>> The Financial Times

A SINGLE EUROPEAN ARMY

by Emma Bonino

The Yugoslav army is again "on the offensive" ­ i.e. killing unarmed civilians - in Kosovo and another humanitarian crisis is looming. The U.S. and Europe again ponder whether anything short of military intervention can make the Serb president, Slobodan Milosevic, relent. But what if this time the U.S. and Europe came to two different conclusions? What if only the Europeans, but not the Americans, wanted to intervene? A science-fiction some may say. But imagine it came true. Would Europe have the capability to go alone? Probably not. As shown by the events in Kosovo, the main problems facing European defense are two sorts of "out-of-area" operations: the soft kind (humanitarian aid, peacekeeping) and the hard (peacemaking). It makes obvious political and operational sense to count on NATO for both kinds. But, as the British prime minister, Tony Blair, noted: "To speak with authority, the European Union needs to be able to act militarily on its own when the United States is not engaged." Blair's call is precisely what NATO meant when it defined its military assets as "separable but not separate" entities. The Atlantic alliance, though, can be only a part of the solution. Sure, it would allow the Europeans to avoid duplicating many assets, infrastructures and command chains. Many, but not all. Others, such as long-range transport and satellite reconnaissance, the Europeans have to build almost from scratch. And they can afford to do it only by pooling their resources. Hence the urgency of a European defense identity. If all then looks so reasonable and doable, are we on the verge of a major reshaping of Europe's defense identity? The answer is no. For no similar reform has ever been achieved on the old continent without the following three things: a firm commitment to a final goal, however distant in the future; the attendant sense of direction to guide successive generations of political leaders, diplomats and bureaucrats; the appropriate institutional framework to work toward that goal. The Economic and Monetary Union is a case in point. Ten years ago these days, the very idea of EMU was still under the scrutiny of a committee made up of twelve central bankers and three independent experts, all under the chairmanship of the then President of the Commission, Jacques Delors. The committee came up with a three-stage plan for EMU, then adopted by the June 1989 European Council in Madrid; the first stage started on July 1st, 1990. The ultimate goal of full monetary union was enshrined two years later in the Maastricht Treaty. But European governments remained firmly in control throughout the whole process, and from one stage to another. After the new British approach on European defense, this process needs a re-run in the realm of EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (PESC, from its French acronym). As soon as the Amsterdam Treaty enters into force, the European Council could give a mandate to the newly appointed Mr. or Ms PESC and the President of the European Commission to co-chair a replay of the Delors Committee on EMU. The Committee would include the fifteen military chiefs of staff, senior diplomats from member states, independent experts. If the Committee chose to follow the model of its Delors' predecessor, it could recommend a similar multi-stage plan, stretching over several years to achieve Diplomatic and Military Union, or DMU. Akin to the EMU model, the first phase could be devoted to the strengthening of diplomatic and military cooperation, making use of the instruments already contained in the new EU treaty - such as the policy planning and early warning cell, perhaps in a higher level configuration than currently foreseen. In the second phase something similar to the European Monetary Institute (the precursor to the European Central Bank) could be set up, both in the military and in the diplomatic realms. Finally, in the third and last phase, DMU would be achieved and both a European army and a European diplomatic corps would see the light. As with EMU, the process would at all stages be overseen, and ultimately decided upon, by member governments. In this sense, the British idea of creating a Council of defense ministers is particularly useful, as there is yet no military counterpart to the role played by the Ecofin Council in EMU. ­ not years ago, but a few months ago! Many will say that before setting on the course of DMU, interested EU members need to agree on every detail of the foreign and security policy they want to pursue. But again, look at EMU: it led to the creation of a European Central Bank around just one policy prescription, i.e. price stability. And when the bank was only weeks away from taking over the monetary policy of its eleven members, crucial policy decisions had still to be worked out. To meet a central British concern, national armies and diplomatic corps need not disappear. As it is the case with the relationship between national central banks and the ECB, a practical division of labor as well as synergies may be worked out. There will be considerable wrangling over the length of the multi-staged period to phase in a full DMU. But from the Delors committee to the actual circulation of euro notes and coins, it will have taken Europe 14 years to achieve a full EMU. In between we had referenda and optouts, all sorts of doubts and second thoughts. They will certainly recur with DMU. But then again: in spite of those, the euro is now flying. Finally, many will object that once you have a military and diplomatic union cum economic and monetary union, voilà!, you also have a federal Europe. I studiously avoided the term, since it evokes a host of other institutional dilemmas, first of all the powers of the Parliament, the executive role of the Commission, and on and on along an endless list on which tons of very controversial pages have been written. Whatever one wants to call such a Europe, though, two things are sure: that on the global scene it would have the authority all its member states presently lack and that Tony Blair is rightly calling for; that no one could honestly say to have been rushed to such Union. Imagine 2015 as the deadline for a full DMU: it will be seventy years from the end of WW2. No rush indeed.

Segnala questa pagina