EU army is everything but a silver bullet

Lotte van Buuren, 12 March 2015

In an attempt to showcase the EU’s foreign policy ambitions, Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker made the case for the creation of an EU army in an interview published last Sunday in German newspaper Welt am Sonntag. According to Juncker, the European military force would demonstrate to Russia that the EU is serious about defending its core values, reinforce the EU’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and stimulate European integration.

At first glance, it appears reasonable to strengthen and unite the military forces of EU member states in the face of Russian aggression at Europe’s borders. It should be noted, however, that Russia has been increasing its defence budget since 2000 to 4.2% of its GDP, while European states have consistently cut their defence budgets during the same period. This year, only Estonia will hit the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on defence. The Russian focus on military strength, its uncompromising stance and the significant European backlog makes it unlikely for the EU to deter Russia militarily even in the long term.

Juncker is right to point out that the consistency of EU’s CFSP should be improved in order to address external threats. It is questionable, though, whether a European army would further this objective – the launch of another EU institution will emphasise rather than solve the fundamental foreign policy disagreements between member states. An EU army, if it ever comes into existence, would only have a chance of success if preceded by a truly united CFSP – a highly unlikely scenario.

Indeed, rather than promoting European integration, reactions to the proposal highlight its infeasibility. While German political leaders are positive, the British government was right to crush any hope of its support for an institution that is so clearly in conflict with the subsidiarity principle: for good reasons, defence is traditionally considered as the pinnacle of national sovereignty. Clearly, Juncker’s dominant pro-EU voice does not help to boost the EU’s popularity in Britain, thereby increasing the likelihood of a referendum or even Brexit.

Curiously enough, the importance of the subsidiarity principle is stressed by Juncker’s right hand, the first Vice-President of the Commission Frans Timmermans. The new Commission’s ambition to be big on the big things and small on the small ones stands in sharp contrast with the idea to establish a European army – if only because Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, should have been the one to make this proposal. The added value of an EU military force compared to e.g. enhancing the EUs battle groups, increasing the EU’s NATO contribution or investing in member states’ military forces remains unclear.

More profoundly, the creation of an EU army has nothing to do with European values. Democratic principles are rarely defended effectively by military means, certainly not given Russia’s military supremacy. Instead, the current carrot-and-stick approach of diplomacy and economic sanctions is yielding more results than over-ambitious plans that portray and reinforce the EU’s divided foreign policy.