by Natalia Pouzyreff and Michèle Tabarot, Paris Is PESCO able to reinforce the credibility of the Common Security and Defence Policy? An original initiative, but difficult to implement

In the Spotlight +++ CSDP +++

The sluggish progress of European defence Is PESCO able to reinforce the credibility of the Common Security and Defence Policy?

by Natalia Pouzyreff and Michèle Tabarot, members of the French National Assembly, Paris

In October 2020, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the nological EU competitiveness (MAC-EU), the MALE drone and Defence Committee of the French National Assembly entrust- military mobility). Some others bring together only two states ed us with a mission on Permanent Structured Cooperation with a rather limited impact regarding the strengthening of (PESCO). It took place in the context of the first strategic review European defence. of PESCO with the evaluation of the initial phase (2018-2020) and the preparation of the second phase (2021-2025). It Underlying difficulties and uneven progress also took place in the context of a lasting health crisis, which Initially, PESCO was intended for a restricted number of Memunderlined the urgency of strengthening European strategic ber States, “whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria”. autonomy.1 But Germany called for a more inclusive approach and finally Until recently, defence was not a priority for the European 25 out of the 27 Member States joined PESCO. This resulted Union, even though it was erect- in a heavier governance process ed as a self-standing European policy by the treaty of Lisbon (2007) within the Common “The success of the CSDP relies on Member States’ commitment as unanimity is required for decision-making. In its findings, the 2020 PESCO Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). PESCO was introduced and political will to bring about a strategic review reveals that only 3 projects have reached initial by the same treaty, but ironically powerful Europe.” operational capability (IOC), described as a “Sleeping Beauty” while 23 are expected to reach by former Commission President this status in the period 2020Jean-Claude Juncker. It finally ma- 2023. More than two thirds of terialised 10 years after the Lisbon treaty in December 2017. PESCO projects are still in their ideation phase. Projects were The decision made by the UK to leave the EU and the increased all the more difficult to assess as a common understanding threat level outside the EU’s borders led Member States to act of terms and definitions related to project development and on its effective implementation. management was lacking. Moreover, Member States pursue different strategic interests. PESCO, an original initiative Their level of ambition and their resources vary greatly. Some PESCO is a unique forum of cooperation involving 25 partici- do not comply with the binding commitments and still favour pating European Union Members States that have subscribed the United States’ military equipment. PESCO remains a legal to a list of 20 binding commitments. Among them, states agree framework without judges or sanctions. to increase their expenditure, support external operations In addition, the promise that EU Battlegroups (EUBGs) would and adopt procurement policies favourable to the European be reinforced by PESCO was not kept. Contrary to the commitDefence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB). The aim is ments made, the waiting time in the rotating mobilisation of to achieve a coherent full spectrum force package (FSFP), fill national troops has multiplied. capability gaps, and strengthen the European defence pillar within NATO. The difficult integration of third-party states 47 projects have been launched since 2017. These projects Our attention was drawn to the integration of third-party states vary greatly in scope. Some of them are directly related to ca- which finally came to a resolution at the end of a three-year pability shortfalls and next generation capabilities that remain negotiation in November 2020. Although conditions have been top priorities for European defence (eg the land battlefield set for third state participation through unanimous approval of missile systems BLOS, materials and components for tech- the Council, we raised some concerns regarding the possible

Natalia Pouzyreff

Photo: private

is a member of Parliament in the French Assemblée Nationale in Paris. She was elected to the LaREM party in Saint Germain en Laye. She is a professional engineer who worked for Thales for 17 years, followed by eight years at Eurocopter, where she was the company’s representative in China from 2006 to 2009. At the French Assembly she sits on the Defence Committee and she is a member of the Franco-German Parliamentary Assembly as well as the French coordinator of its foreign and defence policies working group.

Michèle Tabarot

Photo: private

is a member of Parliament in the French Assemblée Nationale in Paris. Born in Alicante, Spain, she is a former executive of a real estate company. From 1993 to 2002 she was elected member of the Alpes-Maritime General Council and Vice President the last two years. From 1995 to 2020 she was mayor of Le Cannet, a town of 35,000 inhabitants. In the French Parliament she is the chair of the Cultural and Education Affairs Committee and she sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Committee of European Affairs.

involvement of the United States in PESCO projects. Indeed, European sovereignty could be jeopardised due to the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restrictions or any disputes regarding industrial or intellectual property. To this end, we recommend that binding agreements regarding those matters should be concluded for each project, so that third-party state participation does not generate any kind of dependence. Ultimately the European Defence Fund (EDF) should exert “European preference”, meaning it should concentrate its funding on the projects that most structure European strategic autonomy.

Make better use of PESCO

As the framework for cooperation, PESCO should contribute to the edification of a strong EDTIB in order to ensure independence in terms of technology and capabilities. We also recommend that the scope of PESCO projects be tightened, focusing on those with the greatest impact on future European military capabilities and the most strategic ones eligible for the EDF. Overall, the CSDP should benefit from the directions given by the “strategic compass”. This initiative was launched under the German presidency of the European Union in 2020 and will be concluded under the French presidency in the first semester of 2022. Still, the success of the CSDP relies on Member States’ commitment and political will to bring about a powerful Europe. PESCO remains an instrument with which to achieve this objective.

1 https://bit.ly/3xcIFJ2 documentation

Facts on PESCO

(ed/nc, Paris) The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) in the area of security and defence policy was established by a Council decision on 11th December 2017. Introduced by the Lisbon Treaty on European Union (article 42.6, 46 and Protocol 10), PESCO is a framework and process to deepen defence cooperation between those EU Member States who are capable and willing to do so. The key difference between PESCO and other forms of cooperation is the legally binding nature of the commitments undertaken by the 25 Member States to invest, plan, develop and operate defence capabilities together, within the Union framework. The objective is to collaboratively develop a coherent full spectrum force package and make the capabilities available for national and multinational (EU CSDP, NATO, UN, etc) missions and operations. 47 projects have been launched since 2017, covering areas such as grosse mereing, land, maritime, air, cyber, and joint enablers.

PESCO has a two-Layer structure: • Council Level: Responsible for the overall policy direction and decision-making, including as regards the assessment mechanism to determine if participating Member States are fulfilling their commitments. • Projects Level: Managed by those Member States that take part in it, under the oversight of the Council. To structure the work, a decision on general governance rules for the projects has been adopted by the Council.

Web https://pesco.europa.eu/#