Brussels, 08/05/2006 (Agence Europe) - During the conference organised by the GRIP and IRRI on 4 and 5 May at Palais d'Egmont, Brussels, on the theme “Europe - a Quiet Power”, Martin Ortega stressed the European Union's “schizophrenic” make-up on the international scene. The researcher at the EU Institute for Security Studies in Paris recalled that it is always the Member States that hold the monopoly of the use of force whereas, on the international stage and given its wish to speak with a single voice, the Union is increasingly seeking to act as a voice-piece for the States. European citizens belong to the EU and also to their national States. In this context, “States remain little Leviathans that can use force against weaker States or impose their will on others”, Martin Ortega said, recalling the difficulties that can arise when positions begin to differ, for example in the case of Iraq. “There is no cure for this schizophrenia”, he said, noting that it is, however, possible to seek to strengthen the coherence of external policy and consolidate ESDP. It remains to be seen how the international environment will develop. This is what the long-term vision (2025), that a number of researchers of the Institute are working on at the request of the European Defence Agency, is seeking to determine. Two major scenarios are possible: a world of rivalry between States where States are willing to use force to secure the energy resources and/or raw material they need, and a world in which international order allows this competition to be regulated and for conflicts to be taken in hand or even prevented. Although Europeans seem lost in the first hypothesis, the EU has every chance of success if the Kantian vision of the future wins, Martin Ortega said. He felt: “We are advancing toward a Kantian world”. What comes out of the ESDP in the future will, however, remain subject to 1) necessary unanimous decision-making, 2) the weight of the United States which indirectly invites itself to the Council table in so far as some Member States are not ready to act without Washington's endorsement, 3) increased transparency of international dossiers which give greater weight to public opinion (Mr Ortega recalled United Nations Security Council activities were greatly mediatised when the war was triggered in Iraq), and 4) the role of parliaments which, in Europe, must authorise the use of force (he mainly cited the cases of Germany and Spain). Martin Ortega went on to conclude that, under such conditions, “EU use of force will be very difficult to decide and will be legitimate”.
“The EU needs a new kind of capability” with a view to contributing to “human security” in the face of terrorism or international crime, Mary Kaldor said, explaining that it is no longer so much a question of protecting the States but rather of protecting individuals. According to the director of the Centre for the Study of Global governance at the London School of Economics, the EU should avail itself of a mixture of military, police and civilian assets in order to be able to enforce law rather than fighting. The aim of a European force should be to “protect human beings” and therefore “minimise all casualties”. It would no longer be a question of “defeating the enemy but of creating stability and peace” by operating in a multinational framework and by benefiting from the support of the local population.
In answer to a question put to him, Martin Ortega said there is now a considerable and “dangerous” gap between public opinion and the fact that European governments and diplomats just follow along behind the United States. Mary Kaldor asked: “How could we British follow the United States when almost the whole population of the United Kingdom was against the war in Iraq?”
In a vibrant appeal for transatlantic relations, the deputy director for the programme on international security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington above all spoke of the importance that such a partnership holds for issues like Darfur, Iran and Chechnya. Julianne Smith explained that the ESDP did raise concern in Washington but that such apprehension has now been largely dispelled. She invited the EU to pursue its work on capabilities and said the European Defence Agency should enjoy greater authority, greater autonomy and additional resources. When asked whether Europe's defence budgets ought to be stepped up, Julianne Smith said she did not believe this was necessary. In her opinion, spending should be more effective and duplication reduced.
On this subject, Luc Mampaey, responsible for research at GRIP, recalled that annual military spending amounts to $1,035 billion worldwide. With a defence budget of $455 billion in 2004 (i.e. 47% of the world total), the United States spends the most. This makes $1,533 per capital in the United States, as opposed to just $47 per capita in China. The twenty-five EU Member States reached a 2004 total of $211 billion in military spending, i.e. 22% of world defence spending. In the context of NATO, the EU only provides 15% of capabilities, the rest being supplied by the United States. Like Ms Smith, Luc Mampaey stressed that the ineffectiveness of spending was of great cost to the EU.