The Visegrád countries believe it’s time for the European Union to have its own army. The Visegrád Four, which consist of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, had already been toying for some time with the idea of having their own battle group. These battle groups, first conceived in 2003 by Britain and France to provide the EU with flexible forces that could deploy rapidly, do little else except train.
So the idea that the Visegrád countries are now pushing for the EU to have its own army when they can’t even mobilize a battle group lacks all credibility. Indeed, the calls are half-baked if not insincere. The EU is not going to have its own army, not least in the near future, for the following reasons.
First, the Visegrád Four leaders are linking the existence of a European army to internal security. Bohuslav Sobotka, the Czech prime minister, said that “only EU-wide armed forces will allow us to defend our interests on our own.” He was keen to insist that such an army would not compete with NATO. However, he added, an EU military force should become “a more actionable and reliable partner”—as if NATO wasn’t anything but reliable. None of the Visegrád leaders has asked about the use of hard power or whether an EU army should be used for missions outside the bloc.
Second, there has been no discussion about how such an army would be established. As it is, it has been extremely difficult for the EU member states to pool military resources and reduce duplication of military capabilities. The European Defense Agency, which was set up precisely to share resources, has had an uphill struggle to achieve its goal. Just imagine the politics of setting up an EU army.
Consider too how an army would be financed. Finance ministers would be loath to pour money into such a force. Even when it comes to funding NATO, finance ministries try and hold on to every cent when allocating funds to their NATO allies.
And then how would the army be commanded? Britain opposed the idea of creating a EU military headquarters. But to believe that Britain’s decision to leave the EU now opens the door to both a headquarters and an army is naive.
With or without Britain, EU member states are going to fight tooth and nail to control their own armies. National parliaments will also continue to play a major role when it comes to deciding where soldiers should be sent. Member states would be very reluctant to cede any substantial powers related to defense to the European Commission—the EU executive—or to the European Council, which represents the member states.
Finally, the calls for a European army have become confused with the refugee crisis, terrorism, and the security of the EU’s external borders. It’s as if an EU army would be used to protect Europe’s frontiers. If the Visegrád countries really want to make a serious contribution to Europe’s security, they should focus on intelligence sharing and cybersecurity and leave the EU army for another time.
Comments(13)
I agree with Judy Dempsey that the proposal for the European Army is fundamentally absurd, especially since the USA contributes between one-fifth and one-quarter of NATO's budget. But that factors in only direct payments, not deployments of personnel which - outside of special operations, such as in Afghanistan or Libya - may be used to train European forces (for example, in anti-terrorism skills) that benefit U.S. security. But Judy failed to note that JC Juncker European Commission President has also supported the idea. Which is really funny if you think about it since the military budget of Juncker's home country of Luxembourg in 2015 was estimated by NATO to be $276 million.
i agree with you up to the last point. "Finally, the calls for a European army have become confused with the refugee crisis, terrorism, and the security of the EU’s external borders. It’s as if an EU army would be used to protect Europe’s frontiers. " it doesn't confuse anything to see a european army - or military capability - as something that could help address especially border security. indeed, this would seem to offer both justification in principle and practical use for a European army.
Indeed, it might be difficult to build a European Army at the moment because questions of sovereignty might be very difficult do be settled. Therefore, it makes more sense to establish a European Defence Union as suggested by CDU and MP Kiesewetter. http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=63489
We will indeed not see a real European Army, that is, a merger of Member States' national armed forces, very soon. Nevertheless, deepening cooperation, and moving towards the integration even of elements of our armed forces, remains absolutely necessary - and eminently feasible. Rather than disparaging them, we should put the rhetoric coming from the Visegrad-4 to use to further that cause.
There's little I can say about this post except that I heartily agree: a "European Army" is unrealistic in the short and medium term and not a given in the long term, either. I'd also extend the call to "shut up" about this should be given to all those german and french politicians who are talking the talk while not having the slightest inclination to walk the walk, too. They are, as the headline says, insincere, too.
Unfortunately, EU has not been able to maintain the security of weak partners, and the security across the continent is in shamble. The emergence of new terror cells and the availability of nuclear explosive materials in some states is matter of concern.
