On the further militarisation and so-called “Strategic Compass” of the European Union and its coupling with NATO
Transcript of the intervention of AKEL Political Bureau member Giorgos Loukaides on SIGMA TV
22 March 2022
SIGMA – It seems that we are one step closer to both an EU army and a common understanding at least about European foreign policy, which up until recently was the pressing need. It seems that the war has accelerated these processes…
GIORGOS LOUKAIDES (GL) – For us this wasn’t the pressing need, let me make this clear from the very beginning. For others it was because for us the priority was, and continues to be, a Europe of peace and not the Europe of militarization, the Europe which within the framework of NATO will now also act as a separate power.
We must bear in mind that the European peoples have gone through a long period during which they have been even more impoverished, in which social problems and inequalities have become more acute, in which there was and continues to be the need to redirect and channel the resources of the European Union (EU) towards social cohesion. Instead of doing that, but also as a result of this war and what we are discussing right now, these processes had already been set in motion anyway, but they have been accelerated because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
We are seeing a situation in which we will have a greater arms race, more militarisation of Europe, more NATO, if I may say so, and for that reason less peace, more misery in Europe, but also throughout the whole world.
SIGMA – Well, doesn’t an EU army somehow make Europe independent of NATO structures?
GL – No.
SIGMA – If the EU gets its EU army will NATO have a need to exist?
GL – According to the declarations made, the EU’s strategic autonomy will be complementary to NATO as the EU’s own declarations themselves say. If we would have an EU completely independent of NATO and above all with an orientation through which peace and not war is served and promoted, then we would of course be a hundred times in agreement and that is our position.
SIGMA – Given that the EU is frequently criticized that Europe is numb, that it doesnt intervene, that it cannot do this and that, obviously, and it cannot, first of all, since it does not have a common foreign policy and its own EU army, how would it do that in the case of Ukraine?
GL – That’s precisely the issue. Would we want it to intervene in the case of Ukraine? NATO didn’t do so. Do we therefore want to head on towards a third world war?
SIGMA – No.
GL – Yes, but that’s what you’re telling me. Indirectly but clearly we’re kidding but, such a development would represent a further tragic development vis-à-vis Putin’s invasion if NATO or the EU were to respond and therefore we would be entering into such a process. What Europe should have done, and unfortunately did not do, without this in any way being a justification of Russia’s invasion, was to act in such a way that we could have avoided it, because we could have prevented what is happening…The US is attempting to impose its hegemony by every means throughout the whole world, to impose its exclusive hegemony stemming from the successive decisions that were taken to expand NATO.
The decision was taken in 2008 by the 20th NATO Summit held in Bucharest to expand NATO with the accession of Georgia and Ukraine which – rightly or wrongly I will not discuss it – was declared a “red line” by the Russian Federation. So NATO played with that “red line”. They were pushing things. They’ve been arming Ukraine and training Ukrainians since 2017 according to statements by Julianne Smith, the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO. She herself says that since 2017 they have been preparing for this war. Yesterday I saw a report in the Athens newspaper “Vima” interview with Julian Smith, as well as a report in the American newspaper “Washington Post” stating that 1 billion in military aid was given to Ukraine last year alone. So they were indeed preparing for this war. They were preparing things…
SIGMA – Both of them were making preparations…
GL – Both of them, yes. But what was Europe doing? Who is paying the price for the damage caused? First of all, the damage is being paid by the Ukrainian people with the human suffering and tragedy they are going through. Could this have been foreseen and prevented? We say yes it could have. The EU have played a role which is itself paying a huge price now, along with humanity too.
SIGMA – So you’re saying that the EU should not proceed with this common foreign and military policy?
GL – A common foreign and military policy of the EU based on what foundations though? The question again arises. Of course let’s say a common foreign policy, but to serve what purpose and goal?
Is this common foreign policy perhaps going to serve and promote the selfish interests of the mighty in Europe who will be taking decisions that won’t even need the consent of small and weak states like Cyprus?
Have we seen the European Union acting on the basis of principles when it comes to its own foreign policy?
Or have we as Cypriots seen from our own bitter experience the hypocrisy of the EU which, in the face of Turkey’s aggression, has reacted in effect only verbally, either in relation to Turkey’s provocative actions in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Cyprus or in relation to its attempt to impose fait accompli in the fenced off area of Famagusta?
If only we had a Europe that would serve these principles that were proclaimed, then of course yes. And to even accept the removal of the veto with regards foreign policy, if a policy based on principles in such a case were indeed going to be pursued.
But is this the EU’s policy today – or is it the EU that serves interests?
Unless the EU, just like NATO, has become some kind of charity association and serves these values and these principles. We hope that principles and values will prevail which is precisely why we are fighting for those principles to be served. However, we have no illusions whatsoever about where we stand today.
As far as the EU’s new defence strategy is concerned, namely the “Strategic Compass” as they have called it, and the debate we are having here, I have one thing to say. We mustn’t base the analyses we make on illusions and delusions and we shouldn’t ultimately seek to fool and mislead the people.
