Q&A on European defence

Robin Oakley, European political editor of CNN.com, looks into the fears and problems surrounding the new Rapid Reaction Force for the European Union.

Q: How did the new force come about?

A: Plans for the Rapid Reaction Force (RRF), the first military initiative by the EU, were set in motion by the French and British, the EU's two most experienced military powers. Despite some reservations by non-NATO members, the EU leaders agreed at the Helsinki summit in December1999 to establish the RRF for peacekeeping, crisis management and humanitarian and rescue work.

There had already been calls for the development of a "European defence identity" to reflect the EU's potential strength as a world power. A powerful stimulus was given when many EU leaders were horrified by how slow the EU nations proved able to assemble an adequate force in the 1999 Kosovo conflict and how dependent they remained on the United States. Only a third of the air sorties flown in the Kosovo war were flown by European aircraft.

The French had long been seeking to develop the Western European Union organisation (basically the European arm of NATO without the U.S. and Canada) as a self-starting European Union defence organisation.

After the Kosovo conflict, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, highly critical of European "dithering and disunity" on that occasion, joined President Jacques Chirac of France in saying that there was a need for Europe to be able to stand on its own two feet in areas where the United States chose not to get involved.

Blair may have been influenced by the need for the United Kingdom to demonstrate its Euro-credentials at a time when it was staying out of the European single currency.

Q: What is the reaction from Washington, traditionally the guardian of NATO interests?

A: Americans, as the dominating contributors to NATO, especially in terms of transport and technology, have long called for European countries to shoulder a bigger proportion of the defence burden in Europe. But when the French and British first began to develop plans for a new European defence identity they were uneasy about duplication and a potential undermining of NATO.

EU diplomats concede that the U.S. did have fears about the future of the Atlantic alliance but say that Washington is now much more relaxed. One French source told CNN: "Their feeling now is: 'Please do it -- if you can.' There is a willingness for Europe to develop its own capacity but some scepticism about its ability to do so. There is certainly no longer any strong opposition from Washington."

That may be true as far as the public face of the present administration in Washington is concerned. But there has been no shortage of complaints from political, diplomatic and military figures.

U.S. Adm. Eugene Carroll, a former NATO commander, told the British newspaper The Daily Mail: "We see it as a threat. NATO is still seen as the agency through which the U.S. dominates European security affairs, and we're going to be very reluctant to let that dominance fade."

British Gen. Sir Peter de la Billiere, one of the Gulf War commanders, said the decision seemed to have been driven by politics: "It is difficult to comprehend how we are able to meet the increased commitments without seriously weakening our commitment to NATO. It will almost certainly drive a wedge between Europe and the U.S."

Some in Europe do worry that the creation of the new force, enabling Europe to tackle more conflict resolution problems on its own doorstep, will see a steady pullback by the United States from Europe and a weakening of the United States' commitment to NATO.

Q: Will the new force have the resources to do the job?

A: That remains to be seen. To run a force of 60,000 which can be deployed rapidly and remain in action for up to a year will require a pool of around 240,000 military personnel to draw on.

The foreign and defence ministers of the EU countries will have to do some juggling of commitments as the new force will be short of transport aircraft and precision-guided missiles. Only 10 roll-on, roll-off ships were promised initially against an estimated requirement of more than 60 for a strategic sealift.

There are serious gaps in capability, and most EU nations have been cutting back on defence spending in the post-Cold War years. There are problems too over standardisation of equipment.

UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon warned at the outset that Europe's forces were lacking. "Too few of them are readily and rapidly deployable to crisis areas. Too many look much as they did during the Cold War and are rarely flexible enough to carry out a diverse range of crisis management tasks. They are not structured to sustain themselves in a theatre of operations for extended periods. In short, too many of them are not fit to face today's challenges."

Collectively the EU countries spend some $190 billion on defence every year compared to the United States' expenditure of $290 billion. According to the latest figures from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, of the EU countries only Greece, at 4.8 percent, matches or exceeds the 3.2 percent share of national income spent on defence by the United States.

Some EU countries still have national military service rather than professional forces.

France, Belgium, Germany and Denmark have embarked on defence modernisation programmes, and Finland and Luxembourg have increased their defence budgets.

Q: How will NATO and the new force work together?

A: Javier Solana, the so-called "high representative" of the EU -- in effect its foreign policy chief -- is working on the command structure of the Rapid Reaction Force and is seeking to ease the worries of countries like Turkey, currently in NATO but not in the EU, that they will be squeezed out of future decisions on European security matters. It will help that Solana is a former NATO secretary-general.

NATO members will be given a say on any Rapid Reaction Force operation involving the use of NATO personnel or equipment. They will be represented on a committee of contributors to any operation (all will be mounted by a so-called "coalition of the willing" with no nation forced to participate). And they will have a say on any operations mounted in their own regions

EU ministers say they won't create a "mini-NATO" or duplicate its functions. They promise "full transparency and consultation." They have to, because they admit that while the EU will take its own decisions and have its own military advisers, the military capabilities to implement these decisions -- such as planning and command structures -- will largely be borrowed from NATO in the foreseeable future.

The position is complicated by the fact that some EU countries, like Austria, Sweden and Ireland, are traditionally neutral in military terms. While Norway, Iceland and Turkey (like the U.S. and Canada) are in NATO but not in the EU, there are others -- Austria, Finland, Sweden and Ireland -- who are in the EU but not in NATO.