Deconstructing President Macron's Idea of an European Army



'We will not protect the Europeans unless we decide to have a true European army.' – President Macron

President Emmanuel Macron announced the need for the creation of a European Army to “to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America”. What are Mr Macron’s real intentions behind such statement we do not know yet, but we bet he is not having Europe’s security in mind at all because if he did he would suggest Europe to tackle the true Security Threats plaguing Europe – threats that cannot be solved by a Euro-Army, but through smart Foreign and National Security Policies.

“Very Insulting”

President Macron’s words aren't exactly insulting; but bizarre: why would he include the United States of America in the list of threats instead of Turkey?

The US contribution to NATO common funding stands at a fairly hefty 22.1%, or about US$685 million. This covers the costs of some operations, training and exercises, joint facilities, NATO headquarters and staff. - Source

It seems fair to recall the US is a NATO member-state that, as one single country, not only practically pays the organisation’s bill but also provides most of the protective services to Europe; whereas Turkey is a NATO member-state that not only spies for certain Islamic states (and probably for Russia too) but mainly militates against European National Interests and Security. Therefore, the wink that President Macron gave to Turkey is very suspicious and America has every right not to take Emmanuel Macron’s petulance…unless, this whole thing has got to do with Iran.

The Iranian Question

If the Euro-Army initiative is truly based on defending Europe against the US because of Iran then Monsieur le Président has completely lost his mind since the other two threats, according to Mr Macron, are Russia and China with whom he joined forces to create the "SPV" (Special Purpose Vehicle) to “To bypass United States sanctions [and] to allow financial transactions with Iran between oil companies and other businesses". Besides, if we think about it the so-called Euro-Army would pose a conflict of interests in light of the legal instrument concocted to bypass US sanctions against Iran, wouldn't it?

If you join forces with two countries to counter the actions of a third one (in this case, the US) how can you create an entity to fight all three? Something is afoot. 

If President Macron wants to protect Europeans then he needs to undertake a couple of measures:

  • Remove absolute support from the Palestinian Authority (whose signature is on almost every Islamic Terror Attack around the world – the latest attack with “Palestinian” signature occurred last week in Melbourne)
  • Withdraw from the JCPOA – which enabled the resumption of Iranian aggression and expansion
  • Obliterate the French Arab Policy – that in the present context makes France look submissive to Islamism
  • Move its Embassy to Jerusalem – to send a message of Strength to Europe’s true enemies and associates (China and Russia)

The failure to take these simple steps renders any broad security plan redundant. Time has proven DS is analysing the threat well.

Deconstructing Macron’s European Defence Theory

Monsieur le Président Macron needs to understand that old formulas won’t solve problems and won’t produce any tangible change. Policies to keep the Status Quo are obsolete and this much is so true that instead of looking at the root of the bleeding, Emmanuel Macron came up with a sticking plaster solution to a haemorrhage: no, Europe doesn’t need a European Army (which also constitutes a sovereignty problem), Europe needs a general clean-up within the European Security/Intelligence Agencies.

Please allow me to tell you a brief security tale:

   Once upon a time, a young high school student was approached by a foreign agent (who looked Chinese but could easily be Tuvan) who offers him/her a full scholarship to any college of his/her choosing on one condition: in the future, when necessary, the student would return the favour. The student goes to the University, gets a degree, and then the same “guardian angel” makes it easier for him/her to get a job. After a while, this new professional receives a communication suggesting he/she joins an intelligence agency and serves his/her country well – his/her reputation must be clean and above suspicion. Each communication is followed by a generous gift in an envelope. After a couple of years in the agency, the asset is activated and requested to start passing information to his/her foreign sponsor. And so the National Security threat begins and grows. 

Multiply this particular example by thousands of agents that may be cooperating with foreign states. Now expand this to the Military, to Police Forces, to the Judicial System, to Government. What good would a European Army do in this case? Will President Macron start a civil war on the side-lines of a global war against China or Russia?

The Euro-Army is a Threat to Sovereignty

We assume this European Army notion serves to replace NATO; but we need to ask the following question: if European National Parliaments already have a hard time contributing to the Defence Alliance with 2% of their GDP (because they are socialist in nature and thus focus on socialist expenditures like social welfare, free healthcare, free education and big government with full prejudice to defence and the judicial system), what makes Emmanuel Macron believe that European States would make that effort to fund the Euro-Army?

In any case, what would the creation of such an army mean to the sovereignty of States in Europe?

It would mean loss of control, loss of decision power; sharing of intelligence and classified information with countries whose secret services agencies would sell their own mother if they think it will bring them any advantage; which would imperil the National Security of States, especially if such an organisation would invite entities like the “Palestinian Authority” as observers and contributors (that spy for Terror Organisations and learn how to evade scrutiny). Moreover, it would also mean the transfer of any defence decision-making to a Central European Command (meaning more taxes to fund the creation of such an enterprise) - which sovereign state would accept that?

Conclusion

This Euro-Army proposal reflects President Macron’s immaturity. Not to mention that it is a dangerous idea and too Soviet to one’s taste. Therefore, Mr Macron and others should drop the idea all together as stirring the hornet’s nest is exactly what some people are waiting for to bring about Anti-Globalism Conflict in an outdated manner. On the other hand, Emmanuel Macron's Euro-Army proposition is evidence that an Anti-Globalism Effort is urgent - though in a smart fashion.

[The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dissecting Society. © 2007-2018 Author(s) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED]

Comments

  1. Merkel joined Macron to call for the creation of that army! I shudder just thinking of it especially when I remember that Germany and France have always been partners in world wars! Macron may be worse than immature, he may be dangerous, evil!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Macron tried to say his words were misunderstood cause he meant to say a Cyber Army to tackle cyber threats, and now Angela Merkel comes and supports the same reported idea! What's it going to be? A cyber army or a Euro army?
    And yeah, this idea is so bad in so many different levels starting with the list of enemies! That Macron comes up with it, we get it he is young, but for Merkel to endorse it? What's going on here?
    Portugal refused to join in.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Unknown and Cêcê :D!

    Well, at least Angela Merkel was more cautious in her words than Macron: she didn't imply that this Euro-Army was to replace NATO, she said it is to serve as a supplement to NATO. What do you guys think of it?

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is more behind President Macron's proposal than meets the eye: France is being weakened by the US and Russia in Africa, in Syria, and in the Iranian question; therefore the French leader has to try and turn things around. However, is a European Army the solution? No, and as Max said it may veil other nefarious purposes. And does the EU really think that other players will just stand by while Europe repeats the same mistakes - albeit under a different guise?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I really wonder. Could it have been just a slip of tongue?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have a question for Mr Macron, one that I have asked previously on this blog: how about the conscientious objectors? Has Mr Macron anticipated what to do with them especially after socialists taught kids how to be conscientious objectors? How does he intend to convince the youth they must serve in the European Army? One thing is national armies another thing is a global European army and without patriotism it won't work cause patriotism concerns national states not federations of several flags, cultures and languages! A flawed plan.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And apparently Merkel also lost her mind, but we have to take into account that with Brexit Europe will lose its military advantage. Only France has a solid army now. Nevertheless, I agree it can be a threat to countries' sovereignty and perhaps the EU should focus more on strengthening their national armies and contribute to NATO more. Good read.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sounds great if they want to weaken European countries for good cause creating this inter-dependence will damage for good the deterrence of member-states. It sounds great for the enemies of Europe! Oh wait, Europe couldn't possibly have enemies, could it? Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers