But what nonsense! Here is what the professionals of two professions will say (that of criticism, and that of weapons). So let’s start by listening to them and come back, before presenting the idea, to its refutation. First of all, establishing European armed forces, under supranational command, obviously means moving, for each country, towards, if not an abandonment of sovereignty, at least a significant impoverishment of its sovereignty.
Secondly, it must be remembered here that defense Europe is, politically, a particularly sensitive and quite complicated area. The baptismal font of the European communities saw the European Defense Community (EDC) project pass, which contained the idea of a European army, under NATO supervision. The treaty establishing it was rejected by France in 1954.
From the doctrinal let’s move on to the operational. The third criticism is pragmatic: while some member states are already having difficulty carrying out large-scale exercises, it is difficult to see them coordinating in such a way as to bring together complete, totally integrated common army corps.
An already existing framework
In short, it’s complicated. However, the birth of such an army would not occur ex nihilo. The Union deploys a common security and defense policy (CSDP), which is presented as already going beyond a simple defense alliance, with civil and military capabilities made available by the member states. The Union also has a general staff! This headquarters of the European Union, joint and multinational, is based on strategy. A European Defense Agency completes this building, particularly regarding the development of industrial arms programs.
Let us also note the existence of pieces of armies such as the Franco-German brigade, comprising French units, German units and mixed units. This brigade, symbol of Franco-German rapprochement efforts, is part of a more general framework, that of the “European corps”. This Eurocorps is a multinational army corps bringing together six member states (France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland). Without being subordinate to a supranational defense framework, it is governed by a committee composed of senior military and diplomatic officials from each of the participating nations.
It would be too light to say that the European army would only find an embryo here. With these elements, she has sort of a beginning of framing and foundations. The subject is to go further. Because if the Union intends to strengthen its common defense policy, it may prove increasingly difficult to do so without a dedicated army.
A community of destiny in a multipolar world
The project could be to move towards a European alliance equivalent to NATO, when it fades. Demographically, technologically, industrially, the Union could maintain a numerous and appropriately equipped army. It is simply necessary (it’s all in the simple) to decide.
The new geopolitical context, very troubled, and the growing assertion of threats certainly do not require such an orientation. But such developments invite us to think about it coldly and seriously, in the two hypotheses of strengthening either the federal dimension or the confederal dimension of Europe.
Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel, among others, discussed the subject and the project. There remain many pitfalls, difficulties, eminent questions to be resolved (who will be the leaders? what shares for conscription? what means of each of the States? what logistics chains? what models of tanks or planes?), functions to be defined.
The European army will not assert itself, in the short term, on the institutional level or on the operational level. Ambition, however, demonstrates a real community of destiny in a new, uncertain and dangerous multipolar world. To the pooling of costs would be added the reduction of dependence on Washington and the strengthening of Europe’s diplomatic weight.
If many questions can be answered through peaceful discussions, others will certainly remain to be explored for a long time: who would have the last word in the event of war? In any case, while the United States demanded the CED at the beginning of the 1950s, today the withdrawal of American support requires, in every way, a new European security effort. So why not really consider a strong military materialization of the European idea?
