No European country can any more afford to conduct military operations on its own. There is no alternative to a common defence policy. As well, isolation will lead to the end of our so old (and beloved) Nations. Opinions from a continental european.
Showing posts with label European Defence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Defence. Show all posts
Drifting on the web is one of my favorite games. Today, I would like to deal with those I would like to name the last Moonshiners of European Defence.
How is it the hell possible to draw a parallel between the late Popcorn Sutton, a renowned Appalachian moonshiner, and European powers?
Let me tell you!
First of all, as less than a quarter of my readers are Americans, here are some details on the Appalachian moonshiners. Those guys have been illegally making liquor for generations and belong to the American traditions. One of them, a iconic figure was named John 'Popcorn' Sutton, and he will be at the centre of this post. In the documentary that you can see here below, this 62 years old man, riding an Ford-T pick-up states:
'This is the last dam run of likker I'm ever gonna make'.
On a pretty regular basis I can read on the requests leading to this humble blog (I claim the word 'humble', when I compare the content of this blog to the ones listed in the blogroll), that some people had typed 'Eurocorps' and 'Mali' as keywords. My conclusion is that some pedagogy on European Defence is still needed. Therefore this article will be useless for those who are skilled in defence matters and is intended to the newcomers.
Well, let us start from the very beginning: there are three types of multinational operational headquarters. As the French operation in Mali is of land-centric type, i.e involving mainly land forces, let us focus on land headquarters.
Some days after France decided to deploy its troops in Mali, a quick look at the blogs and media dealing with defence and strategy let me deduce that, once again, Europe was sentenced to whatever you want for having been unable to react on time to counter the islamist threat coming from the Sahara.
Let us get deeper into the funniest critic I could read. I mean the lack of support by our main allies.
Indeed, that's a fact: neither the UK, nor Germany, even less Spain and Italy or Poland provided troops to reinforce the French ones. The only significant support they decided to offer, beyond the usual political backing, are transport aircraft, like C-17 by the UK and the USA, Transall by Germany and C-130 by Belgium, for instance. I was even told that this support was constrained by many caveats or even by the price!
Today, while speaking about our respective blogs, my daughter suggested me something foolish: draw a link between European Defence and Gangnam Style.
First assumption: Psy, the singer has never heard about European Defence. O.K, this is an easy statement. But it deserves being done, as a matter of principle.
While reading in detail the report of the group of experts on a new strategic concept for NATO, lead by Mrs Albright, I felt as if I was dreaming. Indeed, page 25, the experts dared writing: “The new strategic concept should recognise that the EU’s Treaty of Lisbon is designed, among other purposes, to strengthen Europe’s military capabilities and command structures”.
My extreme surprise was provoked by the comparison between this statement and the government program endorsed by the Britsh Conservatives and their LibDem allies. I just remind you that this agreement does not contain one word on European Defence. Clearly, it means that both parties could not reach an agreement on this point, and by such it will remain pending as long as the situation remains as such.
Frankly, it will not change. The coalition will be complicated enough for every day business, they will not need additional conflicts, all the more that those conflicts are conceptual ones and are not the result of some campaign stances or programs. To have more details on this point, everybody can refer to the conservative manifesto, which states: “we believe that NATO, whilst in need of reform, should remain the cornerstone of our defence. Matters of enormous national sensitivity, such as defence procurement, are better dealt through intergovernmental bilateral and multilateral negotiations, rather than through supranational institutions.
We will therefore examine resources currently spent on bureaucratic and wasteful EU defence initiatives and spend the money on our servicemen and women. As part of that we will reevaluate our position with the European Defence Agency as part of the Strategic Defence Review.” (I already made use of it in a previous post).
However, in order to have a more accurate approach of the current British policy as for the EU, or Common Security and Defence Policy refers, I would rather read the speech, very interesting by the way, that Mr Liam Fox, the new British Secretary for Defence made on 11th February 2010. He then said: “With the Lisbon Treaty we have what is now called "Common Security and Defence Policy" - an arcane change in the nomenclature, you might think, but in the detail lay the foundations of EU integrationists leaning away from NATO”.
Obviously, Mrs Albright, who hence pleaded against duplication must be looked at as an ‘integrationist’.
Therefore I cannot see any significant and real progress regarding European Defence, within the few next years:
-Conceptually the UK conservative Secretary for Defence, Mr Liam Fox, is against. As former member of the conservative shadow cabinet, his position opinion is for sure the valid one within the whole party.
-The LibDems, the other party of the coalition, is not strong enough to amend such a view.
-Being one of the two European nuclear powers and the European country spending the most on Defence, it is almost impossible to build a credible defence in Europe without or, worse, against the UK.
