April 1998, I

The road towards European Defence integration – A note on India

The road towards European Defence integration

Europe, the continent is moving to further integration. The European Union starts to unify its monetary policies under the aegis of the single European currency. This will automatically lead to a more or less identical fiscal policy in Europe. The single currency is a way towards political integration through the backdoor. The countries who are now outside the single currency area will be forced to become members after a couple of years. Otherways they will loose to much on the trade with other single market countries.

The single currency, the Euro, will promote the internal trade in the Union. It will not eliminate the difficulties in Europe with unemployment and the rising costs of the social wellfare state. The benefits of the single currency will not be visible on the short term but on the medium and long term it will bring substantial improvements to the employment figures and the fiscal deficits of all member states.

The single currency is a step towards improved co-operation in Europe. Till now it was largely aimed at economic goals but the rules of the single currency will force them to increase the co-operation to fiscal and political fields.

The integrating process will be re-inforced by the continuing globalisation of all aspects in the world. Problems will become ever more difficult to solve on national level. This requires solutions on a higher, greater level, the European Union. The democratic nature of such an Union can be maintained by elections on European level, national/regional level and county level. To protect the people even more there could be an European constitution which is protected by an independent court system. This way there can be no violations of the rights of the people, and they are the ones which are reason for the existence of the European Union and the main beneficiaries of the Union

At the same time the political leaders are pursuing another field of co-operation. The diversified and often small defence industries of Europe should move together through a carefull integration process to compete on the world market against the large U.S. corporations like Lockeed-Martin and Boeing. Another impetus to integrate is the creation of a common defence market in Europe.

The common defence market in Europe will deliver the companies the necessary scale to be competitive in business. But the companies should be managed with great care to avoid any nationalistic sentiments. These would destroy any further co-operation in this field. And finally the member states should abolish article 223 of the treaty of Rome. This article exempts the defence sector from the rules of free trade. Such an article is a joke in a community like the European Union.

The next step would be a move towards an unified foreign and defence policy. A clear and fully implemented foreign and defence policy will be to much asked in the coming years but a first step towards increased co-operation could be one of the possibilities. The decision taking could be done on national level with some negotiations with the member states. In most cases the differences between European countries are not that large and a compromise is always around the corner. The executive could then be transfered to an E.U. organisation.

For example, an integration of the defence forces in Europe will increase the capabilities of the defence forces at the same or even lesser costs. This leaves all participating countries the same capabilities at their disposal as they had before the integration. The changes are only of an organisational and traditional nature. As an additional benefit, the common defence market/industry will be much easier to achieve.

European forces versus U.S. forces

The U.S.A. possess without doubt relatively the largest and best military forces in the world. There are other countries who have more men in their forces but they do not have the superior equipment and training of the U.S. forces. Or there are countries with more or less equal equipment and training but who do not have the numbers to make an impact.

An example of the last are the several European armed forces who have some very fine equipment and training but are to small in numbers and to little in scale. With scale we mean that France and the U.K. do possess aircraft carriers and amphibious capability but they are no comparison with the Nimitz class aircraft carriers and the Marine Corps, respectivily.

The armed forces of the member states of the European Union are to fragmented to make an impact. They are only usefull in a major conflict if they cooperate with eachother. And even then they will need the support of the U.S.A. The individual European forces are large enough to be used in low intensity and/or small conflicts with third world countries but are incompetent in a medium to large scale conflict.

Where as the U.S. military is capable to operate globally, the European countries, even when they co-operate, are only able to be effective in a medium scale regional conflict at best.

If we compare the capabilities and the financial side of the U.S. forces and the combined European forces the result is awfull. Europe should be, considered the defence budget of approx. $150 B. of the European Union countries, at least half as capable as the U.S.A. with approx. $ 250 B. to spend. But at best they are just as third as capable.

In the power projection sector Europe could have 6 full size aircraft carriers instead of the 5 light carriers of the U.K., Italy and Spain and the one or two medium French carriers. The same is valid for the the amphibious forces. The capabilities of Europe are to limited to become a major threat. They have only 10 LPH/LPD type carriers and a 20 + LST/LSD type carriers. The majority of the ships are old and small to modern standards and are thereby in need of replacement. Only a few are or are going to be replaced. And finally the European navies possess a lot of frigates, corvettes and FAC’s. The fleet should be better balanced with a few more destroyers, lesser but more capable frigates, more corvettes and lesser FAC’s and patrol boats.

The air forces air in a better shape considered a large part of the equipment. This is of the same category as the USAF’s equipment. See the performance of the Mirage 2000-5, the Tornado and the future Eurofighter. The air forces have two major problems, first the lack of unity, no individual country is strong enough to go for it alone. Regular exercises with eachother improve co-operation but are not enough to really create an united force with the impact of the USAF. And second, there is a shortage of long range wide body transport aircraft, which makes world wide operations impossible.

The land forces of Europe are in better shape but they lack the structure and organisation advantages of the U.S.A. This leads to an unacceptable overhead and consequently to lesser people on the fighting line. A part of their equipment is outdated, they are in need of more modern MBT’s, AFV’s, SP artilley systems and battle helicopters, and finally the organisation structure has to be adjusted towards the demands of information warfare.

Essentially, he European armed forces do have more soldiers under arms then the U.S.A. but the utilization is inferior in Europe. This means that the European side has to improve itself. The integration, reorganisation and streamlining of the European forces will deliver an improvement in capabilities of at least 20 % at the same costs.

