No, the EU does not need a defence commissioner

The idea of creating a portfolio for an EU defence commissioner, sometimes dubbed a commissioner for the defence industry, has gained traction since it was announced by Ursula von der Leyen as a promise for her second term as EU Commission president.

A recent op-ed on this site argued for a budget of "tens of billions of euros" for the post, an exorbitant sum when compared to other areas. The budget of the EU4Health programme, for example, amounts to just €5.3bn over the whole 2021-27 period. 

Although the proposed defense commissioner post is presented as a means to better coordinate arms spending and procurement among the 27 member states, in reality, it would simply be another gift to an arms industry that is already profiting massively from the EU’s rapid militarisation.

Rising military spending

The prevalent idea that the European arms industries suffer from a lack of coordination and efficiency that can only be resolved by injecting more cash is one that suits the leaders of those industries just fine.

However, one thing they certainly do not lack is funding.

European states’ (including Russia’s) military spending has been rising drastically over the past decade and has increased by 16 percent in 2023 to €552bn, a level unseen since the Cold War.

Meanwhile, in the same year the EU’s military spending (excluding member state spending) increased by 47.6 percent to an unprecedented $8.15bn (€7.67bn).

The increased EU spending primarily benefits the arms industry, and predominantly a quite limited set of large arms companies. The 2021-2027 budget cycle saw the introduction of the European Defence Fund with almost €8bn to support the Research and Development of arms. With the creation of the off-budget European Peace Facility (EPF, a name worthy of Orwell) in 2021 the EU began, among other things, to fund military equipment for use in war zones.

The EPF has been topped up numerous times since Russia’ full-scale invasion of Ukraine and its initial budget has more than tripled to €17bn. 

The 2023 Act in Support of Ammunition Production (ASAP) allocated €500m for the production of ammunition, while the European Defence Industry Reinforcement through common Procurement Act (EDIRPA) provides €310m for the common procurement of arms.

According to a proposal by the Commission, the latter two instruments are supposed to be superseded by the European Defence Investment Plan (EDIP) with a proposed budget of €1.5bn which will act as a bridging fund until the end of the current budget cycle in 2027, after which an even larger programme can be expected. It comes as no surprise then that the European arms industry has been booming.

An unnecessary post

As recently as 2019 the EU created the Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS) which currently directs the Commission’s activities related to the arms industry and space. It falls under the leadership of internal market commissioner Thierry Breton who also oversees other industries.

Singling out the arms industry as deserving its own commissioner would give it undue importance compared to other sectors that are in fact more crucial to the EU’s economic development and the well-being of its people.

And unlike what the title ‘defence commissioner’ suggests, the responsibility for the EU’s military strategy would continue to lie with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), while the final decision powers over national budgets and large-scale projects are closely guarded by national governments.

Thus, the new portfolio would mainly act as a means for von der Leyen to give the impression of making the EU ‘defence ready’, while funnelling more money to the military-industrial complex.

Focus on actual solutions

The EU’s sidelining of its diplomatic role in favour of a ‘hard power’ approach and its blind support for the arms industry set it on a dangerous trajectory, as this industry has no interest in peace or security.

It benefits from the prolongation of wars such as the one in Ukraine, as well as from the export of weapons to war zones like Gaza where they cause death, destruction, and displacement. Instead of appointing a commissioner to better coordinate the procurement and distribution of weapons like these, the EU should cease their export and end its complicity in what the world’s highest court has in its interim ruling judged to be a plausible case of genocide.

Internally, the population of the EU is facing multiple crises that need its leaders’ attention – from climate change to the cost of living to housing. Mismanagement of these issues is fuelling the rise of the far right all across the continent. EU politicians would do well to concentrate the union’s resources where they are needed most instead of investing in ever more war.