In a new move, that received little publicity, the EU tasked the UK Defence Select Committee to provide an opinion on the defence aspects of the Helsinki Summit of last December. The Defence Committee has worked fast and published its report on 11 May 2000. Their investigation had three strands. First they looked at the headline goals from the Summit, when it was agreed that EU nations would aim to put together a deployable force of 15 brigades with all the necessary support. Second they looked at the three new EU security institutions which were to be established. These were the Political and Security Committee (PSC) , the Military Committee, and a Military Staff, within the secretariat of the EU's General Affairs Council (GAC). Thirdly they considered the arrangements for co-operation between the EU member states, non-EU European NATO allies and other European partners; and for EU-NATO co-operation on military crisis management. Anyone who finds it difficult to distinguish between the Common European Security and Defence Policy (CESDP), the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI) will find this report very helpful.
In coming to their judgements, the Committee is optimistic about the achievement of the deployable force within the allowed timescale of 3 years. They rightly point out the greater difficulties in providing the necessary air, sea, intelligence and command support to underpin the capability. On the new institutions they make sensible recommendations about which post should be double-hatted with NATO appointments, and which require separate EU leadership. They are also reasonably hopeful that the problems caused by the difference memberships of the EU and of NATO can be overcome. In a measured conclusion they say:
"It suits both the proponents and the opponents of enhanced European co-operation in security and defence to overstate the significance of what has happened in this area of policy over the last eighteen months to two years. Some of those who oppose the present initiative have expressed concern about possible future change, rather than present actuality or what is likely to be realised in the immediately foreseeable future. And while there is an undoubted case for greater European effort and cohesion in defence, some of those who express support for the latest initiative undoubtedly have their own agenda in seeking a diminution of US involvement and what they see as US domination."
Two other events this month have been important in the field of European security. The announcement by Geoff Hoon, the UK Defence Secretary, on two major equipment procurement programmes, had a very significant European political dimension. Air Transport has been identified as a key area for greater EU capability. Unfortunately, there is no immediately available European solution. Some 10 EU nations operate the C130 tactical air transport aircraft, and the UK is halfway through a modernisation programme for these aircraft (replacing the old models with the new C130J). They are too small for some of the larger and heavier pieces of equipment. In a judgement of Solomon, Geoff Hoon decided to lease 4 large US C17 aircraft, while making a fairly firm long term commitment to the Airbus military transport variant, which still has to be built. This gives a European defence project for EU states to build a joint capability around. Unfortunately, it will be a long time coming and is unlikely to offer as much flexibility as the C17s (or indeed surplus Antonovs). At the same, the Defence Secretary also announced his backing for a European missile, the Meteor, for the Eurofighter. This again gives the basis for an EU Eurofighter force with common equipment. It also requires an act of faith in terms of capability, cost and delivery date. With budget pressures on the MOD, it appears that they are prepared to take both financial and political risk to advance the cause of European defence.
The third major European defence event has been the publication in Germany of the results of the study into the future of German defence forces . Although it was produced by an independent commission, it carries considerable weight with the German government. The headlines have been stolen by the radical proposals for reducing the conscription element of the German army. Less noticed, but of more significance to the European defence effort was a recommendation on pooling forces. They recommend that: "The multinationalisation of the operational forces should be advanced by adopting solutions for integration modelled on the NATO Airborne Early Warning Forces (AWACS) and by pooling the European air and sealift, reconnaissance and air defence resources." This is a radical proposal which could make European capabilities much more effective if it were to be adopted.
The next stage in the process is the pledging conference hosted by the French in the autumn as part of their term of EU Presidency. In this process, the Helsinki deployable force has to be identified, and perhaps most importantly, the gaps in capability filled. It seems as though Europe might just be serious about common defence this time.