The “Defence priorities” of the French presidency, Hervé Morin

On the eve of the French Presidency of the EU, in Paris, Hervé Morin, the French Minister of Defense explained - to a few journalists specializing in European affairs (including myself) his priorities. An interesting interview. Judge...

A Europe of 27 Member States, carrying...

I was able to meet all my counterparts (in their country or at international meetings). From this general consultation, I come away optimistic. Contrary to what we believed, the countries that we usually rank among the Atlanticists are today the most in favor of the European defense policy. And the consensus
released on our proposals is really promising.

Defense Europe and NATO, complementary...

Nicolas Sarkozy's position on NATO was the key to an evolution. As long as defense Europe was seen as a means of circumventing NATO, we were not making progress. With this gesture, we have lifted some of the doubts that certain States had about the Europe of defence. Over the course of my meetings with my counterparts, I come away convinced that, for most of our partners, the Atlantic Alliance is the appropriate security system, which does not cost much and has proven itself since 1949. , for them, is worth everything else. This idea of ​​complementarity is therefore fundamental.

Military capabilities, insufficient?...

We must strengthen the pooling of our resources. There is the establishment of joint maintenance of the Airbus A400M with the United Kingdom (100%) and Germany (in a more partial way), Spain has just joined us. It is important for us to keep this potential in common for 40 years and not to have differences over the years (NB: as for the Transall). We also want to bring out a common European air fleet, as for the C17, with a drawing right for the participating countries.

On the naval air side, why not have an aircraft carrier permanently at sea which remains under the operational authority of the owning country but is made available at European level (all formalized if necessary in a treaty)? There is also the establishment of a trust funds to renovate the helicopter fleet, particularly those in Central Europe, and thus free up additional capacity. Finally, with the launch of the post-Helios (satellite) system, and eight countries participating in it, we can move forward on themes such as space, a European early warning or missile detection system.

The European Defense Agency, to strengthen...

The Agency must find new impetus and impetus, with the launch of research programs, which is gradually leading us towards common European programs, such as safety in urban environments, heavy helicopters... It is also obvious that it must benefit of a multi-year budget. Europe spends seven times less money on research and development than the United States. And these expenses are 70% covered by France and the United Kingdom. There is a risk of a considerable technological gap. We therefore have an interest in pooling our resources, which are already weaker than American resources.

The pooling of forces, mandatory...

We have several multinational forces. But all these forces are almost never implemented. We have, for example, a General Staff at the Eurocorps, of 1000 men, equipped, trained, who only ask to leave, and they almost never leave... This could have been a formidable General Staff for the Chad. It is therefore necessary to be able to use these tools more easily, more naturally, during the generation of force. Another problem: the GT1500 battle groups (Battle group), we must review the rules of engagement, which are such today that these groups can never be used. They need to be softened.

The European defense strategy, part of our "conscience"...

It's not just an intellectual exercise, it's part of our common European consciousness. It is therefore a major exercise. We have a common future, we must ensure our common security. Faced with the threats that we have defined, we must draw the consequences on the means and capabilities.

The situation has changed compared to 2003. We were 15 Member States and now we are at 27. There are additional risks: nuclear proliferation, cyber-attack (a real risk also for human beings, for example for hospitals), powerful terrorist networks. Our cities are thus more vulnerable today than during the Cold War.

A European Command Centre, a question of "coherence"...

We are not aiming to create an operation command center (OHQ) like at NATO. It is simply a question of having about fifty officers, capable of carrying out a robust but modest operation. There is no duplication with NATO. Because Europe is, sometimes, the only one able to carry out certain missions, in Africa for example… We must do everything simply so that it is able to do so. Having five OHQs, as at present, not only has a cost. But this also presents practical difficulties. You have to equip the OHQ, bring in the men, which necessarily takes a minimum of time. Then, everyone must acquire the habit of working together. And the day when the operation ends, everyone disperses, and we lose part of the competence acquired in common. Whereas it would be so simple to have an OHQ in Brussels, and less expensive… Finally, what is the consistency with the “Battle groups”? Europe has a rapid reaction force, capable of leaving in a few days. But it does not have the command center, which can be mobilized at the same time.

Consequences of the Irish No on the priorities of the EU Presidency, it "changes the climate"...

French priorities are not linked to the Lisbon Treaty. Certainly it is not possible to make structured cooperation. But we cannot say that everything stops. It is more the climate that is changing. So there are two ways to react: either it's depression, or, on the contrary, we tell ourselves that we can do the maximum. It is in this latter state of mind that I am.

If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, content of the Permanent Structured Cooperation...

Why not a General Armaments Delegation at European level, a common capacity building and research programme, a common organization of forces. But this cooperation will only work between countries that have the same ambition and speak the same language. It should not be an additional structure but an additional ambition.

Europe, a conviction...

I am a convinced European. We can believe that Europe is not moving fast enough. But when we look back, even in the ranks of the most convinced Europeans, a few years ago we did not speak of Defense Europe, just of WEU, as an armed wing.

(article also published in Europolitique on 2 July 2008 - photo credit: NGV / Bruxelles2 - editor's intertitles)