On the Construction of EU's Independent Military Force
After the introduction of the euro, building an independent military force has become one of the key points of EU integration. According to the decision of the EU Summit in Helsinki in June 5438+February last year, by 2003, the EU will establish a "European rapid reaction force" consisting of 60,000 people, which can act independently, be deployed to crisis areas within two months and be maintained in the war zone for at least one year. In order to strengthen the leadership of the rapid reaction force, the European Union has completed the merger with the Western European Union in accordance with the requirements of last year's Cologne Summit, and established a political and security committee, a military committee and a military staff composed of representatives of 15 member States. The construction of EU's independent military force is another important measure of the EU, which will have an important impact on the relationship between Europe and the United States and the development of the EU itself at the beginning of 2 1 century.
one
The EU's decision to establish its own independent armed forces has both subjective reasons and objective needs.
(1) The EU is building an independent military force based on its own security needs. After the end of the cold war, the security situation in Europe has undergone fundamental changes. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, it is unlikely that EU member countries will face a large-scale external military invasion, but the world is not peaceful. The EU is facing new security challenges, such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, organized transnational crime, drug smuggling and illegal immigration. At present, although the Kosovo war has ended, the EU believes that the Balkans is still a "powder keg" in Europe. Central and Eastern Europe is also a potential hot spot. Because there are many contradictions among countries, nationalities and religions here, the possibility of regional conflicts has not been completely eliminated. Conflicts continue in North Africa, the Middle East, the former Soviet Union and other areas around the EU, which may cause refugees to flock to the EU.
Facing the new security challenges, EU countries must make major adjustments to their security policies. The crisis in the former Yugoslavia showed the EU that it could not solve this armed conflict alone without the United States. However, with the disappearance of the Soviet threat and the decline of European and American cohesion, EU countries have doubts about the credibility of the United States. After the Kosovo war, one of the most frequently asked questions by Europeans is, if a crisis similar to Kosovo occurs in Europe, will the United States come again? In fact, many Europeans believe that, like the Kosovo war, this is the first and possibly the last time that the United States has paid for the war; In the future conflicts in the region, the United States may stand idly by if its vital interests are not involved. In a word, the establishment of independent military forces is an important decision made by EU countries according to the new security environment in Europe after the Cold War.
(2) The EU seeks to gradually establish equal relations with the United States and become a real pole in the future world structure. At present, the European Union has a strong economic strength that can compete with the United States, and has a unified currency that can compete with the dollar-the euro. However, because the European Union has no unified foreign policy, especially the United States, its international influence has been seriously affected, and it is called the "lame giant". Without convincing military support, the European Union always seems weak in dealing with regional crises, and all diplomatic efforts have ended in failure, so it has to beg the United States to come forward to solve the crisis. The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was like this, and so was the war in Kosovo. After the Kosovo war, the EU realized that foreign policy and security policy must have corresponding military means. Only with independent military action capability can the EU improve its position in NATO and change the long-standing unequal relations within the Atlantic Alliance. As Javier Solana, the "High Representative" of the EU's foreign and security policy, said, "Without military capabilities, Europe will always be a paper tiger".
(3) Promote the construction of European political integration. The establishment of "economic commodity union" and "political union" are two cross-century strategic goals established for the EU by the Maastricht Treaty. In the 1990s, EU member states committed themselves to a unified currency. In strengthening the construction of political union, although the Maastricht Treaty clearly stipulates that the EU will implement "the same foreign policy and security policy", due to various factors, "the same diplomacy" has always existed in name only. Not long ago, the European Commission published a report entitled "Shaping a New Europe", expounding the key points of EU integration construction in the next five years. Explaining the report, European Commission President Prodi pointed out, "So far, European integration is mainly reflected in the economic field, such as establishing the internal market and introducing the euro. This will be an increasingly politicized process in the future. " Obviously, with the start of the unified currency, political integration will become the focus of the European integration development strategy in the 2 1 century. EU political integration will be a long process. The establishment of EU's independent military forces will help promote the development of its political integration.
-
(1) Guangming Daily199965438+February 2.
