The EU member states have given up a substantial portion of their sovereignty so that the EU could speak with one voice at the international stage. However, despite all the claims, there is no consistent foreign policy approach, and the EU has not matched its aspirations to become a major global player. The crisis in Libya, the level of sanctions against the Syrian regime, and more recently the sanctions against Russia have shown that is unlikely for the EU to speak with one voice. In fact, even Mr Juncker has conceded that the EU common foreign policy is not working. However, he stressed the need for “a stronger Europe”.
According to the European Commission working programme “The EU needs an effective common foreign policy with better mechanisms to anticipate events and to swiftly identify common responses to common challenges, and common actions to seize opportunities from which we can only fully benefit together.” It is important to recall that Juncker has made clear, during his campaign ahead of the European Parliament elections that he wants to make the “High Representative act like a true European Minister of Foreign Affairs”.
Mr Juncker also wants “a stronger Europe when it comes to security and defence matters.”
By stressing the need for a “permanent structured cooperation” the President of the European Commission has shown his desire for further EU military and defence integration. In fact, he has recently reiterated his long-standing view and called for the creation of a EU army. In an interview with the Welt am Sonntag the President of the European Commission pointed out that “Europe has lost a huge amount of respect” however he believes that a EU single army would help the EU be taken more seriously as a global actor. According to Mr Juncker “With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighbouring state”. In fact, he believes that an EU army would give important message to the world, “A joint EU army would show the world that there would never again be a war between EU countries”. Unsurprisingly, the idea behind an EU army, is to encourage further and further EU integration, as he said “Such an army would also help us to form common foreign and security policies and allow Europe to take on responsibility in the world.”
Germany is one of the most reluctant EU member states to deploy military forces therefore, unsurprisingly, it is keen on the idea of the EU having a single army. It is important to recall, as Bill Cash pointed out, it has been attempting to establish a European defence policy with majority voting. In fact, last November at a COSAC meeting in Rome, the German delegation formally proposed a defence Commissioner and a defence Council of Ministers and reiterated the idea of an EU military headquarters. Bill Cash, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, argued against it and the British delegation was able to defeat the proposal, however the German delegation insisted that “it will have to be put back on the agenda at the next conference” and added that “Great Britain will simply not be able to maintain their line”.
Germany clearly supports Juncker’s idea. The German Defense Minister, Ursula Von der Leyen, although stressing “not in the short term”, she said “This interweaving of armies, with the perspective of one day having a European Army, is, in my opinion, the future.” Angela Merkel, according to Christiane Wirtz, the deputy government spokeswoman, believes that there should be “deeper military cooperation in Europe.” According to The New York Times, Donald Tusk said that “NATO …forms the bedrock of European security and Europeans need to do more after years of steady defense cuts.” However, he noted that “Europeans should consider “a new and more ambitious defense and security policy,” and “not only as part of NATO,”.
The European Parliament has also been calling for EU army. In February 2009 the European Parliament adopted by a large majority Karl Von Wogau’s own initiative report entitled “European security strategy and ESDP” which called for further European military integration. The MEPs, at the time, considered “that a common defence policy in Europe requires an integrated European Armed Force which consequently needs to be equipped with common weapon systems so as to guarantee commonality and interoperability.” The European Parliament has also recently adopted a non-legislative resolution on the annual report on EU Foreign and Security policy. Unsurprisingly, the majority backing the report was composed of the grand pro EU coalition, the EPP, the S&D and ALDE. According to the MEPs “a credible EU foreign policy must be underpinned by adequate defence capabilities in the member states and an effective Common Security and Defence Policy”. They are therefore calling for “ambitious decisions to be taken at the June summit.” In fact, Elmar Brok, the rapporteur and chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said “I welcome the proposal for a European army but demand that we now make use of the possibilities enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, such as permanent structural cooperation, procurement and research, and pooling and sharing”.
The idea of a common EU army has always been rejected by Britain. According to David Cameron “It makes sense for nation states to cooperate over matters of defence to keep us all safer… but it is not right for the EU to have capabilities, armies, air forces and the rest of it”. Obviously, the government describe Juncker’s idea of an EU army as unacceptable. According to a government spokesman the government’s position is “that defence is a national – not an EU – responsibility and that there is no prospect of that position changing and no prospect of a European army.” David Lidington also said to the House of Commons that the “British Government do not share the view that a European army would be helpful or necessary” as it believes “that NATO is and should remain the centrepiece of our collective defence and security arrangements.”
