The main articles of the Constitution which entail militarisation
GUE/NGL Group Meeting / Esko Seppänen 17.9.2003
The Helsinki summit of December 1999 marked the decisive
launch of the militarisation of the EU in practice. It was
decided to create military institutions in the EU structures
and to equip common crisis management units: a Euroarmy.
EU leaders expressed their 'determination to develop an autonomous
capacity to take decisions and, where NATO as a whole is not
engaged, to launch and conduct EU-led military operations
in response to international crises'.
EU-led crisis management operations are carried out 'with
or without recourse to NATO assets and capabilities', but
at the same time 'avoid unnecessary duplication' (with NATO
operations). Attention was also drawn to NATO's Washington
decision, according to which non-EU members of NATO and other
interested countries may participate in EU crisis management.
NATO member countries committed themselves to using NATO's
joint defence planning bodies to coordinate their actions,
and non-NATO countries were encouraged to act according to
the PARP process of the Partnership for Peace programme.
In Helsinki the Member States committed themselves to being
able to assemble by 2003 a military force of 50 000 - 60 000
within 60 days and to maintain it for a minimum of a year.
This force would be able to carry out all the Petersberg tasks,
and this goal is known as the Helsinki Headline Goal
(HHG).
Where did the figure of 50 000 - 60 000 come from?
EU Member States have around two million soldiers at arms.
Of these, however, only one tenth are trained and equipped
so that they can be used in international (crisis management)
tasks. Of these 200 000 qualified troops, only around 50 000
can be deployed at short notice. Thus the number of Eurotroops
available for crisis management tasks was dictated by the
total number of troops available. In reality the Euroarmy
is a force of 200 000 troops.
Since the Helsinki headline goal (HHG) states that troops
should be maintained in combat readiness for a year, back-up
and replacement troops are needed for less rapid deployment.
Since the assumption is that over a one-year period a brigade
is in the field, on maintenance duty and on stand-by for four
months at a time, the HHG requirement of a force of 50 000
- 60 000 troops in the field for a year actually entails an
army of 200 000.
In the same context the first military bodies were established
within EU structures and the Council's hierarchy: the Political
and Security Committee, the Military Committee and the Military
Staff, to which missions formerly performed by the WEU, which
had operated outside the EU, were transferred.
Common defence
The Constitution unambiguously states that a common defence
is an objective of the EU:
'2. The common security and defence policy shall include
the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy.
This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council,
acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend
to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance
with their respective constitutional requirements.'
Before such time, countries may engage in 'structured cooperation'
in the field of defence within the structures of the EU.
This is the kind of military cooperation which Germany, France,
Belgium and Luxembourg recommended to the other EU countries
at the end of April: a particular group of countries could
institute their own military structures within EU structures,
with provision for a military command and staff.
The reason adduced for this is that without military force
the EU is not a credible operator in global politics. The
aim is to militarise the EU even though not all Member States
so desire or will participate in military cooperation.
A new concept: structured cooperation
The Constitution introduces a new concept: 'structured cooperation'
(Part I, Article 40(6)):
'Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil
higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments
to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding
missions shall establish structured cooperation within the
Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by the
provisions of Article III-213.'
Article 213 reads as follows:
'1. The Member States listed in the Protocol [title],
which fulfil higher military capability criteria and wish
to enter into more binding commitments in this matter with
a view to the most demanding tasks, hereby establish structured
cooperation between themselves within the meaning of Article
I-40(6). The military capability criteria and commitments
which those Member States have defined are set out in that
Protocol.'
On the basis of this article, certain EU countries may engage
in structured military cooperation within the EU. Structured
cooperation (Part I, Article 40(6)) is governed by different
provisions to 'enhanced cooperation' (Part I, Article 43).
Structured cooperation may be initiated by a smaller group
of Member States than enhanced cooperation, and such a group
may itself adopt criteria relating to armed forces (on the
same basis as the convergence criteria were adopted for Economic
and Monetary Union) applicable to Member States that wish
to join in later.
Those countries which are the founding fathers of structured
cooperation may then decide (Part III, Article 213(2)) on
the inclusion in the EU's military nucleus of countries which
seek to join it later:
'2. If a Member State wishes to participate in such cooperation
at a later stage, and thus subscribe to the obligations it
imposes, it shall inform the European Council of its intention.
The Council of Ministers shall deliberate at the request of
that Member State. Only the members of the Council of Ministers
that represent the Member States taking part in structured
cooperation shall participate in the vote.'
