Insight
Is the European Peace Facility really about peace? by Megan Ferrando, 17 December 2021
The European Peace Facility (EPF) is a new pot of money intended to make the EU a stronger military actor in crises. But the ability to spend more will not in itself make the Union better able to resolve conflicts. The EU has always been more comfortable as a ‘soft power’, relying mainly on its economic strength and position as the world’s largest aid donor for political influence, counting on the US for protection. But with the growing assertiveness of some of the Union’s neighbours, conflicts to its south and east flaring up, and the US losing interest in ensuring Europe’s security, member-states have decided that the EU should “learn the language of power” – be willing and able to employ military force to defend its security interests. As part of this quest towards becoming a more military power, the Union wants to step up its efforts to sort out conflicts abroad. The EU’s new fund, the EPF, is meant to make this happen. But the Union needs to address legitimate concerns within EU institutions, member-states and civil society that sending more military funding and weapons to already fragile countries could do more harm than good. Launched last summer, the EU uses the EPF to cover the costs of its own military missions, and to fund the training and equipment of partners’ peacekeeping forces (like the African Union) and military alliances (like the regional security alliance known as G5 Sahel). As the EPF allows the EU for the first time to also supply weapons, the Union is hoping that it will forge stronger military partnerships, which will boost its reputation as a security actor. As the EPF is not part of the EU’s regular budget, it is not the European Commission but member-states that decide, unanimously, where and how to spend the money. The Union’s diplomatic arm, the European External Action Service (EEAS), is responsible for planning and carrying out EPF assistance measures. Supporters within member-states and the EEAS hope that the fund can both fulfil a political role and make a significant contribution to stabilising conflicts. These are high expectations for a fund with a budget of €5 billion for the period of 2021-27 – which only represents an average of 0.47 per cent of the EU’s annual budget. Still, supporters of the EPF consider the fund to be an asset. First, they argue that more military investment could fill a gap in the array of EU crisis management tools. The armed forces of partner countries working with EU military training missions have often been under-equipped, lacking logistical equipment, vehicles, weapons and funding for wages. EU trainers have had to rely on military equipment CER INSIGHT: Is the European Peace Facility really about peace? 17 December 2021
info@cer.EU | WWW.CER.EU
1