Arnaud Danjean MEP, Strasbourg/Brussels, Interview

Modern Armed Forces for Europe

The European Union has for a long time overestimated its political and military potential in the area of security and defence. For most Member States NATO continues to take priority. The recent change in US strategy, with a major shift of security and defence interest to the Pacific region, calls for a serious discussion not only about EU-NATO relations, but also capabilities.

It is a crucial year for the CSDP The future of the CSDP is in the hands of the Member States

Interview with Arnauld Danjean MEP, Chairman SEDE Subcommittee, European Parliament, Strasbourg/Brussels

TheEuropean: You are known in Brussels and beyond as a convinced European who looks resolutely towards the future, and who is unsparing in his efforts to move forward with the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). But during parliamentary debates and conferences these past few weeks we have heard some rather pessimistic comments from you about the future of the CSDP. Arnaud Danjean MEP: Yes indeed! We have every good reason to move ahead towards a European defence policy: the US shift towards Asia, financial constraints, the instability in our direct vicinity... and despite all these well-known parameters, there is a patent lack of political will on the part of the member states. It is hard to find any ambition in any of them, above and beyond conventional slogans and superficial commitments.

TheEuropean: Why is it, do you think, that the nations attach less importance to the CSDP than they do to their national interests or to NATO? Are we so lacking in geopolitical or geostrategic insight that we are unable to frame common European objectives and strategies? I’m thinking here of Libya and Mali. Arnaud Danjean MEP: I think that there are two main reasons: firstly, member states have other priorities than defence. They are struggling with an unprecedented economic and social crisis that leaves very little room for other concerns at the top of governments’ agendas. The second reason is that strategic changes are under way, but our mindset and defence policies are not adapting as fast as one might hope. It is easier simply to rely on NATO and the US, as Europe has done for the last 60 years, than to spend a lot of effort (and money!) on building a

Arnauld Danjean MEP Chairman of the European Parliament Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) since 2009. He was born in 1971 in Louhans. 1994–2004, Ministry of Defence, Paris. 2004–2005, Representative of the Secretary-General of the EU-Council/HR for the CFSP in Kosovo. 2005–2007, Adviser in the private office of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs and then Director-adviser, EZL Consulting, Paris. Mr. Danjean is Member of the National Council of the UMP (Saône-et-Loire) and he is an elected member of the Bourgogne Regional Council.

new system, in which NATO would remain an important pillar, but where the Europeans themselves would shoulder more responsibility. Defence policy is about anticipating the world strategic environment in the coming decades. But due to the crisis, our governments’ horizon does not seem to stretch much beyond the weekly business. This is hardly compatible with defining a strategy and the corresponding defence capabilities.

TheEuropean: The US is moving away from Europe and towards Asia because it thinks that the European countries are now able to take charge of their own security; moreover, they have NATO. In one respect such confidence in the EU is a good thing; but is the EU indeed capable of delivering common security in Europe and its immediate neighbourhood? Arnaud Danjean MEP: That is indeed one of the key challenges faced by Europe. For the first time in decades, there is a posi

26 tive mood in Washington towards any project that would enhance European capabilities and make European defence policy more robust. This should encourage Europeans to assume their responsibilities. We have seen this in Libya and Mali. The European reaction was not satisfactory, in the sense that on both occasions it was an ad hoc response by some European states only, and with no real collective impetus or any real role for the EU as such. I see these as missed opportunities for the EU to assert a greater role in security and defence.

T he European: All eyes in the field of security are now turned towards the “defence summit” of heads of state and government to be held in December of this year. Are you expecting any major developments? Arnaud Danjean MEP: On the one hand yes, since defence is not that often on the agenda of a European summit. This is valuable in itself and one can expect some positive developments. On the other hand, due to the bleak picture with respect to European defence policy, raising overly high expectations could prove counter-productive and disappointing in the end. So let’s remain realistic. It will not be the great day for European defence. But it can nevertheless pave the way for some improvements, especially in the field of capabilities and the defence industry. If heads of state could come out of this summit with an agreement on some programmes (such as airto-air refuelling, drones...) and with a more concrete commitment to launching cooperation programmes, this would already be an achievement. But what is also important is the process: the summit must be a starting point for a new phase, not a oneoff event with no follow-up.

The European: What pragmatic approaches are possible? Do you see any real opportunities for forging ahead with the CSDP? Where do things stand with the “structured cooperation” foreseen by the Lisbon Treaty? And what about the Weimar Group, Lancaster House and the Elysée Treaty? Arnaud Danjean MEP: We have reached a point where we have to be pragmatic, including, even, in our reading of the Treaty provisions. Some instruments, like permanent structured cooperation, have been paralysed by a theoretical debate on who can participate: must it be inclusive from the start, or should we begin with some countries only? The same goes for bilateral cooperation. The Franco-British treaty was badly perceived within the EU, as it was not part and parcel of a broader collective policy. But ultimately what really matters is the readiness of European states to commit resources and to show the political will to develop capacities and to deliver results, operationally and in terms of capabilities. This is the meaning of a pragmatic approach. If we dedicate too much energy to theological debates about whether such and such an initiative has a sufficient “EU flavour“, we are wasting time and spreading scepticism within Europe and among our partners about our ability to tackle the really urgent challenges. So, all in all, any bilateral or multilateral cooperation that ultimately leads to more responsibility being assumed by European countries is a positive step.

