EUROPEAN DIARY:A visit to military HQ in Brussels scotches the notion that the EU is turning into a superpower
ANYONE WHO thinks the EU is morphing into a militarised power capable of rivalling the US should pay a visit to the EU’s military command in Brussels.
Gen Henri Bentégeat, who chairs the EU military committee, works in a drab grey building that is more office block than military headquarters. There are no concrete bollards to protect against attack and no guards stationed on the gate to check an ID before you enter. Compared to Nato’s well-protected headquarters in Brussels, this place is clearly small beer.
“There is no doubt from a military point of view we need a permanent HQ,” says Gen Bentégeat, the French general who has led the EU’s military arm since 2006. “But it would create serious problems and difficulties with Nato and the US as it would probably create some kind of competition between the two bodies . . . This is not on the political agenda,” he says.
European security and defence policy (ESDP) is barely a decade old, and states remain divided over its scope. France and Poland want an ambitious common defence strategy, while Britain is more cautious, opposing anything, including a permanent EU military HQ, that could undermine Nato. There are also disagreements on the best way to fund missions and the union’s rapid reaction forces or “battlegroups”, which remain on constant standby.
Gen Bentégeat, who will retire next month, has had the tricky job of implementing the military aspects of ESDP missions in this complex political environment over the past three years. So has there been progress? “On the military side there has been some progress on capabilities, but I would say, very frankly, limited progress,” he says, citing a shortage of helicopters, air transport, and command and control capabilities.
However, the main obstacle to effective ESDP lies with public unease in supporting deployment of forces in “far-away places with the associated risks and costs”.
“In Europe there is more or less what the Americans call a culture of ‘no war’. This is the consequence of two world wars and very bad memories in all our countries,” he says.
This problem is exacerbated when a quick victory cannot be achieved, says Gen Bentégeat, who cites Afghanistan as a prime example. “When we cannot have quick success – as we had in Chad – then public opinion usually doesn’t follow. That is a real problem, because most modern crises have very profound roots and cannot be solved in a short period of time,” he says.
Public education is the answer, he believes. People need to know more about the consequences of non-intervention in crisis situations; he notes it took only two months to get political agreement and to deploy the EU’s anti-piracy naval mission off the African coast. “This mission was easy to explain, as it threatened food supplies,” he says.
He lauds the decision of the Government not to seek an opt-out from ESDP following the first vote against Lisbon in June 2008.“Without Ireland it would have been absolutely impossible for the EU to deploy in Chad, which was at its heart a humanitarian mission, while the mission raised the respect and visibility of Ireland’s armed forces,” he says.
He also praises Irish participation in the Nordic battlegroup, one of 15 EU rapid reaction forces created so far. Each has 1,500 personnel ready to intervene in crisis operations with five to 10 days’ notice. No battlegroup has ever been deployed, due to the political and financial concerns of EU states, prompting some observers to label them a waste of money.
Gen Bentégeat likens battlegroups to an insurance policy – something you always find too expensive until you need it. They also have a positive effect on EU military capabilities and preparedness.
But he says there is a need to agree more flexible criteria for deploying forces and more “common funding” for European missions to ensure battlegroups are actually used in the future.
Currently, most mission costs are covered by the EU states that contribute troops and equipment to a particular mission. But moving to common funding, which would see all EU states contribute according to wealth, is unpopular among states that pay most into the EU budget.
“For the time being there is no consensus among states to extend common funding,” says Gen Bentégeat, who is hopeful this situation will change.
France’s decision to rejoin Nato’s military command after a 40-year absence should help to build trust between pro-Nato and pro-EU states in developing ESDP. Another positive development is the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, which would create a more powerful EU foreign affairs chief who can oversee both the EU aid budget and its defence arm.
“Co-operation between the civilian side of the house and the military side is the key to successful missions,” says Gen Bentégeat, who suggests the EU should invest in a combined civilian/military HQ rather than a military HQ that creates difficulties with Nato. “We need to invest in something new that allows us play a complementary role in a crisis,” he says.