Next step towards EU Armed Forces

[ORAC]

The unease of EU members such as Ireland notwithstanding, the agreement below seems a significant step towards an EU military capability. I will be very interested to see more details of the Capabilities agency. The placing of authority in the hands of the GAC seems to be mirroring the structure of NATO and the NAC.

The Times:
The London and Paris to share carriers for joint EU duties

BRITAIN and France are to pool their aircraft carriers in a deal aimed at further developing a European defence force.

In an agreement to be announced at Le Touquet today, the two countries will ensure that one of their carriers is always available for a European Union operation. The arrangement will also involve Italy and Spain, each of which has one carrier.

British officials disclosed that the four would collaborate over the timing of training, refits and maintenance to guarantee a carrier being on station at all times.

The European defence force dream has suffered setbacks, but today’s summit between Tony Blair and President Chirac is intended to advance the project significantly.

Britain has three aircraft carriers: HMS Invincible, HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal. France has one in service, but is planning a second. Of the three British carriers, one is always in refit and another in maintenance, leaving one in a state of high-readiness. HMS Ark Royal is the present operational carrier and is heading for the Gulf. Any British carrier tied up with an EU mission could always be withdrawn for more pressing tasks.

Other military capabilities will be shared, to provide assets for EU humanitarian and peacekeeping roles; and a European capabilities agency is to be set up. Britain’s warships would remain under overall UK command, but in an EU operation a non-British commander might be appointed. The missions would be authorised ultimately by the EU’s General Affairs Council.

A British defence official said: “We are talking about peace support and humanitarian operations. We are not talking about relying on France for the defence of Britain.”

[steamchicken]

Why not a less dramatic title? It is a pity that this, a perfectly sensible suggestion, will attract a vast amount of xenophobic ink because we can't have a grown-up political debate in this country. After all, why is it so wonderful, non-luvvie, macho, patriotic, Eurosceptic, and otherwise holy to interoperate with Spain - say - in Stanavforlant but so wimpy, politically correct and generally evil to do it under (shall I propose a designation) Eurpermforlant? After all, it strikes me as very unlikely that NATO naval forces in the Atlantic will ever be activated; but British, US or French ships are very likely indeed to be used for non-Nato, probably extra-European peacekeeping (in the old "east-of-Suez" sense of the word) tasks. I don't think that independent capability and alliance with the US are contradictory, in fact quite the opposite. The Americans would surely choose allies over dependents. And if we ain't independent that's what we will be.

"They need us not to maintain huge bases but...to do the things for the alliance that America cannot." Denis Healey in cabinet in 1964, reporting on a conversation with Robert MacNamara..

[ORAC]

Dramatic?

The article, in I presume a quote from the press release, says "in a deal aimed at further developing a European defence force". I use the title "Next step towards EU armed forces". Where, exactly, is the drama?

Unless you are seem a dramatic difference between "developing" and "next step" or a difference between "European defence force" and "EU armed forces". I even consider EU armed forces as the more accurate term as they''ll be under the EU GAC.

I wasn't, in any case, commenting on the deal over the carriers. I was commenting on the C2 arrangements being put in place. Involving the GAC is a major step forward from the bi and tri-lateral arrangements used so far. And it could cause some comment from neutral nations such as Ireland over the use of EU bodies and funds. One of the main points which resulted in the no vote in their first referendum was a concern about getting dragged into a military alliance.

[Jimlad]

I'd guess this will be a purely nominal tasking, whereby the carrier is available in principle for operations, but should it do something then it can do so in the EU interest as well. A very cheap and easy way of getting some enhanced prestige for the EU with no real cost.
I fail to see why people are frightened of the EU military thing - have these people never heard of NATO? If this announcement were with the USA or any other country then there would be no worries at all.
(i say this as a confirmed Eurosceptic as well)

[bakseetblatherer]

I think an EU armed force is a great idea! We can finally start getting some decent kit eg the SHAR boys could fly Rafael, F3 mates F16 MLU with AMRAAM or M2000 with Mica!

[A Civilian]

I fail to see why people are frightened of the EU military thing - have these people never heard of NATO? If this announcement were with the USA or any other country then there would be no worries at all.

The Americans are frightened because they don't want a military strong Europe. The neutral countries are frightened because it may force them into war. All the rest are frightened that if a EU army came into being it can never be used as none of them could ever agree on its use :)

[BlueWolf]

Jimlad, maybe the thing which makes people uneasy is that whereas NATO is a combined military force made up from the contributions of individual nations, an EU Military would be an individual military force made up from the contributions of combined nations.

I'm not trying to be pedantic or clever; there is a fundamental difference which is more political than military in nature. It represents a significant change, and that does tend to concern people.

[steamchicken]

BW, I don't think that this difference applies. A Nato force is made up of units from individual nations, operating under (eventually) the North Atlantic Council. Any one of the member states can withdraw their units at any time. In this case, the only difference is that the (theoretical) command authority is the EU general affairs council - or in other words the NAC minus the Yanks, plus the neutrals. CFSP issues are subject to unanimity in the council, just as in the NAC. So - not much difference.

ORAC - "a quote from the press release"? Really? Not a headline written by a sub editor on a Eurosceptic newspaper? I don't think the Foreign Office, famously cautious, would use the words "European defence force" in public given the cider'n'chips press threat.

Bakseetbletherer - Rafale? Unless a new Israeli aircraft I'm not aware of...

[bakseetblatherer]

Steamchicken: look Rafale up: (any internet search will get it) top piece of French 5th Gen single (and all the new ones twin) seat (soon to be multi-role) fighter. In Ops in Afghanistan and oft found handing USN fighters their 'desserts juste' (at least thats what the French Navy guys say!);)

[OFBSLF]

The Americans are frightened because they don't want a military strong Europe. Huh? Is this is the same Europe that can't agree to buy enough A400s to get the line going?

A militarily strong Europe? I'll believe it when I see it.

[opso]

A British defence official said: “... We are not talking about relying on France for the defence of Britain.” Hmmm. Good job really, or we'd all have to start planting trees by the roadside so that the germans could march in the shade! ;)

[steamchicken]

I think an EU armed force is a great idea! We can finally start getting some decent kit eg the SHAR boys could fly Rafael, F3 mates F16 MLU with AMRAAM or M2000 with Mica!

It was the "Rafael" I was curious about...