BY MARC CORTADELLAS MANCINI
Marc Cortadellas Mancini is a second-year Conflict Management student pursuing a Master of Arts in International Affairs and Economics who spent the first year of his studies at SAIS Europe in Bologna.
Human society has always faced epidemics and dealt with them in similar ways over the centuries and even millennia. Starting from the Roman Empire’s Plague of Justinian to the Black Death in the Middle Ages, plagues forced kings to contain the spread of diseases and maintain order and security against an invisible enemy (Walzer, 2016). While diseases in ancient times spread fairly slowly, rising urbanization and global connection have presented new challenges in public health. When the Spanish and Portuguese arrived in the Americas, they brought diseases that harmed the indigenous population (Pringle, 2015). Conversely, the expansions of the Europeans across the worlds had reversed implications. Diseases such as cholera that had only been known from far-off places spread rapidly across continents through people on trains and steamships. At this time, governments were limited to forcing their people into quarantine, telling them to obey their authorities, and trusting in God.
Until recently, this stigma remained popular; while diseases were part of EU member states’ national security fears, the political mainstream did not consider them an existential threat (Carrington, 2020). They would principally focus on domestic threats such as international terrorism, political instability in the Middle East associated with refugees, and geopolitical concerns about Russia. However, for the past twelve months, the EU has faced a different type of security threat. In consideration of this paradigm shift, the risk assessment of appropriate security policies must change as “the legitimacy and security of Western states will depend on their ability to manage natural disasters and protect populations from their effects” (Lieven, 2020). The pressing security threat is no longer the result of the actions of individuals, groups or states, but represents a new challenge that goes beyond the traditional dichotomy of opposing actors.
Forgotten by Its Partners
When the health situation in Italy began to deteriorate in February 2020, the government called for help from its closest allies: the member states of the EU. Apart from statements of solidarity, support from their European neighbors failed to materialize. Instead, fleets of planes with doctors and equipment quickly arrived from unexpected countries. On March 13, a team of Chinese doctors with 31 tons of medical aid landed in Rome (Verdelli, 2020). Shortly after, Russian military transport planes with truck-based disinfection units were delivered, and, later, a team of Cuban doctors arrived in Italy’s capital (Osborn and Emmott, 2020). Countries that are not necessarily regarded as altruistic actors in international politics turned out to be Italy’s knights in shining armor.
When Domenico Arcuri, Italy’s government commissioner for the coronavirus emergency, was asked about the support provided by international actors, his answer was sharp: “France has given us 2 million masks, Germany has sent us a few dozen ventilators. [Prime Minister] Conte requested and obtained some planes from Russia that brought 180 doctors, nurses, ventilators, and masks” (Osborn and Emmott, 2020). Reading between the lines, the bitter undertone around Germany’s role is clear in his statement. Indeed, Italy’s discontent regarding Europe’s lack of support has been expressed in different ways. Among others, the twitter-hashtag #italexit had been trending for weeks, people shared videos of themselves burning EU flags, and right-wing politicians such as former Minister of the Interior Matteo Salvini gained in popularity (Seisselberg, 2020).
Since the outbreak of the pandemic, surveys show a sharp loss of confidence in the EU. The left-liberal daily “La Repubblica” published the results of a survey which found that only 35 percent of Italians believe that the EU is doing everything necessary to tackle the recession in the Eurozone. According to the survey, confidence in the EU has dropped to less than 30 percent – the lowest level in years (Giorgi, 2020). On 30 March, the polling institute IPR Marketing published the results of its survey: 77 percent believe that Italy’s relationship with the EU remains conflict-ridden and that the Union will not bring any benefit to the country.
As a German-born student with an Italian mother and a Spanish father, who studied in Bologna, Italy, at the peak of the pandemic, the situation has been particularly draining. It is hard to ignore the emotionally charged atmosphere, considering the unprecedented health crisis in Italy. It is difficult to experience the growing Italian aversion towards Germany and the EU and to see the lack of solidarity from EU member states. Obviously, in the battle of narratives, mise-en-scène matters. Formerly systemic rivals, geopolitical aggressors, and political loners have not let the pandemic go to waste and are certainly in the lead in using the crisis to portray themselves in a more favorable light. Fully aware that people’s mindsets cannot be changed within days, the question remains as to whether the fault lines, which have been widened by recent anger from neglected countries, can be narrowed once again (Cui, 2020). The EU missed the opportunity to support one of its founding members and to re-establish a sense of community.
Effective Disaster Management as an Answer for Solidarity
The EU established the Union Civil Protection Mechanism in 2001 to monitor and address natural or man-made disasters. The mechanism under which the EU’s crisis hub – the Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) – operates follows a simple mechanism: should an EU member state not be able to handle a crisis on its own, it can turn to the crisis hub which will then appeal to other member states for material and personnel aid (EU Commission, 2019b). The mechanism has proven effective. For example, when a devastating earthquake killed 51 people and caused thousands of injuries in Albania in late 2019, the European Civil Protection Pool devoted its resources to a response operation (EU Commission, 2019c). Following Albania’s request for the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, various search and rescue teams were mobilized including staff from Italy. A year earlier, large forest fires in the north of Europe broke out. Sweden turned to the ERCC, which responded with the deployment of seven firefighter aircraft, six helicopters, 67 vehicles, and over 360 firefighters from France, Germany, Lithuania, Denmark, Portugal, and Poland. Italy, in the middle of the dangerous forest-fire season, actively contributed personnel and equipment including two aircraft. These acts of solidarity reminded the international community that the EU is built on the foundations of a humanitarian project that aims to promote the virtues of supporting each other in times of instability and crisis.
