Europe must take responsibility

Last Sunday, Archduke Karl gave the annual speech about the future of Europe. This year, he talked about how Russia's war against Ukraine and Europe, the activities of the axis of evil against the Western value system, but also the threats from US President Trump against Denmark are forcing Europe to adopt a European foreign and security policy.

Madam Foreign Minister, Minister of State, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, dear friends!

In preparation for this, my seventh speech on the future of Europe, which I have delivered on my birthday with one exception, I have reviewed my previous speeches.

One key message from the past speeches remains valid, and can be summarised as follows: Europe still lives in the comfortable illusion of the welfare state, whose primary function is to distribute wealth, not to create it. The threats from Moscow, Beijing and the rest of the Axis of Evil has increased. In terms of security policy, dependence on the United States remains a problem. What has changed is the policy of the United States, which is quite well summarised in the new security strategy. In foreign policy, actions are still being taken according to the particular interests of individual interest groups, often to the detriment of Europe as a whole.

It is therefore time that we stop refusing our responsibilities and instead face them. 

Although some of this was foreseeable. The shift in US focus from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast has been noticeable since the end of World War II. I remember a conversation in Washington. The person I was speaking to had a map of the United States on the wall, with markings running from the Atlantic coast towards the Pacific. The last marker was somewhere in the middle at the time. He was using this to illustrate how political priorities shift over time. The conversation took place in the last millennium. This development was therefore long foreseeable, but was apparently ignored in Europe. Because it was convenient.

What’s new in the US security strategy is the blatant support for anti-European forces in European countries by the current administration of the world’s number one superpower. US Vice President J.D. Vance already made this clear in his speech at the Munich Security Conference. President Trump, with his statement that the EU is only there „to screw us“- a less polite way of saying it is to harm the United States – made it clear that he has no time for European integration.

To use the term „turning point“: this is yet another turning point. That all of this is being presented as a conservative shift in the US can only be interpreted as a bad joke.

If we think of a great conservative president in Washington, it’s probably Ronald Reagan, who was not only a proponent and supporter of European integration, but also clearly understood that the enemy was not in Brussels or any other European capital, but in Moscow and other capitals of the Axis of Evil.

He was the one who pressured Gorbachev in to removing the Iron Curtain, or rather, accept its dismantling. Not him alone, though; we should not forget John Paul II, the Holy  Father who, with his words „Do not be afraid“ during his visit to then-communist Poland, encouraged people to stand up for freedom.

This is a message that still holds true today – for all of Europe. “Do not be afraid” Let us not refuse our responsibilities, but rather, as Europeans, let us accept the challenges responsibly. For all the criticism we can level at many problematic political decisions in Europe, Europe still has the potential to be perceived as a geopolitical actor.

It is the United States’ right to define its interests independently of Europe. Whether what is contained in the current and much-discussed security strategy and the alleged, non-public preparatory document for it truly serves the interests of the US or merely those of an oligarchy in the US is a matter I do not wish to discuss here. We must focus on Europe.

Europe has no right to demand that the US be responsible for our security. Certainly, for a long time it was also convenient for the US to view Europeans merely as a little brother who needed to be taken care of. The fact that Germany, for example, suspended conscription under Defence Minister Guttenberg was not simply a decision based on convenience in Berlin. This was entirely in line with the US’s self-image as the world’s number one superpower.

A representative of a smaller country, which later joined NATO after the fall of the Iron Curtain, once told me that the Americans at the time believed they did not need an air force. They thought their big brother in Washington would take care of that. The little brother in Europe decided: we need our own air force. Firstly, the decision was wise and correct; secondly, it shows that a smaller country can fulfill its responsibilities if it wants to.

But let’s return to the US security strategy, which received significant media attention a month ago. Much has been read into it, and some of what the document actually contains does not quite align with the peculiar appeasement shown towards Putin.

Aside from the current president’s self-praise in Washington, the security strategy articulates positions that have long been known. The US wants to remain the world’s number one superpower. And that in all areas. This ranges from military might and the strongest economy to technological leadership. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Similar aspirations (except the superpower aspect) have also been formulated in EU documents such as the Lisbon Strategy and the Green Deal. Europe could learn a great deal from the clarifications contained in the US document. I’m thinking specifically of the commitment to defence capabilities and near-independence in energy matters.

What is new is the rejection of immigration. Unlike Europe, where the massive immigration of the past decade has led to noticeable disruptions, the US has become what it is today through immigration. Equally new is the move against free world trade formulated in the document. This is surprising, since it is free trade that has made both the US and Europe the leading powers on Earth.

There are also some points in the document that sound contradictory. For example, it states that the US produces the best products worldwide. On the other hand, the trade deficit is lamented, which in turn leads to criticism of free world trade. Here, US consumers apparently do not agree with the leadership in the White House, because if US products were the best, hardly any American would buy products from Europe, or other countries.

