EU Army: Not necessary and not wanted
By Grenville Cross |
Updated: 2018-12-03 14:25
When the United Kingdom joined what is now the European Union in 1973, its people were assured that they were only entering an “economic arrangement”, affecting jobs and trade. The political leaders of the day took a deliberate decision to conceal from the public that the bloc’s founders also had in mind political union, with the creation of a super state. Once the true nature of the project became apparent, the British people voted in record numbers to leave the EU in 2016, and their decision has been subsequently vindicated.
Quite apart from the EU’s grandiose plans to create its own foreign service, it is now stepping up preparations for its own army. French President Emmanuel Macron has recently called for the creation of “a common intervention force, a common defense budget and a common doctrine for action”. By this he meant a “true European army”, and his call has been echoed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Not to be outdone, the EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker plans to create “a fully-fledged European Defence Union” by 2025, to be funded, as always, by Europe’s long-suffering taxpayers. With huge spending envisaged, it is little wonder that the EU is desperate to extort 39 billion pounds ($49.8 billion) from the United Kingdom in 2019, as the price of Brexit.
In fact, the idea of an EU army has been gaining traction for some years, although it has until recently been shrouded in secrecy. Earlier this year, the EU Commission proposed a 13 billion euro ($14.7 billion) European Defense Fund, for the EU’s next long-term budget, and the EU has also agreed to a 500 million euro fund for the research and development of defense industrial products. What all this shows, however, is that the EU’s elite, instead of using its resources to resolve the bloc’s economic and social problems, and for dealing with the migration crisis, is obsessed by delusions of grandeur.
Of course, if France and Germany wish to militarize the EU, they must at least try to justify themselves. This they have done by conjuring up illusory threats to their security, which cannot pass muster. According to Macron, the EU needs to protect itself “with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America”. This, clearly, is risible, and convinces nobody, and strongly suggests that this is really all about Euro-vanity.
China, of course, enjoys good relations with the EU and its member states, and has invested heavily there. Many Chinese people live and study in the EU, and there is a long tradition of cooperation and friendship at all levels. Macron’s gratuitous words will, therefore, have caused both surprise and hurt. China clearly has no hostile intentions towards the EU, from whose borders, unlike Russia, it is geographically remote, and there is no reason to suppose that this will ever change. Macron’s remarks were wholly uncalled for, and cannot be taken seriously.
France, moreover, is America’s oldest ally, and it relies heavily on the US for its security. American war dead lie in cemeteries throughout the country, testament to a long-standing alliance against aggression. Macron’s claim, therefore, that even the US might threaten the EU in future was clearly absurd, and upsetting to many. US President Donald Trump undoubtedly spoke for all Americans when he called Macron’s remarks “very insulting”, surely an understatement.
Trump, moreover, has rightly pointed out that if France, Germany and other EU states have any spare cash, they should use it not on military grandstanding, but on paying their fair share of the costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to which most of them belong (the exceptions being Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden).
In 2014, the 29 NATO countries agreed to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defence every year, up to 2024. However, by 2017, only four NATO countries had achieved their target, namely, the US (3.57 percent), Greece (2.36 percent), the UK (2.12 percent), and Estonia (2.12 percent). France only reached 1.79 percent, and Germany 1.22 percent, while Juncker’s Luxembourg came in last at 0.46 percent. In practical terms, the US met 22 percent of the NATO budget last year, which must have made Macron’s comments all the harder to bear. Since France and Germany are reluctant even to pay their own dues to NATO, they obviously need a reality check.
After all, NATO is built upon the notion of collective defense, meaning an attack on one member state is an attack on them all, which is greatly comforting to its membership. Instead, therefore, of indulging in military posturing, EU member states should be throwing their weight behind NATO, and building up its capabilities. Indeed, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, whose country belongs to both the EU and NATO, has called NATO “the best guarantor of peace and security”.
If an EU army was created, it would need its own headquarters, presumably in Brussels. This would lead to a duplication of NATO’s functions, and be an expensive distraction. Many of those supporting an EU army are clearly doing so for political reasons, and not on grounds of military necessity. This is exactly what happened when the euro was introduced in 1999, as the EU’s new currency, not on the basis of sound economic criteria, but as part of a political pipedream. The EU has been living with the consequences of that rash decision ever since, particularly in southern Europe, where massive hardship has resulted.
An EU army would obviously place an additional heavy burden on European taxpayers, and this cannot be justified. It would inevitably become a rival to NATO, with both organizations competing for limited resources, and each being weakened in the process. Insofar as the EU faces any military threats, these can be countered through NATO, and Europe’s overall security will be diminished if its security capabilities are spread thinly between two competing supranational armies.
The UK’s former deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, once described an EU army as a “dangerous fantasy”. As the EU now recklessly plunges down this particular path, people in the UK can see that they made the right decision to sever their links. Otherwise, they, like the unfortunate taxpayers in the remaining 27 states, would also have been saddled with the bills for this vainglorious project.
Grenville Cross is a senior counsel, a law professor and Brexit analyst, and was previously the director of Public Prosecutions, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. The author contributed this article to China Watch exclusively. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of China Watch.
All rights reserved. Copying or sharing of any content for other than personal use is prohibited without prior written permission.
When the United Kingdom joined what is now the European Union in 1973, its people were assured that they were only entering an “economic arrangement”, affecting jobs and trade. The political leaders of the day took a deliberate decision to conceal from the public that the bloc’s founders also had in mind political union, with the creation of a super state. Once the true nature of the project became apparent, the British people voted in record numbers to leave the EU in 2016, and their decision has been subsequently vindicated.
Quite apart from the EU’s grandiose plans to create its own foreign service, it is now stepping up preparations for its own army. French President Emmanuel Macron has recently called for the creation of “a common intervention force, a common defense budget and a common doctrine for action”. By this he meant a “true European army”, and his call has been echoed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Not to be outdone, the EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker plans to create “a fully-fledged European Defence Union” by 2025, to be funded, as always, by Europe’s long-suffering taxpayers. With huge spending envisaged, it is little wonder that the EU is desperate to extort 39 billion pounds ($49.8 billion) from the United Kingdom in 2019, as the price of Brexit.
In fact, the idea of an EU army has been gaining traction for some years, although it has until recently been shrouded in secrecy. Earlier this year, the EU Commission proposed a 13 billion euro ($14.7 billion) European Defense Fund, for the EU’s next long-term budget, and the EU has also agreed to a 500 million euro fund for the research and development of defense industrial products. What all this shows, however, is that the EU’s elite, instead of using its resources to resolve the bloc’s economic and social problems, and for dealing with the migration crisis, is obsessed by delusions of grandeur.
Of course, if France and Germany wish to militarize the EU, they must at least try to justify themselves. This they have done by conjuring up illusory threats to their security, which cannot pass muster. According to Macron, the EU needs to protect itself “with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America”. This, clearly, is risible, and convinces nobody, and strongly suggests that this is really all about Euro-vanity.
China, of course, enjoys good relations with the EU and its member states, and has invested heavily there. Many Chinese people live and study in the EU, and there is a long tradition of cooperation and friendship at all levels. Macron’s gratuitous words will, therefore, have caused both surprise and hurt. China clearly has no hostile intentions towards the EU, from whose borders, unlike Russia, it is geographically remote, and there is no reason to suppose that this will ever change. Macron’s remarks were wholly uncalled for, and cannot be taken seriously.
France, moreover, is America’s oldest ally, and it relies heavily on the US for its security. American war dead lie in cemeteries throughout the country, testament to a long-standing alliance against aggression. Macron’s claim, therefore, that even the US might threaten the EU in future was clearly absurd, and upsetting to many. US President Donald Trump undoubtedly spoke for all Americans when he called Macron’s remarks “very insulting”, surely an understatement.
Trump, moreover, has rightly pointed out that if France, Germany and other EU states have any spare cash, they should use it not on military grandstanding, but on paying their fair share of the costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to which most of them belong (the exceptions being Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden).
In 2014, the 29 NATO countries agreed to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defence every year, up to 2024. However, by 2017, only four NATO countries had achieved their target, namely, the US (3.57 percent), Greece (2.36 percent), the UK (2.12 percent), and Estonia (2.12 percent). France only reached 1.79 percent, and Germany 1.22 percent, while Juncker’s Luxembourg came in last at 0.46 percent. In practical terms, the US met 22 percent of the NATO budget last year, which must have made Macron’s comments all the harder to bear. Since France and Germany are reluctant even to pay their own dues to NATO, they obviously need a reality check.
After all, NATO is built upon the notion of collective defense, meaning an attack on one member state is an attack on them all, which is greatly comforting to its membership. Instead, therefore, of indulging in military posturing, EU member states should be throwing their weight behind NATO, and building up its capabilities. Indeed, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, whose country belongs to both the EU and NATO, has called NATO “the best guarantor of peace and security”.
If an EU army was created, it would need its own headquarters, presumably in Brussels. This would lead to a duplication of NATO’s functions, and be an expensive distraction. Many of those supporting an EU army are clearly doing so for political reasons, and not on grounds of military necessity. This is exactly what happened when the euro was introduced in 1999, as the EU’s new currency, not on the basis of sound economic criteria, but as part of a political pipedream. The EU has been living with the consequences of that rash decision ever since, particularly in southern Europe, where massive hardship has resulted.
An EU army would obviously place an additional heavy burden on European taxpayers, and this cannot be justified. It would inevitably become a rival to NATO, with both organizations competing for limited resources, and each being weakened in the process. Insofar as the EU faces any military threats, these can be countered through NATO, and Europe’s overall security will be diminished if its security capabilities are spread thinly between two competing supranational armies.
The UK’s former deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, once described an EU army as a “dangerous fantasy”. As the EU now recklessly plunges down this particular path, people in the UK can see that they made the right decision to sever their links. Otherwise, they, like the unfortunate taxpayers in the remaining 27 states, would also have been saddled with the bills for this vainglorious project.
Grenville Cross is a senior counsel, a law professor and Brexit analyst, and was previously the director of Public Prosecutions, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. The author contributed this article to China Watch exclusively. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of China Watch.
All rights reserved. Copying or sharing of any content for other than personal use is prohibited without prior written permission.
