Germany: the first steps towards a European Army.

The German federal ministry of Defence has made available on its website several key documents, which can help for a better understanding of what the future Bundeswehr will look like in the next years.

Of course, this new development is not initiated by a open-minded approach linked to the previous German statements aiming at setting up in a far future a European army. By the way, one comment: Germany, well known all over the world for its capability to create consensus (at least inside its borders), has reached a consensus on this topic. All political parties aiming to seat sooner or later at the government’s table support the objective of a European army.

Indeed the main reason for which the Federal Republic of Germany is accelerating its will to create the embryo of a European Army is to be found in the documents available on the ministerial Website. Those documents are:
Tagesbefehl des Bundesministers der Verteidigung (here)
Leitlinien zur Ausplanung der neuen Bundeswehr (here)

As usual, for those who cannot read German yet, I will develop my post on the basis of both documents.

Well, the reasons which have lead the German government to this defence review are the following ones:
-Adapt Bundewehr to the operations and the reduced budgets. Indeed we meet here the direct impact of Afghanistan and the financial crisis on the German Defence model. I mean that due the History, the Bundeswehr could not renounce in its organization to the “Landesverteidigung” (defence of national territory), as this is the cornerstone of the alliance between the Army and the Nation. However, the reality of Afghanistan forces Germany to review the principles of Bundeswehr as the expeditionary warfare will dominate the next years.
-The financial crisis is driving the events and the decisions. At the time the Euro was introduced, Germany was extremely reluctant and finally joined at its conditions. The seat of the European Central Bank being in Frankfurt was the sign of its strong will to dominate the Euro-zone. However the governance model of the Euro failed with Greece. Focussed on social stability through economical development, Germany could not accept jeopardize its social pact. Strong and painful decisions are necessary, among which a drastic reduction of the defence budgets.

In this framework, Germany is preparing a complete review of its defence system, including the first steps towards a German Army. Most important points are:
-In the future the only German national operations will be: evacuation of non-combatants, release of hostages and rescue German citizens. In fact, this is not new. I already met this concept in the early 2000s.
-Quite new is that Germany is ready to renounce to some capacities. In the guidance to the committee in charge of studying the structure reform, the Bundeswehr will have to find cooperation cooperation in education, logistics and structures for daily business and commitments, without creating political constraints or mutual obstacles. As well it will evaluate what tasks could be performed in common, abandoned to the allies, or taken over on behalf of the allies.
This is the core issue: one of Europe’s main countries seems ready to renounce to some elements of sovereignty as abandoning some capacities could mean a loss in autonomy of decision.

Isn’t it the first step towards a European Army?

Eurocorps: avant-garde of a European army?

After a post on Mr Westerwelle’s statement on a European Army, I think interesting to have a quick look on Eurocorps.

I will not come back to the history of this headquarters and the debate over its military capabilities. The focus will be put on its political relevance.

A major issue of European Defence is its ability to remain as neutral as possible in the midst of the various and sometimes opposing national interests of European countries, that we face, even in the official statements on a common decision (you can refer to my precedent post on the WEU –ESDA). To come back to neutrality, I do not mean neutrality during an operation, or in other words passivity in front of the opposing parties. This neutrality is a positive one, which can be understood as objectivity of the action as for the national goals of the participating parties refers.

Indeed, most of the current so to say multinational units are in fact national units with an international flavour. All of them are designed to keep the capability to set up a purely national headquarters and to lead an operation, even if one or the other participating nation withdraws for an operation. For instance, at the ARRC (Allied Rapid Reaction Corps) the commander and the chief of staff will always remain British officers five of the eight branch chiefs are Brits, a sixth one being an American officer. In contrary, in Eurocorps, the responsibilities as well as the burden, is fully shared between France, Germany, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg (in the order of the contribution) and very soon Poland.

In contrary, Eurocorps owns a unique structure in which the different nations are completely interwoven. You can see on Eurocorps website (here). This confidence mechanism prevents any single nation to confiscate the use of the force for its own purpose. One could say that such a system hinders dramatically the efficiency of a force a makes it unusable in real war. May be. However, I do not think if we really can choice. None of the European Nations is currently able to take the lead on behalf of the others. The example of the Napoleonic wars, where France owned the exclusive leadership within the ‘Grande Armée’, or the example of WWII, when the Wehrmacht was leading alone the units provided by their allies in the campaign against the Soviet Union is definitely over.

The cuts in Defence expenditures of our countries are a good illustration that the ‘Splendid isolation’ or the ‘Great nation’ syndromes should belong to the past. At least, this is the opinion of the European Parliament that our Nations (with the significant exception of Great Britain) claim to reinforce, by disbanding the WEU assembly. Mr Kuhne, then Member of the European Parliament (Germany- SPD), proposed in a resolution on ESDP, “to place Eurocorps as a standing force under EU command and invites all Member States to Contribute to it”.

This proposition was passed with a very large majority of 500 votes on 5^th June (here). This peculiar point on Eurocorps was not a matter of discussion. When referring to Mr Kuhne on the German position on this matter of a European army, at that time, Mr von Wogau (Germany- CDU) was the chairman of the subcommittee for Defence and Security.

Already at that time, German views on a potential European Army where not so much different than today.

Therefore I would say, may it please or not, at least in the minds of our German allies, there will be a European Army, and Eurocorps will play a role.

F.

PS: 13-02-24 : Link to a more recent article explaining why Eurocorps will not be committed in Mali

PS: this is the cover page of a book written by Mr Couraud, editor: Editions Hirlé.

Germany and thie idea of a European Army

Guido Westerwelle’s statement on European Army

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.