Juncker wants a European Army. British, NATO not amused

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary

The European Union needs its own army to help address the problem that it is not “taken entirely seriously” as an international force, the president of the European commission has said.

Jean-Claude Juncker said such a move would help the EU to persuade Russia that it was serious about defending its values in the face of the threat posed by Moscow.

The Brits have pointedly said there is no chance of their agreement to it. The Sec Gen of NATO has opposed the idea, saying if the Europeans want enhanced security, to give NATO the resources.

My own view is favourable towards the idea. On the one hand, I admit the EU hasn't proven itself ready to act responsibly as a political union, and Germany is a weak leader (...do we dare wish for strong German leader?).

On the other hand, that weakness in reacting to conlict at the edges of Europe from Srebrenica to Sevastopol is intolerable.
Our inaction makes the EU seem more concerned with markets than men: our economic tentacles stretch from the paddy fields of Andhra Pradesh to the copper mines of Zaire, but our political influence barely reaches Egypt

Ultimately, EU economic values & influence should be reflected together and work together. And the EU should have a seat at the UN Security Council too.

Well?

What do you say?

Grandpa Hassan

An EU army would be even feebler than NATO. Would be paralysed by indecision and dominated by appeaser countries like Germany who don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers unless they owe them money

It would be a farce IMO, and glad the UK is giving the idea the ridicule that it deserves.

Sand

There is a certain argument for sharing of resources, equipment, planning and even personnel between the military's of nations that are too small and poorly funded to otherwise retain or even develop capacities that the US and more importantly Russia are building. EU Military budgets are getting smaller and smaller despite the rhetoric. If you have a number of nations with fairly common views on foreign policy, the use of force, and shared interests its nominally possible to see a "league" army being formed. The Netherlands is never going to operate by itself for example, it will always be a component of a larger force of its neighbours, either on the defence, in peace keeping or in aggressive operations. It could even be good for military careers, with a larger force offering more opportunities for promotion and development.

NATO already serves as a vehicle for military co-operation and planning. Unless the European Army goes significantly beyond what NATO currently offers, then what's the benefit beyond another parade ground force?

The problem is I don't see the overall EU as being a group with fairly common views on foreign policy, the use of force and shared interests when it comes to hard power decisions. Germany and Poland for example are almost on other sides of the spectrum when it comes to how to deal with Russia. Common equipment - nope, too many competing domestic industries to appease and small European military's buying equipment to their own specific requirements. Who pays for the "European Army"? Where's the incentive to prevent a tragedy of the commons where some contributor nations cut back on expenditure or contributions and leave it to others to pick up the slack? What is the day-to-day working language? Who commands the army? To what civilian, political institution does the army owe its loyalty to? Does Luxembourg get the same voice on action as does France? If Luxembourg doesn't have a veto can it withdraw its citizens from the "European Army" or are they in regardless of their countries domestic political leadership? What happens to Ireland's triple lock? What military legal code does the European Army operate under? How do you merge the military traditions and uniforms without irritating and annoying people from serving soldiers who joined a national army, to the media running "Our boys" type stories against any merger?

I cant see a European Army preceding actual European political union because all the above questions are just not solvable without it. NATO is perfectly suited for the level of military co-operation that is currently politically possible within the EU.

ZeroThreat

They could offer debt writedowns for countries who agreed to introduce national conscription for the new EU army.

ZeroThreat

ZeroThreat wrote: »

They could offer debt writedowns for countries who agreed to introduce national conscription for the new EU army.

That's the humanitarian spirit on which Europe is founded...

Iwasfrozen

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary


The Brits have pointedly said there is no chance of their agreement to it. The Sec Gen of NATO has opposed the idea, saying if the Europeans want enhanced security, to give NATO the resources.

My own view is favourable towards the idea. On the one hand, I admit the EU hasn't proven itself ready to act responsibly as a political union, and Germany is a weak leader (...do we dare wish for strong German leader?).

