Is the EU and will it ever be aDefence Alliance?

Alyson JK Bailes

Faculty of Political Science

THE EUROPEAN ARMY

Board of Commissioners SupremeCommander

Other forcesvia capitals

Germanforces

Council of Ministers +Consultative Committee

Liaison with NATO

(plus common arms production)

EUROPEAN DEFENCE COMMUNITY 1953

• Same idea as other ‘communities’ (Economic, Coal and Steel, EURATOM) - underlying ‘peace by merger’ concept

• Did not include UK• Voted down by French National

Assembly mostly because of anti-German concerns

• The alternative??

THE 1954 PACKAGE

• Brussels Treaty of 1948 joined by UK and (later) Germany+Italy. ‘Modified’ Treaty creates Western European Union

• Article V: ‘If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power.’

• Germany to enter NATO, which creates joint forces/plans w US

• Meaning: ‘European defence’ split: defence is not (just) European; European integration via ECs is not about defence

1954-1999 IN A NUTSHELL

NATO (defence) EC/EU (civilian)

WEU

(just talk)

---end-of--------------------------cold war--------

(hard)peaceops

(soft) security and diplomacy

WEU aslink on crisis management

‘EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY’

• French/British origins (St Malo)• Both frustrated by Kosovo: working with

USA, European (esp German) weakness, WEU no good

• France would also like ‘real’ European defence - without neutrals: BUT

• Britain wants to protect NATO, others want EU policy ‘at fifteen’ - HENCE:

HELSINKI DECISIONS DEC. 1999

• EU to create military arm JUST FOR CRISIS MANAGEMENT (anywhere)

• Military bits under CFSP structure (new High Rep, Political+Security Committee)

• Types of ops: rescue/humanitarian, monitoring and peacekeeping, ‘other uses of combat forces in crisis situations’ (eg peace enforcement)

WHAT ESDP HAS AND HASN’T GOT

(EU) (NATO)Central staffs Much bigger staffsAd hoc HQs ‘Supreme’ HQs‘Battle Groups’ of c 1500 NATO response

forceOther national forces All national forces (Headline Goal)New arms agency Military infrastructureCivilian capacities(All other tools eg money, aid)(tiny ops. budget) (even tinier budget)

ESDP OPERATIONS SO FAR

• 24 from 2003 up to and including Somalia ops, Guinea-Bissau

• Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo: others small, often temporary, low risk

• More civilian than military• Countries have free choice of input:

both biggest and smallest often hold back

WHAT DOES THE LISBON TREATY CHANGE?

• (very few practical differences in ESDP, unless ‘Permanent Structured Coopn’)

• Article 222: collective response to non-warlike emergencies (terror, disaster) -

possibly inc. use of military forces• Article 42.7: first-ever (since 1953)

mutual defence clause - BUT WHAT DOES IT SAY??

LISBON TREATY ART. 42.7

• If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States

( ie neutrals stay neutral)• Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent

with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation. (ie NATO still comes first for Allies, and might be used even to meet EU requests)

WHICH WAY NOW?

Obstacles to a ‘real’ EU defence:

Lack of money/strength/big nukes

National priorities, policies, cultures

Who is the (agreed) enemy?

(Ops outside Europe a matter of choice)

WHAT MIGHT PUSH: Money, US with- drawal/NATO failure, internal tasks…??