(B2) For the High Representative of the EU, Josep Borrell, we need to change the paradigm. The new world, which Europe is facing, makes it necessary to find new means and ways of action. Interview.
Josep Borrell on the left during the informal defense of Lisbon (Photo: Portuguese EU Presidency - B2 Archive)
Is this text on the table just another strategy document, 'blabla', lukewarm water?
- No. It's not a hundred pages. It is a short paper, and above all a guide to action. Over the months, we wrote a project. But it's not a compromise. We haven't negotiated every bit of a paragraph, with every one. Of course, we have taken into account what has been said. It would have been stupid of me to present something that does not have everyone's opinion. No one will be able to say that it was not consulted. But it's not lukewarm water. This is the vision that I retain, after having discussed with my colleagues. The preamble (foreword) is more personal to me, yes... (read: Europe is in danger!)
... But it's imprecise.
— It's a political document. I am not in charge. My role is to sound the alarm, to ring the bell. To say certain things clearly and make certain proposals. Now it is up to the Member States to say what level of ambition they are looking for, to fix the details.
Do you seem pessimistic about today's world?
“We have to look the world in the face. Europe is in danger. Our economic space is more and more disputed, our strategic space more and more disputed, our political space more and more degraded. We are witnessing a general rearmament. You have to be prepared to live in a difficult, more hostile world. [...] And the threats of today are different from the past, it is no longer a question of being bombarded or invaded by tanks. It is enough to look at what is happening on the border with Belarus to understand that we are facing new types of threats.
What consequences does this have for Europe?
— pretend soft power while everyone rearms is no longer enough. The European Union cannot simply arrive by saying human rights and trade. This is no longer enough. We are no longer in the time of beautiful world designed in 2003 by Javier Solana in his security strategy. [...] It is necessary to manage to put in common (pooling) our abilities and act together. I have no illusions about the difficulty [of the exercise]. But if Europeans want to remain what they are, they must do more to react, to have hard power.
Is that the nerve of your proposal, with the rapid reaction force of 5000 men?
— Rather than force, I prefer to speak of a rapid deployment capability. The important thing is not really the number, but the ability to deploy, and quickly. A capability that is truly mission-specific, with combinable modules depending on the mission. (Also read: A new rapid reaction capability. Composition, decision, financing…)
But we already have a force, the battle groups or battle groups ?
- Listen, the battle groups were never deployed. And who can tell me if there was a decision to deploy [them], if they would really be trained for the crisis in question. We need forces adapted to foreseeable action, not more troops waiting in barracks. We need modularity. Modular action is key. This capacity must be organized in such a way that it can intervene. It is the nature of the threat that determines the response, not the other way around. It is not the force that should define the mission, but the mission that defines the force.
In the past, what often blocked was money. How will this capability be funded?
— If it is a European operation, we must be able to finance it from European funds. Why not with the European Peace Facility. It would be normal. We must at least be able to jointly finance the training and exercises of this capacity.
But to decide you always need unanimity. Does it block?
— Our model is surely too rigid. But we mustn't forget that to break unanimity [move to qualified majority], we need...unanimity. And she's not here today. So I'm not going to start with that. I work with the institutions that I have! We can already use all the existing possibilities, make what exists as flexible as possible. We can have operations carried out by certain Member States. What the treaty already provides for 44 article. The decision to entrust an action to a group of countries is taken unanimously. But then you don't have to decide all the steps unanimously.
Coalition action or European action, which do you prefer?
— First, we must seek a European response. It is " EU First ". And if that's not possible, we'll look at the available coalitions.
And can we do without a UN mandate to act?
— If it is an executive operation led by the European Union, it is clear: it is normal to have a mandate given by the UN Security Council. These are the international rules. This is what is happening in Bosnia-Herzegovina [with EUFOR Althea] or in the Mediterranean with Operation Irini. The Security Council has asked us to monitor the arms embargo.
You insist on strategic culture, why?
— European citizens are not sufficiently aware of the threats we face. [...] I do not want to dramatize. But I have to warn our citizens: the current trend is to reduce our strategic capacity to act. It is reality ! And Europe will not be able to survive on just soft power. [...] We are not a defense community. If you live in the United States, you have the same threat awareness. This is not the case in Europe. Depending on whether you live in Cyprus or Poland, the feeling is different. So we really have to build this common strategic culture.
That is to say strategic autonomy?
— Rather than strategic autonomy, I prefer to speak of strategic responsibility. It is our responsibility to identify new challenges and threats, our responsibility to provide our own response. We can no longer wait for others to solve our problems for us. We must act with others if possible, but also alone if necessary.
That means without the Atlantic Alliance. Isn't that problematic?
'Don't look at this paper as a confrontation with NATO. We act in addition. The Secretary General of the Alliance is fully aware of its contents. The United States has also been informed of the process (1). But we have to learn from the past. And NATO must learn.
Will collective defense be the responsibility of the European Union?
- No. There is no alternative to NATO for the collective defense of Europe.
(Comments collected by Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)
Interview conducted with fifteen European journalists (including B2) at the EEAS headquarters, in English, Monday (8 November). Most of the journalists present (including B2) asked questions, sometimes long, sometimes in the form of follow-up questions. The question script has been revised for more fluidity and consistency. But the spirit has been preserved.
The text was sent on Monday (November 8) to Jens Stoltenberg.
The High Representative discussed the main ideas of the compass, in mid-October in Washington, with his interlocutors from the Pentagon.
Chief editor of the B2 site. Graduated in European law from the University of Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne and listener to the 65th session of the IHEDN (Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale. Journalist since 1989, founded B2 - Bruxelles2 in 2008. EU/NATO correspondent in Brussels for Sud-Ouest (previously West-France and France-Soir).