An approach to improvement

The armed forces of Europe need an improvement in organinsation, equipment and efficacy. With this particular sensitive subject the approach should be comprehensive and with care not to offend the members of the Union.

There are shared interests for the existence of defence forces that make it possible to build an integrated defence force for Europe. These are more or less the same for all European countries. The job description of the defence forces could look like this. The main tasks of the defence forces in Europe are to protect the territory, people, lanes of communications and the interests/values of the members of the union.        There are a number of particuliar interests of nearly each country in the union. These also can be satisfied by the use of a common European defence organisation.

During the integration process every countries sovereignity, traditions and national sentiments should be considered. If we are aware of this we should take care that the members should hold an indirect control system over the defence forces and get a kind of drawing rights on a part of the forces if they are in need of them. The number of troops available to each member state should be depended on the input of resources of each country. This way they can protect their particuliar interests with the advantage of the knowledge that a massive group is supporting them, even when it is indirectly.

This is going to be a slow process of integration if it wants to succeed. There first has to be a poltical body with representatives of all participating countries to have the ultimate control and the budget authority. These can interact with the national parliaments and the E.U. commissions and parliament. Second, a kind of joint chiefs of staff, JCS, has to be created who are responsible for the day to day command and the military affairs in general. For example, the acquisition of equipment should be according to the military specifications which are specified by the JCS, e.g. the best available systems for the best price, to circumvent political motivated buys. If this structure is set up we can move on to start with new syllabi on the schools and academies to get the new professional military person in Europe. After the first courses and graduates we can start integrating and reorganizing the actual forces of each member into one organisation. The set up of the education system and the first steps to integrate the forces go hand in hand. This way there can be anticipated on any problems which may arise on the JCS integration masterplan.

The whole integration process will take a 10 + years to implement. This way national sentiments can be handled with care and new systems acquired at better costs and integrated into a new more capable defence force.

Conclusion

The integration of the defence forces of the member states of the European Union would be a logical step on the way to an intergrated/united Europe. After the creation of the single market, the single currency, the growing influence of European institutions and directives and finally the birth of a common defence industry, it is now the right moment to integrate the defence forces.

The goverments have the responsibility towards the people to provide them with the best security available at reasonable costs. Therefore the integration of the defence industry and the defence forces will provide an improvement in capabilities, including global reach, and a better utilization of the available resources.

Only if there is a strong defence force which is worldwide deployable, Europe can play its role according to the position it has in the world, at least the economic world.

A note on India

India, the largest democracy in the world, is at the crossroads towards a new India or on the return to an archaic society. The elections did not created a clear winner but it reinforced the position of the fundamentalistic Hindus in India. The Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP, has become the largest party. With the support of several, up to 17 regional parties and independent members of parliament, they could take over the government.

The coalition government will most probably not introduce the fundamentalistic BJP policies as promised before the elections. If they would implement the policies it will mean an intensification of the tensions in the region and most likely a devasting war between the several religions in India, conflict with Pakistan over the divided province of Kashmire, border quarrels with China about Tibet and the province Arunachal Pradesh in the North-East.

The diversified coalition government will most likely be occupied with the avoidance of internal differences in the coalition and solving the economical problems of India. The conflicts with Pakistan and China are of less pressing importance. The reconstruction of the temple at Ayoda might be important to the BJP but they are not willing to sacrifice the coalition government and risk the emergence of internal unrest / civil war because of the religious temple. The government will leave the Ayoda temple case to be solved in the future. A decision will be to costly to india and its government.

The policy of India

The policy of the coalition government under the leadership of the BJP will be aimed to stimulate the economy and bring it back to a growth figure of 7 – 8 % per annum and to stabilise the national currency, the rupee.

The Asian crisis did not really hurt India, the rupee only dropped a small 10 % last year. The tight and controlled currency policy and the protected market of India limited the devasting downfall which happened in other Asian countries.

The nationalistic BJP wants to promote the economy by supporting the agri-cultural sector, the majority of the Indians live on and from the land. This is therefore considered as an important element which should have an appropriate role in the economic growth. The countryside does not have the technology, financial resources and acreage to introduce dramatic improvements in the agri-cultural sector.

The government also want to support the economy by giving Indian companies space to grow, they want to protect the Indian companies against the competition of foreign companies. Thereby giving Indian companies a chance to adjust to and integrate in the world economy. This fits perfectly in the BJP view that multi-national companies have no place in India. According the BJP those companies only want to make money in India which will then leave the country. In the end it would bring no gains for India.

Foreign companies are only allowed to enter India for large infra-structural projects like airports, roads, harbours and energy/power plants. These expensive and long term projects forces foreign companies to become involved in India for a long time.

The lack of international investment could however limit the growth and will leave India out of the development of technology. The creation of a developed economy will become much more difficult, or even impossible, without the financial and technology support from abroad.

The new government will ride a dangerous path if they exclude the international community. It might be able to stimulate some extra growth on the short term. But a lasting 7 – 8 % growth per annum will be impossible without participating in the world economy.

The Indian government should evaluate their economic policy. The BJP’s policy of economic nationalism might look attractive and will be popular in the countryside but it will exclude India from the economic development and growth it wants to create. Closed societies have rarely shown impressive lasting growth and revolutionising technologies. You can have just one thing at a time. Closed and backward or open and advanced.

But the coalition partners will probably force the BJP to adjust their economic ideology. This would leave India on the road to a open society with a balanced economic growth. India has to continue the liberalising process wich was started by the former governments. The Asian crisis is setback in the region’s development but it is the right way to go.