I do not agree with Judy Dempsey. 1. An EU army is overdue and highly necessary baring in mind those many conflicts popping up around the Union. 2. Europe should not shy away from difficulties with building up a common army; intergovernmental cooperations already exist and can be used as role models: Finabel, Euro Corps, German/Dutch Corps, Multinational Corps Northeast, European Gendarmerie Force (to name some). 3. It is insane to have 27 armies, every one with an own military structure, equipment, budget... here is much place for synergies and cost burden relief. So: I support the Vice President of the European Parliament, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (FDP) of Germany, who has expressed this view: "Only a European approach to military matters can assure ... enforcing western values and interests".
I disagree, ultimately what defends counties is a well disciplined, organised military force. Europe does not have one capable of defending it, and it needs one. We have to be honest with what we want from the European Project. Europeans want to feel secure, and a clear step towards that is taking to concrete step of forming roropean army groups under a single command, whether they replace national military forces or not. Cyber security and even more intelligence sharing won't be enough against an even more belligerent Russia
Juncker on EU civilian & military ops: "It is time we had a single headquarters for these operations"
I'm not sure that I agree with you entirely. To Jean-Claude J?ncker, the disgraced Prime Minister of Luxembourg, now the unelected President of the European Commission, a United States of Europe is precisely what he wants. Like Napoleon and Hitler he dreams of a single Europe, with centralised control. He has the symbols already: a flag, an anthem, a single currency, a world-wide diplomatic network, and agencies that control every facet of EU citizens' life. In this he is enthusiastically supported by many German leaders and several other countries. German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen welcomed J?ncker’s proposal. “Our future as Europeans will at some point need a European army” she told German radio recently. The danger to national sovereignty is that for many politicians, pooling defence resources is a mouth-watering prospect – they can axe defence budgets dramatically, with their duplication of national capabilities, organisations and - of course - expenditure. Under the guise of ‘EU burden sharing’ politicians can cut their armed forces even more and instead use taxpayers’ money to buy more votes from welfare. Even NATO has toyed with the idea of national specialisations, with the Belgians only doing mine clearance and the Germans providing most of the tanks. And for the Americans, getting Europe to defend itself and stop sheltering under the US nuclear umbrella is a wonderful excuse for Obama to redeploy to deal with China and the Pacific rim. But letting NATO wither away, to be replaced by some vague and untried pan-European armed force of Heinz 57 varieties, is a step too far for serious defence planners. The potential problems far outweigh any supposed benefits. The problem is that Berlin would love to control and dominate any Euro-Army, and is already quietly merging its army and navy with the Netherlands. It's going to happen.....
Interesting piece but it ignores two key factors. First : the very real savings to be made by burden sharing and capability specialisation. A mouth-watering lure to politicians to save on national defence expenditure to buy domestic votes. Second, it ignores the very real drive for a single EU state beloved of the Europhiles and the USA, to whom an EU superstate with its own army is an absolute necessity. Then Washington can turn its back on NATO and get on with its growing problem on the Pacific rim
Good article as expected from Judy Dempsey, however, it seems to me, that the analysis is rather one-sided and does not include many of the ideas that have been emerging around the issue both, in academia and in political sphere. First of all, the European Army is not something that would duplicate state-military at EU level, it will rather UNITE military under a NATO pillar and by doing so, will make common defense more efficient. Now most of the governments double-spend- first on national armies and after on NATO - this will not be a case any more. Another important aspect that is missing here is a method of creating the army. The majority of the observers, politicians and scholars believe that the method has to be gradual and allowing opt-outs. Something like a military Schengen arrangement. Goes without saying, this arrangement relies on potential spillovers - that are likely to occur after some time.
The creation of a European Army might seem far fetched if we view it in the traditional sense. Yet it is achievable if we consider it in light of the military machines of tomorrow. These machines will be agile and smart -- both manned and unmanned -- will run without getting tired, and will shoot straight on the fly. And yes, the aerial version of these machines will actually fly -- Star Wars style -- forever changing the dynamics of conventional warfare. The European Union can undertake the development of such military machines now as an economic endeavor -- yet one that can usher the aspiring European Army of tomorrow. Nor is there a danger of competition from Russia or the U.S. These two are content in resting on their laurels -- or in playing mutual assured destruction with their nuclear warheads.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.