Stabilizing Africa… Has impossible become a European axiom?
-
A legal opinion from the Commission is like a fire drill in a submarine, a perilous exercise (credit: Italian Navy)
(B2) When you meet a Minister of Defense at the bend of a corridor, and you pronounce the four letters CBSD, there is a good chance that even the most phlegmatic of them will go off the rails. Rightly...
- CBSD? The acronym may sound rather barbaric. And even developed — Capacity Building in Support of Security and Development — it doesn't really seem to mean more. That's the goal, by the way. Europe generally loves these acronyms which mean nothing in French (as in English for that matter). This allows for all compromises and all meanings. The issue, however, is very concrete. How can Europe get involved, particularly in Africa, to stabilize the armies of countries, train and equip them so that they are in a position to ensure the security and stabilization of their country themselves? What equipment to finance? Under what conditions? NB: previously we were talking about "Train & Equip" which, even without translation, was still much more understandable.
Over two years and still nothing...
On several occasions, Heads of State and Government, EU Foreign Ministers and their defense colleagues have asked the Commission and the EU High Representative to move forward in this direction. In December 2013, in June 2015, in November 2015... Each time, the message was repeated. Ever since... it's been moving at a turtle's pace. A 'communication' was published a year ago, outlining some options. A consultation has just been launched a few days ago (after a year!). A proposal is promised for June... which everyone fears will not really address the problem. And it will still take a few months (optimistic vision) or... a few years (pessimistic vision) to have an applicable decision. Result: a feeling of frustration » expressed, very diplomatically by the High Representative of the EU, Federica Mogherini, in front of the press, which reflects the nervousness behind the scenes (Read: CBSD… A certain feeling of frustration (Mogherini).
A need for stability recognized by all
The observation is nevertheless unanimous today. Without security for African countries, without stabilization, there is no development, no economy. Without security, without development and economy, the population is tempted to flee the country. The stabilization of African countries is therefore not a sweet dream of a better world. It has now become a necessity for Europe. All Member States agree on this point. Almost unanimously. Everyone is aware that the national level is not enough and that the solution must be found at European level. A point of view shared by the population. In the polls, when we talk about stabilization, defence, foreign policy, the answer is the majority... for Europe. It is rather rare! And it should be emphasized.
A paradigm shift
The chairman of the EU's military committee, the Greek general Mickael Kostarakos, says it clearly: defense is no longer about making our borders airtight, it's about allowing other neighboring countries and further afield to ensure their stability. This is the strategic issue of the moment. " We need this instrument quickly ". " To have 20.000 euros to buy pens, pencils, a board for the military, I have to complete the same procedures as for projects of several million euros explains this high-ranking European.
Everything but weapons
The principle is also clear: there is no question of delivering arms. It is not the karma of the European Union. That's not his goal. But the African armies must be equipped with radios, vehicles and bulletproof vests. Build barracks, donate uniforms, have demining tools, etc. is vital to have an army that is not tempted to ransom the population or simply to " go home " (= to desert) “ to eat because there is no canteen on site ».
So why is it blocking?
The file does not block at the political level. On the contrary. The High Representative of the EU, Federica Mogherini, took up the case. The President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, is also at the forefront. But... the hallway war rages on. It is the luxury of the Commission. All it takes is one or two people, their finger on the seam of a dusty Treaty of Rome, or a chapel war. And that is enough to delay the case.
What do the "Taliban" say about the Commission?
What are called — even internally — the Commission's "Taliban" are at work. The house "lawyer" who produced a legal opinion on CBSD is worth the detour. This opinion, we were able to browse it. It is an artistic masterpiece of filibuster. The objective pursued by its author does not seem to have sought the means of implementing a political decision, by giving "possible" and "impossible" paths. It is a question of defending an opinion and having the arguments to demonstrate it (see box). The reasoning is circular: it is forbidden... because it is forbidden. This reasoning is not shared by other jurists (equally eminent): those of the European diplomatic service as well as the Council of the EU thus display a vision, a little less conservative of the law (Read: Equipping African armies, a more dynamic legal opinion *).
A European bubble of happiness
This position illustrates one of Europe's current problems. The European administration has intelligent, dedicated agents, etc. But its operation is, still too often, in silos. What happens on another floor or in a building a few streets away is of little interest (1). And what happens outside the "bubble" of the European administration is, even more, a detail. Entangled in an administrative rhythm, procedure has taken precedence over substance, over politics. The heads of unit, the administrators are no longer there to think, they are there to apply processes, processes... whose foundations we no longer really remember. " The Commission seems to live in a bubble, business as usual confided to me with accuracy, recently, a diplomat, a good observer of the European world.
The word "military" is a dirty word.
