European Strategic Autonomy

By Adrian Kokk

Strategic autonomy is a complicated issue to handle, especially for a diverse supranational union like the EU. Over the course of several decades, the meaning of the term has changed from primarily concerning military might to now including a plethora of aspects. In these turbulent times, it is important to respect the complexity of this issue and to not succumb to protectionist solutions.

In a time of intricate foreign policy challenges, the realisation of true strategic autonomy will likely become one of the most defining objectives of the von der Leyen Commission. Despite having some controversial implications, the essence of this idea is far from alien to most EU politicians. For decades, proponents of strategic autonomy argued that the EU needed to rid itself of its dependence on the United States in matters relating to security and defence, in order to have free reins over its foreign policy agenda. Since then, the discussion has become increasingly versatile, as strategic autonomy is no longer limited to issues pertaining to security and defence, but also entails numerous economic aspects, such as technological advancement. But with the commencement of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the events leading up to said attack, the focus of the discourse has once again been Europe’s military capabilities.This does of course raise questions regarding the future of EU competences, as well as more holistic queries about how autonomy can be achieved and what it means for the geopolitical stability of Europe and, ultimately, the world.

With a longevity similar to that of the debate on strategic autonomy, defence and military cooperation within the EU has for many years been a controversial topic. In spite of this, there have been quite a few significant and impactful achievements in this respect. By virtue of the Lisbon Treaty and previous agreements, the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) now serves as the EU’s course of action for military and security cooperation among the member states. The CSDP has, for example,conducted missions in several African countries, and its staff is currently deployed in three different continents. Moreover, through the European Defence Fund (EDF), the European Commission provides monetary support to a wide array of initiatives in defence research and development. With a budget of close to €8 billion for the current fiscal period, the EDF funds a variety of projects, many of which focus on issues outside the field of traditional warfare, e.g. cyber security, digital transformation and energy resilience.

Had these efforts been cumulatively sufficient in today’s geopolitical landscape, there wouldn’t be such an urgent need to discuss and debate this issue. But because of the atrocities taking place only miles away from the external border of the EU, a more comprehensive approach to security and defence is undoubtedly needed. As previously mentioned, the retraction to yet again discussing autonomy as a function of military capacity is of course a reasonable reaction to the situation in Ukraine. It is however important to remember that brute military force is not the only relevant parameter. The concept of strategic autonomy is evidently much more complex. Furthermore, as Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has pointed out, the striving for strategic autonomy must not become a zealous attempt to achieve total independence at all costs. Rutte argues that French President Emmanuel Macron’s approach to this issue, with a heavy emphasis on self-reliance in military and other matters, sends both autarkic and protectionist signals, and the prime minister also stresses that it is essential not to cut ties with important allies such as NATO. This also shows that the pursuit for autonomy is not free from conflicting interests.

But what does this really mean in terms of geopolitical stability and peace? On the one hand, it is of great importance to remember why autonomy has been sought after for such a long period of time. Without the ability to act independently vis-à-vis other great powers, the EU would be rendered an obsolete actor in foreign affairs. Aforementioned initiatives, i.e. the CSDP and the EF, are therefore indispensable. On the other hand, a more versatile perception of strategic autonomy needs to be disseminated. The focus cannot solely be on military matters, nor can any protectionist tendencies be tolerated in the name of independence. Strategic autonomy is simply not about being independent for the sake of independence. The ambition must instead be to attain peace and security within the EU and in its neighbouring regions.

There is a need for an edifying perception of this issue. Strategic autonomy must be achieved through a comprehensive variety of reforms, and the focus cannot be limited to military affairs. Defence initiatives have to be interspersed with vastly different efforts that will allow the EU to independently tackle other imminent challenges, such as climate change. The EU will only be as strong as its weakest link, and strategic autonomy is therefore something that comes with internal geopolitical implications as well. It essentially comes down to the EU being able to proficiently exercise its competences in a geopolitical landscape that some may argue is becoming increasingly unpredictable. On a more symbolic note, the striving for an autonomous EU is something that can potentially unify the member states and help overcome petty differences, which will send a clear message to the rest of the world. In these turbulent times, such actions do indeed speak volumes. ♦