A. Flahaut: France rejoins NATO = ESDP slowdown
(B2) Meeting former defense ministers is always interesting. Because they often have the experience, the necessary hindsight, and speak a little more freely than the Ministers in office. When this one is Belgian, and that he officiated more than 8 years in this ministry, which is more with Guy Verhofstadt, it's even more captivating. Also the head-to-head lunch that we were able to improvise with André Flahaut (early April) was not without appeal. He was one of the craftsmen of the "Pralines summit", which aimed to accelerate the Europe of Defense, even if he no longer exercises governmental activity, keeps all his sagacity, and his bite, on the evolutions ongoing, whether it concerns the reintegration of France into NATO, military expenditure, the future of the Airbus A400M, European Defense or ongoing operations, for example in Afghanistan...
France rejoined NATO in April. Do you see this as progress for Defense Europe?
I am not sure. This reintegration will not necessarily help European defense policy. In the NATO that I knew, France often played the role of leader of the countries which demanded a different approach. For the small States (like Belgium), that makes them orphans of a guarantee of autonomy compared to the large countries. In any case, European defense receives a blow. I fear a slowdown.
Does this, however, improve relations within the Alliance?
Above all, I believe that the time has come to redefine – or confirm – the basic principles of the Alliance. This is, above all, a political Alliance and must remain so. The military must not be left to act alone. NATO must therefore continue to decide by consensus; we must not resort to this procedure of silence which suppresses debate. Then, it must act within the strict framework of the UN and by limiting its interventions in certain areas. Finally, there must be projected funding and exit strategies for each operation to avoid slippage.
So you think that NATO should see its area of intervention limited?
Yes. I don't find it desirable for NATO to be called upon to intervene everywhere. In Africa, in the Mediterranean, it is Europe that must act. So the NATO intervention in Chad – some thought about it at one time – is not possible. Similarly, relations with Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia, this also concerns the European Union, these countries are on European territory.
Listening to you, does one feel like competition between NATO and the EU?
There is no denying it. There is competition between NATO and the EU, even if it is not said. For example, EU battlegroups were designed before the NRF. But NATO was the fastest, because it must be admitted...there is less democracy. As a result, the two organizations have set up two different structures which are based
- we always forget - on the same means of the Member States. And, today, the NRF is not even available.
- we always forget - on the same means of the Member States. And, today, the NRF is not even available.
Battlegroups aren't really operational either?
Listen. Everybody's fucking us with these Battlegroups. But, with the Eurocorps, we already have this rapid reaction force. Why not just rely on it and implement it if needed.
Do you have to delete an organization then?
But no. Both organizations have advantages. It would simply be necessary to inject a little political democracy into NATO and a little more military efficiency into the EU. It is clear that NATO has a role to play in the interoperability of equipment and personnel. (...) On the European side, it would be necessary to have more commitment from certain countries - The British are still holding back, nitpicking to the last penny to hire an assistant at the European Defense Agency - and a little more realism too. We also can't move forward because we want to do certain things too big.
Few states achieve the set objective of devoting 2% of their expenditure to military affairs. What should be done ?
This 2% threshold is an aberration. I don't really know where these people are headed. In the midst of an economic crisis, this is madness. When you say that we need a defense budget of 2% when we have not even achieved the objective of devoting 0,7% of GDP to development policies, you are not passing the ramp of public opinion public. There are, and there will be, savings to be made with the crisis. And in defence, there are some profitability gains.
Gain profitability in defense, really?
It's all about will. I'm pretty comfortable with that. When I was in government, without increasing the budget, we were able to modernize defence, by eliminating the various staffs and creating a single structure. This made it possible to do away with some commands made a little messy. We have also been able to generate cooperation with our French and Dutch neighbours. Thus our navy is compatible with that of the Netherlands. While the training of aircraft pilots is done with France. We must push this reflection in other countries. A single army structure, with modern, open-ended management, has many advantages. And our cooperation at European level can be optimized. Working together is possible with the European Defense Agency.
On what subjects can we optimize our cooperation?
I believe that working on an industrial program of equipment, which can see the light of day quickly, practical field equipment (such as energy or water supply, etc.) would be interesting. It is also necessary to strengthen training, to arrive at a real European military academy.
Precisely, the Airbus 400M seems to have some difficulty in keeping its promises. Should we abandon this program?
Especially not. Giving up the A400M would be the biggest mistake we could make. It is not a delay of a few years that should make us hesitate. This strategic and tactical aircraft is necessary for our armies. We are very demanding. Belgium is also a candidate to host the General Staff of the European aeronautical force in Beauvechain (as envisaged at the last Council of Defense Ministers).
Last question: you are a convinced European. Who do you see in the next 5 years at the head of the Commission?
Poul Nyrup Rasmussen of course. We must get rid of Barroso.
At European level, a coalition is always necessary. In the absence of a socialist, who else?
Guy Verhofstadt is certainly the man most committed to defending European integration.
(NGV)
“Thus our navy is compatible with that of the Netherlands. While the training of aircraft pilots is done with France.”
Correction: the Belgian Navy has merged with the Dutch Navy and the training of Belgian pilots is done in France and not with France, as if it were a 50/50 partnership…
With Flahaut on the way to 0.5%, 0.4%, 0.3% of GDP in the army budget?
Always more words, always less resources!
The need to rationalize hides a lot of misery and political maneuvering (cfr the 90mm guns, very rational!)