-
two
The EU has the following advantages in building an independent military force:
(1) Britain changed its previous attitude of opposing the establishment of an independent military force by the EU. Britain and France are EU military powers. The construction of EU's independent military force cannot be separated from Britain's participation. But for a long time, Britain has held a negative attitude towards European integration, especially in the field of security and defense policy. 1997 After the Labour Party came to power, Prime Minister Blair abandoned the "non-cooperation" policy of the former Conservative government on European issues and turned to support the European Union. 1In June, 1998, he and French President Jacques Chirac issued the famous St. Marlowe Declaration, which first proposed the establishment of a European rapid reaction force. It was on the basis of British and French suggestions that1February 1999 EU Helsinki Summit made the decision to establish an independent military force. The reason why Britain changed its attitude was mainly because it was worried about losing its influence on European affairs. Since Britain has not joined the euro zone, the British government believes that if Britain does not take action on security issues, Britain will probably be excluded from the EU decision-making circle and its importance in American foreign strategy will decline.
(2) The United States began to understand that the European Union established an independent military force. Although the United States urged its European allies to "share the burden" with it after the Cold War, it did not want the EU to establish an independent military force. In view of the fact that their own security is inseparable from the United States, EU countries have repeatedly assured the United States that the establishment of the European rapid reaction force is only for future regional conflicts in Europe, and the EU will only use this military force if NATO is unwilling to intervene. The establishment of an independent military force by the EU will not replace NATO, and the cornerstone of European defense will remain NATO for quite some time to come. After repeated consultations and explanations, some subtle changes have taken place in the United States' views on the establishment of independent armed forces in Europe. Although doubts about the future development of the European rapid reaction force have not been completely eliminated, at least on the surface, the United States has publicly expressed its support.
(3) The principle of "strengthening cooperation" can overcome some obstacles in the construction of EU's independent military forces. In order to promote the further integration of the EU in the fields of internal affairs, foreign affairs and defense, France, Germany and other countries advocate the principle of "enhanced cooperation" within the EU, that is, some member States implement closer cooperation than other member States, while allowing other member States to gradually join. This idea was written into the Treaty of Amsterdam, which came into effect last May. The implementation of the "enhanced cooperation" system means that even if one or a few member States object to participating in the rapid reaction force, it will not prevent most other countries from taking action in the name of the European Union. This will undoubtedly help the EU to respond more effectively to future regional conflicts.
three
At present, the EU has also encountered many difficulties in the process of establishing a rapid reaction force.
(1) The defense expenditure of EU member states keeps declining. Building an independent military force in the EU means that member countries need to increase their defense budgets. However, after the end of the Cold War, the defense budgets of EU countries have been declining. "After the end of the Cold War, the defense expenditure of the United States was about $285 billion per year, accounting for about 3.2% of its GDP; The defense expenditures of EU member States add up to only $654.38+065 billion a year, accounting for only 2.654.38+0% of their GDP, less than 60% of that of the United States, and this figure is still declining. " ① Germany, the largest and richest country in the European Union, spends less than 0.5% of its 65438+GDP on defense. Because the unemployment rate is still around 10% and the pressure of tax reduction, the recent growth prospect of German defense expenditure is slim.
(2) The military power structure of EU countries can't meet the needs of long-distance rapid response. The existing military forces of EU countries are mainly established for local defense operations. In order to meet the needs of rapid response in the new era, EU countries first need to increase the power of long-distance delivery. Secondly, EU military equipment, especially intelligence acquisition means and combat aircraft, needs to be updated urgently. Hamray, US Deputy Secretary of Defense, believes that the dependence of European allies on the US military mainly focuses on strategic air transport, logistics support and intelligence collection, processing and distribution. (2) Although there are more than 4,000 combat aircraft in NATO's European member countries, none of them are equipped with infrared and laser guidance systems, or they can't carry that kind of "smart" bombs or other bombs with hit accuracy requirements, so they are all outdated. ③
four
The EU rapid reaction force is not an independent European defense force, but a foreign military intervention force, and its influence will mainly be manifested in the following three aspects:
(1) The status of NATO will decline, and the influence of the EU in this region will further increase. After the end of the Cold War, European countries hoped to keep NATO, mainly for fear that Russia would make a comeback. In the eyes of Europeans, the role of NATO can be regarded as a kind of "security insurance"
-① July-August 2000 issue of American Diplomacy. ② Annual Report of National Defense University 1998. ③ Report of London Institute for International Strategic Studies 1999-2000.
