War or peace (3). Is the Union on the way to militarization?
(B2) This is an accusation made regularly, for several weeks: the European Union is " in the process of creeping militarization ". An accusation, made in particular by the Left or certain Greens, and taken up from time to time, even by the more serious press, without really checking or qualifying. Is it a mere slogan or a reality? B2 tried to see things more clearly.
What do we mean by militarization?
This assertion does not apply to certain projects – which could be deemed to infringe public freedoms, such as the exchange of information, border control, the deployment of police forces in the streets or the financing of certain security actions by the Union European (1). No. It targets, in fact, above all the latest projects presented by the European Commission and the High Representative, two in particular, which must be financed from Community funds:
- 1° the CBSD, a (modest) European initiative which aims to finance certain equipment and training for the armies of third countries. This project is currently in its home stretch at European legislative level, since we are at the final stage of trialogues;
- 2° the European Defense Fund, and in particular the program proposed by the European Commission on June 7 to develop a support program for defense research and development.
Is there a militarization of the European Union in general?
Security and defense has today become one of the main European priorities. What she was not before (or on very rare occasions). It is an indisputable fact. In all the speeches of European leaders, whether it is the executive (European Commission or High Representative), Member States or parliaments (national and European), this priority is displayed as a new desire, for resilience, in the face of threats that have skyrocketed (East and South, failed states, terrorism, migration crisis), and as a desire to display a renewal of European integration, in the face of certain challenges (Brexit, entryism of third countries , etc.). It is therefore not really a militarization that is targeted but greater security, greater protection. An area where Europe had little presence.
Can we talk about militarization... for the CBSD project?
It is rather audacious, even tendentious. First of all, the CBSD is a "capacity building" project to reform the security forces of third countries (the famous RSS which is one of the flagship doctrines of the UN in matters of democracy and peace).
Then, the amounts committed for the CBSD (which aims to strengthen the capacities of the forces of third countries) are more than modest (30 million euros per year on average). Compared to the budget committed for development (about 8 billion per year!), we are in a ratio of 1 to 250. This does not include the new Sustainable Development Fund which has a guarantee of 1,5 billion euros.
Moreover, this budget is not taken from the "development" budget but from the stability instrument which already has a stabilization (security) objective rather than social or economic development (2).
It should also be specified that this money will not be intended directly for third countries, it will go to international or European organizations (EU delegations, CSDP missions) or national organizations (such as Expertise France or the German GIZ) responsible for them to help build capacity. All this under the control of both the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors.
Finally, the granting of this money is subject to fairly strict conditions. It is not intended to buy weapons. Its objective is to provide non-lethal equipment, intended to strengthen the structure and command of defense or internal security forces. A number of safeguards have been put in place, expressly prohibiting that the equipment delivered cannot be offensive or lethal. We never killed with a bulletproof vest or a field hospital!
Admittedly, one could object that by thus supporting the security forces, one indirectly favors militarization. But until now, Men have not really needed bulletproof vests or computer systems to go and massacre their fellow human beings with machetes, automatic weapons or explosives. And we can note a certain hypocrisy in wanting to defend an active Europe in the world or the maintenance of peace in an international framework, without acquiring certain tools for this (read: Train without equipping! It's like pouring water without a glass).
- Read our fact sheet: The equipment strategy of foreign armies (CBSD, Train & Equip)
Can we talk about militarization... for the defense fund?
Le defense fund has a fundamental objective: to directly support research and development for the defense industry in Europe. It's a novelty, a real taboo that has fallen. There is a real social debate here. Should the European Union confine itself to agricultural policy or regional policy or does it have a more general vocation, which encompasses all subjects, in particular relating to the security of its citizens? Should Europe have autonomous defence, depend on the Americans or NATO, or no defense at all? Does the European Union have a role to play, in terms of support or financing, or should it leave all the power to the States? Does it have the possibility, the role of facilitating the birth of European champions? Can it contribute to marginal savings, or greater efficiency? All these questions deserve to be analyzed and debated. But talking about militarization at the European level is quite original when you know that this type of debate has very little scope in each country when they have a national army...
Are the announced amounts exaggerated?
It is also necessary to put in relation the sums put on the table remain relatively modest. The budget announced for 2019-2020 is, for the moment, modest: 250 million euros per year for the pre-industrial phase and 30 million for pure research. That is 280 million euros in total per year. To put in relation with a budget of the order of 158 billion euros, we are in the order of 0,18% of the budget. Talking about militarization is quite daring! By 2021, the amounts (announced) should be higher: an amount of 1,5 billion euros per year in total is expected for these two components (3). In relation to the European budget, this remains reasonable: around 1% of the budget. We are a long way from the political objective defined by the countries of the Atlantic Alliance.
Will the amounts finance the equipment?
No. This money will not be devoted to equipping armies but to developing technologies for military use (but which could just as well be useful for civilians, cf. internet), which Europe currently lacks. The current problem is that the continent is becoming more and more dependent on the outside (USA, Israel, even Russia) for its own defense and that each State is unable to devote much more money to research.
(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)
(1) Europe is already financing - in particular under the Internal Security Fund - projects with high security intensity: the reinforcement of borders - in particular with video surveillance or fences at the borders of the Schengen area -, projects anti-terrorists (with equipment, including lethal weapons from the police of member countries), etc.
(2) It should be noted that the movements are rather opposite: the CFSP budget (which finances EU peacekeeping actions, the CSDP) was thus punctured in 2016 as in 2017 by 85 million euros a year towards the neighborhood instrument, the other year towards the pre-accession instrument.
(3) The alarm bells take aim at the sum of 5 billion euros. This is a figure that is misleading (admittedly used by the European Commission itself to inflate its balance sheet). Because it includes both the Community budget and the sums of the national budgets which would be spent on defense cooperation. Read : Europe puts 40 billion for defense from 2021? Stop fire
In the series :
- War or peace (1). The pacifying virtue of Europe: true or false?
- War or peace (2). Has Europe lost its ambition to maintain peace? What could she do?
Read also:
