The idea of an EU military is not a new one. Over the last four or five years, I’ve discussed it many times both online and in the real world. One of the longest conversations that I’ve had on the topic has been with my good friend sarabee1995.
Sara and I disagree on many topics so, it came as no surprise when we disagreed on this one too. I won’t bore you with all that we said but I believe that the main thrust of her argument was that, a strong political, financial and military EU would act as a counterpoint to the USA. My rebuttal was twofold. First, for something to be a counterpoint, it has to be in opposition. Do we really want to be in opposition to each other? Do we Europeans want to oppose our biggest ally, our biggest partner in NATO? Second, I disagree with the whole concept of a “strong EU”. To me, such a development would be disastrous. Should there be such a concentration of power, I can actually see the dystopian world described in 1984 by George Orwell, becoming a reality.
Needless to say, the debate was never resolved. However, the idea of an EU military has reared its head again and is now being mooted by the President of France, Emmanuel Macron. This has attracted the ire of none other than Donald Trump, who finds the whole notion “very insulting”. Because, Macron stated that Europe needs to protect itself from China, Russia and……….the USA!
Trump tweeted:
"President Macron of France has just suggested that Europe build its own military in order to protect itself from the US, China and Russia. Very insulting, but perhaps Europe should first pay its fair share of NATO, which the US subsidies greatly!"
Earlier this year, during a private meeting with NATO leaders in Brussels, Trump suggested allies double their targeted 2024 spending commitment from 2% of their GDP to 4%.
Why should we? Why should we Europeans pay a higher membership fee to club, only to be bullied by the strongest member of that club? Since taking office, Trump has threatened the very existence of NATO, he has pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, he is now pulling out of the nuclear proliferation agreement and, has told the world that he wants to increase Americas nuclear arsenal. He has consistently antagonised and insulted all of Americas most staunch allies, but now feels insulted because we are seeing him as a threat?
So, I now find myself doffing my cap in agreement with my friend Sara. Not with the entirety of her proposal but, an EU military sounds ever more appealing.
If I had any confidence in the notion that Trump is merely an aberration, that in two more years (or less) he will be out of office and normal service will be resumed, I would stick to my original thoughts and be against an EU military. Especially bearing in mind that the UK will be leaving the EU next year. However, I have no such confidence. America is following a dark path and I’m beginning to think that Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel and, Sara are all right. Europe should take its fate into its own hands.
By the way, for those who may not know, Trump is in France to commemorate the end of World War 1 and was supposed to visit a cemetery for fallen American servicemen. He cancelled the visit to said cemetery because……………….IT WAS RAINNING!
Without commenting on the current geopolitical mess, I want to clarify what my position was when we had this discussion some years ago.
First, I never used the words "counterpoint" or "opposition" when describing the relationship between the USA and any potential new and stronger European Union.
What I did say was that the current EU was doomed to failure and I advocated a new and stronger political union on the European continent. I drew an analogy to the Articles of Confederation which loosely joined the thirteen independent and sovereign nations created by the American Revolution. That original loose confederation was replaced by the United States of America ("in order to form a more perfect union") after several years of internal struggles and conflict.
My point was not limited to nor primarily predicated upon the military implications of a "United States of Europe". But in our conversation we did touch upon those implications and I made the point that a new European superpower, with the economic might of 500 million people and the social democrat values of the European people would raise the bar for superpower behavior in the world.
I think I even said something along the lines of "All we (America) has to do today is be better than the Russians and that is not a very high standard." A European partner standing shoulder to shoulder with America rather than crouching under our right shoulder as cold-war client states would reshape the geopolitical world in very positive ways.
Now, bringing into the discussion our current geopolitical tension, nothing in my view of a stronger politically united European continent ever suggested a weakening of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). If anything, I would hope for even closer cooperation between the new European Army and Navy and Air Forces under a single command structure.
@sarabee1995 LOL, my characterization of NATO funding was a dig at how trump seems to view the arrangement. Doesn't he think that the cash somehow ends up in the coffers of the US 😜
Is it such a huge leap? We had this conversation some four years ago and just this week Macron has said that Europe needs to defend itself from the USA. That's what inspired this post. So no, not such a great leap. And no, we don't live in a perfect world. Many of us on this side of the pond do indeed view trump as a bully and a wannabe tyrant. And yet, we do have to hang out with him.
As I said in my opening post, if I had confidence that trump was an aberration, my views would be tempered accordingly. But my views are always tempered by human nature.
@room101 If there's one thing that POTUS understands, it is the flow of money into and out of the economy. He knows how NATO is funded and knows that the United States has been paying a disproportionate share of the cost of defending Europe for a very long time. During the postwar reconstruction period, it made perfect sense and no American objected to it. But today is a different matter altogether. Europe is no longer a collection of client states to the USA and/or USSR. The cold war is over and it is time for Europe to stand up together and take it's rightful place among the powers of the world. This includes paying for it's own defense.
