Under the line. I wrote my Master’s thesis in International Politics in 2003, looked at the then Article 42: 7 of the draft EU Constitution, the so-called foreign and security policy security guarantee, and thus the EU’s possibilities for joint defense.
However, in 2003 and long after that, until this day, the debate on the common defense of Europe was practically buried. The answer from the decision makers was invariably the same.
It is useless to discuss common defense because in the EU some countries handle their defense through NATO and some are not. It was a simple answer. This was lulled to this day.
More collaboration projects
The Lisbon Treaty was approved in 2009. At that time, I was a member of the European Parliament voting in favor of the agreement. Parliament contributes to the agreement in 2009 and at the same time 42: 7.
The entry is similar to that Article 5 of NATO, which had been spoken for a long time in Finland. Already at that time, almost ten years after writing my Master’s thesis, I asked several times why we are not discussing European defense, even though we commit to the Lisbon Treaty 42: 7, which promises to defend another EU country, including military.
On the other hand, outside the EU frame, France, Germany and Britain also set up defense projects they led themselves, which have been accompanied by many EU Member States in various formations. Finland is involved in three cooperation projects.
“EU-level rhetoric does not necessarily correspond to the interests and action of nation states.”
The Framework National Concept (FNC), founded and led by Germany, is based on the promotion of ongoing projects and to identify new cooperation opportunities.
British -led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) is intended to support the development and maintenance of military capabilities in participating countries.
French-led European Intervention Initiative (EI2) aims to improve crisis management, especially in North Africa.
These projects could be part of the EU foreign and security policy under the basic agreements, but this is not the case.
This shows that in the setting of defense policy, EU-level rhetoric may not be responsible for the interests and action of nation-states.
Should we now really continue to combine the forms of EU defense policy (JEF, non2 and the State of Frame State) be combined under the Lisbon Treaty and, through the help of European troops, we would also be part of the actual military intimidation into Article 42: 7?
Maybe the time is ripe
This Momentum of European defense has also created huge opportunities for developing Finnish defense technology as part of European expertise. There is also a strong link to this space and quantum technology, where we already have strategically key companies, such as IQM, Iceye and Bluefors.
In my time, I compared Finland and Portuguese in my Master’s thesis and wondered if Europe could have a common defense when the starting points of the Member States are so different.
Portugal is a founding member of NATO and Finland was heavily militarily united in 2003. At that time, my end term was that it was possible.
Perhaps, after just over twenty years, Europe is finally ready to discuss what 42: 7 really means and what it could lead to.