Europe wants an army of its own

It seems that EU has understood that military power outweighs economic capacity. This is a possible interpretation of the statement made last weekend by Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, who proposed the creation of a European army. In the interview for German newspaper Die Welt am Sonntag he emphasized the symbolic value of such project. “A joint EU army would show the world that there would never again be a war between EU countries,” said the politician. “Europe has lost a huge amount of respect. In foreign policy too, we don’t seem to be taken entirely seriously,” he added. At the same time, Juncker assured that his initiative was not proposed to instigate the competition with NATO, but only in order to have Europe take more responsibility in what’s happening in the world.

Additionally, the president mentioned that an EU army might serve as a deterrent and be of use in the Ukrainian crisis. “With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighboring state,” said Juncker.

The idea was supported in Germany by Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier, vice-Chancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs. However, both politicians agreed that the project may only be viable in the long term perspective and it needs comprehensive discussions at EU level.

Ursula von der Leyen, German Minister of Defense, indicated that an EU army, in case it comes to existence, will not be an alternative to NATO, but only “strengthen a European pillar in the transatlantic alliance.” Sauli Niinisto, President of Finland, has also endorsed the undertaking, noting that the establishing of the army would be a major step for EU in defense of its values.

On the other hand, UK spoke against it. In regards of a European army, the spokesman of the British government stated as follows: “Our position is crystal clear that defense is a national – not an EU      – responsibility and that there is no prospect of that position changing and no prospect of a European army.”

Russia, in its constant attempts to divide EU and NATO, also opposes the creation of such army. Frants Klintsevitch, deputy Chairman of United Russia faction in Duma, said: “In case EU creates a joint army, it might play the role of a provocation.” He followed his statement with an argument that “in our nuclear times, additional armies cannot guarantee the safety.”

The viability of Juncker’s initiative will be clarified in June – as Margaritis Schinas, European Commission spokesman, has said, the idea of a European army will be considered at the EU summit, which will take place in that month. According to Schinas, the base of the discussion will be formed in the joint analysis by European Commission, EU diplomacy representative Federica Mogherini, and EU member states.

COMMENTARIES

Edward LUCAS, senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, author of the book The New Cold War:

“It’s a nice idea but not to be taken seriously. Creating a European army, especially if Britain and Turkey (two of the three real military powers) won’t take part. Much better and more practical would be to develop the French Foreign Legion into a European Foreign Legion.”

John HERBST, former US Ambassador to Ukraine, American Council member:

“Jean-Claude Juncker’s call for an EU army is an old theme that we have not heard recently. Many years since the turn of the millennium, officials in the EU and some European capitals, especially Paris, spoke of the need to build up the EU as an independent center of power apart from the US. One element of such talk was to develop an EU military component distinct from NATO. The limits of this idea were evident during the Libyan crisis in 2011. France and the UK decided to intervene before the Obama Administration had taken a decision. Even though France had been the most important European state arguing for a stronger EU position, it did not go to the EU for support when it needed help with the intervention. It went to NATO.

“The advocates of a greater EU role in the international system have also argued historically that this was necessary because the US resorted to military action too frequently and the EU with its soft power was often a more appropriate instrument. While this argument has some merit, the EU has not performed well in the Ukraine crisis. It has found it difficult to establish and maintain unity among all its members in wielding its soft power (in the form of sanctions) in response to Kremlin aggression. It has also refused to apply its own energy policy to Russia, which would make it harder for Moscow to use its gas weapon against Ukraine.”

Roland FREUDENSTEIN, deputy director of the Martens Center in Brussels:

“With his demand for an EU army, Juncker hasn’t said anything radically new, which is also why German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen and other German politicians were quick to second him. Juncker emphasized that it’s a long term perspective, and as such it has always been part and parcel of the narrative of an ever closer union. But there is a certain inconsistency here if Mr. Juncker wants a European army as a signal to Russia that the EU is serious about defending its values. Because in that case, one would need the EU army right now. Fortunately, there is NATO with its Article 5 guarantee of mutual defense. And for the foreseeable future, NATO will remain the backbone of the West’s defense against aggression. Equally for the foreseeable future, Europe will have to rely on strong cooperation with the United States and Canada for security, especially in the case of nuclear deterrence. The EU and its member states should, however, intensify their efforts at military modernization and ‘pooling and sharing’ their defenses, in order to make more of their expenditures. That includes higher defense spending, but goes far beyond that into using military structures jointly between two or several countries, and strengthening the capacity to carry out joint missions under the ‘permanent structured cooperation’ as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty. A stronger role for defense policy coordination in the EU institutions (Parliament, EU Council) and better cooperation in research and arms production are also necessary. All these are the building blocks of what will one day in the future become a real European defense which, for the time being, however, is being taken care of by NATO.”