Toespraak van minister Hennis-Plasschaert bij de ALDE seminar on defence

Toespraak | 24-06-2015

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests,

I am pleased that the future of European Defence is back on the political agenda. There is talk of a Defence Union and even a European army!

Whilst I welcome the enthusiasm and subscribe to the sense of urgency needed to boost our defence cooperation, we should - in my view - take a step back and reflect before proposing wild and ambitious plans which - in our current political environment - are not likely to succeed.

Before going into the details, I would like to take you back to the summer of 1950, when the French Defence Minister René Pleven proposed an elaborate plan for the constitution of a European Defence Community (EDC) and the creation of a European army of 100.000 soldiers.

A hundred thousand soldiers! - can you imagine?!

This European army, run by a European Minister of Defence and endowed with a common budget, would be placed under the supreme command of NATO.  There would also be a federal structure to oversee and democratically control the planned European army.

Does it sound familiar?

The context back then was of course significantly different than it is today.

This plan was devised with the aim of avoiding rearmament of West-Germany and tying the future of this country even closer with those countries that would come together in the European Coal and Steel Community.

A Treaty was signed on May 27 in the year 1952. This treaty, however, was never ratified…as it was voted down in the French National Assembly. The EDC, ladies and gentlemen, died an early death, among other things due to fears that the EDC would imply an unacceptable surrender of national sovereignty.

More than 60 years later, these sovereignty concerns still hold true today. Not only in France, but also in other EU Member States. And it is not only a defence issue.

As we can see across the Channel, the UK has such serious sovereignty concerns when it comes to the EU, that they wish to renegotiate terms and conditions of their membership. These are concerns that we cannot and may not just simply ignore.

With the future of European Defence again on the agenda, the 'ALDE roadmap towards EU integrated military forces' is a good starting point for our discussions. Though, I have to admit that when I read the paper I had mixed feelings.

My European heart skipped a beat:

• integration of elements of our military forces to perform CSDP military operations beyond Rapid Reaction;
• further development of European capabilities;
• an integrated European Defence market…and…
• clear political leadership and decision-making!

It all sounds very sensible.

This would make executing our Common Security and Defence Policy a real joint endeavour, less cumbersome and probably more able and effective.

So yes, the ALDE roadmap presents great ideas.

BUT, not all of them represent realistic prospects for the near future. In fact, speaking about supranational structures, or elements thereof, speaking about such structures NOW is - in my view - even counter-productive.

At the beginning of March, I had to respond to questions of national press and parliamentarians about EU Commission President Juncker's suggestions for a European Army.  Even as a long-term perspective, his ideas caused quite some concerns amongst many Europeans.

I answered that the EU is not lacking in good intentions or policy proposals, but that these long-term views and future projects have a tendency to distract us from the more pressing issues of the here and now. Those who - at this stage - focus on a European Defence Union or Integrated Military Forces are - yet again, in my view - skipping an important step:
How can we have a European Defence Union if we are still lacking a common foreign policy?

Ladies and gentlemen,

Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that further European integration in the defence field is not possible or desirable. What I am saying is: first things first.

When we look at European integration we can conclude that it is hardly ever gradual, but more a process due to shocks, very often due to unpredictable shocks. More importantly, we have learned - as it became painfully clear in the year 2005 - that we should avoid a backlash from our citizens.
As every politician knows, public opinion is a factor to be reckoned with.

Now, I also took note of the title of today's seminar:  More defence for less money.

But this, ladies and gentlemen, is something I strongly disagree with. We can no longer afford to have "more for less" as our mantra.

Our present geopolitical context and our ambition to be a strong security provider oblige us to seriously invest efforts and means in our defence, both at a national and European level. In other words: our security comes at a prize, and our need for security justifies paying that prize.
To boost further intensified European defence cooperation, we should not shy away from the necessary investments.

Moreover, and as agreed during the NATO summit in Wales:

• We have to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets,
• make the most effective use of our funds and…
• further a more balanced sharing of costs AND responsibilities.
• And yes, the economic upturn presents us with certain opportunities!

Yet speaking of the creation of a supranational army in these times does not help. We will have to further develop our Union block by block, with ambitious but realistic steps forward.

The way I see it we should - in our way forward - focus on five priorities:

First, we should determine our strategy.

Setting our level of ambition. Determine where we want to go before we set sail. We have all noticed the dramatic change in the European geopolitical and security context.  And for sure, the opening line of the 2003 European Security Strategy, that Europe has never been so prosperous, so secure nor so free, is clearly outdated.

Europe is surrounded by a ring of instability. We have an ever increasing number of migrants knocking on our door due to tensions and conflicts further afield.  Religious fundamentalism and extremism coupled with climate change and scarce natural resources result in a toxic mix which paints a dim perspective for future peace, prosperity and stability across the globe.

In her assessment HR/VP Mogherini wrote that in this ever changing, more connected, more complex and more contested world, the EU has a special responsibility to protect our citizens, defend our interests and promote our values in the wider world.

How right she is.

And that is why I do welcome her call for a 'common, comprehensive and consistent external strategy'.  For me this really is a crucial first step.

The new strategy should identify and describe EU interests:  securing our trading routes, collectively addressing our security challenges and defending our European values which we all hold dear: respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, fundamental rights and the rule of law.

With a new external strategy for the EU we will have to ensure that the EU's Foreign and Security Policy is no longer isolated but clearly connected with other EU policy areas such as Development Cooperation, Trade, Energy and Migration.

Our unity in facing the threats around us is crucial.  That is why we need to work together, not only within the EU but also with our allies and partners such as NATO.

We are facing the same challenges and should respond to them collectively.  We need to ensure complementarity, cooperation and coordination. A new strategy will have to enable this.

The High Representative will have to speed up though. We cannot wait until the cows come home.

If the EU is serious about becoming a convincing security provider in its immediate region and beyond, we have to act swiftly. We should not drag on the development of this strategy much longer. It would undermine the EU's credibility.

But what is the purpose of a new strategy, if we do not have sufficient means to execute it?!

We can write down that Europe needs to step up its act, but that is not enough. This is why our second priority should be to tackle the critical military capability gaps we face within Europe.

That is why a new strategy should immediately be translated into actionable proposals to strengthen European Defence.

We should, in my opinion, come up with an EU Defence White Book which describes the implications of the new strategic framework and define the necessary capabilities and means we need. This white book should of course be in line with NATO's plans for the future.

Thirdly, we can only come to the necessary means and capabilities if we dare to further enhance our defence cooperation in Europe.  That is why we have to let go of the voluntary nature of defence cooperation.

Each and every European nation shares responsibility for our collective security. Our security cannot depend on the efforts of just a few.  And it is important to realise that enhanced defence cooperation does not mean giving up sovereignty:  it is all about enhancing our collective ability to act.

However, I am convinced that you cannot force countries to work together.

It is only natural for countries to work together in smaller groups with like-minded partners, as it will yield faster results than initiatives involving all 28 Member States.

Initiatives such as Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO), BENELUX, Lancaster House, Visegrad and Baltic Defence Cooperation, these initiatives work because of the limited setting.

And let us not forget that regional or bilateral cooperation already go beyond what we thought was possible a few years ago. I only mention the agreement between the BENELUX-countries on the integration of their air security to respond to threats.

Or the Dutch cooperation with the Germans: not only do we have a joint headquarters in Munster, but last year the Dutch Airmobile Brigade was fully integrated into the German Division Schnelle Kräfte. This would have been unthinkable merely a decade ago!

So, in my view, we will have to be practical in this. What we need is a pragmatic bottom-up approach enabled by top-down political guidance. And the good thing is that the capabilities developed in smaller groups can be used at the European level and can inspire other Member States to undertake similar initiatives. And the cooperation achieved by smaller groups could of course also be opened up to other Member States at a later stage.

Now, as is rightfully pointed out in the ALDE roadmap, enhanced European defence cooperation also has implications for capability planning, acquisition, training and logistical support.  It requires transparency and alignment of national capability development plans and an annual or bi-annual moment to take stock.

Ideally in a ministerial setting so that, amongst Defence Ministers, we can create a system of peer pressure and praise those that lead by example so that others are encouraged to follow suit.

Our fourth priority should be to work towards an open, transparent and competitive defence market.

We need a competitive market in which all sorts of companies, small or big, have cross-border access. We need a market that leads in terms of quality and value for money.  This would serve our armed forces AND it would serve our security needs.  Moreover, we need to better connect, and to apply, knowledge in order to create innovations that boost our collective defense capabilities and concepts of operations.
In order to keep our technological and competitive advantage, we need a strong European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB). Investing in research and technology will be key. Innovation is indispensable in order to stay ahead of potential threats. This is also why, initiatives - such as the Preparatory Action for CSDP-related research - are so important.

But let us be honest.

A new strategic framework, a CSDP White Book, the necessary defence cooperation in Europe and a well-functioning defence market and industry will not help us much if we, the politicians, do not decide to deploy the military and their assets.

So, my 5th priority is all about political will and swifter political decision-making.

Political will is crucial, and will be even more so in the years to come, as I am convinced that Europe will be increasingly forced to respond to the challenges and opportunities the global environment presents. Europe will have to take responsibility for its own security.

Clearly, in matters of security and defence we will always need consensus. BUT we will need to obtain it quicker in order to be seen as a credible and reliable security actor, by our citizens and our partners.

This could be achieved by holding regular political consultations in which emerging crises and likely scenarios are discussed.  Such consultations would help prepare the ground for swift decision-making when needed.  And also the members of our national parliaments will have to be involved in this.

Ladies and gentlemen, in closing…

My guess is that we all agree upon the urgent need for a more active, more coherent and more capable Europe in the field of security and defense. And if we all agree that 'defence matters', I say that we have to act accordingly and go beyond uttering nice political statements.

Tomorrow our heads of state and government will speak about Security and Defence.  They are to give HR/VP Mogherini the green light to produce a broad European strategy on foreign and security policy issues.  I trust that the European Council seizes this opportunity to commit sufficient means to execute such a strategy: enhanced buy-in of the Member States and corresponding levels of defence spending.
We do not need just more European Union for Defence.  What we do need is more European Defence for the Union. After all, Defence matters more than ever!

Thank you.