Europe cannot rely on the US for its defence
It’s about time EU countries worked together to develop an effective European Defence Union
Donald Trump attended a meeting of Nato leaders here last week. Addressing his peers in front of a new memorial for the September 11 attacks, the embattled American president refused to commit himself clearly to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, according to which an attack on one member state is considered an attack on all. The only time in Nato’s history that this principle of collective defence has been invoked was immediately after the September 11 attacks.
Despite that, Trump once again castigated his Nato allies for failing to make progress toward the target of spending 2 per cent of their gross domestic product on defence, jointly agreed to in 2006 and to be achieved by 2024. The number of countries that have met the 2 per cent target since the agreement has fallen from six to five, showing that some European Union countries are in reverse gear.
It is true that European countries do need to focus more attention on defence. For too long in Europe, we have relied on the United States for our collective security. The growing threat of an expansionist Russia, combined with President Trump’s reluctance to recognise this threat and Britain’s increasing retreat to isolationism, shows that Europe needs to take more responsibility for its own security.
As Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, put it: “The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over.” Speaking after Nato and Group of 7 meetings, she said, “We have to fight for our own future ourselves, for our destiny as Europeans.”
For me, though, the real debate to be had in the coming years is not whether the 2 per cent target is met by the 27 European Union countries. It is rather the fact that Europe’s defence forces are riddled with inefficiencies and duplication, which have undermined the union’s capabilities.
Per capita, Europe spends a little more than 40 per cent of what America does on defence, yet we have only about 10 to 15 per cent of its operational capacities, which shows that military spending alone does not equate to enhanced operational capabilities. As Judie Dempsey of the Carnegie Europe think tank rightly points out, European countries have designs for 17 different main battle tanks, 20 different fighter planes, 29 different destroyers or frigates and 20 different torpedo systems. This structural variation is wasteful. It reduces the interoperability of systems, instead of encouraging it.
Rather than obsess about a 2 per cent target at all costs, European Union countries
For the first time, the European Commission is preparing a budget for military spending to fund joint defence research projects, an aim I firmly welcome
should work together to develop an effective European Defence Union. If it spent strategically, within one defence framework and one defence market, the union could theoretically afford, within the current budgetary limits and respecting the Nato commitment of spending at 2 per cent of GDP, to sustain one of the world’s most modern and powerful military forces.
So far, despite some progress, it has proved extremely difficult for member states to pool their military resources and reduce the needless duplication of military capabilities. The European Defence Agency, set up precisely to share resources, has had an uphill struggle to achieve its goal.
There has been some success in the integration of battle divisions within Europe. Czech units are becoming increasingly integrated with German forces, as are the Dutch, each playing to their strengths. The Eurocorps, a permanent multinational rapid-reaction force involving troops from nine member states and established for both Nato and European Union purposes, was declared operational in 1995. This model of integration could be the nucleus from which fully integrated military forces under the aegis of the European Defence Union could grow. Such a union could also enable member states to develop a credible joint defence target.
A common defence union would allow a more joined-up approach to intelligence-sharing and cybersecurity. The leaking of malware designed by the National Security Agency by Russian hackers represents a serious threat to European infrastructure, as we saw with the recent ransomware attacks that hit many European countries. Experts suggest this was an amateur criminal operation, but the next attack could be far more devastating. The European Union could establish a common cyberwarfare capability at a relatively low cost.
For the first time, the European Commission is preparing a budget for military spending to fund joint defence research projects, an aim I firmly welcome. Again, this could facilitate the purchase of common assets and create the economies of scale necessary to enable the European Union to build a strong, united modern military, instead of 27 parallel structures. The European Defence Fund should therefore be a start toward the more effective acquisition of joint assets and capabilities.
A European Defence Union could also work to complete Europe’s defence market, to ensure the strategic autonomy of the European defence industry and strengthen its global competitiveness. This would create a sustainable and integrated European defence technology and industrial base.
The open and liberal character of our societies can be preserved only if our internal resilience is strengthened. That also includes reinforcing our capability to deter attacks against our territory and our ability to project power and stabilize our regional neighborhood. No European Union member state can face these tasks alone, which is why the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, should seize the initiative and present proposals for the wide-ranging European Defence Union I have outlined.
The Union should not undermine or seek to create structures parallel to Nato. The treaty organization must remain a bedrock of our common security, but a robust European pillar under Nato would ensure that we spend our limited resources efficiently, increase the union’s ability to act and better guarantee the security of our citizens.
Europeans have dithered about common defence for more than half a century. The election of Emmanuel Macron to the presidency in France, together with President Trump’s unclear commitment to his Nato allies, provide the opportunity for us to have an honest political debate about European security and how best to realise the Nato target we’ve agreed to. — NYT Syndicate
Guy Verhofstadt, former prime minister of Belgium, is the leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in the European Parliament and the author of
“Europe’s Last Chance: Why the European States Must
Form a More Perfect Union.”