I've been watching with mild interest the developments as the structure of the still-forming European Union is being hashed out -- mainly because it's the first large-scale federal union formed from separate, distinct nations that I can think of. (There are other smaller examples, but mainly in the third world where there was not much of an established "nation" to combine in the first place.)
I just read this article in Reuters about the US and Britain/France/Germany complaining to each other about the future of military organization in the EU. Europe wants to set up their own combined military in a new organizational structure, while the US is crying foul over the marginalization of NATO.
My question is: just how the heck can anyone think for a moment that a major union of nations can have a military that has members which are not part of that union? Add to that the fact that the US still has considerable influence in NATO, both in funding and political pressure, how would the EU military have any chance in hell of becoming a functional branch of the EU government?
This seems like completely the wrong thing to worry about... and makes me wonder if there's not going to be some kind of major split that'll develop between the US and Europe over this in the long run.
Or am I completely misinterpreting the point of a combined European military force as being for the political control of Europe?
Oh, there isn't much to worry about. The EU can't even maintain its economic union, much less forge a political or military one...
As for the US bitching about NATO's reduced role, that argument is crap for three reasons: 1) they've declared it politically irrelevant ANYWAY, 2) its members can only militarily contribute to and take part in operations sanctioned and lead by Washington and Washington ALONE, and 3) NATO's secretary-general is ALREADY a pawn of the US administration and has no power to speak of. No, their concern is that an independent Europe could form a front against and block US actions (like, say, a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign state...) which would be a Bad Thing for certain American government officials.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Though, what EU wants to form in terms of a rapid reaction force sort of overlaps with NATO's current post-Cold War role, making them somewhat competitive for resources in the post-cuts to military budget of Europe. Namely, they're both trying to get in on the peacekeeping/making market. Of course, NATO's a lot heavier in terms of force, whereas the military 'union' the EU is trying to clobber together is mostly light forces. Most difference between them has already been stated: one doesn't involve the US.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
NATO is an outdated organization anyway. It goes against the UN, against the EU, and basically hasn't got any significant role.
On the same hand, the EU is also going in the wrong direction. A couple of weeks ago, Germany and France royally screwed the rest of the Union by not holding to the Stability Pact (which Germany itself fought the hardest for). And in the Iraq issue, the Union wasn't able to form a unified opinion. As long as individual countries can just act completely alone withour regard of the Union whenever they like it, there's not much of a Union, is there?
Not to mention the tax-money eating, undemocratic, largely faceless European Parliament and it's millions of commitees, commissions and workgroups, makes the Union a rather unclear political mess.
So I don't think there'll be any sort of 'European army' anytime soon. I can't imagine the UK getting involved so closely with 'the continent', and neither can I imagine countries like Belgium and Danmark contributing.
And as long as a creep like Berlusconi can be an important player in the Union, I will not trust it.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
This is merely the latest attempt by the federalist factions within the EU (who effectively control the institutions of the Union) to forge the EU into a federal state. I doubt it will work. None of the European nations have the resources to project an effective overseas force. International co-operation will not be fantastic as none of the armed forces except the French and Germans are in favour of this and there is the language problem.
Far more worrying is the European 'constitution' which is one of the worst documents ever produced that seeks to ensure loyalty to the European Commission (!) and enforce the Franco-Germanic social-democratic economic model upon the rest of Europe. Not to mention the thing was drafted under a man who is the French equivilent of Jeffery Archer.
Then there's the economic problems of the Euro area, the CAP, etc, etc.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I think I'm gonna pull a Lee and migrate to Middle Earth... B)
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Personally, I've had the thought that maybe they need to expand NATO and make it into an official military arm of the UN. I know that would never happen under the current political structure... but I think that it would solve two problems at once -- the UN's ineffectiveness in global power politics, and NATO's increasing irrelevancy.
I did just think of one important thing, though... NATO still provides very important defense protection to both the United States and all the other countries. When you've got a permanent mutual protection pact, you come to rely on that in certain ways that I would guess could create some gaping holes if it went down the tubes...
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Militarily speaking, NATO in Europe and in expeditionary missions is just the tarmac team for the USAF. It doesn't fill defense gaps by itself - it allows the USAF to fill the gaps, along with a relatively mild obligation for the USAF to actually do its thing if a member state so pleads. In that sense, it's not the soundest basis for a European defensive or offensive force even from the military infrastructure point of view.
It's still better than no NATO, probably. But it can never become a tool of European expeditionary politics, not unless it's essentially hacked to pieces that are then "nationalized" by the EU. As I don't wish to see any European expeditionary politics ever emerge, I'm cool with both NATO and no NATO, as long as continuing disagreement and inaction is guaranteed.
As for defensive alliances, I sort of agree with the current drive of the nonaligned EU countries to delay such alliances as long as possible, since they cannot be executed in practice anyway. There's plenty of time, as the EU is under no practically potent military threat whatsoever. The only player capable of mounting true expeditionary ops nowadays is the US, and that threat just plain couldn't be repelled even if it did materialize.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Exactly. And since NATO is no longer a true defensive alliance after the end of the Cold War... and so it really doesn't seem to have a purpose.
Aside from flattening parts of Serbia four years ago, what else has NATO actually done lately?
Obviously NATO can't be directly absorbed by the EU, but I'm guessing that the same resources are what the EU countries want to redirect to their own force instead.
As for practical military threats to Europe... it seems to me that if any major global threat eventually DOES develop, it'll be easy for anyone to set up a new defensive alliance anyway. In the mean time, NATO seems effectively redundant alongside to the various UN peacekeeping forces...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: it'll be easy for anyone to set up a new defensive alliance anyway