Christian Lindner, leader of Germany’s liberal Freie Demokratische Partei (FDP), emphasised the urgency of the creation of a European Army in a report by the FAZ on Sunday, in the face of increasing military threats to Germany and the neighbouring states. He continued that Germany and France could take a leadership role in this endeavour. Lindner’s party has not held any seats in the Bundestag since 2013, however still holds 3 seats in the European Parliament. For arguments in favour of the European Army, Lindner cites the fact it would lower defence costs across the Union, simplifies procurement of arms and unifies the armaments and operations of national militaries. He spoke of the Paris terror attacks demonstrating how “Freedom, life and limb are at risk”. At the same time, nations across the Union have reduced their military spending and therefore defensive capabilities as a result of the financial crisis. Using the German debate over intervention in the Middle East, particularly debating how many tornado jets should be deployed, Lindner says that this shows Germany struggles to cope with such a minor contribution.

Furthermore, says Lindner, it is currently unforeseeable what military role the US is prepared to play in the conflict. The FDP leader says it falls in the case of Syria to the EU to forge greater cooperation and integration between its armed forces, with the aim of creating a unified European Army. Through greater cooperation between the EU and NATO, perhaps the nucleus of an army could be created.

Idealism meets a European reality 

I think from these sentiments alone, it shows that FDP politicians have been a long distanced from real politics, both in Germany and Europe. For Lindner to make such bold statements about the pros of a European army, in a climate where the extreme right-wing Front National can become the largest political force in France, shows him to be rather naive. The fact is that whilst his arguments are not absolute drivel – there are certainly merits to a European army – the possibility of such an organisation is incredibly small. Especially without a good deal of clarification.

The gap between British and German thinking over this matter is almost unquantifiable. Britain, holding its negotiations currently over its position in the Union, is determined to make the EU into a solely economic enterprise for the nation; at least, as economic as possible. And the fact is, that though George Osborne may not be completely right when he says the British people want no part of an ‘ever-closer-union’ (of the peoples, always forgotten), they would certainly have reservations about an army. And I’m referring to the bulk of the pro-Europe lobby. When it comes to the populists and UKIPers, the Farages of Britain, such an idea would be blasphemous.

Even in the British press, this is shown. There was an FT article by Wolfgang Münchau written in April this year about the situation in Ukraine, and how it poses the biggest threat to the viability of the Union. However, knowing his readership well, he made no mention of a European Army; of course, there’d be little chance of the EU marching into Ukraine over the issue, even if we suppose it had an army, but at least to support its interests in the region with hard power, like Russia it would need military force. The fact is, few people can conceivably think of fighting for the EU at this moment, neither in a national capacity nor a European one; not for European geostrategic interests in any case.

The likelihood of countries like the UK or Poland committing their armed forces to progressively further integration has almost no chance, which leads us to that perennial question that the EU seems like it always has to deal with – the opt out. How many countries would get opt outs? Would they at all? Would the Eurozone get a choice on this, or would they all have to sign up to a European army? And surely that would have an enormous impact on the political situation in Europe, with some countries committing their soldiers to Europe and others having the freedom to choose otherwise. That to me seems like political napalm. Practically, it would cause complications for future cooperation between European national armies. Morally, it would be the ultimate tool for divisiveness in the Union, with nations accusing others of cowardliness, abandoning fellow European nations and who knows what else. It would be impossible for such an institution to exist if some nations opted out.

This is not even considering the leftists, I’m sure many of whom would be utterly opposed to militarising the European project. It’s reminiscent of the situation in Episode II of Star Wars, where the republic, facing mass unrest, also contemplates a republic-wide army to replace the militaries of the planets that make up the Republic. And that was when the faced a clear existential threat, and even then there were factions who felt the republic was not about violence, war and thus should not have a military. Place that debate in the European context – and that’s assuming the politicians in the parliament would have the final say, as opposed to the national governments – and there’s no question, no debate; the motion would be a failure. We’ve also got to consider what this army would do; would it only serve to defend the Union, could it be sent abroad, what would the mechanisms be to authorise sending the army abroad – national parliaments? Governments? The European parliament? And then in the case of opt-outs, how would they factor in? Would they be defended by a European army – the first role of such a force surely? Would they have a say over where it’s deployed, I mean I assume it would be funded by the EU-wide Commission  budget. The questions about an army are innumerable, and yes, political debate would answer many of those questions – but it would not solve the issues behind them.

So we’ve talked about how politically, in the current context, a European Army is undesirable. However in theory, when considering what it means to be in a transnational democracy, especially as Habermas describes it, would it be desirable either? In fact, Habermas in the Lure of Technocracy praises this part of the European project, as it means that the nation-states can still protect the freedoms, rights and democracy, that they originally created and were intended to guarantee. Ultimately, he argues that it could never be that the European level of the Union could possess and monopoly on the legitimate use of force (armies & police) as this would rob the nation-states of their role as guarantors of the democracy that was won by the many peoples of Europe. Take that away, and people would lose faith that their democracy is being adequately protected, as opposed to the nation-states fulfilling that role. That in effect would be the EU becoming a Superstate, which is not his vision of the Union, but one that brings the powers of the nation-states together. This is where I have a question for Lindner – would this European army be the only army in Europe, and if so, would its parts be solely under the control of the European Commission? Because if not, then a European army would be possible, I think. It would be a force the EU deploys to protect European interests, without taking that away from the nation-states, which is crucial for peoples’ faith in the Union.

A place for idealism

Ultimately, I am a liberal like Lindner, and so I can see in his idealism a logic which makes sense. He is right that it would reduce costs, and make fighting as a single force easier abroad in situations like Syria, where Britain, France and Germany have forces deployed there, and do not cooperate like civil government does in Europe. An army which is at the command of the Commission, but which does not replace the national armies, would be politically viable. However even that is way beyond anything that could be considered at this moment. It could never pass right now. And if Lindner envisions an army which does replace national armies, then that is utter nonsense and would be impossible, no matter how far along in the process of integration we get. Integration has many facets, and until now, has only been undertaken when it suits the interests of the member-states. So logically, a European army could also be created out of the same process. However through the same logic, it would never be at the interests of the nation-states to give up their right to legitimate force, and would permanently dis-empower the original protectors and creators of European democracy.

Source: FAZ, DPA, FT, Jürgen Habermas The Lure of Technocracy