As Trump looms over NATO, Europe must rediscover resilience – and its own collective voice.
The three musketeers of Alexandre Dumas’ imagination were perhaps more convincing than some of today’s political leaders when they committed themselves to the principle of “Tous pour un, un pour tous” (“All for one, one for all”). The recent NATO summit in The Hague may have seen, formally, a renewed commitment to the principles of Article Five of the Washington treaty – what the communiqué called an “ironclad commitment to collective defence” – but can anyone feel confident that President Trump’s apparent support for this declaration is permanent or, indeed, ironclad? It may be no more permanent than the peculiar and variable orange hue which intermittently masks Trump’s ageing complexion from the world.
While Article Five of the treaty has been preoccupying many observers, we should also spare a thought for Article Three:
Each NATO member country needs to be resilient in order to withstand a major shock such as a natural disaster, failure of critical infrastructure, or a hybrid or armed attack… Rooted in Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty, national and collective resilience are an essential basis for credible deterrence and defence, and are therefore vital to NATO’s efforts to safeguard its societies, populations and shared values.
Whether or not a budget of 5% (or 3.5% plus 1.5%) of GDP on defence spending is feasible, it is this principle of national and collective resilience which should inform thinking in European capitals. Governments need to be looking out for themselves and each other. And here is an opportunity for the UK government to build on its slow and tentative rapprochement with the European Union.
If there has been one guaranteed way to get a Eurosceptic or Brexiteer riled up over the past few years, it was to talk of a European Army. In truth, the UK armed services have never been attracted by the idea either. But – and this is not merely a semantic point – while European Defence may have long been anathema, the defence of Europe is now a top of the agenda item.
You only have to consider how attitudes have developed among (new) NATO members Sweden and Finland to recognise how much things have changed. Cynically, the geopolitics of this are also good for British business. As David Lockwood, the chief executive of Babcock, the defence industries concern, declared recently:
This is a new era for defence. There is increasing recognition of the need to invest in defence capability and energy security, both to safeguard populations and to drive economic growth.
Babcock’s share price has doubled in the first six months of the year.
Brexit is now seen as a mistake by around 60% of Brits, according to consistent opinion poll evidence. Sadly, it is too late to re-fight the referendum of 2016. And few UK politicians want to propose launching a process whereby the UK might consider rejoining the EU – if the EU will still have us, that is. But the shifting (and troubling) security agenda has at least served to remind even the Brexiteers that the UK’s interests are inextricably linked to those of the continent.
What a missed opportunity this has been. Why did no leading UK politician in recent years, with the possible exception of Gordon Brown, have the courage and imagination to make a speech comparable to that made by Edward Heath in a famous Oxford Union debate in June 1975, held just two days before the original in/out referendum of that year?
The motion debated that night was “that this House would say yes to Europe”, and Heath spoke with authority and conviction about why voting yes to Europe was the right thing to do. He contrasted the history of the first 50 years of the 20th century, with its two world wars, with the following 25. He described those first five decades as a time of “Countries with the same background and the same tradition of European civilisation…tearing themselves apart.”
And he went on to say this:
What we have seen in the last 25 years, since 1950, has been the creation of a new organisation, the community, the European Community… and I am somewhat sad that it is still apparent that those who have spoken so passionately against this motion tonight have not realised the nature of this new community and its institutions; and first and foremost that its purpose is a political one.
And when I have sometimes heard doubts expressed about the relationship of the European Community to peace and security, then can I remind honourable members that the main purpose of the creation of this community was to prevent France and Germany ever fighting each other again…now, all of this may have come to be accepted as the nature of the Community, [but] to my generation… that was haunted by the fact that we knew the second world war was coming… that is a triumph beyond our wildest dreams… it is really to us one of the miracle achievements of this post war period that the Community should have been established, and should have bound together those two ancient enemies… and to me this can never, never be taken for granted. And I believe of course that we in Britain – and I have believed this ever since 1945 – we in Britain have a major part to play in the creation of this Community and its new institutions.
These are magnificent, stirring words, and they are as true today as when they were first spoken 50 years ago. (For once, a “Ted talk” that means something!) They could still form the foundation of a long-term campaign to reunite the UK and the EU. (Interestingly – and it could be that my ageing Gen X tech skills were lacking – but I could not easily find a transcript or formal text of this speech, and had to transcribe it myself from YouTube. The best speech about Europe ever made by a British politician, and you can’t even get hold of the text…)
The recent NATO summit ended, without a repetition of its assertion, made first in 2022, that “We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and are committed to upholding the rules-based international order.” Putin was let off the hook, and that seemed to improve President Trump’s mood. Secretary-General Rutte kept “daddy” happy.
Europe must look out for itself. And remember, too, that in Tennessee Williams’ play “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” the character of Big Daddy, the domineering patriarch, is in fact dying of cancer.
Stefan Stern is an accomplished writer who has contributed to the BBC, Management Today magazine, and the Financial Times, where he served as the management columnist from 2006 to 2010. He is currently a Visiting Professor in Management Practice at Bayes Business School, City, University of London. Previously, Stern held the positions of Director at the High Pay Centre and Director of Strategy at Edelman.