Food for thought 02-2019 Possibilities and Challenges to the Creation of a Cooperative European Defence System AN EXPERTISE FORUM CONTRIBUTING TO EUROPEAN CONTRIBUTING TO FORUM AN EXPERTISE SINCE 1953 ARMIES INTEROPERABILITY European Army Interoperability Center This paper was drawn up by M. Francesco Pettinari, European Defence Researcher, under the supervision and guidance of the Head of the Permanent Secretariat. This Food for Thought paper is a document that gives an initial reflection on the theme. The content is not reflecting the positions of the member states, but consists of elements that can initiate and feed the discussions and analyses in the domain of the theme. It was drafted by the Permanent Secretariat of Finabel. INTRODUCTION The European security environment has been sented by an approach to military cooperation subject to a large amount of changes within among countries which has the potential to the last two decades. For this reason, the crea- be a ‘game changer’ for the future of Europe- tion of a structured European defence system an defence. NATO launched this initiative in has become a primary necessity for Europe- 2014: The Framework Nations’ Concept. an states. Being involved in a highly volatile security environment and facing a myriad of This paper aims to give an overview of the economic, political, and practical problems, current status of the cooperative system for European countries started to understand guaranteeing European security and defence, that the only way to form a structure that addressing the essential requirements for the could give them sufficient means to guarantee creation of an effective system, the principal their security must be cooperative in nature. obstacles to its creation, and the main features of what is considered to be one of the most These countries have begun to organise them- successful examples of military cooperation, selves within clusters that are intended to em- launched up to date. This paper is divided power them by providing enough resources to into four chapters. ensure efficient deterrence and defence capa- bilities and, therefore, to guarantee their secu- The first chapter addresses the new require- rity in broader terms. Despite the existence of ments for the European defence system. well-structured international institutions such It presents the three most urgent issues un- as the European Union and the North Atlan- dermining European stability, and the new tic Treaty Organization (NATO) that play a requirements this entails. The last part of this leading role on the European stage, nations so chapter lists the three most essential elements far seem to be reluctant to gather together and for the future of European defence, and out- to cooperate within these large institutions, lines the effect of the new threats faced by Eu- preferring to maintain a leading role in the rope today. European defence integration process. In the second chapter, the focus moves on to However, both the European Union and the role of the European Union and NATO in NATO can play essential roles in guiding organising and assisting the European defence and supporting this process, and have already integration process. This chapter addresses the launched many initiatives aiming to do so. main obstacles to an integration deeply guid- The most crucial of these initiatives is repre- ed by one – or both – these institutions, and Possibilities and Challenges to the Creation of a Cooperative European Defence System 2 gives a description of the most probable way of Russian assertiveness crushed these dreams in which a structured and cooperative system and brought European governments back to for European defence will be created. The reality. What appeared to become more and second chapter evaluates the current existing more clear to Europeans was that hard power initiatives established by both the European – a concept which had remained out of the Union and NATO. European public security debate for a long time – can no longer be underestimated, and The third chapter is devoted to presenting the in fact, will be needed to some degree. Framework Nations’ Concept. This section describes the main aims and features of this This assumption does not aim to undermine initiative, illustrating the status of the already the efforts that European countries – especial- existing initiatives created. The last paragraph ly under the guidance of the European Union of the third chapter presents and comments (EU) – made in critical areas such as the Bal- on the reasons that make the Framework Na- kans or the Horn of Africa where the situation tions’ Concept the most successful attempt could have been much worse had Europeans so far to create an efficient European defence not intervened. In fact, the “soft military system. The fourth and fifth chapter of this power” used by European states to carry out paper contain the conclusion and some rec- limited stabilisation missions has proven to be ommendations deriving from the analysis en- effective. However, it is now clear that the EU closed in the previous sections. is seeking to achieve higher strategic autono- my, and greater capabilities to be able to act within and beyond its borders, as stated in the THE NEW REQUIREMENTS European Union Global Strategy released in FOR EUROPEAN SECURITY June 20161, and that this attempt will involve AND DEFENCE even non-EU members. Another aspect of the utmost relevance is rep- After having experienced two decades of rela- resented by the fact that the current political tive calm, in which European States’ security and economic environment has made it nec- did not seem to be threatened by external ac- essary to create new strategic, and operational tors or transnational phenomena, the last ten thinking to ensure the required capabilities in years brought on the re-emergence of Europe- order to guarantee European security. The es- an Security and Defence. It has now become tablishment of this new way of thinking was a forefront topic in the agenda of national – and still is – profoundly influenced by many governments and International Organisations. issues, most notably by the divergences in Indeed, if the end of the Cold War gave Euro- threats perceived by states, as well as the con- peans the illusion that they could decrease the tinuous cut-off of military expenditure that attention placed on their defence and security affected Europe since the fall of the Berlin systems, the emergence of transnational ter- Wall, and the United States’ request for fairer rorism, the instability of the European South- burden sharing in providing funds for Euro- ern border and the consequent mass migration pean defence within NATO. While the U.S. flows, as well as – more recently – the revival has placed increased emphasis on European 1 European Commission, “A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy”, Brussels, June 2016. Possibilities and Challenges to the Creation of a Cooperative European Defence System 3 states developing an independent – or at least new transnational terrorism. Due to the un- partially autonomous – defence system, di- predictable and non-territorial nature of this verging priorities and decreased budgets made phenomenon, it is difficult to create military it clear that the old ways in which nations operations and capabilities to combat against used to increase their security are no longer it. Many countries have created special units suitable options. In this evolving scenario, the and/or tasked already existing ones to prevent need for specialisation2, cooperation, and in- and challenge terrorist groups, but this did not teroperability among national Armed Forces considerably augment their military capabili- (AFs) is now in the spotlight. ties in this field. However, the countries that suffered the most from numerous terrorist attacks – namely the United Kingdom (UK) The New Security Environment: and France – have had to reduce the number Different Threats of military personnel and means that could and Countries’ Priorities have been devoted to other actions or tasks, including the ones that historically represent- ed the core capabilities of these states’ armed Nowadays, European countries are facing a forces (AFs). In particular, these two coun- much more unpredictable and volatile secu- tries have always preferred “interventionist rity environment. The stability of Europe as capabilities, rapidly deployable, supported by a whole is potentially affected by a vast va- their own strategic reconnaissance assets and riety of factors. All these factors are not per- capable of delivering heavy firepower”3, and ceived in the same way by different countries. these qualities continue to strongly character- Countries will always be primarily interested ise both the Forces Armées Françaises and Her in facing the threats they consider to be more Majesty’s Armed Forces. immediate. Threat perception of a country is well entrenched in its geographical position, A second factor that potentially undermines history, and geopolitical interests. Moreover, European stability is the migration flows and thanks to increasing relevance of the new the migration routes that cross Europe. Land- means that guarantee an easier and broader based routes can be somewhat easily regulated, participation in the socio-political life of a or at least patrolled through the employment country, even the internal public opinion has of border police or – as already done in some gained an essential role in shaping national European countries – with national AFs tak- defence policies. In the next part, I will dis- ing on a complementary role. The sea-based cuss the three crucial elements that jeopardize routes are much more controversial, and it European stability, creating different reactions can be quite difficult to regulate them. For among states can be identified. example, the geographical position, together with an increase in debate and awareness of The first element behind the unstable nature public opinion, forced Italy to be more and of the European security environment is the more concerned about its border security.