Written by Mariah Meli, Minority Leader on the Għargħur Local Council and a student pursuing a Master’s degree in EU Studies.

As a normative power, the EU has long prioritized economic cooperation, diplomacy, and the advancement of democratic values over military action. However, lately a notable change in the EU’s stance on global security and defence can be depicted in the recent decision to use the European Defense Fund (EDF) to finance army sales to Ukraine. While considering the opinions of different Member States, significant decisions in relation to the EU’s reputation as a unique international body were noted to be taken in the past times.

The EDF was created back in 2017 with the goal of promoting defence research and development collaboration among EU Member States to increase the EU’s strategic independence and lessen its reliance on outside defence capabilities. Joint defence projects, technological innovation, and strengthening the European defence industrial base were the fund’s main priorities of the Commission at the time. The allocation of EDF resources for direct military aid, such as supplying weapons to a non-EU country, represents a departure from its original initiative.

Different strategic cultures, historical experiences, and geopolitical concerns have led to differing responses from EU Member States about the choice to use the EDF to arm Ukraine. With reference to past Russian aggression experiences and the need for regional security, nations like Poland and the Baltic states being Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, have been active supporters of dedicated support for Ukraine. In line with the larger EU effort to strengthen defence capabilities, the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk underlined the need for higher military spending to counter Russian threats.

The new function of the EDF has received conditional acceptance from major EU economies, such as France and Germany. While acknowledging the necessity of increased defence spending, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz emphasized the need to preserve fiscal restraint and deal with domestic economic issues. Subsequently, with an effort to take on more responsibility for European defence, the French President Emmanuel Macron suggested expanding France’s nuclear deterrence to include partners of the European Union.

Several Member States have objected based on ethical, legal, and strategic reasons. Threatening to veto EU comments on Ukraine, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has urged direct talks with Russia and warned against increasing military engagement. Austria, Ireland, and Malta are examples of neutral nations who have voiced concerns about the use of EU money for military objectives, highlighting the need to maintain their legislative restrictions and non-aligned.

Prime Minister Robert Abela approached the Council with a perspective deeply rooted to our Constitutional commitment, that of neutrality and non-alignment. Our Constitution, establishes the island as a neutral state with a non-alignment policy, enshrines the country’s defence posture. This fundamental position prohibits Malta from joining military alliances and limits the number of foreign military installations on its soil. Malta’s foreign and defence policies have traditionally been governed by this neutrality, which makes sure that any participation in global defence projects is consistent with its non-aligned status. Malta negotiated during the conference to make sure its neutrality would not be jeopardized by the proposed EDF.

Considering everything, in my opinion, putting its residents first and stepping up diplomatic efforts will lead to a more ethical and sustainable route than increasing defence spending and military investments. The EU should prioritize improving the lives of its citizens and taking a more active role in promoting peace, especially in the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, rather than spending billions on military expansion and armaments. In addition to promoting internal prosperity, the EU may establish itself as a world leader in peacebuilding and conflict resolution by funding social services, economic growth, and diplomatic.

The EU’s reputation and identity on the international scene will be significantly impacted by the decision to use the EDF to arm Ukraine. Emerging security risks have brought into question the EU’s long-standing reliance on soft power. Including military assistance in its agenda of foreign policy tools demonstrates a more comprehensive strategy that blends hard power capabilities with normative influence.

One of the EU’s fundamental goals of the foundation was to advance democracy, peace, and prosperity among its Member States. Prioritizing the improvement of the lives of the EU’s citizens in the context of economic uncertainty, inflation, and social inequality should be a priority. Long-term stability and social cohesiveness would result from increased expenditure for infrastructure, healthcare, and education. Improving social services and economic opportunities lowers the likelihood of internal instability and increases Member States’ ability to withstand foreign threats. Investing in people ensures that security stems from prosperity rather than military by promoting innovation, bolstering economies, and creating a more cohesive Europe.

The EU should invest in humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects in areas hit by violence rather than raising defence spending. In addition to meeting the urgent needs of people affected by war, this would reconstruct communities and bring about long-term stability. Medical aid, food security initiatives, and financial support for displaced people can all help to lessen human suffering and stop violence from getting worse. Through moral leadership and fostering peace, the EU can position itself as a global leader by taking the lead in humanitarian assistance rather than the manufacture of weapons.

This time is a time in which the EU has the chance to reestablish its place in world politics by putting its citizens first and emphasizing diplomacy over military spending. The strength and wealth of societies are more important for security than just having weapons. Preserving its core principles and promote world peace through emphasizing social progress, economic stability, and peace-making initiatives is crucial. To ensure a future based on collaboration, understanding, and lasting peace, the EU should invest in its diverse and vibrant communities rather than in weapons.