YOU READ IT and get a lump in your throat. But will this email be dropping into your inbox in the not too distant future?
My politics class is split between those who believe we, the European Union that is, should bear arms, have comparable military might with the US, and those who do not.
The question is: if the EU wants to be more credible as a world actor, arguably the next stage in its development, does the EU not only need the pen, but the sword?
Some argue that “we wouldn’t have to use it” or that “we won’t be taken seriously without one”, “everyone else has one” they say. And maybe that is the point. Maybe the young, innovative EU experiment should continue to act through dialogue and negotiation alone. Because nobody else does, and this gives it a certain edge.
An EU army might cement people’s feelings of EU citizenship, maybe create more unity and pride, but there have to be other, peaceful ways of doing this?
If it were created, there could be language barriers, and would recruits be willing or able to sideline their national identities or differences?
Yesterday, Russia announced its plans of rearmament, even in a time of relative peace. I wonder, at a time of crisis, whether having a coordinated response unit would be a useful asset?
I decide against it. I don’t think the EU was ever intended to be a violent monster. I do not think appealing to popularity (we need something because everyone else has one) is a valid argument. And I’d like to think, somehow, that Europe can use its diversity of thought and intelligence to solve problems and intervene without hate and fighting.
The EU has overseen the longest period of peace between its nation states, many of whom were sworn enemies. You only have to look worldwide to see what war does- the price is autonomy and the real cost is human suffering.
(6 votes, average: 2.50 out of 5)
Loading ...
There already is an EU army; in fact there are several. NATO is as close as makes no difference, despite the significant participation of the US: even France decided to join it again. There are individual EU-specific rapid response units, made up of troops from multiple countries, some NATO members, some not, but they train together and are meant to be deployed together.
The EU’s effectiveness as an economic power is beyond question. Its initial purpose of integrating European states to such an extent that war on the continent would be useless has been achieved. Now the citizens want the EU to become something more than that - a genuine, cohesive world power, concentrated on economic influence, but certainly having the might to command authority if that becomes necessary.
Does the EU need its own army, separate from NATO? Yes - because there are conceivable missions that would be necessary for the EU’s interests, but not NATO’s. Ultimately it’s a question of greater integration: the EU army is the sum of the member state armies, and it’s certainly necessary for them to be able to work together.
Ha, wow. I didn’t expect such a well proposed response.
The EU actually has the biggest market, so in terms of the economy, it is a key player. What I’ve been thinking about though is the future of the EU. As a more unified key player, maybe a ’superpower’.
What if the EU had one single army, maybe in a constitution, with soldiers somehow fairly drawn from every EU country?
For me though, now and in the future, the EU should work through dialogue. But I think it needs a more united voice, and especially here in the UK, my thoughts are met with some resistance. Obviously it needs to work better, there are some barriers and systemic problems. Maybe we need a unified EU peacekeeping task force drawn in the way I suggested. Maybe Nato and the UN cover that.
I might be called an idealist?
No, my point is, this already exits:
“…deploy rapidly and then sustain forces capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks (as set out in the Amsterdam Treaty), including the most demanding, in operations up to corps level (up to 15 brigades or 50,000-60,000 persons) in order to be capable of intervening in any crisis that could occur in an area where European interests are affected. [..] The Petersberg tasks include humanitarian and rescue tasks; peacekeeping tasks; and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.
[...]
EU members made the commitment that by the year 2010, at the latest, they would be capable of responding “with swift and decisive action applying a fully coherent approach” to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations covered by the Treaty of the EU and the 2003 EU Security Strategy (i.e. humanitarian and rescue tasks, disarmament operations, support to third countries in combating terrorism, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, and peacemaking).”
In terms of having a permanent, common EU army, there’s a thing called the Eurocorps that comes pretty close - a supranational military command, controlled directly by the EU, but the bulk of the forces available to them are still under national control during peacetime. This makes sense, not just in the context of EU mechanics, but in the context of armies in general: a national army will be made up of individual regiments, often recruiting most of the troops from the geographic region where they are stationed.
And now for a local touch
Individual EU armies do cooperate quite a lot. The most recent example I’ve come across is the joint airlift capability. These days, European armies tend to be deployed to faraway locations, so there is a serious shortage of transport aircraft. The sort of big cargo plane needed to move troops and armoured vehicles across continents quickly is very expensive to buy and run, and a single country isn’t going to be using it all the time. So there’s a thing called the Strategic Airlift Capability program, where 12 nations - two of them not NATO members - share the cost of running three C-17 military transport aircraft. The first of these is almost finished, and Estonia is one of the nations that will be using it.
I stand corrected!
I believe that the EU does not have an army. Its rapid response teams cannot fight. Their purpose is to help in natural disasters. This army could help when individual countries do not think it helps them. When countries dispute over a long period of time, if they should fight then the problem worsens. The bad side is if this army is too powerful and leads to the use of banning as said. The US will be happy if it takes a load off their shoulders from NATO, but if it turns out bad many problems could occur. This will need some work. I believe it is right when the kinks are worked out
Its rapid response teams cannot fight.
They’re trained soldiers who are issued live ammunition and useful combat technology. Just because their formal mandate does not call them a European army doesn’t mean they cannot fight.
Also, as quoted above, the European battlegroup mandate does include “combat tasks in crisis management”, which means fighting.
I have to say, I study the EU, and my tutor seems to think the EU does not have an army.
I have to say, Kristy, I’ve given links and quotes above showing that there is a standing force of military personnel that reports directly to the EU government and has a defined mandate that includes combat deployment.
So your tutor is wrong.