The European Intervention Initiative and the importance of transatlantic unity
By Matteo Bressan |
Updated: 2018-12-03 17:22
France has re-launched the idea of the strategic autonomy of the old continent from the United States. The tool chosen is that of the European Intervention Initiative, which is unrelated to the European Union and NATO, to intervene in crisis scenarios.
The idea of the European Intervention Initiative was launched by French President Emmanuel Macron in September last year. An initial letter of intent was signed at the end of June by the ministers for defense of France, Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Estonia, Holland, Spain and Portugal and recently adhered to also by Finland.
This widespread participation in the transalpine upsurge is certainly not to be understood as the leveling out of another nine capital cities to that of Paris. Participating also means trying to steer, exerting all the pressure at their disposal. The objective is to create a structure separate from the European Union and NATO which is able to guarantee a rapid response in the case of military and civil crises.
In fact it envisages collaboration on the level of planning and analysis, and also any subsequent response. “In an environment in which threats and geopolitical or climatic upheaval are becoming more and more frequent, the initiative must send the message that Europe is ready, that Europe is capable,” as declared by the French Ministry for Defense. In spite of all the reassurances on the part of the French, the initiative is aimed at freeing the old continent from the US of Donald Trump. Germany, though it has adhered, shows a certain amount of perplexity similar to that of Italy which remains out of the French upsurge which the Minister for Defense, Elisabetta Trenta, considers to be too similar to the Permanent Structured Cooperation (Pesco).
The Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs Enzo Moavero, also follows the same line; he defined the French initiative “partially European” to be regarded with “cautious and due prudence”. It is precisely the Pesco, by virtue of the 25 states it is made up of, which disrupted the initial idea of guaranteeing decisional rapidity, compared to a limited group of a few countries, and led France to develop an alternative solution, like the European Intervention Initiative, to recuperate political significance.
The doubts of NATO
With the European Intervention Initiative it seems there could be the risk of duplication with regard to NATO, a sensation which finds confirmation in the historical ambitions of the French for a Europe more “autonomous” from Washington. The issue of a “European army” is however different. History has always taught us something and, in this regard, the European Defense Community (EDC) founded in 1950 based on an Italian proposal and taken up and appropriated by France until the agreement dated 1952 and then rejected by Paris itself two years later must be remembered.
Today as then, all the operative problems involved in integrating the armed forces with traditions, method of use and different projections remain, together with the well known differences in the foreign policies of the various states. In any case at the heart of the matter there is the concept of “strategic autonomy” which bounces back continuously in the events concerning the emerging European Defence. For countries like Italy (together with Germany and all of Eastern Europe) it is to be understood as a reassessment of the transatlantic connection, starting from a strengthening of European relations requested also by the overseas ally. For France it has altogether another flavor, that of independence.
The Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, who attended the MED Forum in Rome recently, organized by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation and the ISPI think tank, when commenting on the European Intervention Initiative declared: “We support the European efforts regarding defense as long as they do not duplicate those of NATO. European security depends on transatlantic unity. What we have learnt from two world wars and the Cold War is the importance of North America for European security. These efforts are valid if they strengthen the European pillar of NATO: the greater the European capacity and investment is, the less fragmented the market of defense is. What we have no need at all for are duplicates. After the exit of Great Britain from the EU, 80 percent of expenses for NATO will be covered by allies who are not part of the union. Three out of four of the battle groups which we have in the eastern part of the Alliance will be led by non-European allies: US, Canada, United Kingdom. North America and Europe should not be divided. Neither should Europe be divided. Let’s concentrate on projects that unite us.”
Matteo Bressan is analyst at the NATO Defense College Foundation, International Relations Professor at Lumsa in Roma and didactic coordinator of the course on terrorism at Società Italiana per l’Organizzazione Internazionale. 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.
France has re-launched the idea of the strategic autonomy of the old continent from the United States. The tool chosen is that of the European Intervention Initiative, which is unrelated to the European Union and NATO, to intervene in crisis scenarios.
The idea of the European Intervention Initiative was launched by French President Emmanuel Macron in September last year. An initial letter of intent was signed at the end of June by the ministers for defense of France, Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Estonia, Holland, Spain and Portugal and recently adhered to also by Finland.
This widespread participation in the transalpine upsurge is certainly not to be understood as the leveling out of another nine capital cities to that of Paris. Participating also means trying to steer, exerting all the pressure at their disposal. The objective is to create a structure separate from the European Union and NATO which is able to guarantee a rapid response in the case of military and civil crises.
In fact it envisages collaboration on the level of planning and analysis, and also any subsequent response. “In an environment in which threats and geopolitical or climatic upheaval are becoming more and more frequent, the initiative must send the message that Europe is ready, that Europe is capable,” as declared by the French Ministry for Defense. In spite of all the reassurances on the part of the French, the initiative is aimed at freeing the old continent from the US of Donald Trump. Germany, though it has adhered, shows a certain amount of perplexity similar to that of Italy which remains out of the French upsurge which the Minister for Defense, Elisabetta Trenta, considers to be too similar to the Permanent Structured Cooperation (Pesco).
The Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs Enzo Moavero, also follows the same line; he defined the French initiative “partially European” to be regarded with “cautious and due prudence”. It is precisely the Pesco, by virtue of the 25 states it is made up of, which disrupted the initial idea of guaranteeing decisional rapidity, compared to a limited group of a few countries, and led France to develop an alternative solution, like the European Intervention Initiative, to recuperate political significance.
The doubts of NATO
With the European Intervention Initiative it seems there could be the risk of duplication with regard to NATO, a sensation which finds confirmation in the historical ambitions of the French for a Europe more “autonomous” from Washington. The issue of a “European army” is however different. History has always taught us something and, in this regard, the European Defense Community (EDC) founded in 1950 based on an Italian proposal and taken up and appropriated by France until the agreement dated 1952 and then rejected by Paris itself two years later must be remembered.
Today as then, all the operative problems involved in integrating the armed forces with traditions, method of use and different projections remain, together with the well known differences in the foreign policies of the various states. In any case at the heart of the matter there is the concept of “strategic autonomy” which bounces back continuously in the events concerning the emerging European Defence. For countries like Italy (together with Germany and all of Eastern Europe) it is to be understood as a reassessment of the transatlantic connection, starting from a strengthening of European relations requested also by the overseas ally. For France it has altogether another flavor, that of independence.
The Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, who attended the MED Forum in Rome recently, organized by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation and the ISPI think tank, when commenting on the European Intervention Initiative declared: “We support the European efforts regarding defense as long as they do not duplicate those of NATO. European security depends on transatlantic unity. What we have learnt from two world wars and the Cold War is the importance of North America for European security. These efforts are valid if they strengthen the European pillar of NATO: the greater the European capacity and investment is, the less fragmented the market of defense is. What we have no need at all for are duplicates. After the exit of Great Britain from the EU, 80 percent of expenses for NATO will be covered by allies who are not part of the union. Three out of four of the battle groups which we have in the eastern part of the Alliance will be led by non-European allies: US, Canada, United Kingdom. North America and Europe should not be divided. Neither should Europe be divided. Let’s concentrate on projects that unite us.”
Matteo Bressan is analyst at the NATO Defense College Foundation, International Relations Professor at Lumsa in Roma and didactic coordinator of the course on terrorism at Società Italiana per l’Organizzazione Internazionale. 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.
