EU Commission President Jean Claude Juncker’s suggestion that the union needs its own army to strengthen its credibility on the world stage should be understood less in strategic terms than political. As political projects go, moreover, it has precious little chance of succeeding not least because of stout opposition from member states like the UK and most of the neutrals.
Mr Juncker, whose longstanding enthusiasm for a federal Europe came close to disqualifying him in some eyes for the commission job, has long supported the idea of an EU army as a logical step in the process of political integration. In an interview with Die Welt on Sunday he fleshed out the idea, arguing that the EU is "not taken seriously" and that its own army would help convince Russia that the union is "serious about defending the values of the EU." It would allow the union to "react credibly to threats to peace in a member state or a neighbour of the EU", make spending on defence by member states more efficient and "encourage European integration".
Yet with 22 of the EU's 28 member states already belonging to and relying on Nato to provide a collective defence shield, and firm neutrals like Ireland, Austria and Sweden unwilling to contemplate commitment to mutual defence obligations, Mr Juncker will have difficulty demonstrating what value-added a European army could bring and finding a consensus for his project . He would have some support in Germany, France and Italy, but precious little elsewhere and strong hostility from states who would see such a project undermining Nato.
Integration of national units, Ireland’s included, into multinational EU-directed “battlegroups” and military co-operation on research and compatibility through the European Defence Agency already provide some of the synergies Mr Juncker argues for. Extensive co-operation morphs usefully sometimes into multinational units, but a European army is a bridge too far.