Posted on 05/06/2003 2:47:58 PM PDT by fightinJAG
Axis of Unfeasible by Robert Lane Greene
Only at TNR Online | Post date 05.06.03
Call it the lamest bombshell in military history. After the leaders of Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg met in late April to announce the formation of a new military planning cell--hailed by the countries as the nucleus of a future European-only defense capability--people at the Pentagon weren't exactly trembling.
To be sure, Gerhard Schroeder, Jacques Chirac, Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium, and Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg took pains to point out that their new military structure was in no way intended to compete with NATO. But then what could the reason be? Self-defense? NATO has that covered. Peacekeeping and regional security? Unlikely, since that sort of plan already exists--in the form of an EU rapid-reaction corps (proposed by Britain's Tony Blair in 1998 and blessed by the United States) intended to carry out operations that NATO is reluctant to perform. Well, in any case, the "gang of four" muttered last week, the new structure could reduce overhead costs for planning. Wrong again. Another secretariat on top of those of NATO and the rapid-reaction force will do just the opposite, needlessly and antagonistically replicating already-existing structures.
So what's the real reason for the new plan? It seems bruised egos have clouded good sense: France, having seen the U.N. Security Council sidelined on Iraq, has decided it needs a serious military alliance, not a talking shop, to stand up to America. But it will not find what it's looking for in the handful of European countries willing to support it.
Americans love jokes about French military prowess. "How many Frenchman does it take to defend Paris?" "Nobody knows--it's never been tried," pretty well sums up the genre. But France itself is actually one of contemporary Europe's most martial nations, the other being Britain. When Ivory Coast, a former French colony, descended into chaos and civil war last year, France intervened with troops that evacuated its citizens, kept the warring sides apart, and eventually pushed them to the negotiating table. France spent $8.5 billion on military equipment in 2001, exceeded in Europe only by its island neighbor. But this pales in comparison to America's nearly $100 billion expenditure. Hence the need for allies.
Germany, despite its historical reputation for militarism (think of Woody Allen's quip that listening to Wagner gives him "the urge to invade Poland"), falls significantly behind the supposedly surrender-loving French. It spent just $4.7 billion on military equipment in 2001, and maintains a dispirited, largely conscript army, unlike the better-prepared professional volunteer forces of Britain and (since it ended conscription in 2001) France. Germany had to lease planes from Ukraine to transport its troops for peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan. And while it has the world's third-biggest economy, it is unlikely to be able to spend the kind of money needed to change this dismal picture. One reason is that Germans, even a half-century after World War II, remain deeply uneasy about committing troops outside their country. But, ironically, another reason is that Germany is running up against the EU rule, adopted at its own insistence, requiring euro-zone countries to limit their budget deficits to no more than 3 percent of GDP. (The Germans worried that profligate spenders like Italy would destroy the credibility of the newborn currency.) Alas, breaching the 3 percent rule would trigger huge fines. And so, for the moment, there is simply no money--nor, as long as NATO keeps guaranteeing German security, the will to find it--for upgrading Germany's military capabilities. So much for the warlike Hun.
Not that the two countries wouldn't increase their military stature by pooling their resources. Put together Germany and France and you have a middle-ranking military power, with 650,000 men and women under arms and a defense budget that's nothing to sneeze at. But this is still nothing to make America blink on the way to its next military adventure. So thank goodness for ... the Belgians? Journalists suppressed their mirth when French and German officials announced that Belgium would lend its commandos to the new European defense structure. One European diplomat described Belgium's forces to the BBC as "completely useless." But that's a bit ungenerous. They're almost certainly more useful than Luxembourg's. With its population of 440,000, the country stands nose-to-nose with Staten Island in world-power tables.
The four countries have said that they will present their memorandum to the other members of the EU for approval. But here's the rub: These four countries didn't meet alone because they got voicemail when they called the other 11 EU members. There are serious differences of opinion within the EU. Take Tony Blair's statement last week that Britain fully opposes any EU defense that would threaten or even duplicate NATO's capacity. Spain's foreign minister Ana Palacios has insisted that a small group of EU members had no right to call their plan "European." The Italian and Dutch foreign ministers were similarly critical. The Eastern European countries joining the EU will likely have none of it.
Which is to say, not only will Chirac and Schroeder have failed to put the fear of God in Donald Rumsfeld by unveiling their Axis of Unfeasible; if they press on with their comic-opera vision of European military grandeur, they risk gravely splitting the European project that their countries have successfully labored to build for over a half-century. Europeans have stopped killing one another in senseless wars. They have even built an admirable model of multilateral cooperation. But as yet, few are willing to die for it.
Robert Lane Greene is countries editor at Economist.com.
BWAAA-WAAAA
By the way, move NATO headquarters out of Belgium.
I think this scenario is quite disturbing and worthy of worrying about. It also is not at all outside the realm of the possible.
While the Franco-German military alliance is a joke at the moment, and because of the economic strictures of socialism, remains unlikely to ascend to any great level of power, one must be concerned when either of these nations focuses on acquiring arms. Add Russia to that mix and the mix becomes potentially quite toxic to peace in our time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.