The European External Action Service and the European Commission formally replied, in a letter dated Thursday 16 May, which EUROPE has had sight of, to the American criticism of the permanent structured cooperation (PSC or PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF) (see EUROPE 12255/19).
The four-page letter, signed by the EEAS Deputy Général Secretary, Pedro Serrano and the Director General of DG Grow, attempts to reassure the Americans.
“The initiatives are meant to boost European defence cooperation without excluding any partner or entity per se”, the Europeans warn, considering that the conditions established for the participation of non-Member States or their companies in the EDF - those for PESCO are still being developed - were “objective and aimed at protecting an unobjectionable security interest” (see EUROPE 12249/19).
Identical situation in the United States
Faced with American criticism, the Europeans remind us that Washington does not hesitate to avail itself of the opportunity to impose limits. According to them, the conditions imposed by the EU for the participation of non-Member States are “similar to those imposed by the United States on European companies seeking access to US publicly funded R&D defence programmes”.
And they stress that, unlike US legislation, which “relies on a discretionary system”, the institutional nature of the EU made it necessary to have “a clear understanding of the objective criteria for the adoption of these decisions”. As a result, only 0.17% of US R&D spending was allocated to European companies in 2016.
The letter also recalls that some US rules have a negative impact on European companies. According to the EEAS and the Commission, the US export control system hampers and delays transfers within the EU of capabilities developed using US technology. “Such restrictions would be unacceptable for products and technologies funded by the EU budget”, they warn, adding that such rules would delay the operational deployment by the EU Member States of the EDF funded capabilities and so undermine their usefulness for NATO.
“The conditions of the non EU entities in the EDF are directly linked to restrictions that our international partners impose”, the Europeans retort.
No impact on defence procurement
Similarly, Mr Serrano and Mr Pesonen ensure that EDF and PESCO do not affect the European defence procurement market, which “remains more open than that of the United States”. The Directive on defence procurement is therefore not in question.
Europe did not hold back from citing the figures published by the United States itself. For example, US arms exports to the EU amounted to $62.9 billion in the period 2014-2016, while European exports to the US were only $7.6 billion in the same period. They take this opportunity to propose an “open and transparent” discussion on respective access to defence markets.
As Europeans often repeat, the letter emphasises that “the EU's defence efforts strengthen NATO and improve (the) common security”, while the Americans insist that Europeans participate more in the defence effort.
The EU underlines that it would continue its defence efforts in a “transparent and open” manner and that it is ready to strengthen dialogue with the United States in order to help “avoid misunderstandings and continue to build trust where necessary”.
This time, the subject could be addressed in person by the ambassadors of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) during their visit to the United States next week. Although the Member States have been informed of the content of the letter, it has not been formally agreed by the Twenty-Eight Member States. (Original version in French by Camille-Cerise Gessant)