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!
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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 OK, so I'm a bit weird and actually keep word documents of the online conversations which interest me.
During one of our discussions (it was after your rip to Brussels), you said:
[i]"The reason I want a strong, independent, and free Europe united on the world stage is that in many parts of the world, the only alternative to being on Team America is to join Team Russia or Team China or Team ISIS. I think that in many areas of the world, Team Europe would be a great option for smaller countries seeking alliances but for whom America is not palatable for whatever reason."[/i]
I responded with:
[i]"Sara, clearly you see merit in this whole idea therefore, how do you feel about discussing it in more depth with me. i would be very interested to know what you think America is so strong in that it needs to be [b]counterbalanced in some way[/b]. thus far, i've dived in on military strength but you may have far broader or even more specific ideas. also, continuing from my "how would that work" question above, how do you see this Super EU coming into being and actually functioning logistically."[/i]
So yeah, I introduced the word "counterbalance" into the conversation. However, your response included the following:
[i]"When I spoke about the EU as a competitor to the USA and offering non-signed countries another option besides the USA or Russia or China, I was speaking about developing world countries. If all we have to be is morally better than Russia, that is not a very high standard of behavior. I think if Europe united and acted with one voice in the world, [b]then we would have to do a much better job as a "super power"[/b]." [/i]
I've probably followed my own reasoning and continued with the view that you were advocating the afore mentioned counterbalance. But it's not much of a stretch. Is it?
As to your closing paragraph, it is conceivable that an EU military would consolidate and replace the individual militaries of the European members of NATO. However, what I think could be more likely (especially given the views of Macron and Merkel and the rhetoric and demands made by trump) is that the Europeans would leave NATO and focus on their own military strategy.
Then there's the financial considerations. Why pay more into NATO while at the same time, pay into creating and sustaining an EU military force? Sure, some of it would be the same funds being paid from the same budgets but not all of it. And, how would a financial accounting which basically says "we've paid x into our own military so that's part (or all) of our 4% of GDP contribution to NATO" be viewed by trump? Or his successor, IF he or she is of the same mindset.
Thank you for saving my words because it proves my point. Yes, assuming I viewed a united Europe in opposition to or as a counterpoint to the USA is a huge leap.
Right now in the community of Superpowers, America is the only democracy. Imagine if the only people you hung with "on your level" were bullies and tyrants. Would that impact your behavior? In a perfect world, no. But we don't live in a perfect world.
Europe standing up and taking it's rightful place among the powers of Earth would not (I hope) be in opposition to America, but rather would stand shoulder to shoulder with us promoting liberty and human rights and every so often nudging us about our own behavior in the world.
As for NATO, I'm surprised to hear you characterize its funding the way you did. I'm sure you know that no nation pays "into" NATO. The funding commitment is that you spend your percentage of GDP to your own self defense / military forces. Those forces then combine with the other member states on joint bases and in joint operations. But no member state is handing over money to NATO. If Germany & France and all of NATO's members paid their required percentages into their own military, then the Alliance would be stronger and more capable of meeting its obligations.
Lastly, I would hope that a united Europe would choose to strengthen the Atlantic Alliance, not withdraw from it.
@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?
