A EUROPEAN ARMY: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

EU Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker told his colleagues last week that the EU needed to set up its own army. In an interview with the newspaper "Die Welt am Sonntag", Juncker stated that an army would help Brussels to pursue a common foreign and security policies, to jointly bear the responsibility for Europe throughout the world. Besides this, the EU countries would thus be able to economise up to 120bn euros annually on account of coordinating finances and forces. A single army would be the most reliable guarantee of the absence of conflicts among the European Union countries in the future.

In Berlin, Juncker's initiative met with a fairly rapid response. "Our future as Europeans will at some point be with a European army," German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen stated. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and also Chancellor Angela Merkel supported the idea, although the latter stressed that this is "a project for the future". Finnish President Sauli Niinisto also supported it. The official representative of the European Commission, Margaritis Schinas elaborated that this issue will be discussed at the EU summit in June and that naturally no there is not specific project for this yet.

At the present time, European Union member-states have their own armed forces which vary in their degree of combat-readiness, equipment capability and mobility. There is also the European Defence Agency (EDA) set up in 2004 which is mainly engaged in developing the defence potential. Besides this, most countries in the EU are NATO members, and the EDA works closely together with the North Atlantic Alliance. There are also such elements of cooperation as, for example, the Franco-German brigade, the mobile formation of Polish, Slovak, Hungarian and Czech units, the German-Danish-Polish and German-Netherlands corps, the Eurocorps, which does moreover closely collaborate in many ways under the NATO umbrella. The Europeans have already contemplated setting up an army like this before, especially during the events in the Balkans.

In this case, the history of the Western European Union's (WEU) existence is extremely noteworthy. This union was responsible for collective defence, but surrendered its powers to the EU, to NATO in actual fact. This happened after the Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009. Fact remains fact: since 1949 it is precisely NATO that has been the main guarantee of security in Western Europe. 

Therefore, at the present time, although the German politicians stress that a future capable and strong European army should know its place in NATO, the USA is hardly likely to assess such an initiative by the EU Commission head on its merits. Maintaining any sizeable army requires considerable funding, and financing the EU military means that Brussels will have to restrict the money it allocates for NATO needs. As the NATO secretary general has already stated, the new structure should not duplicate the tasks and functions of the North Atlantic Alliance. It should not be forgotten at any event that at each NATO summit, Washington expresses dissatisfaction, insisting on an increase in the contribution made to the alliance by the European Union allies.

The question is however to what extent the Europeans themselves are prepared to set up a common army? Many European countries, especially the small ones that have recently become members of the EU and are experiencing economic problems, are satisfied with NATO protection, since the USA takes upon itself the greater part of the expenditure, while the Europeans can simultaneously both save money and enjoy a feeling of security. They do, moreover, have a choice since involvement in North Atlantic Alliance's operations is not obligatory. At least, it would seem so from the outside. 

It is no accident that the Poles are already taking an interest in the financial aspect. Polish Foreign Minister Grzegorz Schetyna called Juncker's proposal "a very risky idea". "First we need to ask where the money for such an army is going to come from, who will pay for it, how the military formations would operate, who would be engaged in the training," Schetyna stated live on the Polish Radio-ZET radio station. The Polish foreign minister noted that he feels certain that NATO is the guarantee of security in Europe and now it is precisely the North Atlantic Alliance that needs to be boosted. 

In general, do the Europeans currently have the money to set up a combat-ready, completely independent army (how long will it be until they begin to economise on the promised 120bn euros per year)? The European media has noted that Juncker is still in the process of working up his plan aimed at economic growth in the EU; unemployment problems still remain acute and the Greek matter has still not been resolved. This is hardly the most appropriate time to be shelling out billions.

Besides this, the army might not be a unifying one, but, on the contrary, it could turn out to be a disintegrating factor for Europe. How, for example, would a European army be used: if it would be for dealing with local conflicts inside Europe, that would be one thing, but what if Europe itself suddenly needed protection? To what extent would a Spanish soldier be prepared to perish warding off a threat to the frontiers of Greece or Bulgaria, say? Who would be able to take on the job of commanders and what kind of mechanism would there be for working out decisions? If the issue of using a European army in an actual battle would only be resolved after all 28 member-countries had consented to it, this might create a situation where the army is never called in. Will the EU countries be prepared to completely delegate their powers in this sphere to Brussels and how would this be regarded in the context of preserving national sovereignty? That is, would this be an army subordinated to a supreme high command united in its aims as well? And, if not, then what we are talking about is a military alliance, i.e. a duplicate of NATO in fact.

Then suspicions really will arise that the Europeans (under the "leadership" of Germany) wish to get rid of the USA's NATO guardianship. Observers note that any time the subject of a "common European army" crops up, differences of opinion are observed between the USA and the key countries in the EU or disagreements start brewing. The last time that this happened was in 2003 when the USA launched the operation in Iraq and not all the European capitals were prepared to support Washington. At the present time, the events in Ukraine are a similar subject of dispute.

Firstly, Juncker is tacitly regarded as a protege of Angela Merkel. Secondly, the extent to which the German politicians reacted to this proposal made in an ordinary interview and the efficient way they did it, does at least point to the fact that they were aware in Berlin of what was crossing the European Commission head's mind. It is quite understandable that Germany would become the main strike force and financial donor in a European army project, so, as the saying goes, he who pays the fiddler calls the tune. All the more so, since Berlin can be understood. Even if, for comparison's sake, we take neighbouring France, it is not currently as economically sound as Germany, but possesses a nuclear weapon and is a member of the UN Security Council. The economic and geopolitical situation is changing, but the playing field is restricted by alliances and organisations created dozens of years ago. This is why some were thought to be "all ears" when statements like Juncker's were made. They cannot be called instructions or even a call to action, but are something more like testing the waters.

In Moscow, moreover, the European Commission head's statements made them anxious more rapidly than they did in the USA. The fact is that, in Juncker's view, the creation of a common army would convey to Russia that the Europeans are serious about defending the values of the European Union. In doing this, the FRG defence minister, Ursula von der Leyer thinks, a common army would allow the European security policy to be boosted when a crisis like the one in Ukraine occurs. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin immediately seized upon this statement. He called the idea of setting up a European army "a manifestation of a striving for even greater unity in Europe to protect common values" and also added that Ukraine needed to be regarded as a state capable of causing the EU's common security and defence policy to be stepped up, including within the context of the idea of a European army.

In Moscow they asked for explanations. "We would like to understand what this is all about, because European politicians have touched upon this subject on different levels over the last 30 years," Russia's deputy foreign minister, Alexey Meshkov, stated.

Did the Ukraine crisis and Russia's proposed plans really upset the Europeans so much or do they simply want to use this as a pretext for undermining the role of NATO, which has always been considered an American chair at the European table. That will become clear in the very near future.