For these reasons, the nice statement of the group of experts will for sure remain a wish for a couple of years if not more.
Otherwise, we should resign ourselves to build up a European Defence without the UK, making use of the Reinforced Structured Cooperation, as foreseen by Lisbon Treaty. But, who would be able to do so?
After the coalition agreement signed by both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on 11th May, some analysts casted a shadow on the solidity of the new British government. I will now just have a look on their respective programs regarding European Defence. Just to have an idea if this process could develop despite the new government.
Frankly I would say now. Nothing at all will happen, and even to reproduce what de Gaulle said when the United Kingdom bought the Polaris missiles to the USA in the 60’s, the LibDems could still abandon their ideas for some governmental seats.
Firstly, let us read the conservative armed forces manifesto. For instance, the NATO “should remain the cornerstone of (…UK…) defence”. Moreover, they “will therefore examine resources currently spent on bureaucratic and wasteful EU defence initiatives”. Which is rather surprising, is that all those provisions are already included in the Lisbon Treaty. Precisely the article 42 mentions that “the policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework”. Indeed, a restrictive reading of the Lisbon Treaty is not so far from the conservative stance. From the very beginning the Treaty has foreseen such cases of a country not willing to take part. Regarding the “wasteful EU defence initiatives”, we can say all right: give back the jobs you have in EU Military Staff (including the boss), the HQ for Atalanta and that’s it, UK will be no more involved in those wasteful initiatives. But I really do not believe so.
However the compatibility with the LibDems is more questionable. In Autumn 2008, the LibDems were more audacious. Then, strongly supporting the ESDP in their conference paper, “Liberal Democrats see the potential for ESDP as encouraging more EU countries to play their part in European and wider international security “.
“Moreover, the ESDP also has the potential to reduce the costs of defence to the UK taxpayer, whilst maintaining our defence capabilities and improving the safety and welfare of our armed forces. This potential arises partly from the prospect of the European Defence Agency being able to reduce the costs of procurement and improve inter-operability”. While on their side the Conservatives think, that “matters of enormous national sensitivity, such as defence procurement are better dealt through inter-governmental bilateral and multilateral negotiations, than through supranational institutions” like European Defence Agency.
Finally, what is the synthesis of those diverging views? For the time being: zero, nada, nichts. Their coalition agreement will be completed later on by a final agreement covering defence…
Such different views will not allow the UK to be a driving country as for European Defence refers. Therefore countries like France, which are more active in the issue will have to choose: -Either the UK, which will remain at least very passive, although its defence policy and organization, with nuclear deterrence and expeditionary warfare knowhow is rather close from French one, -Or, Germany, which is opposed to nuclear weapons and is in favour of a European Army, which do not match, but quite not the French views.
I will not be very optimistic on the capabilities of those three major countries to find an agreement on the issue.
The tragedy that occurred while the Polish Presidential flight was near to land haseen the death of the President as well as the main Polish military leaders and family members of those who had been assassinated in Katyn.
As for European Defence refers, in the recent years Poland has irritated France, while buying the F-16, supporting the USA in Iraq, then Germany about the issue of the borders and Russia when reinforcing its links with the NATO and the USA.
Again very active in the field of Defence, Poland has decided to seat at the rank it deserves in Europe. Being one of the largest European nations, Poland doesn't want to stay at the outskirts of the EU, including in the field of Defence. In order to fully play the role that Poland has assessed to be the one it ought to play, this country is investing in Eurocorps, final aim being to become a full member (or framework nation) with the same rights and duties than France, Spain, Germany, Belgium or Luxembourg. Click (here) for the Eurocorps source and (here) for the press.
This large movement of integration of European armies should not been neglected: being obviously a top-down approach, imposed by the political power, this movement will not be seen positively by our respective defence forces which struggle strongly against the cuts in their budgets. However, it will come up sooner or later, as our nations are fighting to save the single Euro. Defence is a perfect gold mine.
I will try to write a post on EU defence expenditure in the near future.
On 31st March O. Kempf, wrote on his blog (here), that the WEU was coming to its end.
Of course, the author expressed his strong regrets and in his analysis assessed that this decision was not totally opportune.
I fully support his assessment, firstly because he is very competent in all geopolitical issues, secondly because the press statements of WEU member nations do not match.
As a first approach I do not see this as a major decision of our governments: most of the WEU had been already since a while handed over to the EU Council, as the Secretary General of the EU was double hatted SecGen of the WEU. Torrejon is the best example of this transfer of authority. The only remains of the WEU was the parliamentary assembly, renamed lately ESDA.
