Connect with us

Europe

What is the AfD to do about the EU and NATO?

Published

on

Last month, the draft manifesto of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) for the 2014 European Parliament (EP) elections was leaked to the press, unveiling one of its most prominent stances – advocating a ‘controlled disintegration of the EU’. Despite labeling the EU as ‘deeply undemocratic’ and raising doubts about the legitimacy of the EP, the AfD is actively preparing for the 2024 elections with a robust ‘eurosceptic’ list.

During the first part of the AfD congress last weekend, however, party leaders Tino Chrupalla and Alice Weidel referred to the term ‘controlled disintegration’ in the manifesto as an ‘editorial oversight’ and stated that it would be removed in the second part of the congress this weekend.

These statements created a commotion within the party. Björn Höcke, the party’s Thuringia chief and alleged member of the ‘radical’ faction, insists on retaining the statement and has even threatened a ‘revolt’ if he is not given the opportunity to speak. On the other hand, Christine Anderson, ranked fourth on the EP list and allegedly part of the ‘moderate’ wing of the party, continues to advocate for Germany’s immediate departure from the EU.

A federation of nation-states instead of the EU

“We demand a restructuring of Europe in order to use the potential of nation-states and rebuild the bridge to the east,” Chrupalla said last month.

Arguing that the European Union ‘usurps national competences without replacing the nation-state’ and that the European Commission is ‘not democratic enough’ because it ‘lacks legitimacy’, Chrupalla also cited EU sanctions against Russia as a prime example of the EU’s ‘illegitimacy’, saying they ‘do not benefit citizens’ and lead to rising inflation and stagnation.

Instead of the EU, the AfD proposes ‘a new European economic and interest-based community, a league of European nations’, the co-chairman said.

AfD’s quest for ‘Staatsvolk’

In its manifesto, the AfD explicitly rejects the idea of a ‘federal Europe’. “Such an entity has neither a Staatsvolk, which are necessary prerequisites for successful states, nor the necessary minimum cultural identity,” the AfD’s draft reads.

The emphasis on Staatsvolk is ours. In literal translation, the concept of ‘people of the state’ encompasses both all national origins of a sovereign state and another, more ‘ethnonationalist’ meaning, which emphasizes the dominant national element in a sovereign state to the exclusion of other minorities. The first meaning refers to all citizens living on the territory of a country, regardless of their ethnic origin; the second refers to an exclusionary ethnonationalism.

It is important to remember that the meaning of many words in Germany was transformed with the National Socialist government. ‘Volk’ is one of them. This word, which we can easily translate into Turkish as ‘people’, for example came to refer to the German nation bound by blood and soil in the Nazi dictionary.

There are clearly people within the AfD who can defend both meanings of Staatsvolk. The AfD’s arguments in the manifesto strongly revolve around the concepts of ‘nation’, ‘sovereignty’ and ‘identity’. The terms ‘nation’ and ‘national’ alone appear 145 times in the election program.

Is the AfD changing instead of the EU?

The AfD argues that decisions should not be made in Brussels but at the center of the nation-state. The program’s introduction talks about ‘globalist elites’ taking over the EU.

The debate around the controlled disintegration of the EU could become even more heated now that the AfD has accepted the application to join the right-wing group Identity and Democracy (ID) in the EP. The current main ID parties, the French National Union (Marine Le Pen) and the Italian Lega (Matteo Salvini), seem to have softened their positions on a federal Europe.

Marine Le Pen, for example, has abandoned her previous advocacy of dissolving the EU and is instead pushing for a ‘fundamental reform’ of the bloc. Similarly, the Lega is now gradually abandoning its ‘eurosceptic’ ideas and is trying to build a broad alliance with center-right forces for the upcoming elections.

In an interview with Deutschlandfunk at the end of last month, Harald Weye, the AfD parliamentary group’s spokesman for European policy, argued that the phrase ‘controlled disintegration of the EU’ was literally ‘one person’s grammatical carelessness’. In the elections of 2017, 2019 and 2021, the AfD openly advocated a ‘Dexit’ – Germany’s exit from the EU – as a ‘must’. The program for the 2021 Bundestag elections stated: “The transformation of the European Union into a planned economic superstate in recent years has led us to the realization that our fundamental reform approaches cannot be implemented in the EU. We consider it necessary for Germany to leave the European Union and establish a new European economic and interest community,” it said.