The countries participating in structured cooperation may
use their joint military forces to carry out operations on
behalf of the whole EU if the Member States - unanimously
- authorise them to act on behalf of the whole EU (Part III,
Article 213(4)):
'4. The Council of Ministers may ask the Member States
participating in such cooperation to carry out at Union level
a task referred to in Article III-210.'
Such a task may also include peace-making without the authorisation
of the UN. The Convention did not incorporate in the Constitution
any clause requiring EU operations always to have a UN mandate.
At the same time it has become clear that there is no intention
of setting any geographical limits to the forces' operations.
Part III, Article 210, extends the so-called Petersberg tasks
to include 'joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and
rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict
prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces
in crisis management, including peacemaking and post-conflict
stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight
against terrorism, including by supporting third countries
in combating terrorism in their territories.'
The 'solidarity clause' (Part I, Article 42) has the aim
not only of preventing terrorism but also of preventing 'the
terrorist threat' in the territory of the Member States.
As a concept for inclusion in a constitution, 'preventing
the terrorist threat' is very open to interpretation, and
it gives the political elite of the Member States very wide
powers to order military operations. The terrorist threat
was also being fought in Iraq.
Declaration to be attached to the Constitution
Various defensive and offensive operations may be conducted
by way of structured cooperation, but this is a different
matter from regional (NATO) defence. The EU's NATO member
states defend their regions against possible foreign aggressors
under the leadership and command of NATO.
Part I, Article 40(7) indicates that the EU is to be turned
into a military alliance:
'7. Until such time as the European Council has acted
in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, closer cooperation
shall be established, in the Union framework, as regards mutual
defence. Under this cooperation, if one of the Member States
participating in such cooperation is the victim of armed aggression
on its territory, the other participating States shall give
it aid and assistance by all the means in their power, military
or other, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations
Charter. In the execution of closer cooperation on mutual
defence, the participating Member States shall work in close
cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The
detailed arrangements for participation in this cooperation
and its operation, and the relevant decision-making procedures,
are set out in Article III-214.'
Part III, Article 214(1), which is mentioned here, reads
as follows:
'1. The closer cooperation on mutual defence provided
for in Article I-40(7) shall be open to all Member States
of the Union. A list of Member States participating in closer
cooperation shall be set out in the declaration [title]. If
a Member State wishes to take part in such cooperation at
a later stage, and thus accept the obligations it imposes,
it shall inform the European Council of its intention and
shall subscribe to that declaration.'
This closer cooperation, which entails mutual security guarantees,
was justified in papers produced by the Praesidium of the
Convention by stating that by means of it those Member States
which so desired would be able to uphold the undertakings
they had already given under Article V of the Brussels Treaty.
Article V is the collective defence clause of the
Western European Union (WEU), under which the USA too would
automatically be expected to act on its pledge to guarantee
others' security. Consequently the USA is likely to demand
that all these countries join NATO.
The article's compatibility with NATO is further confirmed
by the following clause (Part III, Article 214(4)):
'4. This Article shall not affect the rights and obligations
resulting, for the Member States concerned, from the North
Atlantic Treaty.'
The comparable compatibility of Eurodefence with NATO structures
is also provided for in Part I, Article 40(2):
'The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article
shall not prejudice the specific character of the security
and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect
the obligations of certain Member States, which see their
common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation,
under the North Atlantic Treaty, and be compatible with the
common security and defence policy established within that
framework.'
Non-aligned status in danger
If a country signs a declaration pursuant to Part III, Article
214, it will not be non-aligned.
Thus the EU Constitution also calls into question the basis
of the foreign policy of the six EU Member States which do
not belong to any military alliance: should they remain non-aligned
or should they join NATO via the EU? The aim of the EU's NATO
members is to ensure that all EU Member States also join NATO.
All in all, the articles of the EU Constitution which entail
militarisation will not have the effect of creating a separate,
NATO-free defence for the EU. Military cooperation within
EU structures will reinforce NATO's military dominance in
continental Eurasia and pave the way for EU military crisis
management operations which may also include peace-making
and war, even in areas far beyond the EU's borders.
The EU is preparing to join in a battle for non-renewable
natural resources as part of US-led NATO forces.
At the Intergovernmental Conference, an effort should be
made to prevent the EU from being militarised in the way described
here. However, this will be difficult, as the large Member
States have agreed on the above articles and seem likely to
adhere strenuously to their agreement.
| 