-
On the disadvantages of American democracy from the dystocia of the new president Huang Generally speaking, the essential feature of democratic politics is that everyone enjoys equal political rights; This country is governed by the people or their representatives. According to the wishes of the people and the principles of fairness, openness and justice, the state works for the interests of the greatest number of people. The United States boasts itself as an "example" of world democracy, and its system is the "best system" in the world. It is true that "democratic politics" in the United States has its own characteristics. But it is not perfect, as can be seen from this year's general election. More than a month after the election, the results were delayed, making it difficult to elect the first presidential candidate in the new century. Democracy, * * and the two parties, which have been in power for a long time, have brought the political life of the country to the brink of crisis. The disadvantages of American democracy can be seen from this. First, the election was conducted in violation of democratic principles. The United States has its own special electoral system. Unlike other western countries, its presidential candidate is not directly elected by the national voters, but by an electoral college with only a few hundred members. This electoral system in the United States violates democratic principles. 1. The long and complicated electoral process stifled the political enthusiasm of many voters to vote and exercise their democratic rights. Running for president in the United States must go through a marathon process. The whole election begins on the third Tuesday of the election year and lasts until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June. 165438+. It can be roughly divided into several stages: pre-selection, presidential candidate nomination (within the party), election, national election (including the election of some members of parliament, governors and presidential electors), and voters voting for the president. During this period, voters not only have to go through various forms of parties, speeches and fund-raising activities, but also face the overwhelming campaign advertisements in various media, and also accept the war of words in which candidates attack and even abuse each other, thus becoming more and more bored and even disgusted and frustrated, so that more and more people are unwilling to vote. As a result, the voter turnout rate in the US general election has been declining. The average voter turnout rate in the presidential election was 70-80% at the end of 19, but it has dropped to about 50% in the 20th century. The voter turnout rate in the election of members of Congress and governors is even lower, which is said to be only about 20% recently. In this year's general election, the enthusiasm of American voters is still very low. Of the approximately 205 million voters, only 65.438+400 million registered. However, judging from the current situation, it is almost impossible for Russia to launch an armed invasion of the EU in the future. With the strengthening of the EU's ability to cope with regional crises, NATO's role is bound to become smaller and smaller, and the EU's influence in the region will be further enhanced, which is expected to reverse its international image of "economic giant and political dwarf" to some extent.
(2) The EU's security dependence on the United States will be further reduced and its diplomatic independence will be enhanced. During the Cold War, European countries were forced to form a military alliance with the United States because they could not cope with the threat of the Soviet bloc. The position that Europe is weak and the United States is strong determines the unequal relations within the Atlantic Alliance. Reflected in international affairs, in order to maintain the unity of the alliance, European countries only have the United States in most cases. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the sense of independence of European countries was obviously enhanced. As Boniface, president of the French Association for International Strategy, said, "The relationship between Europe and the United States should be an equal partnership, not a master-slave relationship, a dominant relationship and a dominated relationship." With the construction of EU's independent military force, Europe does not need to turn to the United States for help in the security field. This will help the EU to formulate and implement its own independent diplomacy in international affairs.
(3) The scope and mode of EU's foreign "humanitarian intervention" will change. According to the decision of the EU Helsinki Summit, the activities of the EU rapid reaction force will be mainly in the Balkans, Central and Eastern Europe and other surrounding areas of Europe. However, EU leaders also pointed out that if 15 countries unanimously agree, this force is willing to accept the deployment of the United Nations and participate in peacekeeping operations outside the European continent. In the past, the role played by the EU in crisis areas such as the former Yugoslavia was mainly diplomatic mediation and "soft intervention" such as "economic sanctions". With the establishment of the EU's "rapid reaction force", the tendency of the EU to take "hard intervention" will increase.
