Atten-shun!!

pete quentin, 30 June 2008

When Slovenia shuffles off the podium of the EU Presidency tomorrow, France will assume the European Union’s top post for the second half of 2008. Among its priorities, the French leadership has asserted its ambition to formalise a common European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).
However, France must prove that the EU needs a common ESDP to supersede member states’ security policies, and furthermore to demonstrate that the EU can be trusted to manage highly sensitive security and defence issues. ‘Is the EU really up to the job?’, asks Claire Daley.

There is no concrete evidence that the EU could meet the expectations of being a military authority. Its recent missions to Chad and Kosovo have been largely civilian missions seeking to maintain security and justice, rather than full-scale military missions.
The French Presidency faces further questions about whether it can lead the construction of an effective ESDP. After all, the EU has a history of creating inefficient common policies (e.g. CAP). But, with ESDP the stakes are higher. The crucial difference is that as well as being fundamental to national sovereignty, ESDP is a hugely sensitive policy area. That is to say, lives are at stake. A lot of lives.
For example and without wanting to draw too many parallels, there are reports today that 17 people, including one child and fifteen civilians, have been shot during a demonstration by the French military at a barracks near Carcassonne, because real bullets were accidentally used instead of blanks. There is currently confusion about how the error could have happened, and one soldier is being questioned.
This tragic event, presents serious questions for the French Presidency. If it intends to race ahead with ESDP, can France be trusted to steer the EU on a steady course, or would the union be at risk of similarly inadvertent political ‘friendly fire’? Member states would be advised to seek caution if they follow France’s route into arming the European Union because, based on today’s tragic events in France, the greatest danger may well come from within.
The Presidential role of the EU is a hugely significant position with responsibility to steer a smooth path, similar to that of the rowing Cox who determines the boat’s course in an arena of fierce competition, encouraging their crew to ’push for ten’ towards a common goal. However, crew members are at the mercy of the Cox because the crew face backwards; the Cox alone dictates the boat’s course – a fact which enables France to ensure member states remain ignorant of its real intentions.
In terms of ESDP, indications are that France intends to steer the EU towards establishment of a European army for its own purposes. An example of similar skulduggery and ambition is Sarkozy’s proposed ‘Union for the Mediterranean’, creating a new political bloc of Mediterranean countries. The ‘EU crew’ are being encouraged to race towards increased co-operation and unity for countries on the Mediterranean rim. However France’s intentions might be less than admirable because it has been especially keen to create a new ‘club’ for Turkey to join, thereby minimising its argument for joining the EU.
For member states themselves, ESDP could mean: “Eliminating Surrendering and Disclaiming Power”. After all, what would happen if a divisive decision, such as whether or not to invade Iraq, were to arise again (as it inevitably will)? Would members be forced to bow to the common will of the EU? It could be argued that Germany’s recent resistance to committing more troops to fight in Afghanistan demonstrates that an EU army could never be a reality. However, in light of the Lisbon Treaty’s seizure of the national veto in many areas, it is conceivable that the development of an ESDP could see member states eventually lose the prerogative to choose when and how they deploy their troops, a power at the very heart of national sovereignty.
Public support for the Iraq war was limited when it was decided in Westminster, but the trauma would be far more severe if troops were committed to a war the whole nation opposed. EU Security and Defence policy is saturated with similarly contentious issues and as such, returning to the metaphor (it is Henley Royal Regatta week after all!), the EU members’ boat is currently something akin to a lightweight vessel adrift amidst shark infested waters.
It is simply not the case that there is a unified ‘European’ agenda, which would be furthered and protected by military capability. To fight a war, troops need something to fight for, an identity to fight to protect. But what does it really mean to be European? And is that identity strong enough to fight for? Europe’s uncertain identity would have huge repercussions for troop morale.
Ireland’s recent rejection of the Lisbon Treaty might alter the agenda of the French Presidency, changing its intended course. Even so, France’s Presidency of the EU is sure to be a choppy ride. The EU Crew would be advised to keep checking over their shoulders to keep their eyes on the finish line. Being a fellow boat member, France will be careful not to tip the boat too much. However the Cox has unique security because they are the only crew member with a safety jacket on (according to Amateur Rowing Association rules)!
What does this mean for ESDP? The French have an exclusive safety measure; an enthusiasm to seal the Union of the EU with a European military force could equally be interpreted as a money-saving initiative by a country that has troops committed to conflicts across the globe, including former French colonies in Africa e.g. Chad. To receive funding and resources from other EU member states to fund military intervention in which the French have special interests would indeed be an incentive to establish ESDP.
Whilst the French Presidency will attempt to steer the EU’s agenda for the coming six months, it will be left to the member states, as crew members, to do the leg work. Ultimately it is they who are committed to providing financial and human resources for ESDP. After all, every Cox needs the concerted effort and co-operation of their rowers – the powerhouse of the crew- because if those rowers decide to jump ship the Cox will surely be left impotently bobbing in the water, in command of nothing more than an empty vessel.