On the other hand, that weakness in reacting to conlict at the edges of Europe from Srebrenica to Sevastopol is intolerable.
Our inaction makes the EU seem more concerned with markets than men: our economic tentacles stretch from the paddy fields of Andhra Pradesh to the copper mines of Zaire, but our political influence barely reaches Egypt

Ultimately, EU economic values & influence should be reflected together and work together. And the EU should have a seat at the UN Security Council too.

Well?

What do you say?

There's no need for an EU army while NATO exists.

riffmongous

I think there is a need for a european army, even if only to reduce the influence that america currently wields over european through NATO.

Lirange

riffmongous wrote: »

I think there is a need for a european army, even if only to reduce the influence that america currently wields over european through NATO.

Costs money. Lots of it. Where does it come from?

Careful what you wish for. There are those in the US that would love nothing more than to unload the burden onto to the EU. Over the years how much did countries such as Germany benefit by eschewing large expenditures on defence? The increasing trend has been less US engagement with European issues and more focus toward other parts of the world. If genuine interest and serious proposals were made by EU powers such as Germany the US might be more receptive than you might imagine. The strong US ties with Britain would be the major stumbling block. But the truth is that many in the US gov't have become exasperated with the vacillating and complicated European political landscape.

MRnotlob606

I think its a pretty ominous idea.Thumbs down from me.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote: »

I cant see a European Army preceding actual European political union because all the above questions are just not solvable without it. NATO is perfectly suited for the level of military co-operation that is currently politically possible within the EU.

There are quite a few parallels between the EU and the Old Swiss Confederacy. Like the EU it was ultimately a union of independent states, which meant that while they cooperated on many things, such as trade, they still maintained separate national foreign, economic and political policies.

Foreign and military policy was one of these things and one of the watersheds was Napoleon. When he invaded the Swiss were split; one third of the cantons opposed him, one third welcomed him and the rest threw up their hands and declared neutrality.

It was only after his defeat, thanks to the other European powers, and the realization that Switzerland had mainly avoided war because it was to busy going to war with each other, that the Swiss finally decided that it might not be such a bad idea to have a common military.

So, given history's habit of repeating itself, I can't see any serious European military ever taking shape until we suffer a simelar experience.

jmayo

The Corinthian wrote: »

There are quite a few parallels between the EU and the Old Swiss Confederacy. Like the EU it was ultimately a union of independent states, which meant that while they cooperated on many things, such as trade, they still maintained separate national foreign, economic and political policies.

Foreign and military policy was one of these things and one of the watersheds was Napoleon. When he invaded the Swiss were split; one third of the cantons opposed him, one third welcomed him and the rest threw up their hands and declared neutrality.

It was only after his defeat, thanks to the other European powers, and the realization that Switzerland had mainly avoided war because it was to busy going to war with each other, that the Swiss finally decided that it might not be such a bad idea to have a common military.

So, given history's habit of repeating itself, I can't see any serious European military ever taking shape until we suffer a simelar experience.

Comparing the whole of the modern EU to Switzerland is really stretching it.
For a start how many nationalities or ethnic groups had you in Switzerland and how many are in the EU ?
Ever notice how organised the Swiss are and how bloody disorganised the EU is, unless of course you just want to turn the whole place into the Fourth Reich.

The only thing that would have EU members and more importantly peoples forming a single military entity is when the slimey guys from Independence Day turn up.

The EU is a fractured entity, with one member of the single currency, about to leave anyday and another financially important member threatening a referendum on membership.

Grandpa Hassan sums it up.
See how well the EU dealt with Bosnia, when there were even less members.
See how the EU has dealt with Ukraine ?

IrishTrajan

The idea of a European Army seems like a good one, until you realize there's too large a discrepancy in current institutions and foreign policies.

Who foots the bill for it? Does Ireland contribute 0.4% of GDP, does Britain continue at 2%? Are the orders given in German, French, English, Irish, Finnish? How do we homogenize conscripted forces with fully volunteer armies? Whose country gets the industry investment to build a proper production line? What frequencies do we use on our radios or computers? How do we satisfy individual nations' foreign policies (in Ireland's case, neutrality) with others (in this case, France or the Baltics)?

