Does EU need Military Power?

[Seeker]

Let's face it, the EU is impotent in comparison to the USA r & d, naval, space power.

We would never have the current situation if there was someone to 'reign in' the Americans excesses.

Like Mac Beth says 'what need we fear when none can call our power to acount'

So, should or can other nations create a counterbalance, a de Gaullist 'force de frappe' to the superpower?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

force de frappe -- sounds like a Starbucks/Star Wars cross promotion thing.

[Drake Tungsten]

France is already trying to make the EU a counterweight to US power. They don't seem to be succeeding, as most of Europe is on America's side in Iraq...

[DarthVeda]

I was under the impression that Spain and Britain were part of the EU?

[Spiffor]

This is a very tricky question in the EU currently. Nobody disagrees with the statement the EU is toothless in comparison with the US, but in comparison with any powerful country at all, including member States : the EU has no authority on the Foreign policies of the member states (hence the divisions between France-Germany and Britain-Spain).

The question is whether it is good or not. Some countries, among whose Aznar's Spain, enjoy not having to have major military spendings, even though it means being under the American protection. Others like France reject the American domniation (it has begun under De Gaulle, it continues now, and it isn't ready to end : the nuclear ability gives France much more independance than without) and try to build a counterweight to the US using Europe.

A European military is an old idea, which dates back to the 50's after an American initiative. Eventually, it didn't happened because the French parliament was against (an extremely sensible debate in that period). This European military was thought out before 1957's Rome's treaty which founded the EEC.

A few initiatives about a European army have been developed recently. Most important countries in this efforts are France and Britain, with a significant participation of Germany and Spain. Nearly all regualr French-British meetings talk heavily about this common military. These initatives are taken by individual States, and are not EU-wide yet, AFAIK (maybe Roland knows more about them)
These initatives currently are rather symbolic, and do not have any important role in the strategies of national militaries. However, they could be the prototype of the future EU army.

The current crisis puts back the question of a real EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (in its current shape, it's a joke - its leader Javier Solana bravely shuts up from the beginning of the diplomatic rift in EU). However, such a commitment from the member states will be very hard and there will be many disagreements and misunderstandings between countries, whose diplomatic and military interests aren't the same.
The time isn't good because the EU, previous to the diplomatic crisis, was involved in writing the constitution, according to the slow integration process. Indeed, the logic undermining EU's development was :
- to develop real economic solidarities
- then, to develop a political cooperation on these economic issue (common market, common tolls)
- then to give more weight to EU institutions on economic matters (the EU speaks with one voice in international trade bargainings)
- then to extend the integration to the monetary policy, with the European Currency System and the Euro
- Current step is to create make all these powerful institutions representative and democratically legit.
- A real common and foreign policy is likely the next step, although the tax harmonization could be it too.

In short, it's too early to push for a EU military. The debates about it may sure start, but things will get serious once the current step (making a credible EU democracy) is over. And it will take time.

[DarthVeda]

Wait a sec... are you proposing a military solely for the purpose of opposing the U.S.? That's rediculous.

[Spiffor]

Personally, I am all for a EU-wide military, but not before EU institutions are strengthened. Like in any other domains, the EU must have one voice -one legit voice that is- to be strong on the international level. We are already strong in international trade bargainings, and I can't wait for the day we'll be strong in diplomatic bargainings.

I think we need a multipolar world, and building counterweights to the US is the only way to achieve it. Things would be ugly if only China became the counterweight to the US, for it would lead to the terrible crimes we have seen under the cold war.

Edit : DarthVeda : a common EU military would mean a common EU policy, which would also be an asset to worldwide peacekeeping. But it is true the current choices are so :
- either you favor the emergence of a diplomatically powerful EU, whose unity comes from the opposition to the hyperpowerful US (there is no threat that motivates the building of a common EU army, unlike old times' USSR)
- either you are satisfied being an economic giant and a diplomatic dwarf, in this case you side with the US.

When another country will rise to power, or will become a real military threat, the options will change. But in the relatively peaceful Europe, terrorism doesn't necessarily call for a united army.

[DarthVeda]

Can't you just accept the possibility that the world can exist on one pole? Who needs a counterweight and why?

[Drake Tungsten]

Wait a sec... are you proposing a military solely for the purpose of opposing the U.S.? That's rediculous.

Welcome to the arrogance and idiocy of French foreign policy...

DeGaulle was a moron.

[Ted Striker]

Yay, more War for Chocolate!

Excuse me, chocolat.

[Spiffor]

A unipolar world is something new in history. Never had a country so much power and such ability to project power as the US currently have (not even the Roman empire). The unipolar world has begun after the downfall of Soviet union, i.e at the end of Bush Sr.'s administration.

Clinton, despite all his flaws and clumsiness, used this power with caution. The chickenhawks currently in power don't have these afterthoughts. At the opposite, they want the US to be stronger than the world combined, and want the US to wage a regular imperialism in the name of "liberty" (this kind of justification has always been used since wars needed to be justifies - the crusades were no better). They want to use this power at full extent.
That's the problem : should the US hyperpower be misled, it could degenerate in major catastrophe for the world. And your current administration proves the US can have an incompetent or bigot team at its helm. This is a very dangerous situation indeed.
The situation is more worrying by the paranoia that came out after Sept. 11, and the growing resentment America is creating in the world (partly because of this undisputed power). Both can go very high, and a paranoid America could go as far as opening the nuclear pandora box, as the high command already told.

This undisputed power, especially in a country where the president as individual can seize huge power if he's gifted, is extremely dangerous. Counterweights must exist. And I would be glad if China wasn't the only one.

[Drake Tungsten]

Clinton, despite all his flaws and clumsiness, used this power with caution.

Total bull****. Bush has expended far more time and effort seeking international support for war in Iraq than Clinton did in Kosovo. You guys just hate Bush, so he can't win...

[Ted Striker]

Clinton was the one who fired off cruise missles after getting caught getting a hummer.

[Propaganda]

How about giving Russia a market for military equipment? We provide weapons, and in turn have full economic cooperation with Europe.

I think we are fairly competitive when it comes to military, in some areas, even more advanced than the Americans. I think an alliance of sorts would be beneficial to both sides, and might give the UN the prestige it is looking for.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think we are fairly competitive when it comes to military, in some areas, even more advanced than the Americans.