Europe looks to the Future

As usual every Minister returns from a European Union summit claiming victory for his national position. In fact, at the summit in Laeken on 14-15 December, much to everyone's surprise some real progress was made on a number of real issues. Among the important topics covered were:

The Euro becomes a reality to citizens as of 1 January 2002 when coins and notes replace national currencies throughout the EU apart from the UK, Denmark and Sweden.
The enlargement of the EU from 15 to 25 countries. By 2004, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Slovenia should be members.
The need to improve the democratic accountability of the EU to its citizens. A convention on the future of Europe was appointed under the chairmanship of M. Giscard d'Estaing to report before the next Inter Governmental Conference in 2004. The tensions between integration and national sovereignty will make this a difficult process. Giscard d'Estaing is expected to favour an integrationist approach.
The declaration of a limited operational capability for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
The implications of 11 September for EU policy

The Laeken declaration makes clear the EU's approach to global issues after 11 September:

"Now that the Cold War is over and we are living in a globalised, yet also highly fragmented world, Europe needs to shoulder its responsibilities in the governance of globalisation. The role it has to play is that of a power resolutely doing battle against all violence, all terror and all fanaticism, but which also does not turn a blind eye to the world's heartrending injustices. In short, a power wanting to change the course of world affairs in such a way as to benefit not just the rich countries but also the poorest. A power seeking to set globalisation within a moral framework, in other words to anchor it in solidarity and sustainable development."

This represents a demanding undertaking. Although the EU is major player in provision of overseas aid (it provides three times the amount that the US does), it remains a pygmy in the field of military capability.

Taking the Laeken declaration at face value would give some hope for a more coherent approach to defence and security matters by the EU. In terms of capability, the second Commitments Conference was held at the end of November. In this the member states confirmed their contributions to the Helsinki Headline Goal of a capability of up to 60,000 troops with appropriate air and naval support, deployable at 60 days notice and sustainable for 12 months in theatre. What remains missing are the key enabling capabilities for the EU to carry out more demanding deployments without assistance. For operations involving NATO, these would have to come from the USA.

On one matter all the leaders at Laeken appeared in agreement: "The development of military capabilities does not imply the creation of a European army". This political need to demonstrate that all military contributions remain under national control continues to impede both the institutional and military arrangements. It is difficult to see how any EU mission will differ from other ad hoc coalition arrangements. Certainly, it will hamper the necessary rationalisation of duplicated military structures between EU member states. This means that the poor value for money throughout European defence spending is set to continue. The public dispute during Laeken, over whether the EU was sending a force to Afghanistan or whether individual EU nations were, is one aspect of this difficulty.

Post 11 September there is little sign of European governments being galvanised into increasing their defence spending. The increase in US defence spending and the weak Euro has made the comparison between the EU and the US significantly worse. Now the EU figures are down to half US defence expenditure for almost no useful capability in the recent operation in Afghanistan. Even in the UK, which prides itself on being serious about defence, the review just started in the light of 11 September is not promising to make extra funds available. It appears that each EU nation will continue to conduct its defence planning more on a national basis than either a NATO or EU coherent arrangement.

The announcement by President Bush of the unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 ABM treaty will reinforce views that the US does not take the views of other nations into account. The hope that the US would see the advantages of engaging in real dialogue with the rest of the world after 11 September is now fading in Europe. Undoubtedly some see the need for an EU that can match the US not just in wealth and population, but also in global influence. The quote above from the Laeken declaration about Europe's new role in a globalised world says as much. The question remains how Europe is to transform itself into a power which has a common foreign and security policy with the necessary diplomatic and military tools to implement it. The portents are not good.