Progress and problems of EU's independent defense
2004-08-27
With the emergence of the euro, the establishment of an independent military force has become one of the urgent tasks and priorities of EU integration. The EU's enthusiasm for independent security and defense construction shows that after the end of the Cold War, European countries living under the American security umbrella for a long time hope to achieve political independence and increase their right to speak in regional and international affairs due to the development of economic integration. The fact that the European Union has been "marginalized" by the United States in several wars in recent years also shows that only by establishing independent defense as soon as possible and having sufficient military means can the United States seriously listen to the voice of the European Union and make the European Union a powerful pole in a multipolar world.
1. The EU has been seeking independent defense for a long time.
Europe's pursuit of independent defense can be traced back to the late 1940s, when Europe put forward the concept of "European defense" or "defending Europe". The so-called "European defense" means that Europeans build their own defense. During the period of 1948, some western European countries tried to establish an independent European defense system, but failed. The European defense policies "Pleven Plan" and "Fox Plan" formulated in 1950s and 1960s respectively came to nothing. The "European political cooperation" initiated by 1970 has not achieved much. The Franco-German Legion, established in the late 1980s, was small in scale and limited in ability. Although the Western European Union (WEU) has existed for 50 years as a European military organization, it exists in name only under the strong constraints of NATO. It can be said that throughout the Cold War, Western Europe has always relied on the United States and NATO in the security field because it did not have its own independent defense capabilities.
It was after the end of the Cold War that the EU really took practical steps in security and defense, especially the Maastricht Treaty, which came into effect in 1990, and the Amsterdam Treaty, which came into effect in 1999, which highlighted the EU's security and defense policy. The Kosovo war exposed the huge gap between the EU's military strength and economic strength. The huge military gap between Europe and the United States leads the EU to rely heavily on the United States for security, which hinders the EU's ambition to expand and improve its international political status. It is based on this understanding that1The EU Cologne Summit held in June 1999 appointed Javier Solana, former NATO Secretary-General, as EU Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The EU, which has never set foot in the field of defense, finally broke through the restricted area and put this issue on the agenda.
1999 12 10 The EU Summit held in Helsinki, Finland adopted the Report on Strengthening European Security and Defense Policy, and announced the establishment of a "European Rapid Response Force" with 60,000 personnel by the end of 2003, so that the EU can independently carry out crisis management, peacekeeping and rescue operations without NATO's participation. This force should be deployed within 60 days after receiving the task, and it has the ability to enter hot spots like Kosovo. It can borrow NATO assets to maintain military operations for at least one year without damaging NATO efficiency. Together with the rotating soldiers, the total strength will reach 200 thousand. This decision shows the initial outline of the EU's independent defense and marks the official launch of the long-simmering EU's independent defense plan.
Two. Significant progress has been made in EU's independent defense.
The establishment of the European Union's rapid reaction force marks a valuable first step for Europe on the road of independent defense. Since then, European defense is no longer a utopia, it is becoming a reality step by step, and its progress is much faster than the process of establishing a unified European currency, the euro. In recent years, the EU has taken various measures to achieve the strategic goal of independent defense and made important progress.
First of all, in 2003, the EU successfully took two military actions, one was to carry out peacekeeping missions in Macedonia, and the other was to send troops to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The former used NATO's military means, while the latter "abandoned" NATO's first independent action, which was regarded as a big step for the EU to "realize the common security and defense policy". In addition, the EU will take over NATO troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the end of 2004.
2. At the end of June 2003 1 1, at the meeting of EU foreign ministers held in Naples, all EU member states and associate member states unanimously decided to establish and develop independent European defense, and put it into the European Constitution. This marks a major breakthrough in European national defense construction. The relevant decision of this meeting is not only a statement of principle of "* * * security and defense", but also contains the corresponding plan and action plan. France, Germany and Britain reached a compromise on the following three sensitive issues of European defense. (1) On the issue of "structural cooperation". The implementation of the "structural cooperation" mechanism, on the basis that all member States have formulated defense rules, some countries wishing to go faster and further in defense can take the lead as the "European defense core", and other member States can apply to join after reaching the "standard". (2) The issue of "common defense clause". It is clearly stipulated in the EU Constitution that all EU countries, including neutral countries, will implement collective defense when their member countries are attacked by terrorists or invaded by foreign enemies. This legally confirms the independent defense nature of the EU. (3) About the establishment of an autonomous European command. Britain has secretly signed a draft agreement with France and Germany, agreeing to establish an EU military command independent of NATO. This is a key step for the EU to move towards independent defense. If the headquarters is completed, it will be a qualitative leap, and the United States will gradually lose its strategic control over Europe.
