B2 The Daily of Geopolitical Europe. News. Files. Reflections. Reports

Blog AnalysisEU Defense (Doctrine)

A hard core for the defense. Yes, but not at any price

Permanent structured cooperation is like a great chef, it is unique...

(B2) As a prelude to the mini-summit at the Palace of Versailles, French President François Hollande officially opened the ball for Permanent Structured Cooperation. He could return to this point at the European summit which opens today in Brussels.

In an interview given to six European newspapers (1), the President of the French Republic had thus made no secret of his will...

 “I therefore propose structured cooperation, to bring together countries that want to go much further. »

Interestingly, he says he wants to open it in the UK as well. Which is quite original in institutional matters. Structured cooperation has not yet been set up, an outside country has already been invited!

“In my mind, the UK, even outside the EU, needs to be involved. »

François sets the bar very high... How to read this intervention? What to think?

A hard-core design

Paris clearly pleads in favor of a "hard core" or "avant-garde" concept for permanent structured cooperation. Accurately, in our opinion. To open this device to almost everyone is to condemn it to being, just, a receptacle for projects which have a one in two chance (being optimistic) of ending up in a fishtail, like most of the projects presented so far (since 2008). But, above all, this is of no interest, because there are already many other methods for cooperating with a few, without being bound by the rule of unanimity.

A dozen ways to cooperate differently

In terms of defence, we are indeed spoiled for choice in à la carte cooperation. One could even say that this sector is full of possibilities.

First of all, there are "institutionalised" differences: 1°) Denmark thus has an opt-out. In terms of defence, we can even speak of a "DanExit". The Kingdom of the Little Mermaid does not participate in military decisions or operations. 2°) the countries (neutrals in particular) can not take part in a decision which they do not want to endorse, while letting the others act. Ireland has thus, on two occasions, inscribed in the marble of the treaties, its neutrality and its reservation as to an additional commitment (in particular for the Permanent Structured Cooperation). 3°) The supporting countries of the Atlantic Alliance have also registered NATO's priority in the territorial defense of the EU and in certain projects.

Two other possibilities are provided for by the Treaties (which have not yet been used): enhanced cooperation (classic) and Article 44 (which allows the European Union to mandate certain countries to act on its behalf).

Then, the Member States always have the possibility of taking part in projects, à la carte, within the framework of the European Defense Agency. They can also take the initiative to present a new project, in category B (only voluntary countries participate and finance). The same principle of à la carte participation will, as a rule, be part of the future defense research programme, with one advantage: funding will be partly provided by the Community budget.

Finally, we must add all the forms of cooperation that operate outside the framework of the European Treaty, generally within the framework of a specific international agreement. All industrial projects – from the Transall to the A400M, via the Eurofighter, the NH 90 helicopter or the FREMM frigates – have thus been carried out outside the European institutional framework (via OCCAR or NATO agencies for example or via ad hoc structures). And the greatest operational success, praised in all the texts of the conclusions of the 28, the European Air Transport Command (EATC), took place... in an "exclusive" framework (to five countries first, before being open to a few others). This proves that to work, especially in the defense sector, cooperation must first be small in number, before being open to others.

Cooperation open to those who meet the conditions

Permanent Structured Cooperation (or PESCO) is therefore not the only possibility to have cooperation, structured or not, permanent or not, financed or not, to act. If States already want to go further for a small or large project, they can do so today, without waiting for anyone... And, if tomorrow, Member States which cannot or do not want today to meet the demanding criteria set for this structured cooperation decide the opposite, they can always join it. PESCO remains open to all those who meet the criteria. It is not by lowering the conditions that we facilitate cooperation, on the contrary, we postpone painful decisions and create the conditions for future crisis (3).

Adopt an incentive framework with demanding criteria

What Europe lacks today is an incentive framework, pushing countries to go up, with both financial and political incentives. This is the aim of Permanent Structured Cooperation.

These countries must commit, for example, to making available battle groups, really available, that is to say ready to go into the field, for risky missions. This obviously presupposes finding a framework that reconciles parliamentary authorization (in the countries concerned) with the imperative of speed. It is quite possible if we show a little political ingenuity (2).

These countries must also commit to investing in certain capacities, in common, not those which are necessary only at the national level, but those which respond to the shortcomings observed in external operations – from Kosovo to Mali – and must be filled quickly. The great novelty in this regard is the commitment of the European Commission to finance certain capacities. It is not negligible.

Adopt the multihull tactic rather than the monohull

If Structured Cooperation is unique, it is precisely because these criteria are "high". To do otherwise would be to mislead it... And if it's to build a "gas plant", out of bits and pieces, you might as well give up. On the other hand, it is not forbidden to think about another system: a structured Cooperation with a few (4), with "high-end" criteria, and reinforced cooperation, satellites around this structured Cooperation to push different projects. All of which could be overseen by a general "board", which would in fact be, more or less, the Council of Defense Ministers of the EU. We would thus have, in a European institutional framework, both the mark of strong ambition and the spirit of inclusiveness, without hindering either (5). Like a multihull, where the side hulls give both stability to the central hull, and speed to the ship...

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

NB: This is the conclusion, moreover, to which we have come André Dumoulin and yours truly in thework to be released in a few weeks. Don't forget to order it: To know everything about the CSDP, the reference book

(1) Read: Europe can revive itself through defense (Fr. Hollande)

(2) It could be envisaged that a country of "battlegroup" permanence has its parliament endorse, before the permanence proposal, the characteristics of such an intervention, possibly specifying the caveats or prohibition of use (without authorization).

(3) The acceptance of Greece's membership in the Euro Zone is an example of what should not be done, we lower the criteria (or we close our eyes to the fact that this country does not meet them) by ignoring the consequences for the future...

(4) Basically, the member countries of the EATC - France, Germany, Italy, Spain - Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg if they want - + Finland, Latvia and Slovenia for example.

(5) In this coupling, it would not be forbidden to think of associating third countries... like the United Kingdom, on one condition: these third countries can participate, but they have no say in the matter or power in the decision.

Nicolas Gros Verheyde

Chief editor of the B2 site. Graduated in European law from the University of Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne and listener to the 65th session of the IHEDN (Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale. Journalist since 1989, founded B2 - Bruxelles2 in 2008. EU/NATO correspondent in Brussels for Sud-Ouest (previously West-France and France-Soir).

s2Member®