Where it now says "more Europe", it apparently also says "more military". Donald Trump has now been US President for just over a year. The EU has now had to choose between a military-dominated security logic and a peace logic. Has it done so? And how much Donald is actually in the EU?

By Thomas Roithner

Recent transatlantic history has been and continues to be an eventful one. NATO's war in Kosovo was contrary to international law and the EU considered it "justified" in 1999. The USA demanded more money for armaments and more troops according to the motto "The USA does the cooking and the EU does the washing up". That was under the "dove of peace" Bill Clinton. The EU responded with a 60,000-strong force and a sloppier relationship with international law. Neutrality was undermined to a considerable extent.

The elephant in the china shop

September 11, 2001 not only upset the relationship between security and freedom in the USA. In 2003, some EU states were unwilling to follow the US coalition that invaded Iraq in violation of international law. US President George W. Bush was the proverbial bull in the china store. The Bush government divided Europe into an "old Europe" - the opponents of the war - and a "new Europe". The "new Europe" promptly ordered weapons made in the USA.

Franco-German anger at Bush was so great that they immediately equipped themselves with more means of violence. For good violence, of course. From 2003, the EU began to become militarily active in the Balkans and Africa, even without the USA. US President Barack Obama acted as porcelain glue. But broken remains broken. Obama was able to turn the wheel back a little, and Nato, which had been reviled under Bush, was back on top. In the "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" (the title of a book by British historian Paul Kennedy), the EU and the US are now competitors rather than partners.

EU without a common voice

EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso saw the European Union in the "dimension of an empire". However, something is missing. Europe's common voice on the issue of refugees, conflict resolution in Syria, recognition of Kosovo or Palestine and the ban on nuclear weapons has been sought in vain. The Russia sanctions are also dominated by polyphony, and there is anything but a recognizable EU plan for China's Silk Road strategy.

Can a lack of a common foreign policy be glossed over with joint combat troops? Walter Stützle, State Secretary in the German Ministry of Defense, said: "Covering up foreign policy laziness with the deployment of soldiers is serious irrationality." At best this is ineffective, at worst dangerous. The Colt is under the padding. But who should you shoot at and under what conditions?

Battlegroups bypass the UN

There was agreement on the creation of military capacities. The EU's rapid reaction force and so-called battlegroups for combat operations in deserts, high mountains, jungles or cities are operationally available. The battlegroups can - even if this has not yet happened - strike if a UN mandate is not deemed necessary. Peace union and active neutrality look different.

The tangible results: Around 80 percent of the forces deployed in all 36 EU missions abroad are military personnel, only 20 percent are civilians, and of these, the police make up the majority. Highly controversial military missions - all unanimous - safeguarded EU interests in Congo or Chad. The protection of resources is not so rare. But even a benevolent balance sheet is more than meagre. Nevertheless, French President Emmanuel Macron is stepping up a gear and recently declared his "European intervention initiative". Where it now says "more Europe", it apparently also says "more military".

Increased armament

The EU Treaty of Lisbon states that the members "undertake to improve their military capabilities". No important EU security paper can do without this requirement. The then High Representative of the EU, Catherine Ashton, translated this clearly in 2013: "If you want peace, you have to arm yourself." The EU Global Strategy from 2016 wants "all major equipment in top military capabilities". This means that "the full range of land, air, space and maritime capabilities" must be available. In summer 2017, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, stated that "more has been achieved in this field in the past ten months than in the past ten years". US President Donald Trump and Brexit are undoubtedly catalysts for this.

In June 2017, the European Commission's "European Defense Fund" was specified. Around 2.5 billion euros will be invested in research and development by 2020 and a further 5.5 billion euros annually thereafter. This does not replace a national defense budget, but represents the additional icing on the cake. Government debt to increase the social budget is frowned upon - debt to buy weapons, on the other hand, will become socially acceptable. The EU Armaments Fund will turn out to be a "humanitarian intervention" - namely a staff and support for the EU arms industry.

Authoritarian deepening of the EU

Just a few days after the "European Defense Fund" was specified, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Macron presented new plans for a new Franco-German fighter jet and a "Euro drone". Plans for new battle tanks are emerging and the arms companies are pulling out the order blocks. Germany and France are already the fourth and fifth largest arms dealers in the world after the USA, Russia and China. Five EU states are among the world's ten largest arms exporters. The EU global strategy states: "Our interests and values go hand in hand." However, export interests and human rights are two different things.

Permanent structured cooperation has been established under the acronym "Pesco" since December 2017. Closer ad hoc cooperation is already practised in foreign missions (not all states march) or armaments projects (not all build drones). The criteria of core Europe are now all defined in military terms, and as a result the politically willing and militarily capable set the tone. Members can be disengaged in accordance with the treaty. This does not promote the negotiation of a common stance, but rather represents an authoritarian deepening of the EU.

Global challenges

One aim is to get more troops into the field. The means: a "real increase in defense budgets". According to its supporters, the EU is a project to overcome nation states and nationalism. In the area of security, this is only true to a very limited extent. The focus is not on overcoming nation states, but on hierarchizing them.

The proposal for a civilian core Europe addresses global challenges. Those states that want to take a faster approach to civil crisis prevention, disarmament processes, mediation, confidence-building and civil conflict management should participate. Civil prevention is better than military intervention afterwards.