Third, the defense ministers and foreign ministers of the 25 EU countries unanimously decided to set up the European Armament Bureau in June 2003 +2003 10, which will be responsible for strengthening the EU's national defense capacity to solve crisis problems, coordinating the national defense resources and weapons production of all member States in a unified way, and striving to form a unified combat capability by 20 10. Since then, the EU also plans to substantially increase its security expenditure and increase its defense and security research budget from more than 20 million euros to 2 billion euros per year. This amount will be equivalent to the expenditure of the US Department of Homeland Security.
Fourthly, in February 2004, Germany, France and Britain put forward a plan to establish a rapid intervention force in Europe. According to the plan, several tactical units between different services will be formed in 2007, each consisting of 1500 people, and can be deployed anywhere within 15 days. Its main purpose is to implement the EU security strategy and carry out the peacekeeping tasks authorized by the United Nations. This plan is integrated with the whole rapid reaction force plan of the European Union, highlighting the role of the pioneer groups of Germany, France and Britain in the construction of the European Union. In particular, Britain's participation provided "Atlanticism" guarantee for European defense.
Third, the challenges facing the EU's independent defense.
Like other affairs in European construction, it is impossible for the EU to achieve complete independent defense, nor can it "keep pace" with the United States militarily. It should be noted that independent defense is not only an internal affair of the EU, but also involves transatlantic relations. At present, the EU's establishment of independent defense mainly faces the following challenges.
First, the United States does not allow the EU to establish a truly independent defense. The attitude of the United States towards the EU's independent defense is contradictory: it hopes that EU countries will enhance their ability to stabilize European security and reduce the pressure on the United States, but it is also worried that the EU's defense wings will harden and the US military will lose the reason to stay in Europe. Therefore, although the United States verbally expressed its support for "independent defense in Europe", it did not want the EU to go too far in its bones, and did not allow Europe to set up another portal outside the NATO system, thus overhead the United States in disguise. Therefore, on the one hand, the United States does not oppose NATO's development of "European defense characteristics", on the other hand, it will never give up its leadership over NATO and its dominance in European security. After the EU announced the establishment of a rapid reaction force, NATO also decided to establish a similar force to curb its role. In this regard, the EU has repeatedly stated that strengthening its defense capability is a "supplement" to NATO to appease the United States.
Second, the military gap between Europe and the United States makes it impossible for the EU to completely get rid of its dependence on the United States in the short term. Compared with the United States, the sum of the military strength of EU member States is only one tenth of that of the United States, and the total annual military expenditure is about 654.38+040 billion euros, which is only 40% of the US military budget. 10 Although the accession of new members has increased the EU population by 20%, it can only increase the EU military expenditure by 3.5%. In addition, the military institutions and equipment of EU countries overlap seriously, with different levels, belonging to different member States, and lack the ability to cooperate in combat. At present, they can only focus on humanitarian relief and peacekeeping operations. In the event of a regional crisis, the EU will still have to turn to the United States for help.
Third, there are different opinions on independent defense within the EU. France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg strongly advocate the establishment of independent defense as soon as possible; Several countries, led by Britain, swing from side to side and are willing to be "small partners" of the United States; Poland and other newly joined Central and Eastern European countries are almost completely dependent on the United States for security; Other small countries in the European Union have doubts about France and Germany's attempts to play a "core role" in European security. All these factors inevitably make it difficult for the EU to form a unified position on defense and security issues.
However, the establishment and development of EU's independent defense is the knowledge of most EU leaders after all, and it has made a good start and made great progress. With the increasing independent military power in Europe, "a European security model without American participation has not yet appeared" will appear sooner or later. In this regard, the commentary of European News has made a strong and conclusive prediction: "Europe, when it is truly United, can get what any single member country wants but can't get, if it has the right and reason to get it."