May 2009 28

West Pointless1

Last year, the European Council looked at ways of improving EU military cooperation. One of the options on the table was to create a project based on the schools exchange programme. This “military Erasmus” would be centred on the training of officers, with periods of instruction spent in Member States other than their own.

This is not new. The difference is, however, that current arrangements tend to be either bilateral, or as part of a NATO programme.

This scheme is very different. A declared aim would be to “promote the emergence of shared values which could be drawn on for the defence of the Community's interests while contributing to reciprocity in the protection of the citizens.”

Preparatory work was undertaken by the Council Secretariat, and was published as a document (12843/08 COSDP 761, which can be easily found on the internet).

It identifies as a driving force the need to inculcate the very young and junior officers (ie the most receptive) with training “to encourage the formation of a European awareness founded on shared values and convergent ideas,” and “it must also repose on a “European” perception of security and a security culture common to the staff of Europe’s military services, whatever their country of origin.” As one of the programme movers stated, “Through these exchanges, the men and women taking part will develop a real awareness of common European defence – I might even say a genuine ‘common defence culture’ that they will carry with them throughout their careers.” Clearly, then, there is a propaganda concept attached to it.

The European Security and Defence College has existed since 2005, even if it is more of an Open University entity, itinerant and virtual. With the boost in financing recommended in the report, it is likely over the long term to come to mirror CEPOL (the EU’s police college) and take on a fixed form.

Intriguingly, there were some reservations expressed within the system, though more associated with the PR side of things: “The basic idea is iconic (especially for the media) in as much as it relates to one of the European Union’s more visible achievements – although the European Commission is perhaps not wildly enthusiastic about the name of its civilian exchange programme being bandied about in this way.”

The report, nevertheless, is very controversial. It for instance prioritises ‘investment in personnel training’ over investment in actual equipment and therefore capability.

So at one shot, the principle challenged NATO; worked on junior officers to convince them that EU integration was a good thing; and at the same time harmed the commitment to invest in genuine military capacity. Needless to say, the concept was a French one.

Intriguingly, the UK seems to have been almost the only state to have refused to respond to the French questionnaire that triggered this development. If correct, this ostrich approach has utterly failed. As the report said, “Transposing the Erasmus arrangements into the military training frameworks of European countries will represent a further major leap forward for European integration. Thanks to the political support it can now command, the effort to produce a European security and defence culture right from the initial military training stage is likely to have a significant knock-on effect on the ESDP and be one of its main driving forces.”

Brussels’ answer to West Point and a shared EU military structure is correspondingly another step closer: “Military Erasmus must similarly contribute to a stronger bond of European citizenship, for the decision to live together also implies being willing collectively to defend one another.”

As to whether our training Euro-poilus will use French as well as English in the lecture room, well that is an entertaining ding dong argument very much still on the cards.

Related Posts

  • Peter Nunn

    It seems a very good idea. Drop NATO and build a real protection force for Europe.
    I am in favour.