Brussels, 15/09/2006 (Agence Europe) - Duplication in defence procurement programmes and expenditure is very costly for the European Union. Such is the conclusion reached by the survey carried out by Dr Hartmut Kuechle, from the Bonn International Centre for Conversion, at a request from German Christian Democrat Karl von Wogau, who chairs the EP sub-committee on security and defence. The conclusion is in fact not new. The survey does, however, provide figures, gives a detailed analysis of European and US arms markets, and presents a series of recommendations to offset what the author of the survey calls “the cost of non-Europe in the area of security and defence”. Mr von Wogau, who also told the press on 14 September that all these duplications were hazardous for European troops on the ground, has commissioned a similar survey in the field of satellite observation systems.
Results of the survey show that total defence spending by EU Member States is €169 billion annually. In 2005, the United States allocated $495 billion for defence. It is always tempting to compare the European and US budgets - but any such comparison is prone to misinterpretation, the report says, adding: “Political objectives are the major driving force for military strategy, which itself defines the (…)need for higher budgets”. The United States defines itself as a nation at war and it is therefore logical that its defence budget should be high. Unlike the United States, the EU is “not a superpower” and, as the European Security Strategy indicates, prefers diplomacy to force. The problem is therefore not that the EU spends about half as much as the US on defence but rather that “European defence capabilities are estimated at only 10, or at its best 15% of the American capacities, thus showing the European inefficiency and the cost of non-Europe”, the author of the survey warns, noting that the total yearly cost of intra-Community transfer (due to the different national legislations in particular) is estimated at €3.16 billion for 2003.
How does this “non-Europe” operate in practice when it comes to security and defence? According to the survey, each year Member States invest around €26 billion in defence spending. Within the EU this buys: - 4 different kinds of battle tanks (Leclerc, France; Leopard 2A5, Germany; Challenger, UK; and Ariete, Italy; - 23 national programmes for armoured fighting vehicles (AFV); - 3 parallel developments for combat aircraft (the Swedish Gripen, French Rafale and the Eurofighter); - and 89 European weapons programmes (in comparison to only 27 US programmes). Not to mention the particularly frequent duplications in the development of command, communication and control systems. There is of course collaboration in developing joint programmes such as the Eurofighter and A400M but these programmes have been considerably criticised due to their high cost and delays, the survey notes. Such problems are not only due to a lack of political resolve but also to the difficulty of developing such projects with several participants, each of whom have their own requirements (for example for troop protection).
The EU could do more by spending its money more effectively, the author of the report points out, recommending the abolition or at least revision of Article 296 of the Treaty (which allows derogations to Community provisions on State aid for some defence procurement: EUROPE 9166). Total liberalisation of national defence markets is a long term goal and it is therefore necessary in the meantime to harmonise the conditions needed for forming a European defence market. Linked to this goal are: security of supply, state support, subsidies, offsets, intra-Community trade issues, export policies and military requirements. “All these issues must be harmonised in a legally binding way and not only by voluntary Codes of Conducts, which are interpreted differently by national governments”, the author notes, alluding to the Code of Conduct for liberalising the defence equipment market (in force since 1 July: EUROPE 9072), and urging for privatisation of all public enterprise in the sector.
The European Parliament, for its part, must oversee implementation of the Code of Conduct by Member States by “making public any misconduct” and by continuing to demand that the Code be binding. It must also call on Member States to agree on a list of countries involved in armed conflicts and towards which all arms exports must be banned, and to apply identical criteria when it is a matter of assessing third countries that are under an arms embargo or restrictions.
The European Defence Agency (EDA) must collect and publish more data on national procurement and on national policies concerning defence exports, offsets and subsidies in order to increase transparency and close any information gaps.