EU signs defence pact in decades-long quest

[webfact]

EU signs defence pact in decades-long quest

By Robin Emmott

 

European Union foreign and defence ministers attend a signature ceremony of a defence pact, aiming to mark a new era of European military integration to cement unity after Britain's decision to quit the bloc, in Brussels, Belgium, November 13, 2017. REUTERS/Emmanuel Dunand/Pool

 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - France and Germany edged towards achieving a 70-year-old ambition to integrate European defences on Monday, signing a pact with 21 other EU governments to fund, develop and deploy armed forces after Britain's decision to quit the bloc.

 

First proposed in the 1950s and long resisted by Britain, European defence planning, operations and weapons development now stands its best chance in years as London steps aside and the United States pushes Europe to pay more for its security.

 

Foreign and defence ministers gathered at a signing ceremony in Brussels to represent 23 EU governments joining the pact, paving the way for EU leaders to sign it in December.

 

Those governments will for the first time legally bind themselves into joint projects as well as pledging to increase defence spending and contribute to rapid deployments.

 

"Today we are taking a historic step," Germany's Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel told reporters. "We are agreeing on the future cooperation on security and defence issues ... it's really a milestone in European development," he said.

 

The pact includes all EU governments except Britain, which is leaving the bloc, Denmark, which has opted out of defence matters, Ireland, Portugal and Malta. Traditionally neutral Austria was a late addition to the pact.

 

Paris originally wanted a vanguard of EU countries to bring money and assets to French-led military missions and projects, while Berlin has sought to be more inclusive, which could reduce effectiveness.

 

Its backers say that if successful, the formal club of 23 members will give the European Union a more coherent role in tackling international crises and end the kind of shortcomings seen in Libya in 2011, when European allies relied on the United States for air power and munitions.

 

Unlike past attempts, the U.S.-led NATO alliance backs the project, aiming to benefit from stronger militaries.

 

The club will be backed by a 5-billion-euro defence fund for buying weapons, a special fund to finance operations and money from the EU's common budget for defence research.

 

Members will also be required to submit national plans and be subject to a review system identifying weak spots in European armies with the goal of plugging those gaps together.

 

Many governments say Russia's seizure of Ukraine's Crimea in 2014 was a turning point, after years of defence spending cuts that left Europe without vital capabilities.

 

"This is a commitment for countries to do better together," French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said. "It comes at a time of significant tension," he said, referring indirectly to Russia's rising military reach and Islamic militants who have attacked European cities.

 

ROLE FOR BRITAIN?

 

Despite an Anglo-French-led EU defence integration effort in 1998, Britain blocked formal collaboration on military matters, wary of the creation of an EU army.

 

Defence integration was revived by France and Germany, with support from Italy and Spain, in a show of unity after Britons voted to leave the EU in June 2016.

 

The EU had struggled in military and humanitarian missions in the Balkans, Libya and in Africa over the past 20 years and were caught off guard by Russia's Crimea annexation.

 

As the EU initiative, known as Permanent Structured Cooperation, has gained momentum, British officials have been pressing for involvement. Britain's aerospace industry and its biggest defence firm BAE Systems fear losing out, diplomats said.

 

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson likened London's support to Gothic architecture, saying: "We are there, like a flying buttress to support the cathedral," he told reporters.

 

In a possible compromise, Britain may be able to join in, but only on an exceptional basis if it provides substantial funds and expertise.

 

(Reporting by Robin Emmott; editing by Ralph Boulton)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-14

[craigt3365]

35 minutes ago, webfact said:

Many governments say Russia's seizure of Ukraine's Crimea in 2014 was a turning point, after years of defence spending cuts that left Europe without vital capabilities.

Congrats Russia!  Causing governments to divert money to defense instead of other desperately needed programs.

[Samui Bodoh]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Congrats Russia!  Causing governments to divert money to defense instead of other desperately needed programs.

I take a different view on this; it makes sense for countries to take advantage of economies of scale in their defense spending; having 27 different programs is inefficient and potentially deadly if an armed conflict arises due to a lack of inter-operability.

 

42 minutes ago, webfact said:

...and were caught off guard by Russia's Crimea annexation.

Again, a different view. Russia has made territorial acquisitions over the last few years and should be looked upon with suspicion; they certainly are not an ally of Europe. Respectfully, based on their behaviour, there needs to be a reasonable and effective military deterrent to Russia; it would be foolish not to do so.

 

[halloween]

A military force made up of 23 countries - I'd guess the single largest unit will be Interpreters with an insignia featuring the tower of Babel.

 

Except for the air force, they'll speak English.

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

I take a different view on this; it makes sense for countries to take advantage of economies of scale in their defense spending; having 27 different programs is inefficient and potentially deadly if an armed conflict arises due to a lack of inter-operability.

 

Again, a different view. Russia has made territorial acquisitions over the last few years and should be looked upon with suspicion; they certainly are not an ally of Europe. Respectfully, based on their behaviour, there needs to be a reasonable and effective military deterrent to Russia; it would be foolish not to do so.

 

Understood, but at the end of the day, they're making other nations increase their military budgets.  Money that could be used elsewhere.  Same as in the US, Russia, China, etc.

[Aforek]

31 minutes ago, halloween said:

A military force made up of 23 countries - I'd guess the single largest unit will be Interpreters with an insignia featuring the tower of Babel.

 

Except for the air force, they'll speak English.

What is funny is that the common language of EU will be English , even after Brexit ( I am not an English speaking guy, no problem for me , I like English language and  mankind needs a common  language ) 

[Jonmarleesco]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

In a possible compromise, Britain may be able to join in, but only on an exceptional basis if it provides substantial funds and expertise.

