Waves or particles ?

Waves or particles? Two contrasting theories that long divided scientists. Both had strong arguments in their favour but it was only when all the pieces of the puzzle were put together that the wave-particle duality of light could finally emerge, albeit a concept that, even today, remains alien to our conventional understanding of the world and how it works.

What, you may ask, does physics, and even quantum physics, have in common with the European issues addressed by members of the EuroDéfense network? The answer lies in the notion of duality, the replacement of “or” by “and”. While examples are legion, two will suffice by way of illustration.

Reconciling advocates of a “United States of Europe” (cf. Victor Hugo), in which community instruments have pride of place, and those favouring a “Europe of Nations” (Charles de Gaulle’s vision of Europe) and an intergovernmental approach, will remain impossible as long as the two concepts continue to be considered mutually exclusive. But experience acquired over recent decades has highlighted the advantages of treating these two approaches as alternatives, the choice then depending on the issues at stake, the urgency of finding a solution or current thinking. This is particularly the case for sensitive defence issues, where military marching order puts a Europe of Nations in first place ahead of a federal Europe in charge of its own defence, an order of priorities that is neither contradictory to the gradual emergence of European autonomy, as a necessary step towards integrated European capabilities, nor incompatible with common weapons acquisition and logistics in accordance with Commission regulations.

For maximum efficiency, it should be possible to adopt solutions that have long been successfully tried and tested, in application of the subsidiarity principle.

The war in Ukraine is a further argument in favour of a combined rather than an exclusive approach. Both sides are determined to keep on fighting to the bitter end. Neither party is willing to make concessions: the conditions necessary for negotiation simply do not exist. Each of the warring parties will therefore keep a tally of the other’s dead, while refusing to acknowledge its own, as part of a psychological “infowar” process. One side will go on campaigning for more tanks or aircraft in the hope of a decisive breakthrough, while the other will ramp up production of guided weapons and continue to recruit further conscripts. And the world’s media will maintain the hype, as if the only possible outcome could be victory!

Ukraine is a highly sensitive issue where both sides are firmly entrenched in their respective positions. At some point, the diplomats will be wheeled out but, in the meantime, patience is the only alternative, whether we like it or not! Perhaps we, as Europeans, should already be thinking of ways of bringing the conflict to an end, the concessions that both sides would have to make to stop the war, long-term relations with Russia which, whatever we may think, will still be Russia, the conditions under which Europe will be able to emerge as a sovereign entity responsible for its own destiny. Last but not least, western European countries need to consider where they fit into this endless, uncontrolled expansion towards the East.

All this brings us back to the issue of defence and security, for the situation today gives cause for concern and good reason to consider that a federation led by a powerful, democratically elected executive would be far more effective. But any hope of finding a majority to support this option would be vain, despite the urgency of the war in Ukraine. In EU countries, the most people do not see the war as a threat to their lifestyles. For them, while the situation is admittedly both shocking and tragic, they do not consider it an existential threat (unlike communism and the Cold War).

There will always be differences of opinion over objectives and the ways of attaining them but all opinions have the right to be heard, provided we respect the other’s views and accept the limits of our individual and collective capabilities.

The EU is a unique construct in the world’s history. It is a work in progress that cannot (and should not) be forced through at gunpoint.

Editorial translated into English by Christine Cross, EuroDéfense-France Council member