(B2) If the Union is the last hope for European defence, then the balance sheet is very weak. Europeans find it difficult to make decisions. This is the observation of the participants in the 3rd European defense talks
(credit: MOD Netherlands)
To answer the question "The Union, ultimate hope for European defence?" » the 3rd interviews gave the floor on Wednesday (4.11) to Sven Biscop, professor at the University of Ghent and director of the Europe department of the Egmont Institute (Belgium), Ana Gomes, former MEP (2004-2019) (S&D, Portugal), Michael Gahler, MEP (EPP, Germany), as well as Jean-Paul Palomeros (see separate article). Debate closed by Nathalie Loiseau, President of the Defense Sub-Committee of the European Parliament (SEDE) (see box).
A critical assessment of progress
A permanent structured cooperation in sub-regime
Sven Biscop said to himself " disappointed that we do not use » permanent structured cooperation. " We look at it like a second European Defense Fund, we use it like a smartphone. We use 10% of our possibilities. " He recommends : " A real PESCO ". That means " adding expeditionary capabilities, harmonizing equipment, planning equipment. We must take a leap from interoperability to integration. Today, there are 25 countries in PESCO simply because they didn't want to be outside. The only solution today is to have a hard core – which would be more or less the same as the European intervention initiative ».
An FEDEF without real democratic control
« I voted against the European Defense Fund “Admits Ana Gomes, former MEP from 2014 to 2019. The reason:” the way it was designed, giving an advantage to large Member States with the co-financing rules ". On the contrary, " it must be left to all Member States, especially small and medium-sized ones, to find their way into this fund ". In addition, " the European Parliament has abandoned a weapon that was fantastic: control (oversight) of the fund. We lose everything (transparency, etc.) but also democratic legitimacy. I do not conceive of European defense without democratic control »
Strategic autonomy lacks a definition
German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer's last word on strategic autonomy continues to cause ink to flow (1). " This concept has never been defined in the Council. Instead of saying it means the replacement of the crucial role of the USA, it must be defined remarks MP Michael Gahler. For him, " strategic autonomy means having a strengthened industrial base, producing our own capabilities rather than depending on others. Also, it means always being able to act, having an operational HQ, to replace NATO, when it cannot act. The example of Turkey is striking because the agenda [of the Turkish president] RT. Erdogan diverges widely from ours, on the Balkans, Libya, the Mediterranean, Azerbaijan... This strategic autonomy means being able to make decisions »
Some ideas to fix it
European Security Council, the false good idea?
To those who propose a European Security Council, Sven Biscop responds: “ I don't see the point ". This advice assumes wondering who's inside. And when the council decides, it will still have to have recourse to the institutions to commit military means. Why do we think it's easier to find a solution with fewer people? Even Paris and Berlin would not find a consensus. If it is created, must be supranational from the start, otherwise it is useless ».
The qualified majority to try
Instead of a Security Council, we must therefore " rather try to get the Council of the EU to vote by qualified majority for Defense, suggests Sven Biscop. And " those who vote in favor with a qualified majority take the initiative ". Michael Gahler is not against it either, but on one condition: " Let's go to qualified majority, and those who don't want to participate don't vote. It is a constructive abstention. With one exception: those who disagree do not participate. No one can be forced to participate »
Do not modify treaties
The reason for the procrastination, according to Ana Gomes, is as follows. " TheEuropean leaders find it difficult to grasp that we have common strategic interests. Despite progress there have also been setbacks. I don't think the treaties need to be changed. The big challenges for European defense are the results, rather ».
Push for political will
She demonstrates: In 2006, the European Parliament took a position well before the Council when the United Nations requested European assistance to ensure the proper holding of the elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2011, we passed a resolution to send a mission to Libya. Governments failed to act, a real cacophony and disagreements ensued, which prohibited concerted action. The situation in Libya today is somewhat the result of that. In Syria, it's worse. There were possibilities: a complete ban on overflights, humanitarian corridors. In the end... no initiative. It is a question of will. This is the main problem: this lack of political will. It is external pressure, US pressure that will force us to mobilize »
(comment collected by Nicolas Gros-Verheyde and Aurélie Pugnet)
A defense Europe that is still looking for itself
« There is still too much heaviness in decisions at the European Union “Concluded Nathalie Loiseau (LREM / Renew), President of the Defense Sub-Committee (SEDE) of the European Parliament.
A slower pace on the lowest bidder
With unanimity, it is the country that is the least active and the least enthusiastic that sets the pace. We see it on the European Peace Facility, under discussion for two years: we rarely have the most involved countries which have the most relevant opinions and delay any outcome, where we would sorely need it. We wanted a more inclusive PESCO, and there is no surprise that it is less effective than expected. »
PSDC, capabilities, the big gap between saying and doing
“Many CSDP missions lack ambition, are understaffed and lack equipment », Regrets the one who campaigned for a European defense. " Far from grand speeches, States have difficulty reconciling their words and their deeds. On the priorities, which are cyber capabilities, drones and the fight against CBRN risks (chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear), Nathalie Loiseau is not " not sure we are really prepared ". We have by 2030 for “ open our eyes and correlate our actions with our words ».
With our allies if we can, independently if necessary
Yes " Donald Trump's four years [as President of the United States] have been an incentive for autonomy. But we don't have to depend on a few thousand votes every four years in Pennsylvania. “says Nathalie Loiseau. You have to have this famous 'strategic autonomy', that is to say " do with our allies whenever we can. And independently whenever necessary ».
