The European Union bets on a war regime

Tom Kucharz – A report published in Spain analyzes the current geostrategic repositioning of the European Union (EU), which combines the pillars of defense, migration and trade policy, and warns of the consequences of European military green capitalism.

On July 18, 2024, when the European Parliament ratified Ursula von der Leyen for another five years as president of the European Commission (the EU’s most powerful institution), the political guidelines that will mark her agenda until 2029 were published, very similar to the strategic agenda approved by the European Council in June.

“We will examine all our policies from a security point of view,” reads the section ”A new era for European Defence and Security.”

“The best investment in European security is to invest in Ukraine’s security” and “we will plan for scenarios that we hope will never occur, but we cannot run the risk of being ill-prepared or relying too much on others”, reads the document that reproduces the White House’s confrontational strategy with ‘adversaries’ Russia and China. “Our work over the next five years will focus on building a true European Defence Union.” Something she had already promised in 2019.

The European Commission commits to more military spending by shoring up the European Defence Fund, a “true single market for defence products and services” and the European Defence Industry Programme to “incentivize common procurement” and “flagship projects” of the European Defence Union. It will also reward “private investment in defence” with the help of the European Investment Bank, which will socialize possible losses through the public budgets of the Member States.

It will also strengthen the EU-NATO partnership by extending “cooperation” to “cover all threats, including new dangers related to cybernetics, hybrids or space” and will propose Defence Projects of Common European Interest, “starting with a European Air Shield and cyber defence”, with the claim that European industry products “are designed, built and deployed on European soil” (currently much of the technology comes, for example, from Israel, which has “proven it in combat” against the Palestinian civilian population).

To coordinate the war regime, a Commissioner for Defence will be appointed and investment needs will be identified in a « White Paper on the Future of European Defence » in the first 100 days of the next term.

Precisely because of this militarist bet, von der Leyen had the support of the three groups of the “Grand Coalition”: the Right (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) – although they say it was because of the promise of a new European housing plan – and the Liberals (Renew), as well as the leadership of the Greens. It obtained 401 votes in favor, 284 against, 15 abstentions and 7 votes declared invalid. As there were Members of the Parliament (MEPs) from the extreme center – such as the German FDP – who did not vote for the aristocrat (the four groups would have a total of 454 seats), the European Greens secured the result.

Apart from defence, another major plank of von der Leyen’s agenda is the “New European Prosperity Plan” to “facilitate business and deepen our Single Market” as well as “invest massively” in competitiveness. This mantra has been repeated by the political and economic establishment since the era of Jacques Delors, the Single Act (1986) and the Maastricht Treaty (1992).

A large part of the program revolves around the “Clean Industrial Deal”, which takes up the industry’s proposals point by point. Already in the previous term of the European Commission, the oil and gas industry enjoyed unprecedented access to European decision-making, putting the interests of fossil capital before the public interest. For example, after the invasion of Ukraine, von der Leyen created an Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, composed exclusively of the major European gas companies (Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni, Repsol, BP, etc.), with the mandate to co-lead the Commission’s plans to reduce dependence on Russian gas. The profits of the energy companies exploded.

The level of climate urgency in von der Leyen’s policy guidelines is shockingly low compared to five years ago, when the stakes are even higher. All the nods to climate – such as the announcement of an Industrial Decarbonization Acceleration Act – are framed as measures to “support industries and businesses during the transition.” In other words, to boost economic growth and protect private monetary profits under the banner of “security”. The inevitable measures to deal with the environmental emergency are left for another decade (when the current leaders will have retired).

EU crusade for access to critical minerals

Given that the coronavirus pandemic and Russia’s war on Ukraine have highlighted Europe’s vulnerability to dependencies in strategically important sectors, including access to fuel and food, the “green” and “digital” transition being pushed in the EU would only exacerbate the problem. As a matter of fact, the production and deployment of technologies – be it solar photovoltaic, wind, space launchers, robotics, drones or satellites – will increase the needs for critical minerals (copper, cobalt, lithium, nickel, niobium, etc.) that are not found in the EU’s subsoil (in fact, it contributes only 4%).

Electric vehicles account for most (between 50% and 60%) of the expected demand for materials from all “low-carbon” technologies, so most of the minerals will end up in the batteries of privately owned electric cars, not in wind turbines or solar panels, according to several SOMO reports.

But despite all this, the European Commission’s priority is to “guarantee access” for European transnational companies to these raw materials and technologies, which are essential for industrialization plans, as well as to ensure the energy security of the EU-27 and the functioning of supply chains. And it does so through several axes.

The first is the “Clean Industrial Deal”, mentioned above, which aims to increase Europe’s industrial capacity to manufacture complex technologies. The aim is to ensure that large industries benefit – even more – from the energy transition. To this end, “investment in energy infrastructures and technologies” such as battery factories (Tesla in Berlin, Volkswagen in Sagunto), the electric vehicle (see the Strategic Project for Economic Recovery and Transformation – PERTE – in Spain) as well as new fossil gas and hydrogen corridors (exemplified by the H2Med pipeline between Spain and France) is increased.

“We will fully focus on supporting and creating the right conditions for companies to achieve our common goals. This means simplifying, investing and ensuring access to cheap, sustainable and secure energy supplies and raw materials,” reads von der Leyen’s document, which is almost identical to the positions of major industry associations such as CEFIC.

With an “Industrial Decarbonization Acceleration Act”, the European Commission intends to “support industries and companies” and channel more public funds into infrastructure and industries, “in particular for energy-intensive sectors”.

These plans converge with the initiatives approved in the previous legislature that address the mandates of big capital, including the European Next Generation funds, the Industrial Plan of the Green Pact, the Zero Net Emissions Industry Act and the European Law on Fundamental Raw Materials.

A second axis is to “protect the strategic interests” of the EU in an “era of geostrategic rivalries”, with a “new foreign and security policy” and a “real European Defence Union” by increasing military spending and subsidies to the military-industrial complex.

The third is the geo-economic struggle for resources. This means deepening colonialism, plunder and extractivism in third countries – especially in the global South. Instead of addressing its own excessive consumerism, the EU is intensifying its demand for critical minerals by stepping up the signing of trade and investment agreements (von der Leyen now calls them “Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships”) and Memoranda of Understanding that serve as the legal infrastructure for tying up resource-rich countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Namibia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Zambia.

A fourth axis consists of strengthening the supply chains through which raw materials and goods are traded. One example is the “Global Gateway” to “invest in infrastructure projects” (energy, transport, etc.). In the next phase, von der Leyen is offering EU partners an “investment in infrastructure, trade and macroeconomic support” package.

In addition to the fact that the EU does not know how it will provide the necessary resources to carry out the “energy transition” piloted by fossil capital and to achieve “climate neutrality” in 2050, it points out that a large part of these scarce resources will be used for war purposes.

The molding of military-industrial interests into the Essential Raw Materials Act must be related to the fears of NATO and its allies that they are in serious danger of running out of sufficient minerals needed for the production of tanks, ammunition and artillery shells. The supply of minerals – many of which are controlled by Chinese industry – can sustain military power, while shortages can undermine it.

It may be one of the reasons for von der Leyen’s bellicose tone toward China, which she accuses of “aggressive posturing”, “unfair economic competition”, “unrestrained” friendship with Russia as well as “monopoly of essential raw materials for batteries or chips”. But all this agenda has little or nothing to do with the “ecological transition” or the “fight against climate change”.

Tom Kucharz is an activist and researcher in political analysis, globalization, EU and social movements, among other topics. He is a member of Ecologistas en Accion.