In the heady days of the late 1990s, European defence was the subject of choice for journalists, academics and think tanks. Then in 2002 it all went phut. No one I’ve spoken to knows why. The most obvious reason – the attacks on 9/11 and the shift in focus on international terrorism – actually sparked more debate about Europe’s role in security and defence. But then, the constant hum of debate on European defence that had been the backdrop to the 80’s , 90’s and early naughties suddenly became a quiet whimper of hostility – between those Europhiles who favoured closer defence cooperation but were resigned to listening to agonising debates about the future of the A400M on one hand, and on the other, those Atlanticists who warned about the costs of such an enterprise (famously summed up by Albright’s 3 Ds – no diminution discrimination and duplication of the alliance), but wanted Europe to get some balls and share the burden with the US.
This year however could see European defence back on the agenda as Philip Stephens comments in today’s FT:
Out of sight, the governments of Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown are quietly discussing the terms of a new accord on European defence. Behind the seemingly arcane discussions on military planning cells, collaborative procurement, interoperability and shared capabilities lies a deep strategic truth exposed by the war in Iraq.
Offered assurances by Mr Sarkozy that nothing much need be said publicly while the treaty is going through the British parliament, Mr Brown has approved the preparatory work. Perhaps more significantly the mood within 10 Downing Street has changed. Mr Brown’s disdain for Europe was summed up by his decision to arrive late for the official signing of the Lisbon treaty, adding his name to the text in unsplendid isolation. Those close to him now say he was badly advised. His officials, prone to tell the prime minister what he likes to hear, had not properly explained the important symbolism of the moment. Mr Brown was badly jolted by the reaction in other European capitals, not least Berlin.
I’m not sure about the rest of the article as I think the briefing(s) may have been heavily weighted in favour of Whitehall’s view of the future. But aside from 2008 being the year of the rat and potato, it is also the tenth anniversary of St Malo – the great Anlgo-French defence agreement. In order for St Malo II to be meaningful the discussion should, in my mind, focus only on capabilities and implementation rather than vacuous rhetoric about Mars and Venus or the future of transatlantic relations (remember, Britain is no longer the bridge between Europe and America – we’re a global hub).
The FT have kicked off the debate today, and the think tank CER have the first of many seminars this year on the subject. But please let’s first focus on the practicalities of European defence – not the politics of a European project that could always do more.
