The European Union's "One Voice" in Security Affairs

By Katherine Brown

This blog post was written for the course "Current Issues in Global and EU Affairs", which took place from February 12-April 30, 2018.

US President Donald Trump recently welcomed French President Emmanuel Macron to the White House, and it was quite the spectacle. If there was any pomp in Washington D.C., it was put on display for the French President. It is not surprising, the French and US military routinely partake in military exercises, spends billions on military equipment – and this is only in the current century (let us not forget who funded the rebellion against the British). The security relationship between France and the United States remains strong even in the face of Donald Trump, who most people assumed would doom any good and meaningful relationships the US has. In fact, President Trump seems to have gotten one memo from the swamp – France matters when it comes to security. While a good relationship between two strong military nations is all fine and dandy, where does that leave those who want to transcend national militaries? Where does this leave the European Union?

I will make this argument very clear – the European Union will never truly reach high level integration when it comes to security and military affairs precisely because of nations like France and relationships like the French-US alliance. It is similar with the United Kingdom (though their membership in the EU is expiring) – where the US goes, the French and UK are likely to follow militarily. These alliances scream nationalism – with all the pomp and glory to go with it. The nation is the most important identity with militaries. There is a singular leader, a flag to fight under, and comradery. While the European Union could grasp the concept of a common flag and comradery, they will be hard pressed to find one leader. Leaders like Angela Merkel and Macron are already in a constant battle to stay the most relevant and most vital leader in the EU. For a group looking to consolidate its efforts in security, that is a bad combination.

You will be hard pressed to find all regions in the European Union demanding security ‘one voice’ consolidation at the same time and that is because the European Union has so many different security fronts. The Baltic nations will freak out when Russia makes a move, but you’ll find the Italian government yawning over it. Likewise, the Syrian Refugee Crisis had the Italian government scrambling for any sort of assistance from the EU, meanwhile countries like Austria and Hungary were scoffing at the idea that they had to lift a finger to help. Because the EU doesn’t suffer large scale security crisis that equally effects each member state, enthusiasm for security integration comes and goes, and usually goes quietly into the night.

The United States is like a wrench in the EU’s security affairs. They have a heavy presence in Europe, and this is not necessarily a good thing. While the Baltic nations feel secure with the US there, this actually makes countries like Germany and France ‘lazy’. They are not growing their militaries in the face of security threats precisely because the United States picks up the slack. One cannot be enthused about security integration if someone else picks up where they leave off. If the US was not so involved in protecting Europe, we’d probably see countries appear more interested in furthering integration, or see member states like France and Germany build a new identity based on being protectors of Europe. For now, the wrench the US is throwing is large and wrapped in pretty bows, and talk of common security and defense takes another shameful exit from the EU’s agenda.