How to move forward with the idea of ​​a permanent HQ

(BRUXELLES2 / Opinion) The progress of the PeSDC has often blocked certain specific points, which are always the same. On the permanent European headquarters (HQ) in particular. It is, however, a necessity. Carrying out 24 civil and military missions without having a permanent HQ is not really reasonable or serious! Perhaps it is therefore time today to regenerate the debate, if necessary by thinking of alternative, scalable solutions.

Why is a HQ, as close as possible to the center, and above all permanent, necessary?

The interest of an operation HQ is to be close enough to the center of political and financial decisions. Geographical proximity makes it possible to be as reactive as possible, to be able to share analyzes more easily, exchanges with the main political leaders (many of whom pass through Brussels), in short to be already in the decision-making loop.

Using NATO HQ is a bad idea

To think that the NATO HQ can serve the EU at the same time is not a very serious idea. The Berlin Plus device is moribund today (Jamie Shea recognized this not long ago (1)). No more operations have been launched under its aegis since 2005 (with the handover between NATO and the EU in Bosnia and Herzegovina). And apart from Kosovo (with an identical transition from KFOR to an EU mission), no terrain lends itself to an identical evolution. Not so much because there is competition between the two organizations. But because they are different in their composition and in their nature. They do not have the same philosophy or the same political approach to a conflict, even if they can use common means.

Asking the question if an EU HQ will duplicate that of NATO is a false excuse and as incongruous as asking if there is no need to have a single Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs for both organizations or a single General Secretariat. It wouldn't occur to anyone... Likewise, it wouldn't occur to anyone that NATO didn't have an HQ. And that it is set up temporarily, in a hurry, with the means at hand, and the voluntary countries.

Specific tasks

The EU now has tasks of its own that are not fulfilled by NATO – which require a headquarters based close to the center of political decision-making (the High Representative and the Foreign Ministers) as well as democratic control ( the European Parliament).

The current device is DIY

The system of outlying HQs in Potsdam (for Congo), Paris (for Chad), London (for Eunavfor) is not showing its full effectiveness. This is without taking into account the difficulty that exists in filling positions – the national forces are not always in a hurry to fill staff positions, all the more so when the operation lasts... (in the Eunavfor operation, at least one quarter of the positions were not filled for many months).

In the absence of a permanent military HQ, alternative ideas

If a permanent military HQ is not possible, several alternative solutions can be built. For example :

1. Bring back the number of national HQs two: Paris and London, by specializing them, one for maritime operations, the other for African land operations (for example). The operation HQs of Larissa, Rome, Potsdam seem too far away to fulfill a function.

2. Create a Belgian HQ in Brussels. Nothing would perhaps prevent the Belgian army from requesting the qualification of a national command center to carry out EU operations. This would add a sixth command center. It wouldn't officially be the (last) dreamed European HQ of 2003. But it would avoid the drawbacks of other Operation HQs. As Belgium prepares (in July) to take over the presidency of the EU, this would be a great achievement to its credit. This solution can be combined with the previous one. We would then have a Paris-London-Brussels axis where the disadvantage of the distance would be compensated by the fast connections between the 3 cities (by TGV connection several times a day).

3. Create a Franco-German HQ in Strasbourg within the Eurocorps – which would merge the HQs of Potsdam and Paris.

4. Set up a reinforced civilian HQ in Brussels, a civil-military HQ of some sort, which would support and conduct civilian defense missions. Whatever one may say, very often it is military means – at least for transport and telecommunications – that are required for a number of PESDC missions. This General Staff would have the task of conducting not only civilian missions, but also civil protection missions and the evacuation of citizens; these last two missions involving military means. The military missions would remain in command with a (rotating) military staff. Logically, in this solution, the military General Staff could be combined with the CPCC and the MIC, and would become civil-military. Which would be logical with the parallel merger of planning within the CPMD. Difficulties are sure to arise. But there are important similarities: the obligations that weigh on civilians in such defense missions are the same (obligation of confidentiality, sense of diplomacy, risky situation, etc.) as those that weigh on military missions proper. The logistical means are sometimes identical. And the manpower of certain civilian missions (Afghanistan, Georgia, Kosovo) is such that it approaches military missions.

(1) For Jamie Shea (NATO), we must move towards a "Berlin + Civil" agreement with the EU