Report of the Eurispes Europe Laboratory Meeting

Report of the Eurispes Europe Laboratory Meeting

A meeting of Eurispes’ Europe Laboratory, chaired by Prof. Umberto Triulzi, was held on December 18, attended by Eurispes’ Secretary General, Marco Ricceri, Amb. Rocco Cangelosi, Prof. Myrianne Cohen, Prof. Francesco Gui, Prof. Rosella Di Bacco, Dr. Tommaso Di Fazio, Prof. Sandro Guerrieri, Dr. Maria Grazia Melchiorri, Dr. Giuseppe Davicino and Prof. Maurizio Franzini.

Prof. Triulzi, coordinator of the Laboratory, greeted the participants and made some proposals for common work ahead of the European elections, on which members were invited to discuss.

Ambassador Rocco Cangelosi then presented his insightful contribution on the topic of European security, which was full of ideas and proposals. The war in Ukraine, Europe’s decision to start negotiations for the country’s entry into the Union and therefore also for the six Balkan countries that had already applied for it – in addition to Moldova and Georgia – are all elements that present considerable security challenges for the future of the Union. The political enlargement of the European project to the countries of the East – as was repeatedly emphasised within Eurispes’ Europe Laboratory – must take into account the need for a new economic, political, social but also – and this was the central theme of the meeting – military and security planning. The potential crisis of the Atlantic Alliance, threatened by the victory of sovereignist leaders who have repeatedly expressed scepticism about the permanence of their countries in the organisation (such as Trump in the United States, ed.), puts the EU in the situation of having to reflect seriously on the possibility of giving itself a common defence system. From an economic point of view, the defence budgets of EU member states represent a huge expenditure, higher than those of the major powers, but dissipated due to a lack of planning and cohesion. When funds are to be invested for a common defence, argues the Ambassador, a gradual disengagement of European states from NATO funding could be envisaged, so as not to give rise to new expenditure that is too heavy for the Union’s taxpayers, even though the European defence policy should be set up as a complement to NATO, and not as an alternative. At this point, the solution is political: states must be persuaded to join forces and take political responsibility for pursuing it.

Prof. Myrianne Cohen is of the same opinion, drawing the participants’ attention to the economic issue in particular: the budget is modulated as a consequence of a major geopolitical threat and, therefore, the problem of lack of funds does not arise. However, it remains to be defined what a threat is, what its nature might be, how much this threat drives European leaders to make the political choice to invest resources in common defence for the EU institutions and citizens.

On the other hand, Prof. Sandro Guerrieri highlighted the risks of EU enlargement: this policy has worked in the past, but it has led to too much differentiation in the definition of common foreign policy. This presents serious difficulties in the choice of an unambiguous European position in the context of international relations, especially in tense situations such as those in the Middle East or Ukraine. This is why the EU should re-invest in the development of a diplomatic policy to make the Union an actor of peace, or at least of dialogue, at the international level.

Dr. Tommaso Di Fazio, however, casts reasonable doubt on the gradual disengagement from the Atlantic Alliance: «Realistically – he says – are we certain that we can adopt decisions other than those of NATO?». At least until we return to cultivating European values and rediscovering the sense of a united Europe, according to Di Fazio the answer is negative. The discussion therefore goes beyond defence, and implies the need to affirm the principle of sharing competences among member states, including defence, abandoning any kind of nationalist instinct.

Linked to this is Prof. Triulzi’s proposal to set up a major initiative with the participation of numerous associations interested, like the Eurispes Laboratory, in tackling European issues of fundamental importance in view of the forthcoming European Parliament elections. Launching a discussion with other associative and cultural realities could accentuate the resonance of Eurispes’ internal discussions and bring the debate on the future of the European Union back to the centre of governments’ political agendas. As emphasised by Prof. Marco Ricceri, this would suggest a series of common proposals and initiatives based on a lowest common denominator of ideals and perspectives. A thesis also shared by Prof. Francesco Gui, who at the last meeting had already suggested extending the debate to other bodies, organisations and study centres committed, like Eurispes, to imagining a possible future for the Union.

On the proposal put forward by Prof. Triulzi to create a series of documents summarising the reflections that have emerged, to then present concrete recommendations for use by the Italian government and the other member states, Dr. Giuseppe Davicino emphasises how we must also look for ways to highlight the external pressure that affects change in the European Union, compared to the speed at which the rest of the world is changing. In order to trigger an awareness among rulers of the need to join forces on fundamental issues, there must also be an understanding that the rest of the world is not waiting for the EU integration process. Europe, in essence, cannot stand idly by any longer.

In an atmosphere of satisfaction for the work done so far, at the end of the meeting, the creation of some summary documents was discussed, useful to lay the foundations for dialogue with the institutions and other realities of civil society.