You are in:
Army Dreamers
Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair concluded today's summit with a promise that the proposed EU military force will not undermine NATO.
The BBC reports that despite US worries that Franco-German plans for the EU Army would provoke a crisis in NATO, Mr Blair insists that the UK will not have to choose between America and the EU.
Chirac echoed Blair's claim, adding that France saw NATO as the mainstay of European defence, but that some operations would be carried out by the EU. France "doesn't have a problem with NATO", he added.
British shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram wasn't so sure:
"The breathtaking way in which Tony Blair asserted, with President Chirac's apparent agreement, that the European defence proposals do not undermine NATO is beyond belief"
"The French have for a generation made it a matter of priority that Europe should provide its own defence outside NATO."
As EURSOC reported yesterday, Blair was enthusiastic about an EU rapid reaction force, at least until Franco-German objections to the Iraq War proved that an EU army under central command was politically impossible.
Despite the antics of Chirac and Germany's chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the British prime minister has been unable to rid himself of the idea of an EU armed force. This force would need Britain's input arguably more than Britain would need it, presenting Mr Blair with one of the few strong hands he is ever likely to hold in EU negotiations.
Indeed, defending NATO has been one of Blair's 'red lines' - items not up for negotiation during the debate on the EU constitution, but on which the PM has shown remarkable flexibility to date.
Blair has been adamant that no EU force should undermine or even replicate defence coverage provided by NATO. To this end, he has refused to countenance any independent command centre for the army based outside NATO headquarters in Brussels.
France and Germany's current administration have not shared Blair's enthusiasm for NATO. In July's Bastille Day celebrations, a German Eurocorps officer led the military parade along Paris' Champs Elysees. Eurocorps is almost forgotten EU force based in Strasbourg and made up of forces from France, Belgium and Germany, as well as Spain and Luxembourg.
Few commentators picked up on the symbolism of the parade. However, deploying Eurocorps at the front of Europe's largest annual military parade would have been a reminder to Mr Blair that a non-NATO EU force already exists, that Britain is not a member, and that a majority of its membership are states that led Old Europe's opposition to the Iraq War.
If Blair didn't get that message, he certainly got the next one: Chirac and Schröder emerged from a Franco-German love-in in September promising increased spending on defence with the aim of building an EU military force which would be "a full and equal partner on the world stage."
By October, Blair had agreed in principle to Franco-German plans, but managed to persuade his counterparts to scrap the plan of building an EU Army headquarters away from NATO. Nevertheless, his revised position on the EU force worried US officials, not to mention fellow European Atlanticists.
Despite Blair's demands that the action force should be open to all EU members (thus cancelling out the anti-US contingent with Atlanticist states) and for unanimous voting on EU military action (thus scuppering Franco-German mischief) pro-US Europeans voiced deep concerns.
Denmark's prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen objected to the cost of such a force, which would replicate many NATO capabilities. He also demanded that the EU army should not be allowed to develop on a fast track set up by enthusiasts in France and Germany. Denmark, however, secured an opt-out on EU defence policy during negotiations at Maastricht.
Even the most fervent Atlanticist would admit that NATO's role has changed. EURSOC discussed an article in the Daily Telegraph this week which argued that NATO in its present form was obsolete and ought to be replaced with a new Anglo-American treaty.
An EU Army operating outside NATO, with seperate operational command and facilities would condemn the old alliance to a death by a thousand cuts. France, Germany and Belgium have made clear that they are unwilling to respond to US calls to arms in the war on terror. Other NATO countries, perhaps even Britain, could concievably join them on the fence, particularly if pro-US leadership in Italy is replaced by an 'angry left' coalition. It would be relatively easy to schedule joint EU training operations while complaining that there is no time or money to take part in NATO exercises.
Meanwhile, if EU nations refuse to get involved in the war on terror, it is still likely that they will be called into hostile states to evacuate their citizens or protect national interests. Britain has done as much in Sierra Leone - France in Congo and the Ivory Coast. Joint operations to protect European interests could slowly replace NATO's vision of a Europe protected by mutual agreement as Europe's military philosophy.
As NATO disintegrated and the EU Army became a reality, it is not difficult to imagine some bright spark coming forward with the idea of a charter for the EU's military, much as the current constitution was presented as a necessity.
Voila - one official EU Army, one multipolar world. A worst case scenario? Maybe. But until the Atlantic alliance gains defenders equal to those determined to dismantle it, it remains a possibility.
