In February 2022, Europe was shaken to its very foundation as a war erupted on its doorstep; Russia initiated its invasion of Ukraine. While not entirely unexpected, the depth of the shock was profound, prompting the revival of old ideas, one of which is the formation of a European army comprised of soldiers, weaponry, and resources from all member states.
Furthermore, since September of the previous year, another conflict has erupted at the gates of Europe between the state of Israel and Palestine. The geopolitical situation has not been this precarious since the end of the Second World War in 1945. The European Union, with its 27 members, finds itself stuck between the major powers of the world: the United States to the West, China and Russia to the East, and India looming in the shadows as a potential next superpower.
Since the establishment of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), Europe’s decision-making has been heavily influenced by the United States. Although, in these uncertain times, not even American assurances can be taken for granted. Additionally, many member states of the European Union have reduced their military budgets over the past decades under the assumption that the U.S. would defend them in case of aggression. However, under the presidency of Trump, it became apparent to Europeans that their alliances with the U.S. were weaker than ever before. The idea of a strong and independent Europe is gaining increasing interest. As Macron stated in 2018, « Europeans cannot be protected without a true, European army. » However, he was not the first to propose the idea of a united European army, nor will he be the last.
THE IDEA IS NOT NEW
The first ideas emerged decades ago. It was none other than Churchill who argued in favor of creating a European army at the Council of Europe in 1950. “We should make a gesture of practical and constructive guidance by declaring ourselves in favor of the immediate creation of a European Army under a unified command, and in which we should all bear a worthy and honorable part.” The reason for this was the West’s fear at the time of an expansion of the Soviet Union and the escalation of the Korean War. It was then up to Pleven, the French Defense Minister, who drew up a concrete plan for a European army at the end of 1950, which stipulated that all members had to hand over parts of their defense budget and their troop strength to the European Ministry of Defense. This would have resulted in a European army, but still alongside the national formations, which would have remained intact.
Despite all efforts, the idea was refused by the French National Assembly in 1954 because of its Gaullist government, which has been known for its skeptical approach to the European Union.
Since the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, the foundation of the European Union, the European Defense Policy became a substantial part of the latter, and ever since, the collaboration between the member states became more and more important. One example of it was the performance of the European armies in the Balkan wars, where lack of coordination and problems through incoherence and ineffectiveness among the member states occurred and showed that the EU needs a more common and more consistent defense policy. Or another one is the foundation in 2002 and constantly modified “rapidly deployable corps,” which initially was the German-French brigade, built up in 1989.
Ever since, many more collaborations, actions, and initiatives have been taken to progress in the direction of a European army. In 2010, the German foreign minister pronounced in his speech at the Munich Security Conference: “The European Union must fulfill its political role as a global player. It must be able to manage crises independently and it must be able to act quickly, flexibly, and as a joint organization.” In other words, he advocated for the necessity of one centralized army, but even more concise were the words of Angela Merkel in 2018, where she said that an EU army would be a strong sign and would prove to the world that the European countries would never wage war against each other again. In addition, it would be an opportunity to eliminate duplication in defense policy and economize resources.
But as always, it’s easier said than done.
UNANIMITY AND SOVEREIGNTY
It is a very complex matter to build up a European army uniting 27 nations within it. Even language barriers wouldn’t be the worst problem. There are far more important questions like the sovereignty of the countries, which ultimately would be limited in a way that the country couldn’t decide entirely about their men and material where it would be set into action. Who is going to be the one to take the decision about where and when to engage the European Army? How to handle the fact that France, already now the biggest army in Europe, would be the only country bringing nuclear weapons into the European Army, whereas other countries such as Austria, Ireland, and Malta have ratified the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. What about the four EU states which are neutral: Austria, Ireland, Malta, and Cyprus? Do they need to change their laws? What about different political institutions such as the difference between the French president who holds significantly more power in his hands than the German chancellor, who needs to consult the parliament, the Bundestag, which decides on military deployment?
There are several approaches for solutions, but in the end, they revolve around the same problem: unanimity. What if several countries agree and others disagree about an engagement? Will it be the majority who decides and brings the necessity for others to obey? What happens if a country is given a veto? Wouldn’t this lead to delays and limitations of military agility?
Ultimately, the simplest but also most difficult solution for a European army would be the necessity of a United States of Europe. If all countries were to join one state, there would be no problem in creating one army for the latter. However, achieving this, with all 27 states coming together, is akin to trying to lift the Titanic from a depth of 4,000 meters in the ocean—almost impossible.