Incidentally, this is a strength that Europe can leverage in its partnership with the US. However, after a quarter of a century of negotiations, we finally have to be ready to agree to Mercosur, the trade agreement with several South American countries.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I have deliberately used the term partnership. For this is addressed several times in the US strategy paper, including the partnership with Europe, specifically in connection with preserving freedom and security as part of Western identity.

However, several serious misunderstandings arise, particularly regarding the question of identity. These misunderstandings are partly based on differing interpretations, but also reveal a clear rejection of European integration – as mentioned above.

The strategy paper glorifies the nation-state. This may be explained by US history and thus the US self-image, but it does not quite align with the European understanding. In the US, „nation-building“ means that the state forms the nation. Anyone who immigrates to the US – at least according to the prevailing understanding – becomes part of the American nation.

While much of this interpretation has been adopted in Europe, it does not truly fit the idea of ​​nation-states in Europe, which resemble large tribal communities more than a nation of many immigrants like the United States.

Europe has known supranational empires and communities of states; the United States is something like a supranational state, even if it is interpreted differently, primarily through the principle of the melting pot of nations, the merging of many nations into a new one. Europe, however, is familiar with differences, which do not necessarily imply antagonism. The idea of ​​the European nation-state stems from a nationalist ideology that rejects a supranational order.

This culminates in the US strategy paper with its support for so-called patriotic forces. This is the point at which we are reminded of US Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, and consequently, we need to re-examine the meanings of some terms.

For, ladies and gentlemen, there is at least a confusion of terms here, if not a deliberate distortion of meaning in the Orwellian sense.

We know the alliance of parties forming a parliamentary group in the European Parliament under the name „Patriots for Europe.“ The name itself contains two falsehoods. These are not patriots, but rather, in some cases, brutal nationalists. And they are certainly not for Europe. The concept of these parties is based on a de facto reversal of European integration, reducing it to mere cooperation between governments, without common institutions.

Moreover, most of the parties united in this group are connected in some way to Putin, who quite clearly aims to dominate Europe. They are Moscow’s new fifth column (the old one from the Communist era still exists), and are thus committing a double treason: against their own country and against Europe.

A second distortion of terms is evident in the misuse of the term „Central Europe“ by these so-called Patriots for Europe. Let us remember, it was parties from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Austria that founded this parliamentary group, also claiming to represent the Central European idea against Brussels.

Central Europe, this idea of ​​a supranational empire that we know from history, has absolutely nothing to do with these nationalists. It was their ideology that destroyed Central Europe.

And we need to clarify a third term here, because it is frequently invoked by this nationalist, anti-European group in its opposition to the European Union: the concept of subsidiarity. This is the principle that a larger entity should not regulate what can be satisfactorily regulated at the level of a smaller entity.

However, this concept of subsidiarity goes much deeper than just a regulatory principle, and of course, deeper than just the relationship between the European Union and its member states. Let us consider a quote from the encyclical „Quadragesimo anno,“ in which Pope Pius XI formulates a very clear definition.

But before I get to that, ladies and gentlemen, allow me one more comment on the US security strategy. Specifically, on the secret draft that supposedly does not even exist, but which caused even more of a stir than the version that was subsequently published.

It names several countries that are allegedly to be extracted from the European Union in order to bring the EU down. One of these countries is Austria. This might surprise some, as Austria does not exactly stand out in Brussels.

But, and now I’ll pretend for a moment that this secret document is genuine, if Austria is indeed mentioned, then the authors of the strategy claim to know Austria better than many in Austria do. The modern idea of ​​European unification is, in fact, an Austrian idea. It was developed in Vienna by Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, who published his article „Pan-Europe: A Proposal“ in 1922 and then, in 1926 – 100 years ago – organised the first major Pan-European Congress in Vienna.

However, and I’ll now pretend for a moment that this secret document is genuine, if Austria is indeed mentioned, then the authors of the strategy claim to know Austria better than many in Austria do. To destroy an idea, one must destroy its core. Therefore, wanting to extract Austria from the EU would be logical. The partners in the „false patriots“ have already been identified, but anyone who looked at the polls in December will see that there’s little chance of that happening.

However, this fact must be used by all Europeans! Europe clearly has something to offer the vast majority of Europeans. This is a clear commitment, but it must not be misused as a safety net; rather, it represents a strong foundation for a strong, independent, and politically capable Europe.