Further, we (some Americans) may have issue with the disproportionate funding contributions of the Atlantic Alliance, but we will not soon forget that it was NATO jets from across the pond patrolling the skies over our Atlantic Coast in the days and weeks after 9/11. NATO, at is most basic level, is a mutual defense pact and the only country ever to invoke Article 5 and request help was America and Europe did not hesitate in providing that help. Please don't let a dispute over funding lead you to conclude that NATO is anything less than America's singular most important alliance in the world.
@sarabee1995 It’s not me that you need to convince re the importance of NATO. Why do you think that Macron has floated the idea of an EU military? Why do you think Merkel said (back in May) that Europe can no longer look to America and must take its fate into its own hands?
I’ll give you a clue, in this country, the name of the individual responsible means “fart”.
Does he understand the flow of money in and out of the economy? Judging by his tax cuts, tariffs and his apparent reliance on the debunked concept of trickle down economics, it really doesn’t look like he understands any of it.
And then there’s the issue that we are discussing, NATO. Look at what he has said on the topic of NATO. Look at his tweet which I reproduced in my opening post. Skipping past his appalling grammar, he asserts that the USA subsidises NATO. As you have pointed out, nobody “pays into” NATO so, how can any one nation subsidise something that nobody actually pays into?
Go to the NATO website and look at the military spend figures of the member states and their corresponding percentages of GDP. As of 2016, NATO has 29 members. Of those 29, 22 countries are also members of the EU. The USA had a military spend of $664 billion. The EU member states had a combined military spend of $219 billion, with an average GDP percentage of 1.34% compared to Americas 3.61% of GDP military spend.
On the face of it, that looks like a massive disparity. However, we have to ask ourselves a couple of questions. Why does America spend so much on its military capability? Is $664 billion really necessary?
Before you answer, please consider that, according to SIPRI, in 2017 Russia was ranked fourth in global military spending at $66.3 billion and China was ranked second at $228 billion. Even combined, that’s less than a third of what you guys spend. And the combined EU spend is almost at parity with that of Russia and China combined.
So fine, let’s say that the EU should increase its military spend. But to 4% of GDP? WHY?
Now let’s examine those figures in the context of your suggested European superpower and its relationship with the USA. During our old debate, you said:
[i]“As for what roles in the world I see Europe taking on, well yes, military would be one of course. [b]And a United Europe wouldn't need to be part of a USA led coalition.[/b] Sometimes you may act, sometimes we may act, and of course someone (sometimes?) we would act together. And that is good.”[/i]
It was these types of comments that emphasised my “counterbalance” argument/interpretation. And so, I responded as follows:
[i]“2. for power A to be an effective counterbalance to power B, then A and B must be in opposition to each other. anything else is either an allegiance or (and this is far more likely) the weaker one becomes an auxiliary to the other, stronger one.” [/i]
I’ve conceded that it was me, not you, that introduced that word. However, if we look at your suggestion from the perspective of equal partners with common values and ideologies, where we somehow take turns to act, how do we actually become equal? Does the EU triple its military spend to match that of the USA? Does the USA slash its military spend to a third of what it has been for decades?
We both know that America will never reduce its military spend. I have illustrated that the nations that we are supposed to fear barely spend a third of what you guys spend.
So, what does "paying for its own defence" actually mean?
I don't like the idea of Europe feeling threatened by America. And I'd be unsure if a EU military would be united enough politically. And is a military the right way to counteract America And etc? Have we gotten that bad? Maybe. Trump surely Is. Idk
At the same time I agree with Sara on many points below.
@Scribbles Let me start by saying that my little quip about “trying to convince you” was said, very much tongue-in-cheek because, I can’t convince myself about any of this. Nevermind you or anybody else.
I live in the UK, I’m a British citizen. We are leaving the EU in a matter of months and that whole issue has divided our country almost as much as trump has divided America and, has caused just as much confusion here in the UK. So, what an EU military means to the UK, is anybody’s guess.
I also come from a country which was invaded, and half of which was occupied, by a NATO member (ie Turkey) some 40 years ago. Because of Turkey’s NATO membership and because of its strategic value during the cold war years, NATO basically turned its back on us. Sure, we had NATO peacekeepers on the ground (we still do to a small extent) but, nothing has ever been done about that invasion and occupation. Not by NATO. Not by the international community at large.
Then there’s the EU and its role in Cyprus. They have destroyed our economy and, should the EU continue on its expansionist path and Turkey is granted EU membership, the Schengen Agreement (which guarantees the free movement of EU nationals) has the potential to effectively make that invasion and occupation complete.
So, whichever way I look at this, it’s a no win situation for me personally.
On to the questions and points that you’ve mentioned. One point of clarification first. In the figures that I gave to Sara, I said that the EU military spend is $219 billion. This is correct. However, if you were to visit the NATO website, you would see that the European figure stated is almost $238 billion. This is because NATO includes Turkey (at $12.6 billion), which is not part of the European continent, and Albania, Montenegro and Norway who are not EU members and have a combined military spend of just over $6 billion. It’s a minor point but, it means that, if we go by NATO’s figures, Continental Europe spends almost four times as much as Russia and is on a par with China.