AfD’s plan for a ‘more German Europe’

An analysis of the Magdeburg party conference in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (faz) claims that the co-chairs have different views on the issue. According to faz, Alice Weidel sees withdrawal as absurd, but Tino Chrupalla is as sympathetic to a controlled break-up of the EU as he is to withdrawal from NATO.

According to a report in WELT, sources close to AfD leader Weidel say that the AfD is advocating a softer wording in order not to scare its partners in the ID, including its allies in the EP, the National Union and the Lega. Weidel recently told Stern, “I prefer to talk about breaking up the EU into parts, which makes sense in some parts, such as common security and defense policy. But that’s where it has failed so far,” he said.

A similar attitude can be seen in the attitude towards the eurozone. “Germany doesn’t need the euro,” the party’s 2013 Bundestag election campaign said. The following year, this position was softened and a ‘more flexible monetary order’ was proposed for the EU and ‘the stability-oriented euro countries should create a smaller monetary system among themselves on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty’.

Ten years later, the draft European Election Program for 2024 does not even mention leaving the Eurozone. It is now only about changing the Eurosystem. In fact, the AfD’s proposal to keep Germany in the eurozone and introduce a more ‘stability-oriented’ monetary system is criticized as making the EU ‘even more German than before’. The European economic area, which is very favorable for German capital, should remain with a common currency, but the costs of maintaining it should be reduced. Above all, there should be no ‘transfer payments’ to other countries at Germany’s expense.

It is important to note that the AfD is not alone. During the Greek crisis, the Free Democrats (FDP), and Frank Schäffler in particular, opposed the bailout package for Greece and financial aid for the Eurozone in general. There is no doubt that these ideas are also quite widespread within the CDU/CSU.

Germany’s withdrawal from NATO is being discussed

In addition to the EU, another topic of discussion is the US and NATO.

In the party’s European election manifesto, seven AfD state leaders, including Björn Höcke, call for ‘European states to finally take responsibility for their own security in their own hands’ and describe NATO as ‘the so-called protective umbrella of a distant hegemon’.

The Seven’s motion argues that the ‘Zeitenwende’ (turning point) that Chancellor Olaf Scholz proposed last year for the reform of the German army should mean that European states should ‘take responsibility for their own security into their own hands’ instead of seeking refuge under the ‘so-called protective umbrella of a distant and self-serving hegemon’.

The motion goes on to say that European countries have been ‘set back’ by the policies of the European Union and that “the policy of military alliance has exacerbated these developments. The EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) has failed to establish an independent European collective security system in the face of the US-led NATO,” the motion says.

The motion seeks to amend the preamble of the Federal Program Commission’s draft motion. The proposal states that the eastward expansion of the EU and NATO has given the US ‘even deeper influence over the European order’. The seven believe that European countries are being drawn into conflicts that are not their own and are diametrically opposed to their ‘natural interests’, such as ‘fruitful trade relations in the Eurasian region’.

But Martin Vincentz, the leader of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, does not want the motion to be perceived as a position against NATO. “As one of the signatories, I don’t see the motion as an exit from NATO, but as a strengthening of European defense policy in the interest of NATO,” Vincentz told WELT AM SONNTAG.

It is hard to say that there is a clear consensus within the party on relations with the US and NATO. For example, a joint motion by Kurt Kleinschmidt, president of Schleswig-Holstein, and state parliamentarians from North Rhine-Westphalia and Berlin states that ‘excellent political relations require that American foreign and security policy strategies do not contradict German and European strategies’.

The group also wants to include in the European election manifesto a sentence from the basic program adopted in 2016: “NATO membership is in Germany’s foreign and security policy interests insofar as NATO limits itself to its task as a defense alliance.”

Another motion for an amendment on NATO was submitted by some state parliamentarians from Hamburg and North Rhine-Westphalia. “In view of the emerging and possibly unstoppable bloc formation between the two rivals, the United States and China, we believe that it is best for Germany to remain in the current alliance and use all possibilities to prioritize its own national interests,” the motion reads.

This includes expanding NATO’s European footprint and thus Germany’s own economic, cultural and military capabilities “in order to have a stronger influence in the world and to avoid having to obey Washington’s every whim,” according to the motion. According to the AfD, “then there would also be no need for a permanent deployment of US troops in Europe.”