Is there anything in this “Strategic Compass” document that protects Cyprus or Greece as members of the EU from a new aggressive and adventurous action by Turkey?
Does it create any commitment that the Euro Army or EU member states will come to our defence if we face an aggressive war waged by Turkey against Cyprus and Greece?
SIGMA – …Yes, but we don’t have an EU army yet, you’re in a hurry Mr. Loukaides. And we also have the relevant article that states that the solidarity mechanism will be activated in that eventuality. This has been tested in the case of terrorism in Europe.
GL – I’m telling you that we have to be very precise in what we tell the people. Nothing in what is included in the texts creates any obligation with regards Cyprus and Greece for the EU to come to the defense and solidarity of Cyprus and Greece against Turkey or for any country that is a member of the Union as such. Please substantiate for me if there is such an article, because if that was indeed the case, yes, it is possible – despite our general disagreement – to see positive elements or a very important element that can protect us against Turkish aggression.
SIGMA – When Turkey or anybody else in the EU attacks, there is an article that….
GL – …No, I’m telling you. Such an article doesn’t exist and it doesn’t cover us. And it doesn’t cover us in the Strategy either. Look at the analyses of international experts and so on. I wish it were as you say it is. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with reality itself. And that’s precisely the point.
The country with the second largest army in NATO is Turkey. It’s a valuable ally and they won’t go against and mess with Turkey. And they won’t protect us. So everything we are talking about would have made some sense, I say again, if we were dealing with an EU that actually stood up for and upheld principles and values. What we really have is a Europe of interests, of brutal self-interests, dominated by those of the big ruling states of the Union, so everything that is being built in the direction of militarisation is being built on a shaky, dangerous for the peoples of Europe and the planet foundations.
This is what we are saying and to the extent that we do not have a reorientation of the EU in its direction this will remain the position of AKEL.
As far as European integration is concerned. Its said we should go to federalism – but on what basis? Is it so that the brutal interests of the multinationals or of the people can be served within the framework of federalisation at the end of the day? If we were to have a federalisation that serves the interests of the people, of the working people and not of the multinationals, then yes, by all means.
We want to unite the whole world, not just Europe.
There is no step forward in this logic and direction. The selfish interests are served by the multinationals and the monopolies in the EU, by the economic oligarchy of the Union itself, because we do not only have oligarchies in Russia, you understand. As a matter of fact, we have more oligarchies in the EU and even more in the USA. That’s the stark reality. Will we be now comparing the oligarchies in the US with the oligarchies in the Russian Federation in terms of their wealth and economic power?
Now, from there onwards, starting from that, I’d like to comment a little bit on what the Parliamentary Representative of ruling DISY party, Nicos Tornaritis had to say. Look, I want to be clear and I want to make a parallel because there are parallels by analogy with Cyprus.
Is there anyone who can seriously defend or justify in any way Turkey and the Turkish invasion? We say no. In a similar way, I say that the same is true of the Russian Federation. Let’s be clear in our positions.
But I’d also like to point this out. Is there anyone who can dispute that tragic mistakes and even crimes were committed led to the Turkish invasion, namely the treasonous coup d’état? Well, does anyone who criticises the treasonous coup d’état mean that they are covering up the Turkish invasion or the mistakes we have made? Or the interventions of the Western imperialists, NATO, the US and the CIA?
I think we have an obligation to tell the whole truth, without this in any way whatsoever justifying the Turkish invasion. On the contrary, we have to see how many accumulated mistakes or crimes have been committed because we have the US as the moral perpetrator of this war.
The international crime is being committed by Putin with his invasion. But we have as the moral perpetrators of this crime those who pushed things to the point where we have this geopolitical confrontation here today, which is being paid for tragically, first and foremost by the Ukrainian people. But the Russian people will also pay a heavy cost. The European peoples are paying for it with the sanctions that have been imposed, which in many cases resemble more like a collective punishment and do not target those who took the political decisions in Moscow to carry out this invasion. It is humanity that is paying the price.
But who benefits from all this? First and foremost, certainly the US economic oligarchy that I mentioned earlier benefits. All the rest of humanity, and some other interests of course, is paying the price.
What we will actually have the day after the war will be more militarization, more arms race and more NATO. We also say that we will have more NATO and US practices as we have been accustomed to experiencing over the last 50 years with the launching of constant invasions, all over the world because the US considers that it is entitled to go far away from its own country and strike in any part of the planet by invoking its security. They consider they are entitled to. They don’t recognize that right to anyone else.
We shall therefore have coup d’états just as we have had in our country and in many other cases too around the world. We will have an even more aggressive NATO and an even more aggressive USA. And of course with the peoples and peace paying the heavy cost.
This is what will happen and Putin has given them the pretext – as much of a pretext as they need – for the next several decades to continue with the logic of coup d’états and invasions all around the globe.
Some forces and circles, of course, remain NATO advocates and glorifiers. They find it difficult to talk about NATO, they want us to join NATO.
In any case, we are very clear in our position and we speak the truth about everyone and we do not back off in our criticism of anyone – whether this is Putin or NATO.