And, there is a cultural problem to be aware of. For some, the terms "defence", "security", "military" are still dirty words (2). The time still seems to be for the production of directives, beautiful from every angle, and for a foreign policy where Europe would be the perfect good conscience, bringing good where there is evil. Sort of like missionaries.
Europe under pressure must move up a gear
However, questions of security and defense have today become prominent and impose another agenda, another reasoning, another culture. Europe is currently living under a double pressure — external and internal. And deconstruction threatens... from below. " Under the effect of the economic crisis but above all of the migration crisis, the European feeling is in the process of withering in our populations continued my interlocutor (3). In other words, there is no point in drafting all the classic directive or regulatory projects, if the neighborhood continues to go wrong, and the flow of migrants resumes as in the summer of 2015. We must move up a gear in terms of stabilization .
Act and act fast!
The time when Europe could go its own way, imperturbable, seems to be over. We are no longer in 1956, at the beginning of Europe, nor in 1986 at the moment of glory of the single market, nor at the establishment of the Euro in 1999. We have to adapt... and quickly! Everyone has to take responsibility. The President of the Commission and the European Commissioners must decide. Either they believe that this request is justified, that there are certainly problems but that they must be solved. And they are stepping up the pace, banging their fists on the table if necessary, and making an "ambitious" proposal as early as June. Either they believe that there is a doubt about the legal feasibility. And, in this case, it is the European Court of Justice which should be seized to give an opinion, perhaps more serious... But we cannot leave a machine blocked by a disputed and questionable legal opinion.
(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)
A questionable legal opinion
For the Commission's lawyer, the ban on financing CSDP military operations from the European budget provided for in Article 41.2 (in the CFSP chapter) makes any financing of the CBSD impossible. An interpretation that is open to criticism from more than one point of view.
1° This opinion transforms a ban provided for in a specific framework – political, historical and legal – into a general ban on the financing of the delivery of equipment to the military, even non-lethal.
2° The text quoted in the analysis is truncated, to bring the objective element into the analysis (and not the contrary). The author of the note explains as follows: it is not possible to use the Union budget for expenditure relating to operations with military implications ". Point ! However, section 41.2 is a little more complete and allows us to better situate the context.
Read, it's little different! " The administrative expenditure entailed for the institutions by the implementation of this chapter (NB: the chapter on the common foreign and security policy) are charged to the Union budget. Operational expenditure resulting from the implementation of this Chapter shall also be charged to the Union budget, with the exception of expenditure relating to operations having military implications or in the field of defense and cases where the Council decides otherwise unanimously”.
It doesn't quite have the same meaning. Because we are in an exception to the principle (= financing by the Community budget of the CFSP) which must therefore be assessed more strictly.
3° The historical and political context of this rule is passed over in silence. This rule was designed to establish a distinction between civil and military CSDP operations carried out directly by the EU: the financing of the former obeys the Community budget, the financing of the latter obeys intergovernmental financing. Basically, it was a question of prohibiting by the European budget the financing of the salaries and materials of the European armies engaged in operation (the word is repeated several times). This is not the case with CBSD. It is not a question of financing European soldiers in operation but of procuring stabilization equipment and materials for non-European forces.
4° Finally, the principle of reality seems to have been forgotten. And the hypocrisy. The European Union is already financing projects with military and security implications of the same type as CBSD in Africa ... as in Europe. This is the case with the financing by the Instrument for Stability of certain security actions (vehicles and radios will be financed for law enforcement forces, such as the police and gendarmerie, but for the military!). The African Peace Facility ensures the payment of the salaries of the armies of the African Union. It is true that honor is safe: we do not finance salaries directly, this money comes from the Community budget which passes through the European Development Fund, then through the African Union which then distributes them (but this is indeed of a Commission decision with European funding, which is earmarked in a specific direction). In Europe, some Member States have even succeeded, under regional funds, in obtaining funding to facilitate access to their military bases (eg the Czech Republic for the anti-missile base). It's not more (even less) than CBSD advocates are asking for.
(1) If only to bring together all the directorates-general concerned around a subject, "hybrid threats", and that they want to work together, it took several months of persuasion and one or two strokes of fist on the table of the President of the Commission and his cabinet, so that the work progresses...
(2) Just over a year ago, just before Charlie Hebdo, B2 heard a response from an official, apparently unfamiliar with public procurement directives, arms exports, sanctions procedures, embargoes, etc. . that "the Commission does not concern itself with questions of defense or security"...
(3) Several governments are today weakened by the migration crisis, particularly in the Balkans: in Austria, Croatia, Greece, Slovenia... in particular — not to mention Spain (still without a government), and the United Kingdom ( where David Cameron is on an ejection seat if Brexit passes).
Read also: