![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsBritain will veto EU army, says Defence Secretary
OK, here's the deal. For two decades everyone in the EU has been talking about the need to improve cooperation in defense. Some limited success has been achieved in that regard. For instance, some military units have been created, although they've never been engaged in actual military action. Cooperation in the area of air transport is also improving, although it still includes only 7 countries at this point. It's evident that there's much to work on. It's a fact that the EU member states combined have more firepower and financial resource for defense than the US. Their problem is the staggering inefficiency of their joint military. Simply because every country pursues its own agenda.
Today's challenges cause people to feel a crisis of security, and want stronger defense. This is confirmed by the recent success of various populist parties across Europe. And the challenge is not just securing the borders - people actually expect more. Maybe excepting those pacifists who still naively believe that a disarmed, "soft-power" Europe has any future - or the radical nationalists who are against any further European cooperation anyway. Although it's Hungarian populist Victor Orban who is dreaming of a European army. Maybe he imagines it as some sort of strictly Christian (Crusader?) institution? I don't know.
But one thing is for sure. Europe has to take matters in its own hands. Whether a shared defense would restore people's faith in Europe is questionable, of course. Admiring military stuff and the militarist approach is not exactly the most popular thing these days, but it's often a necessary evil. Europe should finally become efficient in that respect, at least when it comes to dealing with catastrophes, because the military tends to be the most efficient respondent in such situations. And if the British really do intend to leave the union as their vote showed, this leaves France as the sole European power with the potential and willingness to take the helm. Except, France may not be capable of carrying all that burden on its own.
Let's face it. The times have passed when it sufficed to just ask the US to intervene with their military somewhere around the world. That's a fact that we've realized without needing to wait to see if Trump is going to become president or not. Europe has to take the initiative about its own defense and the protection of what it calls "European values". Even with military means if necessary. The knee-jerk argument that NATO shouldn't be undermined through creating double structures, is overlooking the core of the problem. Because NATO will keep playing its key role for protecting the territorial integrity of its members, but operations like securing the refugee camps for example, or the fight on terror at a domestic level, is beyond NATO's prerogatives. And there's currently no institution to tackle these issues adequately.
Enhanced European cooperation in defense is a reasonable idea if implemented properly. It would save a lot of money, and bolster the EU's political capabilities. It would indirectly aid integration, because in principle a shared defense is an idea that enjoys overwhelming support, unlike migrant policy for example, where the differences are many.
And there comes the problem with Britain's stubbornness. The UK has been blocking military cooperation at an European level for years. They claim it's because they stick with NATO, but in fact this position has a lot more to do with Britain's anti-European inclination than anything else. In the last weeks, Britain's resistance to any plans for a common European military has come into the spotlight once more, and this tells a lot about the particular image of the enemy that the British political elites have crafted in their minds.
Problem is, the UK is about to leave the EU any time now. The only thing that's left is to specify how and when. And this means they're now meddling in a plan that doesn't concern them. They're messing up Europe's attempts to sort out its own future, a future that they do not intend to share - which is basically trolling. Britain has held their foot on Europe's brake pedal for far too long. And now, as they're preparing to leave the house, if they continue to put obstacles to the EU's further development, that would be ugly. Perhaps it's time for some good old-style blackmail? Let's call it a deal: if Britain wants favorable conditions for leaving the union, they should stop hindering EU's path to the future. Sounds fair?
OK, here's the deal. For two decades everyone in the EU has been talking about the need to improve cooperation in defense. Some limited success has been achieved in that regard. For instance, some military units have been created, although they've never been engaged in actual military action. Cooperation in the area of air transport is also improving, although it still includes only 7 countries at this point. It's evident that there's much to work on. It's a fact that the EU member states combined have more firepower and financial resource for defense than the US. Their problem is the staggering inefficiency of their joint military. Simply because every country pursues its own agenda.
Today's challenges cause people to feel a crisis of security, and want stronger defense. This is confirmed by the recent success of various populist parties across Europe. And the challenge is not just securing the borders - people actually expect more. Maybe excepting those pacifists who still naively believe that a disarmed, "soft-power" Europe has any future - or the radical nationalists who are against any further European cooperation anyway. Although it's Hungarian populist Victor Orban who is dreaming of a European army. Maybe he imagines it as some sort of strictly Christian (Crusader?) institution? I don't know.
