The independence of the European security

With the media revolution that accompanied the technical boom that the world witnesses, the varying degree of influence remained associated with many factors, including capabilities and methods of work, and the most important measure remains the extent of credibility enjoyed by the media in the eyes of the public and the extent to which it actually expresses the aspirations and orientations of the peoples in the region.

The current conditions in Europe cannot be compared to those that prevailed after World War II, which formed in that era an appropriate ground for perpetuating the subordination of European countries to the United States of America through the Marshall Plan and the North Atlantic treaty Organisation (NATO). The American supremacy at that stage was offset by European feebleness because of the outcome of the devastating war on the European continent.

Therefore, the speech given by US Secretary of State George Marshall at Harvard University in the year 1947, during which he offered aid to promote European recovery and reconstruction, was met with great European positivity, as a result of recession, unemployment, and the loss of industrial and service infrastructures.

However, the Soviet Union President at that era, Joseph Stalin, rejected the American offers, for his certainty that they would affect the decision of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe and their independence. Then, the United States have not hesitated to complete its project for global domination by buttressing its security relations with Western European countries through the NATO, by convincing the European states of their weakness and inability to guarantee the independence of their decision, warning them of the threats from the East: The Soviet Union.  

Thus, during the Cold War, the balance of power between the American and Soviet axes was established, and European dependency on the United States was established, which was able to impose its vision and decision on the European continent during the Cold War period.

The French endeavours to break free from the American security grip had begun early, when Charles de Gaulle withdrew from the leadership of NATO in 1966 to express his protest against the dominant American role and his displeasure with the British-American relationship. The European attempts to build an independent security framework were delayed until after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP, or Barcelona Process) in 1995 with the participation of 15 of its southern neighbours and the Neighbourhood Policy can be classified as the first serious attempts that established the idea of European security independence despite differing opinions about its success or failure.

If we want to delve into the seriousness of European attempts at security independence, a number of issues can be demonstrated through the European tendency to strengthen them. The American decision to occupy Iraq and toppling former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s regime did not enjoy European support as the French and Germans succeeded in pushing the European Union to reject any military intervention outside the framework of international law.

But if we want to jump over the history of these attempts, it is necessary to point out the difference in strategies and visions between the two sides of the Atlantic. In this context, the joint Franco-German vision stands out, in terms of insisting on rerealising Charles de Gaulle's dream of building a European army based on European defence capabilities independent of any American mechanism.

In analysing this trend, the European goal is not only linked to the ambition of secession and independence from the United States, as a measure that satisfies the European Union’s desire to feel its ability to manage its affairs and determine its destiny on its own, but is connected to a different vision of the future of the EU and how to approach the crises it faces.

After the occupation of Iraq, the European Union realised that international conditions were different from what they were during the Cold War. Accordingly, the military and security role of the NATO constituted a deviation from the path and media misinformation and disinformation played a key role in turning black into white: Turning the occupation of Iraq and destroying its infrastructure into a victory and war against tyranny and mass destruction weapons. After investigations, Iraq had no such mass destruction weapons and the pretexts behind the war on Iraq were business-related.

If the American interest is governed by the framework of maintaining American unipolarity, by preventing any attempt to change the existing balance, and without establishing any consideration for the security requirements and conditions of the allies, the security challenges that have cast their weight on the European reality prompted the poles of the EU to approach the file of the independence of the security and defense decision in solidarity.

Despite the efforts made in this regard, the European Union was not able to achieve any practical outcomes because a number of reasons constituted a factor of division and incompatibility. Recent years, especially during the presidency of Donald Trump, have witnessed intense French calls for disassociation from American former president Donald Trump's tendencies, the European division over energy security issues and the position of Eastern European countries on calls for independence from NATO has prevented this trend.

The German option was not compatible with the position of Eastern and Central European countries on Nord Stream; under the guise of fear of dependence on Russian gas, European countries, under an American cover, put pressure on Germany, accusing it of endangering European energy security, in light of its insistence that it was not needed to secure its needs.

If this dispute has dominated the European arena since 2011, the issue of Eastern European countries' commitment to the European Union's directions occupied an important space in the discussion circles as the position of these countries was evident in their refusal to abandon the American security umbrella.

If the European Union succeeded in creating a space of independence by adopting a policy based on dialogue and persuasion of the feasibility of this option, then the United States of America, through its long arms in NATO, succeeded in attracting the eastern European Union countries to adopt its options. The NATO, by heading east and concentrating on the Russian borders, in order to limit the effects of the American retreat, and the indifference to the Russian administration’s request for security guarantees on its borders, prompted an increase in the level of tension in the area separating Russia on one hand, and the European Union and NATO on the other. As a result of the American insistence on proceeding with the plan to include Ukraine in the NATO, the European countries found themselves facing a Russian war on their borders.

 Despite modern Russia’s abandonment of the doctrine of the Soviet Union, and its constant endeavour to consolidate its relations with European countries, under the slogan of economic integration and collective security, the European Union countries have not succeeded in getting rid of the complex of what they assume is a danger coming from the East. The crisis has worsened between Ukraine and Russia when it turned into a war, leading the European countries to forcibly abandon their quest for security independence, and they orchestrated behind the American plan to restore the 30-year-old plan; At that time, international relations in Europe were governed by two imperatives: Incomplete European sovereignty under American control, and a European security reference that negates everything else.

Media has played a negative role by mobilising for this war; at time media can be utilised to spread peace and stability worldwide. Yet, we should understand who funds the world top media outlets to understand the nature of coverage.