Question: When was the last time that China made any kind of military move against Europe?
You asked what Sara means by a single command structure. I hate to answer for her but, it basically means what it says on the tin. There is a single command (much like your Pentagon) which makes all of the strategic and deployment decisions and is populated by high ranking military personnel. We have that in NATO and, one would assume that we would also have that in an EU military force. Which leads me to question whether an EU military would indeed stay in NATO. Why would it need to? How would an EU single command structure interface with a NATO single command structure? Wouldn’t it be a doubling of duties and resources? What if NATO strategies do not correspond with EU military strategies?
You mentioned the EDA. The EDA is fundamentally a civilian organisation which is charged with:
[i]“……..under a Joint Action of the Council of Ministers on 12 July, 2004, "to support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future”.
To implement the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (Art.42 TEU), this Joint Action was first replaced by a Council Decision on 12 July 2011 which was revised by Council decision (CFSP) 2015/1835 of 12 October 2015 on the statute, seat and operational rules of the EDA.
The European Defence Agency, within the overall mission set out in the before-mentioned Council decision, has three main missions:
•supporting the development of defence capabilities and military cooperation among the European Union Member States; •stimulating defence Research and Technology (R&T) and strengthening the European defence industry; •acting as a military interface to EU policies.
EDA acts as a catalyst, promotes collaborations, launches new initiatives and introduces solutions to improve defence capabilities. It is the place where Member States willing to develop capabilities in cooperation do so. It is also a key facilitator in developing the capabilities necessary to underpin the Common Security and Defence Policy of the Union.”[/i]
It’s conceivable, therefore, that the EDA could be the foundation stone on which an EU military force is built.
You said that you don’t understand how the logistics of an EU military would work. That’s one of my biggest bug-bears on this whole idea. And what I see as its ultimate conclusion.
Probably the biggest problem that any military force has to contend with is communication. As you have pointed out, Europe is [i]“a collection of unique countries, languages, and cultures.”[/i], something which I see as a positive. How would communication work with all of these diverse languages? How long will it be before the EU adopts a common language, just like it’s adopted a common currency? Wouldn’t that result in the homogenization of Europe as a whole?
To me, that’s yet another inexorable step towards the 1984 of George Orwell’s dystopian nightmare.
[i]“I also agree with Sara in the basic idea of wanting the world to see Europe as the superpower it is…….”[/i]
I think that you’ve hit the nail on the head right there.
Because of its single market and customs union strategies, it is one of the biggest markets on the planet. Because of its environmental strategies, it is arguably the forerunner on all ecological issues on the planet. Because of its human rights legislation and policies, it is the spearhead on all manner of social justice issues.
There’s more that I could mention but the point is, [b]the EU is a superpower[/b].
@room101 "sorry that this is so long" ?! 🤣 Oh please don't ever apologize for making me read. I may not be the avid reader you are, but I do love to read. The longer the better. Reading is chillaxing for me.
Thank you for explaining where Britain is at, I know Theresa May is stuck figuring out the whole brexit thing now. Everybody there is probably pretty fixated on that. And for where you personally are coming from, and how its all a no-win situation. You have my sympathies regarding that.
You make all really good points, for not feeling convinced yourself. Most of the potential issues/ problems you've mentioned are ones I've been thinking of as well.
Ok...so the big question: Does it need to be a military superpower as well?
I want to say NO!
But I also know that I think there are MANY people in the world (not me) who look down on Europe for not making military a higher priority, and who see the diversity as a negative thing, and then collectively dismiss Europe for its accomplishments...and dismiss Europe being a huge superpower and leader in the ways you have described...and more. Would a EU military change that? Yeah, I think it might a little bit. But they would only respect the military aspect and continue to ignore the rest, I fear. And at what cost is this fear/respect bought? I fear the lasting negative consequences that may occur. Selfishly, I want Europe to remain as it is. And remain a stable and leading power in social justice, environmental strategies, human rights, economics, etc. I adore that Europe for the most part abhors guns and nuclear armament. I adore how much Europe places on logic and reason and peace. I don't want that to change.
@Scribbles Your closing paragraph reminds me of the quote:
“Those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.”
In this context, I apply the quote as; those who give respect to military power are the ones that don't matter.
Sorry @sarabee1995, I don't mean you. I know that your vision for Europe is much broader than just its military strength.
ooops! I just noticed that I made a huge booboo in my above reply to you. The peacekeeping force that I mentioned are UN Peacekeepers (namely UNFICYP) and have nothing to do with NATO.
Just one thing to add: [quote]Since taking office, Trump has threatened the very existence of NATO,[/quote]
Not only that, Trump has shown an intriguing deference to Russia's Putin, who is openly hostile to the EU and would bully any ex-soviet republic which attempts to join the EU...