The AfD’s 2017 party program ‘Manifesto for Germany’ also states that “NATO membership is in Germany’s interests in terms of foreign and security policy as long as NATO’s role remains as a defense alliance. We are in favor of a significant strengthening of the European pillar of the North Atlantic Alliance.” However, the AfD favors the withdrawal of allied troops and nuclear weapons deployed on German soil.

Europe

China’s critical mineral restrictions challenge EU defence expansion plans

Published

on

The European Union’s plans to expand its defence capabilities are being hindered by China’s export controls and sales restrictions on critical raw materials.

In response, EU leaders are urging member states to accelerate efforts to diversify supply chains.

According to Nikkei Asia, the European Commission announced last week that it would propose new legislation requiring companies across the bloc to broaden their supplier base in an effort to address economic imbalances, although it did not explicitly name China.

The war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over Washington’s security guarantees have pushed European governments to increase military spending and defence production.

At the same time, according to a report published in May by Joris Teer, a policy analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), China accounts for at least 70% of global mining or refining activity in 17 of the 34 materials classified as critical by the EU. Eight of those 34 materials are currently subject to Chinese export controls.

“China is undermining Europe’s rearmament efforts,” Teer wrote. “Simply by activating this tool, China has already increased its leverage and demonstrated both the capability and willingness to restrict supply whenever it chooses.”

The Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe also warned that geopolitical developments and intensifying global competition for critical raw materials are further underscoring the need to strengthen European supply chains.

The organisation represents more than 4,000 companies, including Britain’s BAE Systems, France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall.

European defence manufacturers are pursuing a range of strategies, including vertical integration, recycling, diversification and stockpiling.

Rheinmetall told Nikkei Asia that it has “no dependencies” and is “well prepared” regarding critical minerals.

A company spokesperson said: “Rheinmetall has stockpiled key raw materials sufficient for several years. We have also implemented IT systems that allow us to centrally monitor and precisely manage raw material consumption across the entire group.”

Analysts, however, caution that stockpiling alone will not be sufficient. Maria Shagina, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “Stockpiling serves as an important buffer against sudden disruptions, but on its own it is unlikely to mitigate structural damage over the long term.”

Shagina added that replacing the volume and diversity of critical minerals controlled by Beijing with alternative sources would take years.

In 2024, the EU enacted the European Critical Raw Materials Act, aimed at rebuilding domestic supply chains for such minerals.

The legislation sets 2030 targets for domestic extraction, processing and recycling while limiting dependence on any single third-country supplier to 65%.

A €3 billion ($3.5 billion) fund was established last year to accelerate strategic projects.

Nevertheless, the European Court of Auditors has noted that the 2030 targets are not legally binding and that the EU remains far from achieving them.

Industry groups argue that policy inconsistencies could further slow progress.

The Cobalt Institute, which represents a sector vital to jet engines, advanced batteries and defence alloys, warned that proposed EU chemicals regulations risk undermining the industry.

“Europe has one foot in and one foot out,” said Michael Blakeney, head of government and public affairs at the London-based institute. “It says the right things, but its actions are inconsistent.”

Europe’s efforts are unfolding alongside a more aggressive US strategy to secure critical mineral supply chains.

Shagina said:

“The US is investing more capital to secure and expand capacity, taking greater financial risks and, in some cases, acquiring equity stakes. Europe, by contrast, is generally more cautious, which places it at a relative disadvantage in the competition for critical minerals.”

In April, the EU signed an agreement with the United States to coordinate supplies of critical minerals. Although some member states initially resisted over concerns that the deal could weaken the bloc’s strategic autonomy, they authorised the Commission in early June to join the US-led “Pax Silica” initiative, which coordinates investment and export-control policies.

Teer urged Europe to use ongoing US-EU-Japan negotiations as the nucleus of a broader coalition aimed at making critical mineral production outside China financially viable through state support, minimum-price mechanisms and supply rules.

“Particularly important are countries that either produce raw materials or possess significant mineral deposits, such as Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia, as well as countries like India with large pools of skilled labour,” he said.

Teer also argued that the EU should activate its Anti-Coercion Instrument, which allows the bloc to impose tariffs and restrictions in response to economic pressure on countries outside the union, in order to deter China from introducing further restrictions.

A European Commission spokesperson said the bloc had “long been aware of the risks associated with the EU’s dependence on critical raw materials.”

“The objective is clear: to anticipate disruptions early and reduce the EU’s vulnerabilities while strengthening our industrial and defence capacities,” the spokesperson said.

