On a personal level, Emmanuel Macron, President of France, is easy to dislike. He’s out of touch. His hairdressing and make-up bills run into five figures, at the taxpayer’s expense. And he was once given to speaking of himself in, literally, god-like terms (Jupiter, since you ask).
But you need to put his conceit to one side if you want to assess his recent remarks about Europe’s future relationship with the US and China.
He’s said Europe must aspire to be a third global power. It can’t, therefore, be a vassal of the US, subservient to the latter’s interests even in conflicts that are not vital to Europe.
A generation ago, on the eve of Europe’s 2004 enlargement, those comments would have been unremarkable. The EU then thought of itself as the power that would surpass the US in the 21st century. There was even talk of the euro displacing the dollar as the currency in which oil was traded (ha!).
Yes, pipe dreams. But the furore that greeted Macron’s statements expressed shock that he should speak of the US in those terms.
The reaction in many parts of Europe demonstrates the very point he’s making. The EU hasn’t just been cut down to size. It finds itself unable to think of its specific geostrategic interests independently of the US.
It is perhaps easier for France, among the major EU players, to insist that a European geostrategic perspective has to be independent of the US, even if it intersects it.
Germany and the Nordic, Baltic and Eastern member states have good reason to be preoccupied mostly with Russia. In this sense, their interests overlap considerably with those of the US.
France, however, has a Mediterranean frontier, with strong economic and cultural interests reaching beyond North Africa, deep into the sub-Saharan continent. The impact of Chinese development aid on African environmental security and migration movements is of direct relevance to Europe’s future but not necessarily a priority for the US.
It’s absurd to think that the US should subordinate its foreign policy priorities to Europe’s. What’s so outlandish about pointing out that Europe needs to take care of itself?
If the EU’s geostrategic thinking becomes defined by its eastern border only, then it’s no longer a Union. Right now, the EU’s policy on its eastern border appears to be dictated by the US.
Over the last year, France and Germany, among others, have had to swallow their own words about the suitability of Ukraine’s candidacy for EU membership. Germany has been humiliated by having the Nord Stream 2 pipeline blown up, either by the US or with US blessing.
If Macron is guilty, it’s of stating the truth. His critics in the US scoff that he’s inviting the US to leave Europe to its own devices, as though Macron hasn’t thought things through. But that’s exactly what he’s arguing for.
When Macron says he wants the EU to be the third pole of global power, he’s clearly implying he wants to surpass Russia and, therefore, contain it. He knows that can’t be done without European NATO members doing what the US has been demanding: increase their military spending.
If Macron is guilty, it’s of stating the truth- Ranier Fsadni
US military experts have long been saying that Europe can largely take care of itself against the Russian threat – if it put its money where its mouth is. It’s been European specialists who have argued the contrary.
Macron is backing the US side of the argument. He says he’s ready to support higher European military spending and coordination. He’s also claiming, reasonably, that greater European military autonomy should come with greater autonomy in policymaking.
You can scoff at the idea that the Europeans will ever do this. Higher military spending would require budget cuts elsewhere. Greater military coordination would call for more European centralisation.
Macron’s proposal might never be implemented. But he is surely right in grasping what the trade-off is. There is no free lunch. If the US (under the guise of NATO) protects Europe, it gets to decide the future development of the EU.
And make no mistake. If Ukraine enters the EU at an accelerated pace, it would be at US insistence. It would weaken the EU’s governability and autonomy.
Some of Macron’s critics say it’s his timing that’s wrong. He’s encouraged China to threaten Taiwan.
No, China had long been threatening Taiwan. It also knows that, if it goes beyond threats, what will matter will be what the US does, in conjunction with Japan, Vietnam and India. It will also face inevitable, crippling, international sanctions on its food imports, which many EU members will join.
Macron understands political theatre better than his critics. He was, in fact, showing how European figures like Ursula von der Leyen (who was sidelined on the China visit) would be treated on the international stage, away from US flattery.
Macron was also giving a riposte to countries like India, which is concerned with China’s rise and threats to its borders. India has (understandably) safeguarded its interests after the Ukraine invasion by maintaining a relationship with Russia while telling Europe that its regional conflicts are not necessarily of Asian concern.
Apart from the ephemeral theatre, Macron is urging a greater realism for EU foreign policy. You can’t safeguard European interests without an independent geostrategy.
Rather than board the bandwagon in dismissing Macron, Malta should be doing its own thinking in response. For us, Macron’s proposal is double-sided.
He wants a more centralised Europe, which doesn’t suit us. But it’s also clear that the grave, regional geo-economic challenges that surround us can be dated to the time when Europe lost sight of its geostrategic understanding of the Mediterranean.