By AC Wimmer
CNA Newsroom, Jul 12, 2024 / 12:10 pm
As the heads of leading nations gathered in Washington, D.C., this week to mark the 75th anniversary of the world’s most powerful military alliance, the unfolding scenes and commentaries — from concern over the U.S. presidential election to the war in Ukraine to claims that “Europe’s oldest band,” the Catholic Habsburg Empire, was making a comeback — were unexpected.
The NATO summit, held July 10–11, was meant to be a secular celebration of the alliance’s enduring strength — and answer, as Owen Jensen reported for EWTN News, U.S. President Joe Biden’s question: “What is next?”
While concerned with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the summit brought into sharp relief the tension that lies at the heart of this question between strategic military considerations and ethical concerns — as well as the need for political leadership that can shoulder these tensions across party-political and ideological divides.
Pope Francis has repeatedly called for such leadership. In 2021, he declared venerable the French statesman Robert Schuman, known as a key “founding father” of the European Union. His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, never tired of reminding Catholics that Christianity created the European identity.
However, Catholic perspectives diverge on Europe’s ability to defend itself — a key question for NATO members meeting in D.C. this week.
Pope Francis has appointed a special emissary to assist with peace efforts. He also has consistently spoken out against nuclear weapons, stating in a June 2022 message that “the use of nuclear weapons, as well as their mere possession, is immoral.”
This stance contrasts with the views of some European politicians, such as former German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. The Catholic aristocrat recently advocated for a comprehensive European protective shield, including nuclear deterrence.
In an interview with Herder Korrespondenz, Guttenberg said: “We need European and German armed forces that are capable — embedded in NATO — of effectively defending against attacks from outside or deterring them in the first place. If necessary, even without the USA.”
He added: “Any concept must include, in addition to conventional equipment for air, sea, and land, first-class cyber capabilities, state-of-the-art missile defense shields, space presence, and — unfortunately — also sufficient nuclear deterrence potential.”
While the alliance made concrete commitments in the case of Ukraine, including a pledge of 40 billion euros (about $43.6 billion) in security assistance over the next year, the specter of political instability haunted the gathering.
Questions about Biden’s capacity to lead following recent public gaffes and the possibility of Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 created one undercurrent of uncertainty.
As EWTN News reported, Biden’s performance at the summit was closely scrutinized.
The recent European Parliament elections, held just weeks before the NATO summit, saw significant gains for parties across the continent. These results have potential implications for NATO, as some of these parties — both on the left and the right — advocate for more isolationist policies and question the value of multilateral institutions.
Politico magazine reported on Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s efforts to form a new group in the European Parliament called “Patriots for Europe.”
The article drew parallels between this nascent alliance and the historical Habsburg Empire, noting the inclusion of parties from several former Habsburg territories.
Eduard Habsburg-Lothringen, Hungary’s ambassador to the Holy See, humorously dismissed the polemical comparison. The staunchly Catholic diplomat, a descendant of the actual Habsburg dynasty, jokingly said on X that the “Habsburg/Hungary master plan” had been “foiled again!”
(Story continues below)
While more provocative than substantive, the magazine’s descriptions are telling: They point to the complex interplay of history, nationalism, and geopolitics shaping Europe’s future as much as pointing to the existential questions challenging a Western alliance.
Irrespective of who the next U.S. president will be, the potential emergence of new political blocs within Europe, not to mention new governments in the U.K. and France, could challenge the consensus-driven approach that has long characterized NATO decision-making.
As the Washington summit concluded, these questions remained largely unresolved. However, a pragmatic answer came in the commentary on threats to the alliance, according to NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg’s official summit statement: “We face a more dangerous world, with Moscow and Beijing drawing closer, and autocracy on the rise. In these uncertain times, our alliance is more important than ever.”
