"Russia is the most hostile country towards Europeans. It carries out the most external interventions. But it is not the only one", Nathalie Loiseau, head of the EP Committee on Protection against Foreign Interference and Hybrid Threats, told DW.
Do you think that today too many extreme ideas and messages go unchallenged and criticized by people who disagree with them?
Natalie Loiseau: We live in a democracy, so everyone has the right to express their opinion and all disagreements can be openly stated. However, I think that some people who are moderate, if I can call them that, tend not to oppose extreme political forces, including when scandalous things are said or when our values and principles are questioned. I don't know why this is - whether it's the excessive comfort we've enjoyed for so long, or whether it's a fear of being intimidated, because of course there is intimidation. However, extreme political forces only win if we let them win.
If we ask the same question about foreign interventions in Europe, which we are witnessing both from Russia and from other countries - what is France's attempt to deal with them?
Natalie Loiseau: The less we react, the more an adversary perceives this as a sign of weakness. The goal is not to escalate with countries that have practices different from ours. You mentioned Russia - yes, it is the country that is most hostile to Europeans and that carries out the most such interventions. But it is not the only one.
The first thing we need to do is expose them so that they are visible and so that we understand that a number of topics, disputes and polemics are used or created by countries that want to convince us that democracy does not work.
In this regard, France is lucky to have the Viginum agency (Service for Vigilance and Protection against Foreign Digital Interference), which informs the French when there is foreign manipulation. However, we should not constantly react to each of them. For example, I am actively involved in the presidential campaign of the former Prime Minister of France Edouard Philippe and he is constantly the target of Russian disinformation attempts. We do not talk about it constantly, because such attempts occur constantly. When they are ineffective, we should let them fail.
Are there any European-wide mechanisms that we can strengthen to deal with this type of foreign interference?
Natalie Loiseau: I think there are things that we can do better. Every society is different. I think we have to be very humble given the period we are going through, in which we see that democracies are fragile and need to be defended. We see it in Germany, we see it in the United Kingdom, we see it in the United States.
"A good idea has not yet been implemented"
Ursula von der Leyen has promised to create a Center for Democratic Resilience at European level. It should allow for the exchange of good practices and mutual learning, so that when one country finds an effective way to counter these interferences, it can share it with the others. This is a very good idea and a very important promise.
But I am very angry that behind this promise, which was announced a long time ago, there is still practically nothing. Its director has not even been appointed yet. And we really need to help each other.
Is there a country that you would point to as a good example?
Natalie Loiseau: Look at what we have been able to do to help Moldova, and look at what Moldova itself has been able to do to repel external interference. We have helped Moldova strengthen the cybersecurity of its electoral infrastructure. We also sent experts on foreign interference to it so that it could better monitor what was happening.
But Moldova itself, the Moldovan government, also managed to convince the public to oppose these interferences. And the situation was like a battle between David and Goliath. Today, we have more to learn from Moldova than to give as a lesson.
The same applies to Armenia. I headed the European election observation mission there and there was external interference and Russian economic pressure in the form of blackmail. Despite this, the Armenian authorities, the government and the administration managed to hold elections that were flawless in terms of organization.
Specifically in France: there are key presidential elections coming up next year, and already three main candidates - former prime ministers Edouard Philippe and Gabriel Attal, as well as MEP Raphael Glucksmann - have been the target of hybrid attacks that the prosecutor's office is investigating and that, according to the services, came from Russia. Why do you think Russia would attack these candidates and not the leaders in the polls for the election - those of the far right and the far left?
Natalie Loiseau:When I was elected to head the European Parliament's special committee on the protection of democracy from foreign interference and when its mandate was extended twice in a row, the extreme parties voted "against" each time. That says enough.
A few days ago, the special committee's report was adopted by a large majority at the plenary session of the European Parliament. The extreme parties voted "against" again. What does this mean? It means that, according to them, we don't need to fight against foreign interference. I think they think that these interferences work in their favor.
And we can hardly say that they are wrong, because I have never seen an interference directed against the far right. On the contrary, for years I have seen interferences in support of the far right, coming from Russia and the MAGA movement. It is understandable why the far right does not like to shed light on foreign interferences and why it does not want to take action against them. It believes that these interferences are useful for its own political campaign.
The most amazing thing is that they dare to call themselves "Patriots for Europe". When you benefit from foreign interferences, it is difficult to define yourself as a patriot.
In Bulgaria, the French presidential campaign arouses great interest - including because of the question of whether France's role in the security of Europe would change. This year, President Macron also announced an evolution in the country's nuclear umbrella doctrine. Do you think that if Edouard Philippe were elected president, France's role in European security would change?
Natalie Loiseau: When Emmanuel Macron updated the French nuclear doctrine in his speech in February, Edouard Philippe immediately said that he supported this change. On this issue, Edouard Philippe is in complete agreement and would not change anything. He is not someone who claims that the current state of the European Union is satisfactory. There are many things that can be significantly improved.
But he is not someone who says: "Since the state of the European Union is not satisfactory, let's destroy everything", as Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon do, albeit with more ambiguous formulations.
"This would be a catastrophe for the whole of Europe"
Because if France or Germany choose the path of an extreme party, we must call things as they are: in a very short time the European Union will no longer exist in its current form. And that would be a disaster for all of Europe.
What is the European Union lacking today in its response to the crises that surround us, including external interventions?
Natalie Loiseau: What I criticize is that sometimes there is a discrepancy between words and actions. Because words are often right, they create expectations, and if they are not followed by actions, these expectations are disappointed. Then many Europeans say to themselves that, in the end, Europe is not doing what it says.
And our opponents say to themselves: "Okay, all this is just talk, but behind it Europe is weak". We must be completely convincing, completely calm and completely determined in the face of the hybrid war that is being waged against Europeans today.
Let's take, for example, the foiled attack in Leipzig, we must realize what it is. This is a terrorist act that failed, but it is still a terrorist attack against a European country. We need to be very calm. We must not allow an escalation. But we also must not allow our adversaries to escalate their actions without an answer.
What could that answer be?
Natalie Loiseau: If Europe had first guaranteed the full implementation of sanctions against Russia, if Germany had fully participated in the fight against the Russian "shadow fleet", our position would have been strengthened from the start.
If France had not done everything possible to have more Russian tourists in France than at any time in history, we would also have been more convincing.
Also, if the aid provided to Ukraine had been greater than what we are providing today, because Ukraine's needs are greater than we had imagined.
Or if we used the frozen Russian assets that will one day be owed to Ukraine as war reparations anyway, that is not escalation.
All these are steps that send a signal to Russia that its interest is to end the war in Ukraine and stop the provocations in Europe. This is what brings us closer to peace.
Source: www.dw.com