Now, back to subsidiarity and its definition by Pope Pius XI. In his encyclical „Quadragesimo anno,“ Pius XI describes the „socio-philosophical principle“ (subsidiarity), which is „beyond doubt and beyond interpretation,“ as follows: „Just as what an individual can accomplish through his own initiative and with his own strength should not be taken away from him and assigned to the activity of society, so it is unjust to claim for the benefit of the larger and superior community what smaller and subordinate communities can accomplish and bring to a successful conclusion; at the same time, it is extremely detrimental and disrupts the entire social order.“

Pius XI argues that by observing this principle, the various units of society function much better than if state power interferes in all areas: „The better the hierarchy of different forms of society is maintained through strict observation of the principle of subsidiarity, the stronger social authority and effectiveness become, and the better and more prosperous the state will be.“ 

Subsidiarity is thus the antithesis of the all-regulating state which claims sole sovereignty, as the nation-state does. Subsidiarity is enshrined in the European treaties, albeit only technically. But what prevents us from demanding the concrete implementation of subsidiarity?

Subsidiarity, as defined by the Holy Father – and I still consider this the best definition – is, firstly, a firm plea for a lean state and, secondly, a plea for the rule of law. Today, we like to talk about the rule of law, about the liberal rule of law, but we only mean the technical definition of the obligation to obey laws, without considering the true essence of the liberal rule of law.

That essence is: „The rule of law protects justice and freedom!“ The rule of law does not impose private notions of happiness or welfare for everyone by force. The rule of law certainly accepts diversity and different personal ideas about living together, as long as these do not endanger the rights and freedoms of others.

The rule of law does not declare any particular ideology to be the only valid one. This is logical in a democratic society, since it is about a competition of principles and fundamental values. The rule of law rejects only those ideologies that follow authoritarian to totalitarian concepts or represent the interests of states governed in an authoritarian to totalitarian manner.

A small example that illustrates my point: Recently, the German television channel Arte broadcast a documentary about US plans to destroy Europe. The destruction of Europe is portrayed primarily as being perpetrated by the so-called right wing or far right; the old Communist networks are not mentioned. This can still be considered an inaccuracy, but I have already explained what these false patriots, in combination with forces from the US, are pursuing as policy.

But then it says: The focus – of this extreme right – lies, among other things, on the nation, or the “family with man, woman and child, as a natural unit and the foundation of society. A classic of the extreme right.” “Arte” is financed with public funds, primarily from Germany and France.

According to this definition, there are probably many right-wing extremists here who, like me, have a positive view of the family. And then one wonders why these very false patriots, whom one wants to combat, are attracting disillusioned people who still have faith and value the family.

In reality, this is fueling the polarisation of society. Precisely the polarisation from which European society suffers in many areas because ideological bias is essentially mandated by the state. This has nothing to do with the rule of law, nor with democracy; it is quite clearly an abuse of public funds and the status of a public broadcaster.

Ladies and gentlemen!

We all know that many political mistakes have been made and continue to be made in the European Union. We must continually acknowledge these mistakes. And those who have made, and continue to make, these mistakes have no right to then label us as false patriots, who unfortunately hold positions of power in some EU countries.

Where, pray tell, is there a greater commitment to Europe, a greater commitment to the supranational order, a greater commitment to freedom and the rule of law than in all the organisations that have invited us to this event today?

I rejected the practice of the all-regulating welfare state earlier because I demand responsibility from both free citizens and politicians. Therefore, a brief aside on the political errors we face before I return to foreign and security policy and thus to the idea of ​​a geopolitically capable Europe.

When the same politicians who once pushed through the Green Deal and the Supply Chain Act with the same vehemence now backpedal because reality catches up with them, it is obvious that we have a personnel problem in politics. Where is the responsibility of politicians in this? By what criteria are laws passed as having no alternative, only to have to be amended before they even come into effect?

The state cannot and should not regulate everything. The state must establish a framework in accordance with sound economic policy, thereby creating legal certainty rather than bureaucratisation, and it must ensure internal and external security. That is what we pay taxes and levies for.

The greater the external threats, the more sensible it is to cooperate within a community of values, such as the EU with its shared institutions.

The greatest threat to Europe for years now has been Moscow’s war of annihilation against Ukraine. A war aimed at the destruction of a state and a people, while simultaneously working to divide Europe for easier control. I have already emphasised that Moscow’s fifth column, from false patriots to old Communists, is committing high treason here.

When dealing with the so-called Russian Federation, we must consider some fundamental principles that help us conduct a responsible policy toward Moscow:

Russia was created through conquest and is held together by terror.

This Moscow colonial empire – this term is more fitting than Russia – knows only two states: war or preparation for war.

It is expansionistically oriented. Once a people has been conquered and subjugated, it is used to be sacrificed in the next war of expansion.

Lies are an expression of the power of the Moscow ruler. Even if he knows that everyone else knows he’s lying, he’s allowed to lie because he has the power to do so.

