Militarization, Eastern Expansion and Core Europe

The European Union in the Year 2004

by Karl Müller, Germany

On the last Saturday of the year 2003 the 'Frankfurter Rundschau' newspaper published a lecture by Herfried Münkler held at the internationally renowned R¨merberg discussions. The mythological title of his lecture, 'Athena's Message', is less indicative of the content and tenor than its subtitle: 'The Development of civilization and armed self-assertion: Europe needs to develop its will to exert global political power.'

Münkler is also author of the book 'Die neuen Kriege' (The New Wars) and is currently regarded as an 'expert' on warfare. Münkler seems to take it for granted that wars will be unavoidable in the future. He argues that the European Union should prepare itself for the new wars of the future. He states that although one can 'with relative certainty assume that the era in which states waged war with each other [...] has come to an end,' this does not mean 'the end of war as such but rather the end of a particular historical type of war.'

The time has also come to an end in which the EU can rely on the USA to run military operations in the interest of Europe. He states: 'The USA has become increasingly inclined to utilize the military superiority it has gained over Europeans in the past two decades, not as a friendly protective shield, but increasingly as a means to keep the Europeans and their almost equally strong economies at bay.' Should the EU wish to shake off its 'dishwasher status,' it must provide 'a minimum of capabilities to assert itself militarily [...] in order to stabilize the European periphery in particular, to which the Near East and Middle East also belong.' In this respect, the EU should 'develop its will to exert global political power independent of the USA.'

This is why the EU too must be in a position to wage the new wars of the future. It must develop capabilities 'that allow us to intervene wherever the situation demands it.' The EU must no longer be dependent upon 'accommodating circumstances', but be in a position to 'create these circumstances itself [...] no matter how delicate and dangerous the situation may be.' The EU must develop a 'love for the robust strategy of exporting stability.'

It is no coincidence that Münkler's lecture was published at the turn of the year in a newspaper that supports the establishment of a powerful EU. It is obvious that the year 2004 will be used to significantly push the EU's militarization.

'Old' and 'New' Europe in the EU

But already during the Iraq War, the Spanish and Polish governments showed their willingness to deviate on a fundamental issue from a path followed by the French and German governments. The distinction made by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld between the 'Old' and 'New' Europe has greater significance than initially assumed. This is not only with regard to 'Old' Europe (shortly before Christmas the German Language Society named 'Old Europe' the Word of the Year; the term was chosen because 'although initially a polemical description, the word changed to mean a newly gained positive awareness of what it means to be European), but also with regard to 'New' Europe, which currently not only supports the US government, but which is also seeking a new European identity that contrasts from the present leading powers. According to a representative of Poland, who spoke during a discussion on a German radio program after the failure of the European governments to agree on a constitution, Europe was dominated by the world powers Germany, France and Great Britain in the 19th and 20th century. Now the time has come for others to take their place.

In this respect the failure of the Government Conference in Brussels could provide Germany and France with an advantage. On the one hand, both governments could emphasize their own wish to push European integration, which was questioned due to their conduct over the EU Stability Pact. On the other hand, it will be easier to argue for pressing ahead as a European avant-garde in the form of a Core Europe, thus maintaining a determining influence on European integration.

In Brussels, all the governments supported the new EU military strategy and the establishment of a form of headquarters. NATO and US hegemony were not openly questioned, however. In the weeks prior to the conference, the US government pressured the EU governments, finally achieving their compliance. Yet just as significantly, the Conference established the fundamental pillar for creating a supranational European military power, one that had been discussed over a long period of time and repeatedly demanded at the end of Apr il by the governments of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg - at a time when the differences between the US government and the governments of 'Old' Europe had reached their climax.

The EU's eastern expansion scheduled for this May will not necessarily obstruct policies to build a Core Europe. On the contrary: First of all, the new EU states will be entangled in a jungle of regulations which will restrict their political resources for years and will hinder them from becoming too independent. Secondly, even without a constitution, 'enhanced cooperation' within the EU will still be possible. Even if not possible, agreements made outside the EU - such as the Schengen Agreement Ð will be feasible. From the German and French governments' point of view, is it not 'better' to press ahead without the obstructions of an EU institutional process that has been made even more complicated by a constitution, particularly in the face of a European community that holds increasingly differing views?

The core issue will be the EU's 'foreign policy.' It is to be expected that the differences between the 25 (new and old) governments of the EU will be particularly obvious here, since the member governments' stances toward the US government's policies are very disparate. Should a group of states within the EU seek to establish itself as a major power independent of the policies of the US, this will have consequences for the EU's inner development. There are already signs showing that the US government no longer views the EU's policies as those pursued by a faithful ally. There are also signs showing that this has consequences for its policies towards individual EU member states.

There are powers in Europe and across the globe which would welcome the steps taken by the EU to become independent of the US. There are reasonable grounds for this. Yet it is very important not to forget that a changed EU with its new military strategy raises a large number of questions.