Beyond NATO: The Case for a European Security Council |
The Revival of European Defense Ambitions and Historical Background
Faced with continued Russian aggression and a US that appears strategically uninterested in Europe, unless it’s trying to annex Greenland, EU officials are once again pushing for a big bang rethink of Europe’s common defense. Only a couple of days ago, the defense commissioner floated the idea of creating a standing European military force of 100,000 troops that could potentially replace US troops in the event of a mass withdrawal. A German MEP (Member of the European Parliament) has proposed the creation of a new European security council based on the existing Security Council in the UN.
The idea of a European army was first seriously considered in 1952 when the US pushed for West Germany to rearm and join NATO. France opposed this and instead proposed a European defense community, which would have merged the armies of six European states under a supranational command. The plan collapsed in 1954 when the French parliament refused to ratify it and when West Germany joined NATO instead. France tried to resurrect this idea in the 60s when President Charles de Gaulle, who really didn’t like Europe’s growing dependence on the US, sought to turn the European Economic Community into a security alliance.
But other members still preferred to stick with NATO because there was no need to create a new European security architecture when Europe already had NATO, which covers most of Europe and includes the world’s biggest military in the form of the US. Nonetheless, significant progress was made towards an independent EU security policy around the turn of the millennium when French President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair signed the St. Marlo Declaration in the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars. The declaration laid the political groundwork for the EU’s common security and defense policy and set a goal to create a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force that could intervene in European crises. However, this force was never realized, and progress towards a European army regressed as the EU enlarged with former Soviet states that overwhelmingly supported NATO membership over any European security architecture.
Europe’s Fragmented Military Landscape and the Trump Shock
Today, Europe’s armies are a continental mishmash. European NATO countries collectively have nearly 2 million troops, but their forces are fragmented and poorly coordinated, and the bloc operates 30 separate defense procurement systems, which have driven up defense costs massively. However, the idea of an EU army returned to the table with Trump’s return to the White House last January, after he began negotiating a peace deal with Russia without Ukraine’s input and told Europeans that they would be responsible for guaranteeing Ukraine’s security after the war. In recent weeks, Trump has also renewed his bid to either buy or annex Greenland and stated that the US will not rule out taking the island by force.
While Trump toned down his threats during the Davos summit by ruling out military action, by this point, the damage had already been done, and talks began in Brussels about preparing for a future in which NATO may no longer serve as the cornerstone of European defense. The most talked-about comments were those of the EU’s defense commissioner, who suggested forming an army of 100,000 soldiers. Well, these suggestions may sound slightly far-fetched at the moment, but if the transatlantic situation remains unstable and they stick to their rearmament plan, then things couldn’t be any different from this.
The European Security Council Proposal and the Risks of a Two-speed Europe
However, an army of the EU is definitely a long-term plan, and it will most likely necessitate another controversial EU treaty. This feels unlikely in the short term because the EU currently has a lot on its plate at the moment, with various outstanding disagreements over issues like debt, leaving it with little bureaucratic bandwidth and political will. However, a full-on EU army isn’t the only way to beef up Europe’s post-NATO security architecture. A German Green MEP (Member of the European Parliament), for instance, has also suggested the creation of a separate European Security Council, or ESC.
The ESC draws inspiration both in name and structure from the United Nations Security Council, envisioning a small group of key military powers that will be given collective responsibility for key security decisions in Europe. Again, the idea of a European Security Council isn’t entirely new. It was first floated in the 1980s, and various proposals have been debated and rejected. After resurfacing in the wake of EU divisions over the 2003 Iraq War, the concept regained renewed attention in 2017, championed by former EU executive chief Jean Claude Juncker and French President Emmanuel Macron, but that effort faltered mainly due to the UK’s reluctance to participate.
Now, the ESC’s voting procedures would apparently be modeled on those of the United Nations Security Council. Core voting members would initially include the president of the European Parliament and the five EU countries with the largest economies, militaries, and defense spending: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Poland. The plan also seeks to include the UK, which obviously isn’t an EU member but is seen as an important ally both because of its nuclear capability and high defense spending, as well as being a signal that European security is not solely the EU’s responsibility.
In addition, a small number of rotating EU members, initially two, would sit on the ESC, although without voting rights, and over time, the council would expand. This would guard against a situation where a single country, for example, Hungary, could veto the EU’s defense decisions while still preserving the consent of the big players, who would presumably shoulder most of the burden in any military intervention.
The idea of an ESC, which would coordinate Europe’s collective defense efforts, feels more plausible than a full-on European army. Both because, well, it’s unlikely to face much blowback from Euro skeptics, and also because under current proposals, the council will be established through a new intergovernmental treaty, allowing it to operate within EU law while bypassing the bloc’s usual requirement for unanimous defense decisions.
While this sounds a bit tricky and seems to go against the founding principle of the EU, which is equality between all states, such a move isn’t without precedent. Europe has the example of the Schengen Agreement, which today allows free movement across most EU states, which was initially created outside of EU treaties and only later incorporated into EU law. Over time, it expanded to additional members, with Bulgaria and Romania being the most recent to join last year. Another example of this multi-speed integration is the Eurozone. Not all EU states adopted the common currency. Only those meeting the criteria and wishing to join did so, forming an inner core for economic decisions.
But although the ESC may represent a pragmatic way to break through paralysis in European security decision-making, it has considerable political costs. By locking influence within a small circle of large states, it risks reviving long-standing fears of a two-speed Europe, where influence is unevenly distributed, and the smallest nations will be demoted to a secondary country classification, something that will only serve to further divide the unity among the nations of Europe.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please visit the Submissions page.
To stay updated with the latest jobs, CSS news, internships, scholarships, and current affairs articles, join our Community Forum!
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
Muhammad Haseeb Sulehria is a student of Defense and Strategic Studies at Quaid-i-Azam University, and a former internee at Pakistan’s Ministry of Defense. With a keen interest in national and international affairs, he actively explores issues of security, strategy, and global politics, aspiring to contribute to policymaking and peacebuilding.