Wednesday

10th Aug 2022

Opinion

Potentially powerful: The European Defence Agency at five years

  • "The EDA has certainly developed as a key player in the broader area of European Security and Defence Policy" (Photo: EUobserver)

Most Europeans have probably never heard of the European Defence Agency, which celebrates its fifth anniversary this month. Yet, this little known EU agency has slowly created a basis for the development of common military projects. While its achievements can certainly not be called spectacular, in the context of the problematic nature of European defence cooperation, the EDA has shown more potential than its predecessors.

Diverging national interests in the areas of procurement and defence industry policies still impede much of the agency's planned progress. Industry takes a front seat in the EDA decision-making process, with easy access to all relevant players though, naturally, it complains about the lack of speed.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

Like most developments in the area of European military co-operation, the work of the EDA is happening completely outside the view of the wider general public. The lack of public involvement in an area that is still highly controversial, undermines its legitimacy and risks further erosion of public support for the wider European project.

With a long history of failures to foster European co-operation on arms production and procurement, the establishment of the European Defence Agency (EDA) on 12 July 2004 was received with considerable scepticism.

End of the Cold War era

The end of the Cold War era had changed perspectives on European defence, while emerging conflicts across its borders -- especially in the Balkans, but also outside Europe – gave a significant impetus to increased military co-operation. European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) developed rapidly. On the legal front, ESDP was foremost in the process towards the EU Constitution, while out-of-area operations have mushroomed over the past few years.

The statement in the Constitution that "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities" is directly linked to the establishment of the EDA. It has led many to doubt whether Europe intends to be a friendly military power. Such suspicions have been further fuelled by the EDA mantra that "we need to spend more and to spend better". Its claims that military co-operation would lead to rationalised forces and thus save money, have not proved credible.

Along the same lines, French President Sarkozy has argued that, "Europe cannot be a dwarf in terms of defence and a giant in economic matters." Then Greek Defence Minister Papantoniou said in 2003: "We [Europe] must strengthen our presence, especially in the defence field, in order for the United States to view us seriously." Curiously, he saw the main obstacle being "that after the Cold War there is no strong threat. We have to overcome this problem."

With Javier Solana, High Representative for the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), appointed the head of the EDA, the agency was guaranteed political support. "The need to bolster Europe's military capabilities to match our aspirations is more urgent than ever. And so, too, is the need for us to respond better to the challenges facing our defence industries. This Agency can make a huge difference", stated Solana.

A strong European military power nurtured by a strong European arms industry is certainly no easy task for the EDA. According to its first chief executive, Nick Witney, the Agency "will stand or fall ultimately with the success in attracting, maintaining and fostering the interest and support of the participating states" [i.e. all EU members except Denmark].

And that is exactly where most of the EDA's problems have turned out to be. For instance, the French favour a bigger budget, but Britain doesn't approve: "We don't back a budget without seeing what we are paying for", a British official was quoted as saying.

Evaluating the first five years of EDA's work in simple terms of success or failure is difficult. Looking at its annual work programme, which largely involves strategy mapping, one can't but detect a marked lack of ambition. The more difficult business of getting substantial and concrete projects off the ground - for example, in the area of armaments co-operation, has shown very limited progress so far. It looks like we'll have to wait another five years to see any real progress.

A largely invisible agency

Among the more tangible achievements has been the EDA's growing involvement in technology research projects, both under its own flag, as well as through the European Commission's 7th Framework Programme (FP7) security research budget. It shows not only the EDA's potential to win acceptance as the lead in such common projects, but also a shifting focus towards the broader security context, including border control and less lethal weapons. The EDA is cashing in on the abundance of EU funding and political will.

Probably most significant has been co-operation with the European Commission, which complements the EDA's efforts towards a borderless, more competitive market for the defence industry. The Commission's so-called defence package was finalised in late 2008.

It consisted of two related directives. One aims to ensure more competitive procurement by member states, while the other outlines a new regime under which export controls of intra-community transfers of military goods would be greatly simplified. Civil society organisations have rightly argued that the latter undoes much of the progress made over the past years on transparency in relation to arms exports.

More importantly, they have warned that such a directive might lead to weapons leaving EU territory through countries that maintain less restrictive interpretations of the commonly agreed criteria on arms exports, as licence applications are still decided upon by national governments.

The EDA has certainly developed as a key player, sometimes even a catalyst, in the broader area of European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) developments. It is too early to judge properly its real added value, however, or its potential as a cornerstone in the process of an increasingly militarised role for the European Union. Doubtless, structurally diverging national interests will continue to be a major barrier.

The fact that the EDA has remained largely invisible to most people is deeply problematic. The referenda rejecting the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty showed the ambiguity and widely diverging, often negative, views of European citizens on the current state and proposed future of Europe -- including its rapidly developing security and defence policies. Continuing on the road to further EU military integration, including the special role for the EDA, without broad public consultation and a serious public debate, risks further undermining trust in the wider European project.

The writer is a senior researcher at the Campagne tegen Wapenhandel and associate of the Transnational Institute (TNI) in Amsterdam.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Russia puts EU in nuclear-energy paradox

There's unprecedented international anxiety about the safety of Ukraine's nuclear reactors, but many European countries are also turning to nuclear power to secure energy supplies.

How Ukraine made the case anew for an EU army

The Kremlin attacked Ukraine because it believed it could afford to. It perceived nuclear deterrence between Russia and the West as reciprocal, and therefore almost a non-issue. It also saw, in military terms, Europe is disappearing from the world map.

Let Taiwan's democracy shine brighter

Dr Ming-Yen Tsai, head of the Taipei Representative Office in the EU and Belgium, responds to EUobserver op-ed on Taiwan by the Chinese ambassador to Belgium. "Taiwan is an 'island of resilience'. That will continue to be the case."

Supporting Taiwan 'like carrying water in a sieve'

China's ambassador to Belgium, Cao Zhongming, says the US has been distorting, obscuring and hollowing out the 'one-China' principle and unscrupulously undermining China's core interests. This is sheer double standards and a shameful act of bad faith.

One idea to tackle Big Energy's big profits

A new idea, besides a windfall tax on polluting Big Energy giants, is to make them invest their profits in their own sustainable futures. After all, these companies have a large 'sustainability debt' and extraordinary transition costs awaiting them.

Column

Global hunger crisis requires more than just the Odessa deal

International donors are playing hide and seek. Instead of stepping up their assistance programmes, richer nations are cutting overseas aid, or reallocating funds from other parts of the world towards the Ukraine crisis.

Exploiting the Ukraine crisis for Big Business

From food policy to climate change, corporate lobbyists are exploiting the Ukraine crisis to try to slash legislation that gets in the way of profit. But this is only making things worse.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. EFBWW – EFBH – FETBBConstruction workers can check wages and working conditions in 36 countries
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Canadian ministers join forces to combat harmful content online
  3. European Centre for Press and Media FreedomEuropean Anti-SLAPP Conference 2022
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic ministers write to EU about new food labelling
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersEmerging journalists from the Nordics and Canada report the facts of the climate crisis
  6. Council of the EUEU: new rules on corporate sustainability reporting

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us