Far to the south of Europe, across the Mediterranean, several incidents have taken place over the past few weeks. Despite their relevance for the EU’s strategic and security interests, they have received scant attention, confirming that neither Brussels nor most of the member states grasp which threats the continent is facing.
The incidents involve Niger, Algeria, and Eritrea.
In Niger, suspected Islamist militants attacked an army barracks and a mine owned by the French nuclear firm Areva. This has important implications for Europe. Niger is the world’s fourth-largest producer of uranium. The Areva plant there accounts for about 30 percent of the needs of France’s nuclear industry.
The EU recently deployed a small police training force to Niger. Experts gathering at the EU’s Institute for Strategic Studies in Paris last week questioned the mission’s value. They pointed out that the dozen or so EU officials based there will not be able to stop Niger from becoming part of the Sahel’s nexus of terrorism, criminal gangs, and drugs and human trafficking.
In neighboring Algeria, a political crisis is brewing. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika is seriously ill. He has been in Paris receiving treatment since the end of April.
Europeans should be extremely worried about what happens in the post-Bouteflika era. Last January, Islamist militants attacked a gas production field in the south of Algeria owned by BP and Norway’s Statoil, among others. The attack challenged Bouteflika’s zero-tolerance policy toward radical Islamists—which in turn has helped to protect Europe’s mainland.
Further east, in Eritrea, President Isaias Afwerki has had to deal with defections from the air force and growing criticism of his authoritarian rule. If Eritrea becomes swamped in war, the implications for the rest of the region and Europe are serious. The country has a 1,200-kilometer (750-mile) coastline on the Red Sea. Just think about the repercussions for global shipping and trade if things go wrong in Eritrea.
These three cases impinge directly on Europe’s security and interests. Despite that, Europe has no long-term strategy for dealing with the region.
The main reason is that Europeans, all in all, are too inward-looking to grasp how globalization is changing the fundamentals of defense and security policy.
This is confirmed by an excellent report by the European Council on Foreign Relations examining the security strategies of the member states.
What is fascinating (and depressing) about the report is that any kind of strategic thinking—if it exists at all—is still limited to the national level. It’s as if the EU’s common foreign and security policy, established twenty-one years ago, had no relevance. And even though most European governments know well that they are impotent when they try to act alone, the reflex of dealing with interests and security issues at a national level is simply too deeply ingrained.
Yet even at the national level, the documents, with very few exceptions, are so shallow and provincial that they betray a complete blindness toward the security challenges facing Europe. For most EU member states, the countries south of the Mediterranean don’t seem to exist.
Why is this so? It’s because Europeans do not believe that they are threatened. And as they do not feel threatened, there is little pressure to overhaul their armed forces, their military capabilities, or their way of looking at the world.
In effect, European governments have settled into a long-term attitude of irresponsibility for the security of their citizens and the stability of their continent. No European leader shows any inclination to break out of this lethargy.
Not even the United States’ new strategic outlook has penetrated through. The Obama administration’s pivot to Asia has changed the entire nature of the transatlantic relationship, yet the Europeans still believe that this strategic shift will not affect their security interests, and that the Americans will remain the guarantor of Europe’s security.
For Europe, it would be much better if the United States, instead of conveying soothing messages about how the transatlantic relationship is still intact, told Europeans that the old tenets of transatlantic ties are over. Perhaps that would jolt them into adopting collective strategic policies toward the rest of the world.
The alternative is much worse. If Europe continues to willfully ignore the dangers brewing outside its borders—for instance in the Sahel—it risks having to face a far more brutal, bloody, and expensive wake-up call.
Comments(2)
I have experience dealing with armed conflict in Africa during the liberation wars that drove out the English, French, and Portuguese colonial powers. The capture of Africa and Europe during the current phase of Islamic colonisation uses the same methods as the struggle to shake off European control of Africa. In Kenya, during the Mau Mau uprisings or in Zimbabwe during the Zapu/ Zanu guerrilla campaigns, there was first of all infiltration and subversion of the local communities. This took anything up to 10 years. In South Africa, the process took at least 30 years. Once the local populace had been given roles in the political structures set up to serve the liberation struggle, they would recruit others. Supply lines were set up and armaments would be brought into the countries and usually buried for use during the armed struggle. The armed struggle only breaks out once the political struggle has been assured. What we found during the African liberation wars is that attacks were extremely well co-ordinated and followed long-term strategic planning. To the casual observer, it appears that attacks are random. By logging frequency of attacks on a map, it could be clearly seen that the acts of terrorism aimed at the civilian population followed a process best described as eating away at the edges. Low level, sporadic acts of terrorism along borders are aimed at diverting resources from the centre. America has clearly learnt not to be drawn into campaigns at the periphery of its sphere of influence (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). It would be a pity if the Western powers were drawn into the conflicts in Africa and the Middle East. Better to use the British method of divide-and-rule, setting opposing factions against each other and arming both sides. I suggest it is better to care for the refugees of such conflicts and assist the combatants' fight to the death. Putting European armies into the theatres of Islamic wars would be to expose Europe to attack from within. The best option is for Europe to purge its societies of sympathisers and activists of Islamic occupation. I agree: Europe is sticking its head in the sand. But Europe is too afraid to clean up the filth in its own house. It is ill advised to ask Europe to try and solve issues outside its own borders when the real war is within.
The armed struggle only breaks out once the political struggle has been assured. What we found during the African liberation wars is that attacks were extremely well co-ordinated and followed long-term strategic planning. To the casual observer, it appears that attacks are random. By logging frequency of attacks on a map, it could be clearly seen that the acts of terrorism aimed at the civilian population followed a process best described as eating away at the edges.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.