Ah, the EU style of compromise: Britain may be able to join in ... if it funds much of the infrastructure. Having spent years resisting the idea of a European army, and considering the fact that the inept French will want to lead the way, why the hell should we want to join, other than perhaps to provide business for arms manufacturers?

[micmichd]

Useless. 

They will adopt the NATO doctrine, invade 3rd world countries for resources, and will eventually fail, just because those resources are already mostly gone - taken by colonialists. 

Only good for the military-industrial complex, new weapons are needed. And new weapons, of course, means higher risk of dual use.

[craigt3365]

22 minutes ago, micmichd said:

Useless. 

They will adopt the NATO doctrine, invade 3rd world countries for resources, and will eventually fail, just because those resources are already mostly gone - taken by colonialists. 

Only good for the military-industrial complex, new weapons are needed. And new weapons, of course, means higher risk of dual use.

Good gosh what a troll post....LOL

[shackleton]

The way the UK  Government is cutting back on defense

plus when we Brexit 

the UK will only be good for supplying Foreign Aid from taxpayers money to  countries which don't deserve it

It's about time the government started thinking about putting the British people first 

[Rancid]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Congrats Russia!  Causing governments to divert money to defense instead of other desperately needed programs.

Ah, Russia actually wanted to join NATO and were refused (consider why). Now about Russia causing governments to divert money to defense...lets just objectively consider who actually benefits from this, Russia or the defense companies making the billions (and politicians and military getting their kickbacks) selling the arms? If one can even partially envisage the remotest possibility that its the arms companies, then you have taken the first step to cynicism.

[BuaBS]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Its backers say that if successful, the formal club of 23 members will give the European Union a more coherent role in tackling international crises and end the kind of shortcomings seen in Libya in 2011, when European allies relied on the United States for air power and munitions.

Yes something to be proud of , I'm sure !

[chilli42]

How can 23 countries and efficiencies be spoken in the same sentence?  If you want efficiency, turn over all of these increased defense budgets to the Germans and then you will have a real military with capability to go toe to toe with Russia.

[zydeco]

Led by the French?  This will be nothing more than a black hole, sucking in money and leaving nothing more than an armed force ready to retreat at a moment's notice.

[Baerboxer]

9 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Congrats Russia!  Causing governments to divert money to defense instead of other desperately needed programs.

 

Sadly true. But even if it wasn't the Russian providing a good excuse, certain EU politicians would've found others. The real driver is that France and Germany see this as a way of ensuring their ability to "police" other member states and are actively encouraged by their defense industries.

 

French and German leadership; French and German equipment; a marriage made in heaven - until the divorce!

[Baerboxer]

"Paris originally wanted a vanguard of EU countries to bring money and assets to French-led military missions and projects"

 

Jeez. Look up France's military record.

 

What would the biggest project be - white flag manufacture based on France (with their vast experience).

 

Just another slush fund for the French to corrupt.

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, Rancid said:

Ah, Russia actually wanted to join NATO and were refused (consider why). Now about Russia causing governments to divert money to defense...lets just objectively consider who actually benefits from this, Russia or the defense companies making the billions (and politicians and military getting their kickbacks) selling the arms? If one can even partially envisage the remotest possibility that its the arms companies, then you have taken the first step to cynicism.

First. Please post a credible link showing Russia was denied membership to NATO. Ill await your response.

 

Second. Who actually benefits? The citizens. I'm not a cynical person like you.

[mrwebb8825]

20 hours ago, chilli42 said:

How can 23 countries and efficiencies be spoken in the same sentence?  If you want efficiency, turn over all of these increased defense budgets to the Germans and then you will have a real military with capability to go toe to toe with Russia.

you mean like WWII? 

[mrwebb8825]

On 11/14/2017 at 6:19 AM, webfact said:

Those governments will for the first time legally bind themselves into joint projects as well as pledging to increase defence spending and contribute to rapid deployments.

 

"Today we are taking a historic step," Germany's Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel told reporters. "We are agreeing on the future cooperation on security and defence issues ... it's really a milestone in European development," he said.

 

The pact includes all EU governments except Britain, which is leaving the bloc, Denmark, which has opted out of defence matters, Ireland, Portugal and Malta. Traditionally neutral Austria was a late addition to the pact.

Those governments legally bound themselves 70 yrs ago and call it NATO which resulted after 2 failed attempts at creating a European army (WWI and WWII) and most of them STILL haven't honored that agreement. Why does anyone believe it will be different now?

Seems we've come full circle so the US should start gearing up the weapons and military vehicle factories again. Should be a profitable future. 

Edited November 15, 2017 by mrwebb8825

[Grouse]

Amazing to see the EU falling apart! ?

[billd766]

It should be interesting financially.

 

The UK will be withdrawing its financial committment to the EU fairly soon. Many nations in the EU are committed to serving NATO and expanding their military forces, though many have not done so yet.

 

Now france and Germany are committing to an EU Army, Navy and Airforce. Where will the money come from to fund all this, let alone all the bases, infrastructure, communications networks, troops and services.

 

There are few enough countries now paying in to the EU funds in addition to their own defence forces. Will they suggest to disband NATO? Trump would snatch at that but then what would the EU replace the NATO forces with.

 

A single E3 Sentry AWACS aircraft costs $270,000,000 at 1998 prices and they would need a minimum of 6 to keep 1 airborne 24/7.

 

Whilst it may seem a wonderful idea I wonder if the EU masters have worked out the real cost to every citizen.

[chilli42]

On 11/15/2017 at 12:26 PM, mrwebb8825 said:

you mean like WWII? 

Yes just like that but this time one front and not three and with the presumption that Europeans have cottoned on to the notion that invading Russia is a logistics challenge that they are not up to.