EU fails to deliver on defence

The European Union's defence initiatives are poorly coordinated, unprofessional and money-wasting, says former British diplomat Nick Witney. Until recently Witney was head of the European Defence Agency, the organisation responsible for finding equipment for European military missions. In an interview with NRC’s Michel Kerres in Paris, Witney paints a scathing picture of the joint European military force.

When talking about the European defence initiatives, Witney's words have a cynical ring to them. He doesn't want to ridicule the work of his former colleagues, he says, but he wants to make something clear.

In 2005 the European Union set up a system of rotating 'battle groups', he explains.The various ‘battle groups’ are on permanent standby, ready for action anywhere in the world. But before the soldiers can go anywhere, there is the small question of a decision on which of the seven head-quarters will lead the operation. ,,That is, if there is anywhere to send them in the first place, because a suitable conflict hasn’t been found since 2005.”

The EU does send out special missions but it isn’t always easy to find personnel or equipment. It spent six months looking for helicopters for a mission to Chad. Eventually Russia stepped in. On September 1, the day on which European leaders discussed taking a tough stance on Russia following the conflict in Georgia, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev made four helicopters and 200 staff available for the EU mission. The 27 EU member states spend over 200 billion euros on defence a year, but they couldn’t find 16 transport helicopters.

Brussels bureaucracy

As the former head of the European Defence Agency, Witney is not against the European defence force, but after three years immersed in Brussels bureaucracy, his conclusions resulted in a highly critical report. “Europe does too little, coordination is poor, it’s not professional, there is too much improvisation and money is wasted,” he says. “In short, something has to change”.

The debate on an European defence force is decades old but it was not until France and the UK buried their traditional animosity in 1998 that the European Security and Defence Policy became a reality.

Since 2003, the EU has carried out international missions using its own specific philosophy – it wants to solve conflicts using both military and civil resources. The EU sends soldiers but also diplomats, police officers, civil servants and judges to bring conflicts to an end and to give democracy a chance. The EU has high hopes for the combination of “hard” and “soft power”.

So far the EU has sent out twenty missions. That may seem impressive, but it’s nothing, says Witney. They were small and mainly about “soft power”. Sometimes the EU’s foreign policy chief Javier Solana had to get on the phone personally to beg countries for personnel and equipment, he says.

In the shadow of Nato

Witney sets out a catalogue of structural problems. For example, political debates preceding a mission take too long because the foreign policy criteria are unclear. A small number of member states carry the lion’s share of the burden and financing is badly organised. The countries which supply the personnel also pay for most of the costs. And there is a never-ending series of problems with the chain of command when missions include civilians as well as military personnel, says Witney.

One of the reasons the European defence force has to improvise is that it developed in the shadow of Nato, says Witney. The US has seen the creation of an European military as a competitor to Nato which it dominates.

So when Nicolas Sarkozy became president of France and announced that the country wants to become a full member of Nato again, it seemed that the chances for the European Security and Defence Policy were on the turn. France’s move is conditional on the US giving up its opposition to a European defence force. The US has reacted favourably and this has led to a tremendous change in the atmosphere, says Witney.

Crisis in Georgia

Still, he is not optimistic about the European defence force. The future of the Lisbon Treaty, which should give European foreign policy a strong impulse is uncertain following Ireland’s rejection. And the UK, whose strong military machine is crucial for any serious European initiative, is not particularly enthusiastic. “The UK faces major problems in Iraq and Afghanistan and has bad experiences in terms of Europe’s willingness to deploy troops,” says Witney.

What effect the crisis in Georgia will have on the European debate is not yet apparent. To Witney, the crisis just emphasises the need for crystal clear European foreign policy.