Nevertheless, things are already in motion, such as shared defense budgets, shared military assets, or industrial cooperation and shared procurements. Even though most of it is still happening on a very small scale, progress is being made. For instance, maneuvers trained in cooperation through the EDA (European Defence Agency) or the production of the Airbus A400M, a product of joint EU defense cooperation between Germany, Spain, France, and the United Kingdom (no longer an EU member).
Imagine Europe in possession of such a functional army. Europe would become a superpower in his own right, capable of increasing its self-determination and authority on the world stage. As a cohesive whole, Europe would form a veritable counterweight to existing superpowers and serve as a deterrent and warning against the hegemonic claims of others. The European army would be an equivalent power to the U.S. and Chinese armies, as illustrated below.
Nonetheless, the European army would pose a risk to NATO, whose role could be undermined or duplicated, and bring a risk to its old alliance with the U.S. Furthermore, there is a great risk of internal disagreement among the member states, and already today, there are differences among the leadership of this potential European army, as James Crips stated, “Diplomats joke that Mr. Macron is in favor of a European army as long as it is a very French European army.”
THOUGHT-PROVOKING INPUT
I recognize the challenge of fully addressing every important aspect of this subject, given its longstanding prominence in European discourse. Regrettably, this article does not adequately convey the breadth of its significance. It’s a topic that brings with it a plethora of pros and cons and is increasingly becoming a necessity in today’s world to ensure world peace, or at least keep war as far away from Europe as possible.
As much as it is becoming a necessity, it seems equally impossible to bring all these European countries to one table. All these proud nations and cultures will need to debate or even fight over their opinions and, in the end, resign their rights and sovereignty for a greater purpose. When I think of such an undertaking, I already see the first problem between today’s leadership of the EU, where the French and Germans are vying to be the leading country. The French wouldn’t accept German leadership, nor would it be the other way around. Not to mention the other countries such as Italy or Spain; they wouldn’t accept either of the former as their leader. Additionally, there is the question of language, and as a lieutenant in the Swiss Army, I can tell you that communication between French-speaking and German-speaking people already wasn’t the easiest. We don’t even want to imagine the problems faced with 27 member states. The most logical language would be English, but if it will be practiced on the same level by every countryman, making it proficient for use in war, leaves me in doubt.
Nonetheless, I’m convinced that due to the geostrategic situation, Europe is nearly forced to consider the direction of a united European army. As the United States struggles more and more internally and faces a decline of its dominant power in the past decades (similar to Europe, but its decline started much earlier with the two world wars and decolonization), power is shifting towards the East. Especially China seems to be taking over the role of the new dominant power, if it hasn’t already, on the world stage. Putin in Russia is struggling with its invasion of Ukraine and with its people, but nevertheless, the power of his nation shouldn’t be underestimated by Brussels, the siege of the European Parliament, as Russia is directly located at the European borders. One of the big mistakes of European politics was not integrating our big neighbor Russia more into the European network of different nations. Perhaps through more transparent and open communication with Russia in the past two decades, the war in Ukraine could have been prevented. However, the fears of the Cold War and the fear of the Soviet Union still persist, and Europeans feel closer to the U.S. than they do to Russia.
But I ask myself if all those things happening today aren’t also a result of their leaders’ mindset and their time when they grew up? If we take a close look, Putin is turning 72 this year, Xi Jinping 71, Trump 78, and Biden 82. All of them are leaders or were leaders of the big three superpowers, and they all lived and were raised during the post-Second World War and Cold War era. If those leaders were younger, wouldn’t there be other priorities on their agenda, such as climate change, world overpopulation, rising questions about water, and food shortage, instead of reconstructing empires which faded long ago, as Putin tries to reconquer old territories from the Soviet Union, or China, which is increasing its military actions around the island of Taiwan.
To make this world a safer place, Europe should stand united against authoritarian regimes and send a strong signal as a continent of democracies and republics that it is capable of creating a functional and rapidly deployable army. This army could intervene in conflicts and serve as a medium to showcase forces and intimidate others. It would bring our nations together and prevent Europe, the place where most wars in history have occurred, from experiencing wars on its own continent. I believe the discussion for such a project should be more open than ever as it becomes increasingly important to determine how and to what extent such an army would be feasible and meaningful. I think this topic should undergo a profound debate in all member states and should not be taken lightly. Our world is changing at a pace never seen before; Europe needs to take a strong position to face the challenges ahead and ensure our peace and democracies.
Cliquez sur la photo pour plus d’articles !
SOURCES (cliquez sur les titres pour en savoir plus)
Should the EU from its own Army?