The worsening effects of climate change, including the forest fires in Sweden, do not stop at borders and have the potential to affect entire regions, thereby exhausting countries’ abilities to help each other. Therefore, the EU “upgraded” the European Civil Protection Mechanism last year by creating rescEU – a European reserve of capacities to “be better prepared and respond to all types of emergencies, such as (…) biological emergencies”. The objective is to assist should several countries face the same disaster simultaneously. As the program further states, it “will only be used as a last resort, when national means are exhausted, and capacities registered in the European Civil Protection Pool are not available” (EU Commission, 2019b) When the number of COVID-19 cases rocketed in Italy, the country called for help via the ERCC (February 28, 2020). Neither the classical mechanism nor rescEU was able to provide any help to Italy. This was a tragic side note, as the country was already drowning in infections and piling up coffins. It took until the end of March, more than four weeks, for the EU commission to present a new draft of the EU budget that considered the implications of COVID-19 (EU Commission, 2019a). Despite calling for common support and bolstering small and medium-sized companies, there was no reference to Italy. Countries were too concerned about their own health situation than helping others. If each member state fights only for itself, the EU not only loses part of its raison d’être, but it also fails to make its limited resources available to those who need them.
With Pragmatism and Creativity
To overcome the initial reticence, the EU member states, and the President of the European Commission, need to make a pragmatic and creative effort to exploit further opportunities for solidarity. A first act to achieve this would be to establish permanent civilian crisis management capacities. For instance, a battalion consisting of medical aid personnel, firefighters, and other crisis personnel. A so-called EU Medical Corps exists already. It is coordinated and based on the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and relies on the willingness of EU member states to provide help. At the same time, the mechanism operates within the EU commission’s Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO). However, due to the growing threat posed by climate change and epidemics, a future EU permanent crisis response team could be integrated within the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) as part of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy competencies. The threshold for a military-civilian task force would potentially be lower than for combat forces. Similar to the EU Battlegroup, the permanent EU crisis response team would be based on contributions from a coalition of member states, consisting of a battalion-sized force (1,500 troops), reinforced with crisis management elements.
Ultimate authority would rest with the High Representative, who would have to coordinate the deployment decision with the member states and submit it to a committee of the European Parliament, who would also have to give their authorization. The sovereignty rights of the member states would not be affected since this force arrangement would be set up complementary to the national armies. Article 42(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which would require a unanimous decision by the European Council and ratification in all member states, could serve as a basis for the establishment (Vogel and Schulz, 2020). As such, the unit would reinforce Europe’s role and capabilities in civilian crisis management domestically and abroad.
Neither Italy nor Europe’s path is predetermined. What is certain, however, is that this public health, economic, and political crisis of the past months will shape European standing in the world for many years to come. If the EU wants to establish itself as a coherent actor for support during crises and conflict, it must consolidate its interest and incorporate the values it holds dear. National solipsism is not the solution to this crisis. Nationalist actions create conditions that allow Europe to be easily divided: the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves.
References
Carrington, Damian. “UK Strategy to Address Pandemic Threat ‘Not Properly Implemented.’” The Guardian, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/29/uk-strategy-to-address-pandemic-threat-not-properly-implemented.
Cui, Mu. “China Hilft Italien in Der Coronakrise.” Deutsche Welle, 2020. https://www.dw.com/de/china-hilft-italien-in-der-corona-krise/a-52858981.
EU Commission. “Coronavirus: La Commissione Incrementa Il Bilancio per i Voli Di Rimpatrio e La Scorta RescEU,” 2019a. https://ec.europa.eu/italy/news/20200327_coronavirus_CE_incrementa_bilancio_per_voli_rimpatrio_e_rescEU_it.
———. “EU Civil Protection Mechanism,” 2019b. https://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/civil-protection/mechanism_en.
———. “European Civil Protection Pool,” 2019c. https://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/civil-protection/european-civil-protection-pool_en.
Giorgi, Alberto. “Sondaggio, Sale La Fiducia in Conte e Crolla Quella Nell’Ue.” Il Giornale, 2020. https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/sondaggio-sale-fiducia-conte-e-crolla-nellue-1850976.html.
Lieven, Anatol. “Climate Change and the State: A Case for Environmental Realism.” Survival 62, no. 2 (2020): 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2020.1739945.
Osborn, Andrew, and Robin Emmott. “Russian Aid to Italy Leaves EU Exposed.” Reuters, 2020.
Pringle, Heather. “How Europeans Brought Sickness to the New World.” Science, 2015. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/06/how-europeans-brought-sickness-new-world.
Seisselberg, Jörg. “Immer Noch Gnadenlos Arrogant.” Tagesschau, 2020. https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/anti-deutschen-simmung-italien-101.html.
Verdelli, Carlo. “Coronavirus: Arrivati in Italia Dalla Cina 9 Medici Specializzati.” La Repubblica, 2020. https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/03/13/news/coronavirus_italia_aggiornamento_13_marzo-251129542/.
Vogel, Dominic, and René Schulz. “Zur Diskussion Über Eine 28. Armee Für Die Europäische Union.” SWP-Aktuell. Berlin, March 2020. https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/aktuell/2020A19_EU-Armee.pdf.
Walzer, Caroline. “The Plagues That Might Have Brought Down the Roman Empire.” The Atlantic, 2016. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/plagues-roman-empire/473862/.
PHOTO CREDIT: Free use image from Canva Pro.