EU arms deliveries to Ukraine: Democracy in hybrid mode

A fund for peace …

 In a wording that can only raise questions and perplexity, the EU stated that it wished to: “strengthen its assistance to partner countries” by supporting their peacekeeping operations and enabling them “to increase the capacity of their armed forces to guarantee peace and security on their national territory” (SIC). Further on in the presentation, the supply of military equipment is part of the scope of action of this new fund.

At that time, as you will remember, the Commission was out shopping for vaccines, and the launch of “the European Peace Facility” went relatively unnoticed.

Much criticism came from the European Parliament, worried about this new role the EU was assigning itself, rightly pointing to the question of arms deliveries, particularly to States in precarious situations. The European Parliament, the only body elected by European citizens, had insisted that the fund be subject to its control, like the EU's seven-year budget. Result: the fund was taken out of the budget controlled by Parliament and landed within the scope of the rules linked to the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

Hybrid democracy

Here a new concept emerges: hybrid democracy. Depending on the difficulties, the European institutions sometimes consult the democratic bodies, made up of representatives elected by European citizens, and sometimes the administrative bodies (and the European institutions have a great many of them!), beyond any control.

The vaccine saga managed by the Commission is edifying, involving expenditure of several billion: exact content of the contracts unknown, a desire to sideline the European Parliament, unit price of doses per laboratory hidden, no liability of the manufacturers for side effects and, the icing on the cake: a Commission President who exchanges text messages with the CEO of Pfizer and refuses to give access to their content.

900 million Euros of weapons for Ukraine

In the first massive use of the “European Peace Facility”, 450 million were released on 27 February 22 to enable Member States to supply Ukraine with European financial support ^[2]. And then everything becomes clear: if the EPF fund had been integrated into the multiannual budget under parliamentary control, it could never have been used to buy weapons. Indeed, the treaties prohibit the Union from using its ordinary multiannual budget to finance operations with military or defence implications.

Here we go again: on 23 March the governments of the EU Member States decided to double this amount to 900 million euros ^[3] to supply “military equipment and platforms designed to deliver lethal force” (basically, weapons as well as military vehicles and installations). Nine hundred million euros!

European rules versus the rules of States

The sovereigntists who advocate a return to the power of nation-states are ridiculed by the “neoliberal democrats” who present themselves as modern, without borders … leading us towards “happy globalisation”. Yet as soon as one touches on global or European governance and looks at the practices of leaders in that context, one sees that democratic rules are circumvented in relative opacity. To name a few, in no particular order: a European health pass, a digital European identity card, certain free-trade treaties, … but also here, by gaining a foothold in arms sales.

Until further notice, democracy is exercised within States. Give more power to international institutions? Why not! In a field such as the environment, it makes sense. But not in defiance of our freedoms or our democratic rights. If we want European institutions with a broader scope of competences, it is imperative to equip them with the indispensable democratic tools.

Not in my name?

We are entitled to question the action of our leaders, mainly European ones, regarding Ukraine. Economic sanctions are being taken in a rush and will have a lasting effect on European citizens, mainly the middle class. Europe, which has sharply increased its energy dependence on Russia over the past 20 years, intends to do without its services and pay a high price! All profit for our economic competitors, mainly the United States.

For eight years a dirty war has been going on in eastern Ukraine. What did our European leaders do during that period in terms of diplomacy, negotiations, … to avoid things coming to this? The list of failures is long, very long.

With Russia, trade has always taken precedence, with no real concern for either geopolitics or diplomacy. In a few days, trade and economics no longer exist, and diplomacy and geopolitics are far from emerging. So weapons are delivered to Ukraine, without real democratic control, in the middle of an armed conflict, without any real analysis of the risk this represents for European populations. And above all, are we, European citizens, party to such decisions?

By Philippe Davister

[1] https://www.euractiv.fr/section/l-europe-dans-le-monde...

[2] https://www.euractiv.fr/section/l-europe-dans-le-monde/news/lue-brise-un...

[3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of BAM!

Photo source:
Cropped original image by President.gov.ua on Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0