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 »
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.
@room101 I agree with Sara's points regarding how "some americans" view the funding situation. I think both main political parties have the viewpoint that certain nato members need to kick in more money. Didn't both Obama and Trump say that ? Of course like you pointed out, its also true that America grossly overspends on its own military, and that Europe already is on par with military spending with China and Russia. Why ask for more?
I also agree with Sara in the basic idea of wanting the world to see Europe as the superpower it is even if it is a collection of unique countries, languages, and cultures.
I also understand why Europe currently has no confidence in America with Trump at the helm. Who would?
I'm not convinced an EU military is the way to do that. But mostly because I don't understand the logistics of how that would work. Would it be exactly like the EDA or something different? I understand only a little of existing defense policies and how military works out there already. I also don't know exactly what Sara means by a single command structure.
@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.
