Nicolás Pascual de la Parte, diplomat and MEP: “If Trump withdraws from Ukraine, Europe needs at least a plan B”

As a diplomat, Nicolás Pascual de la Parte (Cieza, Murcia, 1959) has one of the biographies most intensely linked to European Defense, especially with different responsibilities in the Political and Security Committee of the Council of the EU or as Ambassador for of Cybersecurity and Hybrid Threats. Being the Spanish Ambassador to NATO, he attended the first summit of the Alliance in which Donald Trump participated as US president in 2018. He is currently an MEP on the lists of the European People’s Party (EPP) and defends the need to create its own military structure. for the EU.—How was that July 2018 summit and Trump’s first visit to NATO?—It was the first NATO summit that Trump attended and also the first that Pedro Sánchez attended. There, the most iconoclastic Trump was revealed a bit, because he came to demand that we, and in particular the then German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, dig deep into our pockets. In the Council, speaking turns are given by the Secretary General in an order based on the GDP of each country. Spain, for example, is in the turn of number 7. But Trump spoke when it was his turn and when he felt like it, without respecting rules or turns, and he focused on Chancellor Merkel, telling her that he spent little on Defense and that that It was unacceptable. When he stood up and wanted to hug her, Merkel refused to have that gesture with someone who had been attacking her so harshly. It was a summit full of anecdotes in that sense, but it was clear that what he came to say was that either we stepped up and paid our fair share or we had to assume the consequences.—And now, what should we expect from a second mandate?—Well, in this aspect of Defense spending, I believe that what was then a ceiling, the objective of reaching 2% of military spending, will become a floor; That is, we have to go further, to 3% or 4%. Because, outside of the liturgy of figures, it is evident that we have to spend more on Defense. Not because Trump says so and we are pending the election results in Michigan, but because we need it regardless of who the American president is. In Europe we have many problems around us and what were called the peace dividends that we believed would occur when the Soviet Union disintegrated have already ended. All countries reduced their Defense budgets, starting with Germany, which during the Cold War spent 3.2% and 3.4% of GDP on Defense and reduced it to a minimum, to 1%. The war in Ukraine has put an end to this dream. Now we know that the world is a dangerous place and the US is no longer in a position to continue being the pagan of Western Defense; and Europe has to assume its responsibilities, because it is in a very problematic situation with an arc of crisis that comes from Russia to the Middle East and the Sahel. We have to start being adults and assume our own security. Out of self-interest, not because the US says so. Particularly in the case of Ukraine, Trump’s entourage is beginning to say that he is going to try to impose a negotiation to stop the war by agreeing with Putin, which is the opposite of what We are defending.—We don’t know the terms, but it seems evident that with the arrival of Trump things are going to change. We would have to start assuming that there is going to be a negotiation above our heads, and those of the Ukrainians. But in this case we should also have a plan B; That is, so that we can decide if we want and if we can continue supporting Ukraine regardless of whether the US disengages. This debate has not been held either in NATO or in the EU and we are at the mercy of what Trump and Putin decide. They say that they would be a peace for territory model, but I insist that this is not a war for territory. Russia, which is the largest country in the world, has plenty of territory. It is an ideological war against the West and its principles. The thing is that many Western leaders have not seen it that way, they believe it is a territorial war and it is not. What Putin cannot admit is that there was a liberal democracy on his doorstep, in Ukraine, that was a temptation for his own population. —So it has been a good idea to create a Defense Commissioner? —Yes, because we need a voice to identify our common needs, to define what the mechanisms are to finance this Europe of defense. All of this cannot be done without having a specific commissioner. Regardless of what they let Andrius Kubilius do, who is a very suitable person for the position and who was twice Prime Minister of Lithuania, I believe it was the right decision. Furthermore, I believe that it would be necessary for the Council to also create the format for specific meetings of the Defense Ministers, who now only meet supported by the Foreign Ministers, but do not have a specific meeting as exists in NATO. And I believe that the decisions in this field would have to be made by the defense ministers in their own meeting. If we want to be serious and build a Europe of Defense we will have to have a specific and regular meeting of Defense Ministers, because if they don’t do it, no one else can. In NATO I realized that strategic decisions, command and control or force generation, are made by the Defense Ministers. We need a European pillar of Defense, which is integrated into NATO, of course, but which can function autonomously in the conflicts in which we are most interested, such as in North Africa, the Sahel, the Middle East… We have to do it and we have little time. Either we do it now that we have seen the wolf’s ears, or never.—In any case, it seems that the election of the new High Representative, the Estonian Kaja Kallas, and the Defense Commissioner, who is Lithuanian, are appointments that fit better with the Biden era than with the one Trump may undertake…—The two appointments are not a coincidence, of course; This is a clear message to Putin from Ursula Von der Leyen to make it clear that we are serious about Defense Europe and our support for Ukraine. It is true that Trump can change North American policy, but I am one of those who thinks that regardless of what Washington does, Europe has to have its own foreign policy. We are partners and allies, of course, but we cannot depend exclusively on what the American president says. We Europeans must have our own message regarding Ukraine.—But can we do it now? Can we do it alone?—Economically yes, militarily I’m afraid not now. The problem is that in times of war what matters are the cannons. But I think we should at least raise it, see what the real possibilities are, I don’t think it’s good to automatically assume what Trump may decide. With an effort on the part of Europe and the United Kingdom we could at least see how far we go, knowing that there are fields such as satellite intelligence or anti-aircraft systems that only the US has. But we will have to have a plan B, We will have to meet and decide what the possibilities are, because we will have to pay the consequences of the war, because regardless of the territorial issue we have to decide what to do with Ukraine, if it remains neutral, if, as we have promised, it is allowed to enter NATO and the EU or Putin is going to have the right of veto and in that case, how is the security of that country guaranteed so that it is not attacked again in five years?—Maybe if the EU changes its appeasement policy with China and supports Trump in the Pacific, we could convince him to maintain support for Ukraine.—It is not a bad idea, it would be quite reasonable to assure the US of military support from countries that have that capacity and, above all, political support. against Chinese ambitions in exchange for maintaining its presence in Ukraine. But for now the tensions with China are only in the economic field. Trump was the one who in his first term already began to impose customs tariffs and has already said in the campaign that he is going to raise tariffs on many Chinese products. Also to Europe, but in the case of China it has a different aspect and if the Chinese see that the US strangles their commercial channels, it can in turn increase tensions and neither Trump – nor anyone in Washington – can accept that China become the first economic power.—Would North Korea’s entry into the Ukrainian war be an expression of that alliance of enemies that surround Russia, Iran, and all that involved in the Brics?—All of them are united by a negative glue, which is hatred of the West and freedom. Relations between them are not good, they cannot create a common currency or a financial entity to replace the IMF, it is a very strong anti-Western alliance, but weak internally. For example, North Korea’s intervention in Ukraine seems more a symbol of Putin’s weakness, who can no longer recruit more soldiers in Central Asia and has troop problems. And as for Iran, it has already been seen that it does not dare to wage a direct war with Israel and that Netanyahu’s offensive is going to redefine the entire Middle East area.

#Nicolás #Pascual #Parte #diplomat #MEP #Trump #withdraws #Ukraine #Europe #plan