Apart from some occasional opinion piece in the media or some brief controversy related to neutrality, when is a serious and dispassionate discussion about this island’s national security ever held? Not just about what such security should cover and what are the security threats we face – if indeed such threats do exist – but as well, how we are seeking to preempt whatever external threat there could arise to our security. The issue should not spark partisan commotion but must be carried out sensibly by all political quarters.
In most of Europe at present, this kind of discussion is fermenting. Which does not mean we should align with the trend and follow the example of others. But even if we do not join their panic (if really they are in panic), we cannot remain skimpy in how we present and operate a policy of national security that the country can believe in and want implemented.
A recognition of this concern and a declaration of aims that are common to all political forces make good sense given the ongoing situation in the continent of which we form part.
***
SARKOZY
The condemnation of France’s ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy to years in prison is still making waves. It wasn’t his first guilty verdict but the first to physically land him in prison. From him we heard the statements that are usually issued in such cases… that prosecution and judges carried out a partisan process; that enormous funds were expended unnecessarily to ensure a fake judgement of guilt; that factors related to personal revenge and hatred had come into play…
Such arguments were used by former leaders found guilty of corruption or abuse of power, when later it was revealed that their claims weren’t so far fetched… as in the case of Lula, Brazil’s actual President. He was found guilty following very aggressive court procedures. Later it was established that the accusations had been over the top and that judges were influenced by partisan bias. Lula was released from prison and went on to win the subsequent presidential election.
It is difficult to say whether Lula’s experience could serve to throw light on the Sarkozy affair or other similar cases…
***
NATO AND DRONES
NATO member states seem to have realised that a substantial part of their military strategy is still based on antiquated premises. As the Ukraine war is showing, attacks on an enemy are increasingly being carried out by drones guided by extremely sophisticated electronic systems. Europe has understood that in this field it is still very backward. States like Iran and North Korea have made significant technological advances, while Ukraine has acquired the greatest manufacturing and operational experience in drones… about which it hardly had any choice.
On the initiative of the Commission, the EU has been trying to intervene by proposing to act as the hub to promote the construction of a wall around Europe’s frontier, protecting it from incoming drones. The proposal has fallen between three stools. Who should be running such a project? – the EU? its member states? NATO?