I would like to see Europe providing a Border Guard, and possibly investing in dedicated air support for the Battle Groups under the EU budget, but I don't think someone in Brussels should be allowed to dictate our foreign policy, when they already dictate our monetary policy and overrule our judiciary.

We fought the British for centuries to get rid of foreign influence, why should we willingly give up control over our country when Europe has too many divergent interests already?

The Corinthian

jmayo wrote: »

Comparing the whole of the modern EU to Switzerland is really stretching it.
For a start how many nationalities or ethnic groups had you in Switzerland and how many are in the EU ?

As we're talking about the Old Swiss Confederacy, then a comparable number to the EU. After all, each canton had it's own culture, economy, dialect, currency and also varied in terms of religion, which was the most contentious of all ethnic differences in the past - being German (and there was no single German - to this day St Gallen and Wallis 'German' are pretty much unintelligible) or French or Italian speaking was a far less important difference. To suggest to any Swiss, who will be deeply patriotic of what Gemeinde they're from long before their nation, that they are all pretty much the same is not going to get you many friends here.

So I'd suggest it would help if you actually knew something about Swiss history before dismissing what I said, presuming of course that it would invalid it were the Swiss so homogenous as you incorrectly suggested, which it would not.

Ever notice how organised the Swiss are and how bloody disorganised the EU is, unless of course you just want to turn the whole place into the Fourth Reich.

All uniformly organized? As I said, you might want to read up a bit more first. Better still, spend some time here. As to the Forth Reich comment, with that you pretty much lost all credibility where it comes to telling others not to make poor comparisons.

The only thing that would have EU members and more importantly peoples forming a single military entity is when the slimey guys from Independence Day turn up.

And here's the thing - that's pretty much what I said. So I'm not too sure why you reacted so negatively. Was it that you did not actually read what I wrote?

View

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The idea of a European Army seems like a good one, until you realize there's too large a discrepancy in current institutions and foreign policies.

I doubt that the discrepancy is too large. If we really had to we probably could overcome it.

That though doesn't mean I believe such a scenario to be likely. It was tried and failed in 1954 with the EDC & EPC and has never come close to being resurrected.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Who foots the bill for it? Does Ireland contribute 0.4% of GDP, does Britain continue at 2%? Are the orders given in German, French, English, Irish, Finnish? How do we homogenize conscripted forces with fully volunteer armies? Whose country gets the industry investment to build a proper production line? What frequencies do we use on our radios or computers? How do we satisfy individual nations' foreign policies (in Ireland's case, neutrality) with others (in this case, France or the Baltics)?

All those are "technical details" - albeit important ones - and certainly possible to solve (indeed many of the NATO states have already dealt with some of them).

It would be up to the EP and Council to resolve them and also to exercise the necessary political control. For obvious reasons you can't have a single member state in a position where it can declare war on, let's say, Brazil and everyone else finds themselves either directly dragged into it or funding it with their tax monies.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I would like to see Europe providing a Border Guard, and possibly investing in dedicated air support for the Battle Groups under the EU budget, but I don't think someone in Brussels should be allowed to dictate our foreign policy, when they already dictate our monetary policy and overrule our judiciary.

Neither of the latter constitute "dictating". We have voluntarily agreed to participate in and accept the results of decision making processes.

I should point out a European Border Guard would necessitate an agreed set of Border policies and procedures as a prerequisite (which the Schengen states in particular are working on).

IrishTrajan wrote: »

We fought the British for centuries to get rid of foreign influence, why should we willingly give up control over our country when Europe has too many divergent interests already?

That is a slight misreading of our history since most people actually did accept the status quo in the Kingdom of Ireland for centuries. The rebellions after all broke out every 70 years or so and were supressed (otherwise they wouldn't have reoccurred all the time).