There is no benefit in having a European army, as it would overlap with NATO, duplicating, weakening, and undermining its work. Moreover, one can just wonder how such idea would work in practice, as 28 EU member states have different security interests and it would be very difficult to reconcile them. It would be very difficult to all member states to agree to deploy an army somewhere. As Geoffrey Van Orden said Juncker is living in a “fantasy world”, as “If our nations faced a serious security threat, who would we want to rely on – Nato or the EU? The question answers itself,”.
It has been said that a EU army is a long-term objective and, as David Lidington recalled “any move towards establishing greater European military integration” requires “consensus among member states”. In fact, the Common Security and Defence Policy is part of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy and decisions relating to this area are taken by the European Council and the Council of the European Union by unanimity, but there are exceptions relating to the European Defence Agency and permanent structured cooperation where majority voting applies.
It is important to recall that the Lisbon Treaty has marked the start of a new phase of defence integration for the EU, as by signing the Lisbon Treaty, all Member States have become committed to the goal of a common defence. The Conservative party has been strongly against to the Lisbon Treaty’s defence provisions, including the permanent structured co-operation.
The Permanent Structured Co-operation is a framework by which a group of Member States can decide to build closer relations and co-operation. It is for the Member States who want to be committed to take part in main European military equipment programmes and to provide combat units, which would be available for immediate action to the Union. Moreover, the participating Member States would have to carry out measures such as harmonising the identification of their military needs, pooling of assets, cooperation in the areas of training and logistics, identifying common objectives regarding the commitment of forces. It would entail a review of national decision making procedures in what concerns the deployment of forces.
It is important to recall that, after consulting the High Representative, the Council decides, by QMV, whether to set up the permanent structured cooperation and determine the list of participants Member States. Hence, Britain will not be able to veto such decision. Therefore, the permanent structured cooperation might be established against the will of some Member States. The participating Members would be able to use the CFSDP for their own purposes. Moreover, once the permanent structured cooperation is established only participating Member States are allowed to adopt decisions relating to the development of structured cooperation as well as the future participating Member States.
The Member States have not debated yet a possible implementation of this so-called Permanent Structured Cooperation. However, taking into account the current economic situation and the substantial cuts on defence budgets, such idea is gathering support among several member states. They have already agreed to enhance defence cooperation by sharing and pooling military capabilities in order to reduce costs.
A permanent structured cooperation would look like the euro zone in defence matters, and will endanger Britain‘s defence interests. By having in place a Permanent Structured Cooperation Brussels will move forward towards military and defence integration. This would be a step towards a Single European Army, which has already been called for by several member states, namely Germany and France. Unsurprisingly, Mr Juncker also favours the creation of a Permanent Structured Cooperation, and stressed that in his political priorities. Mr Juncker has denied being a federalist. Yet, his political priorities, such the creation of a permanent structured cooperation and making the high representative for foreign affairs a foreign minister, entail further steps towards a federal state.
There is an attempt to create a defence identity within the EU and step-by-step the EU is endeavouring to replace NATO with a unified defence and security policy, which will significantly weaken UK own policy.
It remains to be seen what will come out from the EU defence summit that will take place in June and whether further steps toward a European army are taken. Several Member States are very keen in implementing a real common European defence policy. Any move towards further EU integration in this area is a threat to an independent British Foreign and Defence Policy. As Geoffrey Van Orden said “…the EU’s defence ambitions are detrimental to our national interest, to Nato, and to the close alliances that Britain has with many countries outside the EU – not least the United States, Gulf allies, and many Commonwealth countries.”
Brussels is moving inevitably towards “ever closer union”. Whilst people in Europe are saying NO to further integration, the EU, step by step, is moving towards a federal political union. The EU army might be a long-term project but it is part of the overall aim of creating a political union. A single EU army would require political oversight, which could only be provided by turning the EU into a federal state.
There is now a general acceptance that the EU needs reform. However, the other EU member states are not prepared to accept a fundamental renegotiation of the Treaties. The status quo is not an option let alone when the EU, particularly eurozone, moves towards further integration, fiscal and political union. As Bill Cash has been saying “it is only Conservative seats won in the House of Commons that can deliver change on the European issue but this requires the acceptance within the Conservative Party of fundamental renegotiation of all the treaties, the supremacy of Parliament and a fundamental change in the structural relationships of the UK to the EU, just nibbling at the Treaties wont do the job.”
