokes notions of militarism and aggression ‒ two traits that many people oppose.
Although the plan was approved by all EU leaders, with the exception of Hungary’s prime minister, criticism of the initiative is far from negligible. In the European Parliament, 204 MEPs voted against it, while 46 abstained.
Populists seeking to exploit the situation can adopt a pacifist stance, playing on people’s genuine fear of war. They can do so without consequence, knowing that the project will proceed regardless ‒ and, in fact, they likely want it to proceed, as it bolsters their own countries’ defences.
Russia is undeniably the aggressor. The countries bordering Putin’s Russia, having endured decades of oppression under its despotic rule, have firsthand experience of this aggression. Can anyone blame them for fearing that Putin’s appetite will not be satisfied with Ukraine?
And since EU member states can no longer rely on the resources of the raving bully across the Atlantic, what choice do they have but to build their own defensive capabilities? Yet, the title ‘Rearm Europe’ can be manipulated to portray the European Union as the aggressor.
Europe does not seek to attack; it seeks the ability to defend itself. No one can credibly oppose the right to self-defence. A programme titled ‘Defending You, Defending Europe’ would have been far more challenging to criticise.
What’s in a word, one might ask? The simple and truthful answer: a great deal.
Europe does not seek to attack; it seeks the ability to defend itself- Fr Joe Borg
I am particularly intrigued by the work of George Lakoff. This American cognitive linguist and philosopher is renowned for his hypothesis that people’s lives are profoundly influenced by the conceptual metaphors they use to understand complex phenomena. He applied this theory to analyse the metaphors employed by Democrats and Republicans. His books, Do not Think of an Elephant and Moral Politics, are essential reading for politicians and communication strategists worldwide.
When President Barack Obama proposed the ‘Affordable Care Act', Republicans quickly realised that “affordable care” was difficult to oppose. Consequently, they began referring to the reform as “Obamacare”, a term that made it more vulnerable to criticism.
The same principle applies to the climate debate. The term “global warming” conveys a clear and negative connotation, as people can easily grasp the harmful consequences of a warming planet. In contrast, “climate change” sounds less alarming, as change can be perceived as either positive or negative.
After completing the first draft of this article, I discovered that MEPs from Fratelli d’Italia had proposed emphasising that the name “Rearm Europe” is misleading and overly restrictive, suggesting instead the title “Defend Europe”.
While I hold no sympathy for Fratelli d’Italia, on this matter, I find myself a Melonian.