The European: I would like to put a few questions about the three decisive member states, starting with Germany, then France and the United Kingdom. Arnaud Danjean MEP: These three countries are indeed decisive, but some other countries also have a major role to play. We must find a way to avoid controversies about inclusiveness in our defence policy. Everyone has something to bring at some stage in order to build this policy. But we must also acknowledge the leading role of those who make the biggest budgetary and capability contributions. When it comes to France, the UK and Germany, it is unfortunately hard to find a way to accommodate national priorities, procedures and traditions – in London there is ideological reluctance towards an EU defence policy, in Berlin clear priority is given to NATO and France wants to design a CSDP closer to its own interests. So we face a big challenge! I think we can build bridges through cooperation on capabilities and certain operations. The three nations are currently working very well together in the Horn of Africa as well as in the Sahel.

The European: Germany, a regular participant in EU operations, is constantly being criticised for its “parliamentary army”, and the fact that its forces are therefore not adapted to rapid-reaction operations. For many years Berlin was reproached for underfunding the Bundeswehr. Now the defence budget is being increased. Then in Munich the German Defence Minister said that the EU must focus on its own assets and use available capabilities to the full. What do the Germans want? Arnaud Danjean MEP: That is a question you need to ask in Berlin! My impression is that Germany has been more focused on industrial challenges in the field of security and defence than on the potential operational developments of CSDP, with an emphasis on civilian missions rather than military operations. This is largely due to the constitutional constraints you mentioned. But things will evolve. Since capabilities will probably become the main target of the CSDP, there is room for cooperation.

The European: France is a pillar of the CSDP, always ready to shoulder its responsibilities towards the rest of the world. However the operation in Mali shows that it is stretched to the limit: there is a lack of sustainability and the country is also faced with major budgetary problems. The latest White Paper clearly shows that it may only just be possible to maintain the status quo. The French Government has signalled a readiness for cooperation but apart from its good intentions has put little by way of practical proposals on the table; or have I got this wrong? Arnaud Danjean MEP: France’s strategic interest has always been to preserve its ability to act alone when necessary and to have at its disposal the whole range of capabilities needed to assert its strategic autonomy. But many assets are designed in

a cooperative way in terms of industry and programmes. NH90 helicopters and FREMM frigates are a case in point, not to mention certain kinds of ammunition. So it would not be fair to depict France as hostile to cooperation. But Paris rightly insists on ambitious cooperation projects, rather than seeing cooperation as a way to downgrade ambitions. And there is also the question of the partners’ political will and effective capacities. Indeed, unfortunately we see many European countries expressing a political commitment without having the capacities needed to live up to it.

T heEuropean: The United Kingdom is a difficult partner. It sets little store by the CSDP and sees its salvation rather in NATO. Nonetheless, when it comes to capabilities, the UK is irreplaceable. However, the UK Government is finding it financially difficult to keep its forces up to scratch – could this be an opportunity for the EU and hence for the CSDP? Arnaud Danjean MEP: Your question is very much to the point! Developing any European defence policy without the UK would be rather peculiar. And at the same time, we know the limits of the UK’s commitments. But I am confident that if the EU does show its relevance in some operations (as it is already doing in the fight against piracy, with an HQ based in ... England!) as well as in certain capability programmes, the UK Government will perceive the advantages and added value of sticking to a European approach.

TheEuropean: The budgetary problems confronting practically all countries could be a factor for progress in the area of common projects. Could this be a positive approach that all nations should take on board so that something good comes from the crisis? Arnaud Danjean MEP: We are in the habit of saying that a crisis is also an opportunity to find new solutions. So theoretically, the answer is yes. But practically and politically, it is a different story. This will probably be the major and most pressing issue at the EU’s December summit. If EU countries fail to pave the way for some significant and visible common projects, the relevance of European defence projects in general will be called into question.

TheEuropean: Thank you for your frank answers.

CONFERENCE REPORT CSDP perspectives in the light of the December summit 6 th

Annual ESRT Conference, Brussels, 30 May 2013

The European Security Round Table Annual Conference organised in cooperation with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Brussels, and bringing together the relevant stakeholders from the Brussels security and defence community, examined the perspectives for CSDP in the light of the December summit. The first panel on defence industries, chaired by former MEP, Karl von Wogau, discussed the role of the European Commission in European Defence. Joaquim Nunes de Almeida (DG Internal Market) and Slawomir Tokarski (DG Enterprise) gave some insight into the Communication on an EU Strategy for Defence industries to be issued by the Commission in the coming weeks and which will be its contribution to the December summit. In a lively debate during the second panel on the future of the CSDP moderated by Martin Winter, correspondent for the Süddeutsche Zeitung, MEPs Arnaud Danjean, Panel II, ESRT at the Annual Conference 2013

photo: Frédéric Remouchamps, ESRT

Andrew Duff and Maria Eleni Kopaa discussed the need for a stronger political commitment. There is clearly a need for a stronger political commitment. Ms Koppa said that the EU has reached a turning point with the CSDP, which does not seem to be fulfilling the expectations of EU citizens. Arnaud Danjean expressed his concern that the CSDP, while it might not be officially abolished, may be at risk of losing all substance. Mr Duff referred to the implications of austerity measures for European Defence. In the third panel on European cooperation, Lt.General ret. Jean-Paul Perruche, President of EuroDefense France, discussed proposals for enhancing cooperation. He raised the question of why the CSDP lacks credibility and what practical measures might improve the situation. With reference to the report on the EU military structures that had been voted in the AFET Committee, the Rapporteur Marietta Giannakou MEP as well as Michael Gahler MEP underlined the need for common command and planning structures. Jacques Cipriano, Vice-President of the Safran Group, criticised the fact that reductions in defence budgets have only affected equipment and missions, that 40% of defence spending in Europe now goes on overheads and a duplication of structures: “Pooling and Sharing” should target not only capabilities but also overheads.