A few years back, as I noted on Twitter recently, I co-wrote a paper about the need for an integrated European Defence. (Available in PDF here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354854532_The_European_Union’s_Foreign_Policy_Future_Towards_an_Integrated_European_Defence)
We outlined the choice before the EU as follows:
“The EU has two choices; either forfeit ambitions of further integrated foreign affairs and return competences to nation-states or unite its members’ foreign policy. This chapter primarily seeks the consider the latter option. Hence, this investigation is placed at the heart of the EU’s struggle to build identity and legitimacy internationally”
Now, the necessity of the latter is more obvious.
The EU has often struggled to meaningful impact its neighbours development, and even struggles internally to keep people in check i.e Hungary. In addition, we see the dependency on the US for defence via NATO as naïve, and the urgent need for the EU to be sufficiently able to both handle security threats, and also, be taken more seriously. There are several reasons why it is crucial we have an integrated, European defence system, an EU army if you will. I will summarise the justifications:
- The EU and Europe cannot rely on the USA.
The French have said this a long time, and many nations who have been allies of the USA in the world have been let down (more on that in a moment). With Trump looking like he could once again sit in the White House (and the fact he could even stand in the election bewildering many of us), we can see the US is not reliable. The EU needs to take a lead on its own defence industry, its own strategy, and handle threats within the European Neighbourhood.
- The USA and NATO have a bad reputation in the global south.
This is an undeniable reality. Many dislike the USA because of, say, the War on Terror, War on Drugs, its stance on Israel, or its Cold War meddling around the world, backing very dubious actors (Saudi Arabia, many far right militias, cartels, and dictators etc.) and people do not believe it when it says it defends democracy. However, the EU does not quite have the same reputation. Of course, there are post-colonial grievances from many nations, however, it would be reasonable to expect parts of Africa or South America to be more trusting of an EU military force than the US led NATO forces.
- It can compliment NATO.
An EU integrated security apparatus or Army, if we want, would be able to work within the confines of NATO. However, the fundamental working difference would be that each nation, would have another level of security from just NATO. By unifying many smaller nations and pooling them in an EU army, we could expect better effectiveness of any NATO military activities.
- It can help give the EU greater potential for its goals of democracy and stability.
This would particularly apply among potential new members, and secure the European Neighbourhood’s security in the process. In the article, we actually talked about the total failure of the EU to intervene in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations. Being a hard power, not just a soft power, would give it better capacity to act as peacekeepers, and engage in the nations that may wish for assistance. Additionally, a nation would not have to join the EU and NATO to be secure from say, Russia, as the EU would already offer a considerable protection
- It can be more proactive than NATO.
Consider the lengthy debates to get Sweden and Finland into NATO, as well As Ukraine. EU does not require the same degree of consensus as NATO. On the same grounds, it could also engage in security operations, whatever the nature, more efficiently and actively. This isn’t to say it would be an antagonistic force, rather, more effective and reactive.
What are the objections?
“This would be authoritarian!”
There was a time, especially in the UK with the Brexit debate surrounding us, the idea of a “European Army” was framed as some sort of totalitarian nightmare and actually helped Brexit. Giving power to a supranational body could, reasonably, be seen as a concern for those of us who value freedom and democracy. However, there is no real reason to believe this, and the risks of a fractured Europe, with vulnerabilities from aggression from Russia, would lead to more degradation of individual and political freedoms. Furthermore, if we have agreed that a military is necessary for a nation-state to exist and defend itself, then it is unclear how the EU, with all its checks and balances, having a coordinated military defence, would lead to any worse tyranny. Nations would have their own sovereignty, their own militaries, their own desires. However, if and when needed, they can collaborate, securing Europe’s security for all.
How would it work?
In reality, it would most likely be a coordinated force, pooling different aspects of armies across the EU (and potentially its neighbours and other European nations who were committed to the EU project), into a more coherent force. Obviously, we have NATO already, so the question is reasonable to ask “what is the point”. But, an EU army within NATO, which can still coordinate its own members and, crucially, not depend on the USA, is possible, and, desirable.
There are of course many challenges in the establishment of a European defence. The details of the relationship with NATO i.e if the Eu is requested by the USA to engage in a conflict majority disagree with, would it be forced to? Here we would run into issues regarding sovereignty. There would, arguably, need to be some form of agreement to help with defence, but to prevent one rogue EU nation going on an unpopular military venture and dragging everyone with it, there would need to be some form of consensus approach. Perhaps not unanimous, as this could make it ineffective and unable to take action as certain nations may spoil certain efforts. However, it is of course reasonable to insist a nation cannot forcibly send troops to an endeavour it is against politically and morally. The other key reason we need not worry is that it would be primarily a defensive force, rather than an offensive force to go and get involved in wars overseas. There may be situations where EU efforts are pooled, for example as peacekeepers in the European Neighbourhood, but there would need to be strict rules.
A different kind of risk is that the EU is nothing if not bureaucratic. This could be slow to act, even with consensus. There would need to be a separate body to determine its actions over say, putting it under the control of the EU Council or Parliament. There would need to be democratic input, the parliament can perhaps have a say, but if it was a defensive organisation, fundamentally, its use would be in the interests of all nations and it should be able to react to actual threats on its border and internally. When it comes to the European Neighbourhood, then there would need to be some democratic discussion to ensure against unjust intervention.
Would it have a consensus or democratic approach to approve of military action?
For example, must there be voting to engage in joint activities to ensure unanimity, or a percentage, or some form of consensus. I’ve already argued we should not have unanimous votes of member states as a guiding principle, as it would weaken the endeavour. However, the system must be developed and considered along with the calls for an EU army. A majority vote, or perhaps a less direct approach wherein leaders who are voted for routinely can determine actions, with parliamentary votes for non-immediate defensive actions i.e peacekeeping in the European Neighbourhood.
How do you stop free riders from benefiting without contributing?
This is an entirely fair question, as the EU has definitely had, has, and will have nations and governments that do just that. There would be some requirement fro EU membership to contribute a percentage of forces/equipment/funding to the EU defence, and to benefit from its protection. That way, someone like, say, Orban or Fico couldn’t benefit from its protection while ignoring its obligations.
These are other valuable questions that have to be considered before considering such a policy and ones we raised in the article. But, ultimately, there is a pressing need for an integrated defence. With the USA’s military commitments under scrutiny, Europe needs to be more sufficient anyway. Considering an EU army can be a way to meaningfully motivate Europe to take its defence more seriously, improve its hard power capabilities in the neighbourhood as it would be more taken seriously, and be more effective in security of the people of Europe, and arguably beyond.
Leave a Reply