By Tobias Gerber
Foreign Affairs
President Donald Trump’s ability and lust to create a storm of outrage, fear, and uncertainty is not a new phenomenon. He once again succeeded by publicly stating that, under his presidency, he would not protect the United States’ allies in NATO if they “[did] not pay their bills”. “In fact”, he continued, “I would encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” – a message that has been received with horror in Brussels, Berlin, and Paris.
The newly acclaimed Republican candidate for the next presidential elections has reminded European leaders, once again, how dependent and militarily vulnerable their countries are without the security guarantee provided by the United States. With a war raging in Ukraine, one of the most brutal military conflicts since WW2, and Russia slowly gaining the upper hand, the question of whether Europe can defend itself is no longer academic or theoretical, but of reality. The European Union needs to talk defense – and quickly.
One of the most frequently discussed proposals, whenever Europe’s state of defense is in question, is the creation of a “European Army”. And it shouldn’t surprise us. After declining defense budgets and dramatic downsizing of European armed forces, fusing national armies into one large force seems reasonable. Simply add up all national armies of the European Union and what you have is a considerable military force. Is it really that easy?
The idea of a “European Army” is an old chestnut. The French were already obsessed with it in the 1950s to limit American military involvement in Europe. Even former German Chancellor Angela Merkel proposed the establishment of a “true European Army” in her address to the European Parliament on November 13, 2018. Just two months ago, Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said in an interview with the Italian newspaper, La Stampa, that “the EU should have its own army”. However, despite the numerous lengthy debates, a European Army has never materialized and so it raises the question: Why?
To understand this, it is paramount to explore how a European Army would be set up. There are two broad options for European decision-makers to consider:
One could create a single army for the European Union and merge all national armies of its member states into one common force. National armies, under this scenario, would cease to exist – creating a formidable European force of over 1 million troops.
One could also establish a European Army as an additional fighting force to the 27 national armies that already exist. Member states of the European Union would send a percentage of their troops to fight and train with their European comrades in a new European Army.
Both versions are problematic in their own way. With the first proposal, European countries would give up a major part of their national sovereignty: the ability to use physical force to defend their national borders. Would member states of the European Union sign up to this? Are ordinary European citizens ready for such an undertaking? I doubt it. But even if there were a general willingness to create such an army, who would ultimately make decisions about its deployment? National constitutions differ enormously with regards to which body or institution can initiate the deployment of troops. To illustrate this, consider the two most powerful states within the European Union: Germany and France. While in Germany the deployment of troops needs a majority within the German Bundestag, the French President can initiate the same single-handedly. Furthermore, would every EU member state have equal say in the use of this new European Army? In other words, would there be unanimity voting? If so, this new European Army would be practically paralyzed and could be used as leverage for inter-European negotiations. Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban could make his vote on the deployment of this new army dependent on favorable European investments in Hungary.
If it is a majority vote, on the other hand, former Hungarian soldiers might be going to war while neither their Prime Minister nor the Hungarian public agrees with the deployment of them. What body or agency would be both democratically legitimate and effective enough to ensure a deployable army? It seems nobody has a real answer for that.
The second option, a 28th European Army, is no less tricky. Firstly, member states already have a serious recruitment problem. This would be greatly exacerbated by an additional army that needs to be created and maintained. Secondly, most national armies lack financial resources. Domestically, it is in many countries quite challenging to procure majorities for increased defense spending. It is highly questionable whether national governments would agree to finance such an additional fighting force.
All the aforementioned difficulties neither discuss the role of neutral states (Austria, Ireland, Malta) nor the big elephant in the room: NATO. 21 out of 27 EU member states are also members of NATO. A European Army would create a new structure and question the necessity of the Atlantic Alliance. This seems rather risky considering that NATO is currently the bedrock of European security, and with Sweden and Finland joining, stronger than ever.
A European Army might sound like a good idea, but it is unrealistic. And more importantly, it is harmful. It is a discourse which diverts attention from what can really be done. After all, greater independence from the United States remains desirable and neither requires a European Army nor a possible marginalization of NATO.
There are real things that can be done to improve Europe’s security, ranging from shared procurement of weaponry and joint military exercises, to investments in the EU’s military-industrial base. I am hopeful that with the first-ever European Defense Industrial Strategy, presented in March 2024, the European Union is on its best way to pursue just that. However, there is a danger of getting lost in old, unrealistic, and harmful proposals, which will never materialize. One of these proposals is the European Army. This is a reminder to focus on what is achievable - there is too much to lose if we do not.
Photo-Illustration: Newsweek/Getty
Comments