France and its partners have decided to withdraw from the WEU as a consequence of the Lisbon Treaty and the progress of the European construction, as the EU has taken over all the functions of WEU.
The German federal cabinet has decided to withdraw from the WEU. Continuing with the WEU would create duplication with the EU structures. Dissolving the WEU means that the place to discuss about European security is the EU.
Firstly Spain speaks on behalf of all the contracting parties.
NATO and the Lisbon Treaty are the basis for collective defence. Spain will make sure that the discussions between the national Parliaments will go on, based on the protocol n°1 of the Lisbon Treaty.
I suppose that the Spanish Government refers to the article 9 (page 203 of the Lisbon Treaty).
The WEU role was essentially symbolic referring to collective defence. The current work of the parliamentary assembly is not the cost of 2 millions Euros a year for UK alone worth. And the most important: “Given the inter-governmental nature of CSDP, we believe, however, that this remains fundamentally a matter for national parliaments. There is no reason and no case for the European Parliament to expand its competence in this area”.
An easy conclusion is that Germany has a very federalist approach, while the UK relies on the inter-governmental relations, agreeing with Spain, only on the role of the NATO, while France and Germany simply ignore it.
Obviously the role of forum that the Parliamentary Assembly of the WEU was playing was not that stupid, as it could help our nations getting a common approach on defence matters. Indeed, for the time being, the European Parliament, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty plays no role in the issue as Defence and its budgets (of course) remain purely in the national field of competence.
Therefore, I join O. Kempf: we know what we loose, not what we gain. Having met Robert Walter several times, I really think that he will strive maintaining an inter-governmental parliamentary structure. Isn’t he a UK –conservative member of the House of Commons? In any case, the UK will never (at least in the next decade) support the German federalist approach.
On 6th February 2010, Mr Gido Westerwelle, the German Minister of foreign affairs, stated that « the long term goal is the establishment of a European army under full parliamentary control » (source: euobserver.com). Indeed this statement made a lot of fuzz.
However this is not exactly a surprise. German top political parties have already expressed the same views in the past. For instance, SPD (the social-democrat party) published on 5th May 2008, a position paper named « towards a European Army ». This German party wrote at that time: « in the long term we want a European Army whose deployment must be legitimated parliamentarily ». Already during the campaign for the parliamentary elections of 2009, Mr Westerwelle’s political programm stated clearly: « Langfristiges Ziel bleibt für die FDP der Aufbau europäischer Streitkräfte unter gemeinsamem Oberbefehl und voller parlamentarischer Kontrolle », which means exactly « the long term objective of FDP remains the set up of european armed forces under common command and full parliamentary control ». On their side, Mrs Angela Merkel’s party, the CDU, wrote in their program for the European elections that « Wir setzen uns weiterhin für gemeinsame europäische Streitkräfte als Fernziel ein », that is « moreover, we commit ourselves for common European armed forces as a long term objective ».
For the time being, this project goes against the German constitution. All right. Nevertheless, everybody knows in Europe that when Germans have an idea, they stick to it, as it is the result of long, and sometimes very boring debates and discussions, which aim at creating a consensus, giving a guideline that everybody in the party will accept.
For this reason, I would strongly recommend our Nations not to neglect those statements. Expressed by the three parties, which usually rule Europe’s most powerful country, these words, extremely clear, express a real goal to reach within the next twenty years. Obviously this common statement is the result of a sound analysis of the situation:
-Germany is the largest contributor to European Union.
-Germany is fed up of paying without playing the role it deserves.
-Germany wants its role on the international scene to be at the level of its economic power.
-However it can and want no more operate on its own on the different crisis.
Currently, two pillars Germany can rely on to exert its influence are: Europe and NATO. The only alliance which offers a global approach able to respond to the German ambition, and in which this country can really play a leading role is the EU.
As for the role of the parliament refers, I would add that it is a prerequisite to make the idea of European Army acceptable to the German population, as it is the guarantee that their country will not be committed in adventurous conflicts like the former colonial powers that are France or the UK, as this is how Germans still perceive us, at least in the public opinion.
Welcome everybody and frankly, nobody, at least for the time being.
My purpose is to write short items on European Defence. By the way, you should not think that I am an European Defence freak.
Really not. I love Nato and Oberammergau.
However I am living everyday on the European continent (my poor english language is the absolute proof), and Europe is our common past, our common future.
We should not forget that British kings were once kings of France (or at least tried to be) and that Sir W. Churchill proposed in 1940 to merge both nations in one.
I sincerely hope that one day I will have the opportunity to create some interesting exchanges on this topic.