But one thing is for sure. Europe has to take matters in its own hands. Whether a shared defense would restore people's faith in Europe is questionable, of course. Admiring military stuff and the militarist approach is not exactly the most popular thing these days, but it's often a necessary evil. Europe should finally become efficient in that respect, at least when it comes to dealing with catastrophes, because the military tends to be the most efficient respondent in such situations. And if the British really do intend to leave the union as their vote showed, this leaves France as the sole European power with the potential and willingness to take the helm. Except, France may not be capable of carrying all that burden on its own.
Let's face it. The times have passed when it sufficed to just ask the US to intervene with their military somewhere around the world. That's a fact that we've realized without needing to wait to see if Trump is going to become president or not. Europe has to take the initiative about its own defense and the protection of what it calls "European values". Even with military means if necessary. The knee-jerk argument that NATO shouldn't be undermined through creating double structures, is overlooking the core of the problem. Because NATO will keep playing its key role for protecting the territorial integrity of its members, but operations like securing the refugee camps for example, or the fight on terror at a domestic level, is beyond NATO's prerogatives. And there's currently no institution to tackle these issues adequately.
Enhanced European cooperation in defense is a reasonable idea if implemented properly. It would save a lot of money, and bolster the EU's political capabilities. It would indirectly aid integration, because in principle a shared defense is an idea that enjoys overwhelming support, unlike migrant policy for example, where the differences are many.
And there comes the problem with Britain's stubbornness. The UK has been blocking military cooperation at an European level for years. They claim it's because they stick with NATO, but in fact this position has a lot more to do with Britain's anti-European inclination than anything else. In the last weeks, Britain's resistance to any plans for a common European military has come into the spotlight once more, and this tells a lot about the particular image of the enemy that the British political elites have crafted in their minds.
Problem is, the UK is about to leave the EU any time now. The only thing that's left is to specify how and when. And this means they're now meddling in a plan that doesn't concern them. They're messing up Europe's attempts to sort out its own future, a future that they do not intend to share - which is basically trolling. Britain has held their foot on Europe's brake pedal for far too long. And now, as they're preparing to leave the house, if they continue to put obstacles to the EU's further development, that would be ugly. Perhaps it's time for some good old-style blackmail? Let's call it a deal: if Britain wants favorable conditions for leaving the union, they should stop hindering EU's path to the future. Sounds fair?
(no subject)
Date: 29/9/16 13:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/9/16 15:42 (UTC)Once they are out, of course, the point will be moot and the EU can make whatever kinds of mistakes it wants to, all on their own.
Why the military of France or Germany would want to tie themselves to the politics of Hungary or Portugal is beyond me. Why, for that matter, a Danish or Greek soldier would be enthusiastic about fighting under the command of a Belgian is equally curious. But that is just ol' Euro-skeptical me.
(no subject)
Date: 29/9/16 16:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/9/16 16:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/9/16 20:53 (UTC)But it is all to do with the mission, I suppose.
(Though the French withdrawal from NATO for four decades sort of begs another question, and rather agrees with some parts of your comment.)
I reckon the EU could justifiably regard that a Combined European Armed Force had a mission, and maybe might sell such an idea to Greek folk (who probably could do with the job-creation benefits) and even the Danes. A bit of a shame that we are not involved. It is always best to be comrades-in-arms with the French and Germans when they're being the good guys. For a given value of good, of course.
C'est la vie... c'est la guerre... c'est la pomme de terre.
(no subject)
Date: 29/9/16 16:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/9/16 16:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/9/16 17:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/9/16 17:45 (UTC)So, if its a fable, it is a true fable.
(Also, let me be clear, the US is homogeneous as compared to the EU. That doesn't mean there isn't a great deal of heterogeneity in the US, just that on balance those differences are dwarfed by the rest.)
(no subject)
Date: 29/9/16 19:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/10/16 15:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/10/16 16:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/9/16 15:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/9/16 17:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/9/16 18:16 (UTC)specific European countries, which on their own generally are more homogeneous than the U.S
Ah, the no-true-European, then. :)
(no subject)
Date: 1/10/16 15:05 (UTC)The argument is that Denmark or Sweden is so much more homogeneous that solution X would be harder to implement in the US. (This is usually a bad argument because it often misstates the conditions in the countries in question, both on the pro- and anti- sides. But that is a different debate.)
So, this is a different set of parameters. Any given European country is generally more homogeneous that the US, but Europe, taken as a whole, is much, much more diverse than the US.
(no subject)
Date: 1/10/16 17:54 (UTC)What about France?