BRIEFING NOTE Europe needs an avant-garde for military capabilities by Daniel Keohane
Europe has many lessons to learn from the Iraq crisis. Politically, Europe is divided between “old” (those countries that opposed the Iraq war) and “new” (those that supported the war). Europe’s lack of military muscle compared to the Americans was exposed by the short Iraq campaign. The gap in transatlantic military capabilties is even greater now than was the case in Kosovo or Afghanistan. Does all this doom and gloom spell the end of the European security and defence policy (ESDP)? No, if European states can overcome their political differences and deepen military co-operation. Belgium, backed by France, Germany and Luxembourg, is hosting a mini-summit on April 29th to agree on proposals to develop ESDP. The Belgians argue that the Iraq crisis showed that ESDP is not working now, and will never be effective with upwards of 25 states participating from 2004. Guy Verhofstadt, the Belgian prime minister has instead proposed that these four countries should form the core of a European defence union inside the EU. After all, neither the euro, nor the Schengen agreement on common borders, would have come about without the leadership of an avant-garde group of states. Participating countries in the defence avant-garde would commit to defending each other from external attack, set up a European military headquarters, and pool some of their military resources. Other EU governments are unenthusiastic about this summit because of the poor diplomacy ahead of the meeting; concern over some of Belgium’s proposals; and anxiety that the summit may only serve to deepen European divisions. Originally there was confusion whether or not other EU member-states were invited to the meeting, or whether it would be confined to only four countries. Verhofstadt has since said that the summit is open to all EU governments. Few defence experts would quibble with the Belgian desire to beef up European military capabilties. But some of the Belgian proposals are sub-optimal choices for European governments. In particular, a new European military structure outside the NATO framework would be financially costly and politically divisive. And it seems an odd move, since the EU reached agreement on access to NATO military assets only last December. This long-awaited EU-NATO agreement, which came after months of political wrangling, allows the EU to use NATO resources to overcome its own capability shortfalls. For example, EU peacekeepers in Macedonia depend on NATO’s help – such as the expertise of its military planners – to conduct their operation there. More significantly, the summit takes place at a time when Europeans should be working to overcome their differences with the US. Those European countries that supported the US on Iraq (like Britain, Spain and Italy) are suspicious of its real motives. Washington could perceive a European defence union, led by the Belgians, the French and the Germans, as nothing more than an anti-US alliance. Moreover, if European