Once these principles have been grasped, it should not be difficult – provided one is committed to European values – first, to find a strategy for dealing with Moscow, and second, to finally define clearly what the goal of supporting Ukraine is. 

Let me, ladies and gentlemen, formulate these goals concretely:

Restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty,

Reparations from Moscow,

and regime change in Moscow.

The Putin case must be dealt with before an international war crimes tribunal.

But it is not only the Moscow colonial empire that directly attacks the rule of law at the international level, that is, the rules-based order. China makes no secret of the fact that it has absolutely no regard for human rights. Its aggressive foreign policy, combined with an economic policy aimed at dependency and the backdrop of communist ideology, poses a massive threat to the free world. Communism, unfortunately, has not disappeared; let’s not forget that!

Beijing is making it quite clear that it wants to annex Taiwan, if necessary by military force.

If we, the Western world, fail to demonstrate in our dealings with Russia that we will defend the rules-based order, so as not to descend into global anarchy in which the aforementioned Axis of Evil believes it can take what it desires by force, then China will dare to launch a military attack on Taiwan.

In other words: if we are not prepared to defend the rules-based order in Ukraine, then the risk of war worldwide will increase exponentially.

A divided Europe will not be able to overcome these challenges. This is also demonstrated by the attempts of US President Trump to strike a deal with the tyrant of Moscow, Putin, over the heads of the Ukrainians and Europeans – a deal that may benefit the oligarchic circles of both men, but cannot bring peace.

Peace must also be just.

This brings me back to a demand I have repeatedly made in my speeches and will continue to make:

Europe, the European Union, needs a genuine European foreign and security policy.

European foreign policy means not only the coordination of the foreign policies of 27 member states – and I hope there will be more – by the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, but also an EU foreign ministry headed by a foreign minister.

For this, we need the core of a European constitution that enshrines precisely this foreign policy competence for the European Union. This point, by the way, would fully comply with the principles of subsidiarity. Just as every foreign minister is currently subject to parliamentary oversight by their country, an EU foreign minister would be subject to parliamentary oversight by the European Parliament, which is directly elected by the citizens of the EU.

This is precisely the question of sovereignty that so many national egoists like to talk about. For sovereignty, ladies and gentlemen, means in concrete terms the ability to act and shape events. A European foreign policy would offer clear added value compared to a purely nationalistic approach.

Together, we can develop strategies for dealing with the changes in geopolitics and geoeconomics. What, for example, does global warming mean for worldwide trade routes? I am referring here to the Northeast Passage, which will become possible when the Arctic Ocean melts.

But I am also thinking about a European strategy for the potential decolonisation of Moscow’s colonial empire. In some countries, there are already programmes in place to prepare politicians from various oppressed peoples of this former empire to manage such a scenario with as little bloodshed as possible.

I have not even mentioned expanding our relations with the countries of Latin America. Or a concrete strategy for Africa. Russia, China, and the United States exert considerable influence on these regions. This is usually not to the benefit of these regions, but mostly to the detriment of Europe.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,

as politically engaged individuals, we have all observed the developments of the past few days. By this, I do not just mean the recent protests against the regime in Tehran, which demonstrate that the will for freedom can only ever be suppressed temporarily. Of course, the Iranian people also deserve freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. They are also striving for these rights.

Just so no one misunderstands my comments on the overthrow of Venezuela’s Maduro dictatorship: I do not shed a tear for this communist oppressor. But we must ask ourselves what the manner of his overthrow and arrest by the US signifies. The aforementioned US National Security Strategy emphasises the Monroe Doctrine: „America for the Americans.“

Does this mean the US under Donald Trump is truly abandoning the rules-based order? Are we returning to the so-called law of the jungle? Are entire regions now being defined as part of a hegemon’s sphere of influence, where that hegemon alone decides? If it is so easy to disable air defences supplied by Moscow, why not give Ukraine the means to do it? Do spheres of influence mean that Putin and Trump can now just as easily strike a deal over Ukraine’s head? What does it mean when the wife of Donald Trump’s deputy chief of staff has already posted a map of Greenland in the colours of the Star-Spangled Banner? What does it mean when the US lifted sanctions against Lukashenko’s dictatorial regime in Belarus just a few weeks ago?

I do not have a crystal ball to predict the future. And I’m not a determinist who thinks everything is already predetermined. But what I can say with certainty is this: All of this will affect us Europeans!

That is precisely why we as Europeans must ask ourselves whether we want to continue to remain in complacent comfort – and thus become pawns of non-European powers – or whether we want to become independent actors on the world stage.

We still have the opportunity, we still have a window of opportunity to become independent actors. I think everyone here knows that I clearly prefer this option.

Let’s not refuse our responsibility; let’s as Europeans take it seriously!