The new European Parliament has quickly revealed its alignment with NATO, heavily influenced by Washington and ignoring its citizens’ demands. The first resolution pushed for increased military aid to Ukraine, with aggressive stances against Russia, while re-electing Ursula von der Leyen as Commission President. The resolution suggests Ukraine is on an “irreversible” path to NATO membership, intensifying the conflict and allowing Western weapons to strike Russian territory. Italy’s government opposes this, unlike its MEPs. The resolution avoids peace talks, echoing US control over negotiations. The Parliament’s stance contradicts public opposition to direct conflict with Russia, showing its subservience to NATO and US interests, despite its resolutions being non-binding.
* * *
In just two days, the new European Parliament has shown its true colors: a NATO outpost dominated by Washington and indifferent to the demands of its citizens.
The first resolution passed by the assembly on July 17th reiterates previous statements—the need to increase military aid to Ukraine—but with some particularly aggressive variations against Russia. The next day, MEPs re-elected Ursula von der Leyen as President of the Commission, a champion and guarantor of this belligerent intensification.
In the resolution on Wednesday, MEPs declared their belief that “Ukraine is on an irreversible path towards NATO membership.” They had never used the adjective “irreversible” before—a term that only serves to destroy Ukraine. Today they use it brazenly, copying point 16 of the NATO summit communiqué from July 10th. Evidently, the West continues to believe that Putin doesn’t take these words seriously, thinking they can go to war—even nuclear—with their eyes closed. They believe they can keep sending Ukrainians to die in their place.
Another significant change: the Parliament “firmly supports the removal of restrictions on the use of Western weapons systems provided to Ukraine against military targets on Russian territory.” Allowing Ukrainians to strike Russian territory with U.S. and European missiles definitively transforms the Russo-Ukrainian conflict into a Western war against Russia. A step that had so far been taken by individual European states, but not all of them.
The Italian government, for example, is opposed to striking Russia, in agreement with the opposition. PD MEPs, however, voted en masse for the resolution on Wednesday, with exceptions like Marco Tarquinio and Cecilia Strada, who abstained but were elected as independents. The 5 Star Movement MEPs, now in the Left group, voted against, as did the deputies from the Left and Bonelli’s Greens.
The resolution makes no mention of ceasefire or peace negotiations and reiterates the commitment to support Ukraine “as long as necessary to ensure Ukraine’s victory.” Negotiations are decided by the U.S. administration: it is never said that Europe—far more involved in the war—takes unorthodox initiatives. The diplomatic mission of Viktor Orbán to Russia, Ukraine, China, Azerbaijan, and the United States is condemned with disdain by the European Parliament and von der Leyen, who equates Putin with Hitler by speaking of appeasement.
The Hungarian president is the first in Europe to attempt mediation after Erdogan, but the EU institutions’ verdict is harsh: peace is not to be made, neither today nor ever, especially if negotiated by Orbán, who is not democratic (as if Erdogan or Xi Jinping were). Additionally, sanctions against Russia and Belarus are to be extended. The Union has already adopted 14 sanctions packages, but the Parliament is insatiable.
Two conclusions can be drawn from this vote. The divisions between the government and opposition that exist in Italy dissolve in Brussels, in the name of the unchanged sacred alliance between the Populars, Socialists, Liberals, and, if necessary, Greens. PD deputies thus scornfully dissociate themselves from Elly Schlein’s line, which is ambiguous but firm on the need for negotiations. On May 29, the secretary said in a TV interview: “I have read Macron’s statements on the hypothesis of removing the limitations on the use of weapons supplied by Europeans to Ukraine to strike targets in Russia. (…) We do not agree: we are to avoid an escalation with a direct entry of the EU into the war with Russia.” And she added, for clarity: “The foreign policy line of the PD is the one I have just represented.”
However, things are not at all clear, as evidenced by the vote of its MEPs. The PD delegation in the European Parliament remains neoconservative in foreign and defense policy, as in the previous legislature. Finally, any mention of Russian border areas, which until recently seemed off-limits for missile strikes, has disappeared. The escalation will be confirmed by the new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas. At home, she is called the Iron Lady and is very controversial: she is on the verge of Russophobia, while her husband has done business with Russia. On Ukraine, she will not be different from her predecessor Josep Borrell, but she will likely not be as tough on Israel as he was.
Second conclusion: the European Parliament does not respond to the will of its voters, who are opposed to a direct West-Russia confrontation in all countries. It ignores the history of Western relations with Moscow after the end of the USSR and adopts the phraseology of the Atlantic Alliance. Like Ursula von der Leyen, it does not hesitate to transform itself and the entire Union into NATO devices. It pretends to have strategic sovereignty but practices submission to the United States. The only solace: its bellicose resolutions are not binding, as foreign policy is not an EU competence but that of the States.
One might wonder how it is possible for the European Parliament to produce resolutions so distant from the will of governments and voters. One explanation could be this: the Parliament has limited powers, and especially in foreign and defense policy, it can only rant: its irresponsibility is not associated with power. But there is more. The Parliament does not have a majority and opposition like those in member states, and it is not confronted with a government representing one side or the other.
The Commission arises from an agreement between states, completely dissociated from the outcome of the European vote. It is technocratic governance, not a political government. And in the Parliament, there is consociationalism, the systematic convergence opposed only by the far right and left of the Left group. All resolutions, as well as legislative texts—directives and regulations immediately applicable in the States—are born from exhausting bargaining between various parliamentary groups (in committees, in negotiations formulating texts to be voted on in plenary). The bargaining must produce texts that satisfy everyone: main rapporteurs and “shadow rapporteurs” for each group, and also the Commission and member states for directives and regulations. Thus, every sharp edge is necessarily erased.
It is often said that the art of compromise practiced in Brussels and Strasbourg is a model: a shining example of harmony and consensus. The French media continuously praise this virtue, in recent days contrasting it with the vices of their own divided Parliament. But the consensus made of repeated compromises is not synonymous with democracy, neither in France nor in Europe.
Il Fatto Quotidiano, July 20, 2024