And the reasons people made decisions then are not necessarily the basis for making decisions now. No one is going to suggest, for instance, that the Kingdoms of 100+ years ago (never mind 200+) had human rights or even democracy that would come close to modern standards and there was almost zero concept of treating minorities in any sort of fair or balanced manner.

micosoft

Sand wrote: »

There is a certain argument for sharing of resources, equipment, planning and even personnel between the military's of nations that are too small and poorly funded to otherwise retain or even develop capacities that the US and more importantly Russia are building. EU Military budgets are getting smaller and smaller despite the rhetoric. If you have a number of nations with fairly common views on foreign policy, the use of force, and shared interests its nominally possible to see a "league" army being formed. The Netherlands is never going to operate by itself for example, it will always be a component of a larger force of its neighbours, either on the defence, in peace keeping or in aggressive operations. It could even be good for military careers, with a larger force offering more opportunities for promotion and development.

NATO already serves as a vehicle for military co-operation and planning. Unless the European Army goes significantly beyond what NATO currently offers, then what's the benefit beyond another parade ground force?

The problem is I don't see the overall EU as being a group with fairly common views on foreign policy, the use of force and shared interests when it comes to hard power decisions. Germany and Poland for example are almost on other sides of the spectrum when it comes to how to deal with Russia. Common equipment - nope, too many competing domestic industries to appease and small European military's buying equipment to their own specific requirements. Who pays for the "European Army"? Where's the incentive to prevent a tragedy of the commons where some contributor nations cut back on expenditure or contributions and leave it to others to pick up the slack? What is the day-to-day working language? Who commands the army? To what civilian, political institution does the army owe its loyalty to? Does Luxembourg get the same voice on action as does France? If Luxembourg doesn't have a veto can it withdraw its citizens from the "European Army" or are they in regardless of their countries domestic political leadership? What happens to Ireland's triple lock? What military legal code does the European Army operate under? How do you merge the military traditions and uniforms without irritating and annoying people from serving soldiers who joined a national army, to the media running "Our boys" type stories against any merger?

I cant see a European Army preceding actual European political union because all the above questions are just not solvable without it. NATO is perfectly suited for the level of military co-operation that is currently politically possible within the EU.

Ultimately it comes down to the level of external threat and pressure that the EU faces. Churchill offered to merge the UK and France at one point in WW2. I just don't see the level of pain or existential crisis needed to drive a EU Army at this time. Maybe a week ofter the Ruskies invade and are outside Berlin?

BlitzKrieg

Dont the UK hold the initiative here? They have an amendment to the treaty that allows them to be excluded from any army that is formed and thats treaty law so it trumps any blustering from a politician, so you'd be looking at an EU army with one of the largest armies in the EU missing from it, also with other smaller countries also exempt (including Ireland, again EU treaty Law) so it'll end up looking a bit like the eurozone, some in, some out, i think with nato on top of that there would be a genuine question of whats the point?


I swear sometimes politicians intentionally say stupid things to rile people up

kidneyfan

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Dont the UK hold the initiative here? They have an amendment to the treaty that allows them to be excluded from any army that is formed and thats treaty law so it trumps any blustering from a politician, so you'd be looking at an EU army with one of the largest armies in the EU missing from it, also with other smaller countries also exempt (including Ireland, again EU treaty Law) so it'll end up looking a bit like the eurozone, some in, some out, i think with nato on top of that there would be a genuine question of whats the point?


I swear sometimes politicians intentionally say stupid things to rile people up

Sometimes drunk people shoot from the lip. Is this yet another example of Juncker's alleged alcoholism affecting his work?

ZeroThreat

Maybe the Germans will reinstate the 'Britisches Freikorps' as a unit within their Wehrmacht as a step towards a Euro army

TheDD

Whats wrong with nations getting together to defend its self and destroying ISIL ?

IrishTrajan

TheDD wrote: »

Whats wrong with nations getting together to defend its self and destroying ISIL ?

Because it isn't simply working together to fight ISIS, or other such threats. It is taking yet more sovereignty away from countries so that old and dusty Eurocrats can play the fiddle to the thought of competing with the US as a global superpower.

There's already NATO, why would we need a European army? To not live under US hegemony? Even if we did amalgamate our forces and build up our forces to a similar spending level it would take 20-40 years before we're actually able to compete. We'd have to invest massive amounts in setting up production lines with enough output to compete with the US, we'd have to build up a tradition which takes 1-2 generations... All of this with a declining population in many European countries which is likely to sap our political and social cohesion.

There's simply no point, we already have NATO.