2012/02/04

“Smart Defense is a Euphemism”

Interview with Mr. Omid Nouripour, Member of the German Bundestag, Member of the Defense Committee, Alliance 90/The Greens Parliamentary Group, Berlin

The panel on "Smart Defence" from left to right: Lindsey Graham, Claude-France Arnould, Stéphane Abrial, Philip Hammond, Dr. Thomas Enders und Nik Gowing (Photo: Moerk)

Mr. Nouripour, the last panel’s topic was Smart Defense: Is this a thing of the past?

The title sounds strange as it suggests that we were all pretty stupid in the past. The structures are inefficient, of course. But the idea behind this whole Smart Defense discussion is to distract from the fact that there is no more money for a “gold-plated” solution.

Before discussing Smart Defense, shouldn't we start with "Smart Interests" first?

It is ridiculous to pretend that we could just sit down together and get to work as if money didn’t matter. It is a fact that we Europeans have an incredibly high savings and optimization potential, both in security policy and foreign policy. However, there is such a wide discrepancy in national interests that this is not going to work. The EU institutions and their people are simply not strong enough to keep the nations together so that Smart Defense merely remains a euphemism. While there is, at least, enough financial pressure to spark dialog, we are still far from implementing any significant cost-cutting measures.

That doesn’t sound optimistic.

The way things are in Europe, we won’t get very far as national egotisms drive us too far apart. So, we mustn’t be surprised that Catherine Ashton is not the powerful European foreign minister that we actually need.

Which of the Smart Defense panel members really surprised you today?

Philip Hammond because he was very pro-European for a British national. However, when details need to be finalized, the British are not always as cooperative as the British Secretary of State for Defence was today.

This interview was conducted by Lorenz Hemicker.