FA: Europe cannot be a military power – Why defense integration could fracture the continent

Pic.: You Tube

Since the end of World War II, the countries of western Europe have relied on the United States for their security. Thus safeguarded, these countries were left free to pursue economic integration while maintaining their democratic systems of government. Responsibility was bifurcated, with Washington handling the continent’s security, and Brussels taking on an ever-greater economic role. This division of responsibility is now uncertain, ‘Foreign Affairs’ stresses.

The European Union is a vehicle for economic cooperation. It is a peace project, not a war project. It has been remarkably successful in this endeavor, achieving its founding objective of binding France and Germany together economically. But that success has required Washington’s continued commitment to NATO. Changing this arrangement would create strains between member states that would ultimately threaten the existing structures of European cooperation. The European Commission needs to step back and allow coalitions of nation-states from within and outside the bloc to develop new, intergovernmental partnerships. It is only through this process that Washington and Brussels can bolster European security—and ensure the survival of the European project itself.

Good intentions

Calls for the European Union to become a “global power” are understandable. But they risk a catastrophe for both sides of the Atlantic. The European Union does not have an army, and Brussels cannot spend money directly on defense. It can only subsidize its member states through financial grants or, in theory, by issuing common debt. Under the current system, the latter course of action would amount to fiscal transfers from Germany and the Netherlands to France, Greece, Italy, and other high-spending countries. These likely beneficiaries have a wide variety of legitimate security concerns, mostly in the Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East and North Africa, which have little to do with the Russian threat. To ask German and Dutch taxpayers to fund these commitments indefinitely risks a dangerous backlash.

A consolidated European defense sector would require countries to forsake key sources of employment and export revenue in favor of a system with little democratic oversight or coordination. Despite Macron’s rhetoric, France is the country most opposed to the consolidation of the European defense sector. Such a step would force Paris to abandon the principles of national independence that have driven its statecraft since 1958. French unwillingness to surrender control over defense has already wrecked the Franco-German FCAS fighter jet project. It is easy to criticize Paris for this, but many of its concerns are understandable. To create a European defense sector would require a common understanding across all member states of the nature of the threats that Europe faces, how those threats should shape the development of new capabilities, who would control the intellectual property behind those capabilities, and above all, a common approach to arms exports. Brussels does not possess the capacity, expertise, or democratic legitimacy to answer these questions.

A new treaty could solve this problem and establish both a framework and a consensus for greater European integration in defense. But to attempt to negotiate one would upend the politics of the continent. Several member states are either outside NATO and committed to neutrality, or openly sympathetic to Russia. Treaty change for common defense would destroy the delicate framework of cooperation that binds northern and southern Europe together.

A common defense policy would threaten the German social contract

Above all, any move toward a common defense policy would threaten the German social contract. The combination of widespread employment in manufacturing with membership in the eurozone has sustained the country for decades. And yet the social contract has already begun to break down. German manufacturing is still struggling to adjust after the loss of access to cheap Russian energy. It is also under enormous and increasing pressure from Chinese competition.

Advocates of European power are asking German taxpayers to simultaneously increase defense spending, purchase military equipment predominantly manufactured outside Germany, and subsidize the defense spending of other European countries. In isolation, each of these requests would be incendiary, risking increased support for extreme parties of both left and right. Together, they amount to a powder keg ready to blow.

By prioritizing intergovernmental cooperation among like-minded countries, Washington and Brussels can secure peace and prosperity in Europe for another generation. To do so, however, policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic need to see European institutions for what they are, not what they would like them to be. The division of responsibility between economic and military matters has preserved peace across the Euro-Atlantic area for more than 70 years. To cast this arrangement aside is to risk calamity.

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs