The past two episodes of Xtra featured the current Maltese Commissioner Glenn Micallef and the President of the European Parliament Roberta Metsola. Frankly, I appreciated that Saviour Balzan hosted both programmes because he managed to bring to the Maltese public EU related policies on national TV. It does not mean that I agree with everything that was said, but he got me watching the interviews because they were properly articulated and focused on EU policies. Let’s tackle the interviews one by one.
When it came to Commissioner Glenn Micallef’s interview, I saw the headlines after the programme stating that Commissioner Micallef said that the defence industry will create jobs. Frankly, Commissioner Micallef was correct when he explained that the defence industry can create jobs, as he was citing the defence paper that was issued by the EU Commission. The defence paper encompasses competitiveness not just Europe’s militarisation. You all know by what I think of the EU Commission’s approach on the way they handled the war in Ukraine, so I am not excusing anyone. Commissioner Micallef referred to the defence paper and correctly stated that for the EU to compete with the rest of the world, they must accelerate investments in Artificial Intelligence, Cyber Security, Countering Hybrid Threats, as well as Quantum Computing including Space assets. Certainly, the United States, as well as China are way ahead of the EU on these sectors. I had the opportunity to write about them in my last opinion pieces, so I won’t delve into the details once again.
What I found unfair were the comments directed towards Commissioner Micallef, because the articulation was in line with the Commission’s approach. Perhaps, what I would have proposed is to maybe focus on a report on banking and competitiveness. Commissioner Micallef has the powers to convey this message also in view that we need to mobilise capital to create additional jobs for the youths in these new emerging sectors. We cannot have a situation where the ECB is acting on its own, under the pretence of independence. Otherwise, we are not going to reach the competitiveness goals set by the EU Commission. If the EU Commission and the ECB do not work hand in hand on this, we might fall behind. We need to mobilise capital to advance AI and other important sectors to compete with the USA and China, especially the space industry.
For instance, China is thinking of including AI as part of the curriculum in primary schools to introduce students to the new world. Meanwhile, in the EU they want to introduce how kids deal with the rises of war or other attacks. I was reading a report on Politico and the conservative lawmaker Roderich Kiesewetter suggested that schools should do crises training for disaster situations. The argument is that Finland has it. Well, we must all become Finnish, now. Seriously, the way they talk is short of promoting competitiveness and instilling trust in investing in new sectors to mobilise private capital. They either lost the plot or they are hatching something which we are not privy to.
Also, I followed the interview with the President of the European Parliament Roberta Metsola. The interview got me listening because it mostly related to EU policies bar the part relating to Malta’s politics. In truth, when it comes to the new industries it is true. If Europe falls behind on AI, Cyber Security, Space Assets, Space Industry, Quantum Computing, Defence on Submarine Cables, Energy Security, Climate Security and other sectors then the continent is doomed to remain a vassal of the USA, and any other superpowers. What people are not perhaps understanding is the fact that such sectors should not fall under the umbrella of defence. They must fall under a different sector and NACE code. For instance, they all relate to technology, so I do not know why they keep on referring to them as defence. I think what the EU Commission can do, or perhaps the European Parliament, is to come up with a report dissecting all these sectors and capture them under two distinct branches, one under the competitiveness and security umbrella in the new MFF, while any militarisation is included under a separate branch of defence and security. We must make the distinction between the two for Europeans to be able to accept the notion of security and defence. Anything falling short of this distinction is not helping the EU’s image and reputation.
Certainly, I still believe that the EU can repair its reputational damage on soft power. And here is where I differ from the European Parliament’s and the EU Commission’s opinions. We can do many things diplomatically while pushing for the competitiveness and security sectors. These could be two different headings in the upcoming MFF and incorporate also the Cultural and Youth Compass along the Competitiveness Compass but distinct from the Strategic Compass. True, too many compasses. The idea can sound compelling also for researchers, universities and academics which are found in neutral countries. An opportunity for additional funding, as well as think tanks. Also, it ties with the new startups and patents, which the EU desperately needs to harmonise and invest into. More than two years ago I wrote an article termed Star Wars, Starlink and Space defence. At that point I was already suggesting looking into these sectors, which means that the EU is already late, and cannot fail to delay any further. Unless we think differently, we will remain stuck.
Let me be clear, because many have been misinterpreting me for a number of months now. I am in favour of investing in competitiveness and security which is distinct from defence and security. And I think Malta should tap into these opportunities to create additional sectors. What I am not in favour is the investments in lethal weapons, as this could still be kept under the umbrella of the individual member states distinct from the EU’s peace project. Nobody ever stopped NATO member states from investing in military. It is fine if the EU wants to help other countries due to their deficits, but it must not impinge on other neutral member states. We must keep some leverage and flexibility here to choose in the interest of each member state. It is a fair deal to be honest.
As I said in my past interviews; “Neutrality does not mean, not taking a position when there are countries in conflict; it means not taking a military stand, which is different. It is a fine line”. We can still invest in our security distinct from lethal weapons but deeply embrace our active neutrality.
