‘New European nuclear weapons should no longer be taboo’

It felt safe, under the American atomar paraplu. But as relaxed as he felt as a child in the nineties, it no longer feels like that, says 39-year-old Laurens Dassen, leader of Volt (two seats in the Lower House) in his office. The danger, Russia, is much closer than he could have imagined in his youth.

And the United States, which offered Europe military protection for decades, has written off Dassen as an ally. « The America of today is very similar to Germany of the 1930s. Judges are fired, science is suspected, media are silenced, people are deported without knowing where, and Canada and Greenland are threatened with annexation. » And the removal between America and Europe, he says, « is permanent. » « This process has already started under previous presidents. They don’t even want to be committed to Europe anymore. »

This Friday, on the day of Europe, Dassen says in a speech in Amsterdam that there must be a European army quickly: 50 brigades within five years, 250,000 new soldiers. The NATO supreme commander must no longer be an American, but a European. And, completely remarkable: Dassen says that Europe must « Europeanize » the French nuclear weapons.

You think that Europe should de-Americanize for its safety. How should that happen?

« It is a military process in which we get a European armed forces. With independent support, our own satellites and intelligence services. We will also have to come out of America economically, because at the moment we are completely dependent on that tech-oligarchy from Washington and the surveillance status in Beijing. So we have to invest a lot in artificial, for example, the Governige Intelligentie, for example, the Governige Intelligence

But does Europe never achieve the level of American investments?

« Why not? We are the richest continent of the world. The only thing we have to do is that we are jointly willing to put public money in Europe, and mobilize the money from large private investors, then we can also get that 500 billion. »

There is already a major European defense plan: Rearm Europe. Isn’t that enough?

« I think it’s a bad plan. It is more of the same: countries that put a lot of money in their own defense industry, without looking beyond the borders. Many people saw it as something positive, because something finally happened to the insecurity that we are feeling together at the moment. But it is the old story: countries do things for themselves. »

Then you could also have voted for the Motie Uertmans, who called on Rearm Europe not to cooperate.

That much -discussed motion from JA21 achieved a majority in the Lower House in March, and put Prime Minister in embarrassment. Volt voted against.

Dassen laughs. « That is quite an interesting one, then we had immediately thrown the ass against the crib and had an attitude of: we want nothing. But the plan could have been many times better. We have submitted motions about that, but they were rejected by the room. »

Apart from money: how can Europe protect itself with nuclear weapons, without the Americans?

« In the first place by looking at the French. If Trump drops Europe, (the French president) Macron has already said that he is willing to make the French nuclear weapons available to Europe. Now that is not yet the case. That offer we have to assume with both hands. We must maintain that nuclear weapons arsenal, ultimately, under European command.

How big is that protection? France has a limited nuclear arsenal, with around 280 core heads. The US has more than 5,000.

« Compared to the US and Russia, of course, that is very little. At the same time, if you were to throw it all, that is a huge amount. And that the US has so much, is partly also because they not only saw Russia, but also China as a competitor. I don’t think we should try to get to the same level as Europe. »

The United Kingdom also has a few hundred nuclear weapons. Do you not want it?

« The United States is still involved in that, so there are many more hooks and eyes. That is why the French have always said: we want to stay independent and keep everything in -house. That was very wise from (then president) De Gaulle. »

What could the Netherlands do to maintain the French nuclear weapons?

« For example, the Netherlands could contribute financially. Maintenance of a whole nuclear arsenal is extremely expensive. And the French have always done that alone. You can deliver technical expertise, or ensure that nuclear weapons are positioned in other places in Europe. »

Also in the Netherlands?

« Or in other countries. But the Netherlands could also be. We now also have American nuclear weapons in Volkel. »

Do you think Europe should also develop new nuclear weapons?

« That should certainly not be a taboo. If the US is completely withdrawn, then we must ensure that the deterrence is retained. That is why we must and critically think about how we are going to renew the nuclear arsenal. Army and long -distance missiles, before we have that discussion. « 

Developing new nuclear weapons or participating in the French Arsenal is contrary to the non-proliferation treaty. Should European countries, including the Netherlands, out of it?

« I don’t think that’s going at all. But those are kinds of things that we have to look at sharply as soon as it gets concrete. »

And what about nuclear tests?

« We are really going to have a few steps too fast now. Let’s first have that discussion well: is it necessary? And if so: what exactly do we want? And what does that mean for any tests, for example? I don’t know if the core tests as they used to be done are still needed. Not thinking. »

The point is: mentally you may also say goodbye to a long era in which it was mainly about how the world could reduce the number of nuclear weapons. That’s quite a step.

« I think everyone wants a world without nuclear weapons. So I would prefer all the countries to reduce the treaties to reduce nuclear arsenal, but in Europe we have to keep thinking critically about what we need for our own independent defense. I don’t think you should all have taboos on the table now. When we still lived safely under the Safety PARAPLU of the United States. « 

To share

Mail the editors