Continue Reading

Europe

Four European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain

Published

on

European countries are increasingly tightening their citizenship rules. Most recently, the Norwegian government has drafted legislation that would raise the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from three years to seven.

The proposed amendments to the citizenship law were presented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion.

Under the draft legislation, stateless individuals born in Norway, as well as those who arrived in the country as children, would be required to reside in Norway for at least five years before becoming eligible for citizenship.

The government also plans to increase residency requirements for foreign nationals who are married to or cohabiting with Norwegian citizens.

Language requirements are set to become more demanding as well. The proposal would raise the required level of spoken Norwegian proficiency from A2 to B1. The new rules would apply to applicants aged between 18 and 67.

Commenting on the changes, Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion Kjersti Stenseng said: “Obtaining and holding Norwegian citizenship should be a privilege.”

The government argues that simplifying administrative procedures while simultaneously tightening eligibility criteria will help reduce the country’s large backlog of pending applications and shorten processing times.

Norway is the latest European country to announce revisions to its citizenship rules.

In Finland, the minimum residency requirement for citizenship was increased from five years to eight years on October 1, 2024.

The country also plans to introduce a mandatory citizenship test for applicants aged between 18 and 64 from the beginning of 2027.

Finnish Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said: “The introduction of a citizenship test is the final component of a comprehensive reform aimed at making citizenship requirements more stringent.”

Sweden has also approved a similar reform. Beginning in June 2026, the standard residency requirement for citizenship will increase from five years to eight years. Authorities are also introducing a financial self-sufficiency requirement for applicants and expanding the scope of security screenings.

Explaining the rationale behind the changes, Migration Minister Johan Forssell said: “It was possible to become a citizen after living in the country for five years without knowing a single word of Swedish, learning anything about Swedish society, or even having one’s own source of income.”

The most far-reaching changes have been implemented in Portugal. Portuguese President Antonio Jose Seguro has signed legislation raising the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from five years to 10 years.

For citizens of the European Union and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, the requirement has been set at seven years.

The residency period will now be calculated from the date a residence permit is granted rather than from the date a citizenship application is submitted. The new rules will also affect the children of immigrants.

Previously, children could obtain citizenship one year after birth if their parents held residence permits. Under the new rules, at least one parent must have legally resided in the country for a minimum of five years.

The law also introduces a mandatory examination covering Portuguese history, culture, values and social structures.

Migration policies are tightening across the European Union as well. On June 17, the European Parliament approved legislation allowing irregular migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected but who cannot be returned to their countries of origin to be deported to third countries.

The new EU rules permit the establishment of migrant detention centres outside the bloc’s borders. African countries are reportedly among the options being discussed for such facilities.

Continue Reading

Europe

SpaceX warns EU satellite spectrum plan could disrupt connectivity in Ukraine

Published

on

SpaceX has sharply criticised a European Union plan to restrict access to satellite spectrum, arguing that the proposal risks degrading connectivity in Ukraine and disrupting emergency communications services.

In a document shared with European officials and reviewed by the Financial Times, SpaceX warned:

“This proposal significantly increases the likelihood that Europeans will be deprived of direct-to-device satellite services, or that new European operations will create global interference issues, including for emergency services such as those operating in Ukraine.”

In a proposal unveiled in May, the EU recommended reserving part of the spectrum band used for direct satellite-to-smartphone connectivity for European operators, thereby limiting the frequencies available to US and Chinese providers.

The 2 GHz frequency band in question is currently used by two US companies, Viasat and EchoStar.

SpaceX argued that the EU plan prioritises “an operator’s country of establishment over economic, technical and regulatory realities.”

When the proposal was announced, EU technology chief Henna Virkkunen defended the move, saying the bloc wanted to “increase European capacity in this sector.” She added that other parts of the frequency band would remain open to international operators, arguing that prioritising European providers was justified.

Other participants involved in discussions over the proposal said some EU officials were specifically seeking to limit Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network.

Europe’s initiative follows a warning from Washington. In March, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cautioned that it could take retaliatory measures if the EU chose to favour European satellite operators over alternatives such as Starlink.

At the time, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told the Financial Times: “Some of the discussions in Europe regarding satellite sovereignty concern us. If Europe decides to move down that path, then, as you know, we will have to consider reciprocal measures.”

The European Commission’s proposal has not yet entered formal negotiations with EU member states or the European Parliament.

A source close to SpaceX said the company remained hopeful of influencing the outcome of the process, given concerns raised by both businesses and several European governments.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey