Posted on 12/08/2002 6:25:12 PM PST by blam
Europe's dreams of muscle dashed
The EU's hopes of becoming a defence superpower are looking less realistic, writes Ian Black.
Friday December 6, 2002
Americans were not at all amused a couple of years ago when a respected thinktank published a pamphlet analysing how the European Union should forge the common defence policies it hopes could help it play a bigger role on the world stage. The cover of the pamphlet was a clever pastiche of the iconic image of battle-weary US marines raising the stars and stripes on Iwo Jima, the Pacific island captured from the Japanese during bloody fighting in the second world war. But instead of Old Glory, this picture showed the blue and yellow starred EU banner.
That cheeky - or perhaps tongue in cheek - suggestion that Europe was a potential superpower was made before the September 11 attacks highlighted just how hard it is for the old continent even to begin to match the extraordinary power wielded by America.
Now, as transatlantic tensions mount over Iraq and the "war on terrorism", the signs are that the EU's faltering attempts to get its own act together are in a state of serious crisis. It is only two weeks since Nato - the institutional embodiment of European-US relations for half a century - decided at its Prague summit to build new military capabilities that would allow it to meet the strategic challenges of the 21st century.
The main intention is to narrow the gap between the US and Europe - in big transport planes, modern ships, precision-guided weapons, hi-tech surveillance equipment and secure communications. This kit is intended for use either by the alliance or by the EU, if there is a conflict, say in the Balkans, in which the US does not wish to be involved. Eleven of the union's 15 members are also in Nato.
So the decision by Germany to slash its military spending comes as a grave if predictable blow to these already slow-moving efforts. If Europe's biggest country and economy cannot do more to help it punch above its weight, some gloomy analysts believe, then the whole project may simply be doomed.
Britain is already quietly re-examining its approach to the EU's security and defence policy (ESDP), which was jointly pioneered by Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac in 1998 and started to gather momentum after the Kosovo war a year later showed just how little bang Europeans were getting for their bucks. In recent months, however, Anglo-French disagreements have multiplied over how ESDP can develop further without harming Nato. Strikingly, the British prime minister admitted publicly last week that EU allies thought he was being "difficult" on the subject.
Javier Solana, the union's foreign policy and security chief, has spent the past three years urging the 15 member states to forget about the post-cold war peace dividend and do more, even as eurozone budget restrictions, and now economic downturn, have limited their room for manoeuvre.
The figures show just how stark the contrast is: Germany spent 1.5% of its GDP on defence in 2001, compared with an average of European Nato members of about 2.1%. Britain and France spent 2.5% and 2.6% respectively while the US spent 3.2%. And after September 11 US spending was increased by a staggering $48bn dollars (£31bn) for 2003, more than any European annual defence budget.
George Roberston, the alliance secretary-general, has also been pushing hard for Europeans to spend more and spend more wisely. "The German decision is fairly serious and disappointing coming so soon after Prague," one Nato diplomat said. "Germany has just not pulled its weight."
Lord Robertson has repeatedly castigated EU member states for wasting taxpayers' money on duplicating outmoded equipment that fails to meet current needs - and reinforcing a culture in which Americans fight wars and Europeans "do the dishes". Both Nato and the EU understand that more has to be done to reform Europe's fragmented defence manufacturing sector.
Germany's long-trailed decision to cut down orders of the Airbus A400M military transport aircraft was an especially painful blow as it is central to the development of the EU's rapid reaction force. European governments are sharply aware that the 60,000-strong force will for many years be short of key capabilities such as heavy airlift and air-to-air refuelling. Some also fear that Nato's new American-driven plan for a "response force" to fight terrorists and rogue states will undercut its own ambitions.
The EU first did what it does best: created new institutional structures - and then boldly declared its force operational last year. It had hoped to make a peacekeeping debut in Macedonia in October by taking over from the Nato mission there. But in the end Nato renewed its mandate pending the resolution of problems on the EU side. To the fury of the French, Britain was not prepared to do anything that it thought might undercut the dominance of the Atlantic alliance. "Let's face it," shrugged one Whitehall official, "nothing can happen in the area of ESDP unless we want it to happen."
With a bit of luck, the Macedonia issue could be resolved at next week's Copenhagen summit, if Turkey - pushing hard for a date to start EU membership talks - agrees to remove its veto on the EU using Nato assets and equipment. And then there will be a modest landmark on New Year's Day when EU personnel take over the job of training Bosnia's police force from the UN. But a lot more will have to be done to translate Europe's more heavyweight defence aspirations into something that will impress a real enemy - let alone its worried American friends.
Hard to develop weapon systems when your population is a bunch of pacifist liberals, huh?
Hard to threaten anyone when "air superiority" in Europe means tossing croissant dough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.