PESCO — what is it good for?
Security and defense integration has been dividing and uniting the European Union (EU) from the beginning. Several unsuccessful attempts have been made by European politicians to bolster defense and security coordination between the EU member states. For instance, a European Defense Community was proposed in 1950 but was rejected due to French opposition. Political arguments were also being made during the 1990s to develop a common European security and defence identity without results. In general, the political appetite for security and defense integration has been rather limited or at least inconsistent throughout the EU’s history. This can be related to the fear of losing national sovereignty, diverging threat perceptions among the member states, and the existence of The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as a reliable security provider for Europe.
I mean, why should the member states invest and engage in more collective security and defense coordination in the EU, when this is already taken care of inside NATO? On the other hand, why should the United States continue to finance European security through NATO when the United States’ strategic interests is shifting towards the Pacific? This characterizes the current security and defense dilemma that confronts European politicians today. The solution might not be simple, but I believe it already exists within the EU.
Is PESCO the answer to EU’s security and defense dilemma?
In recent years the EU has made progress in terms of overcoming the security and defense dilemma by politically paving the way for more security and defense integration inside the EU framework. The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) was introduced by the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 as a part of the European Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). PESCO is a significant step towards European security and defense integration. The purpose of PESCO is to provide the EU with a permanent framework for military coordination between the member states and the defense industries. Participation in PESCO is voluntary, but 25 out of 27 member states have joined thus far. At the same time, the European Defense Fund (EDF) has been established to provide financial support for the research and development of common European defense capabilities. The EDF initiative is, unlike PESCO, a supranational initiative.
On paper, PESCO, which was first officially activated in 2017, seems like a response to the EU’s security and defense dilemma, but in reality only a few security and defense initiatives have been launched under the PESCO umbrella thus far. However, in my opinion, it is still too early to judge PESCO as another failure of EU defense integration. Political support for enhanced security and defense cooperation is on the rise and more significant projects are being undertaken by the participating member states in PESCO. Recently the U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin expressed U.S. support for bolstering European defense and security capabilities outside the NATO framework. Thus, PESCO has the chance of becoming the new center of European security and defense cooperation. But what are the benefits and risks for the EU by undertaking security and defense integration inside of the EU framework?
In what ways might PESCO and current defense initiatives overcome past failures and enhance European strategic autonomy?
PESCO can help the EU achieve strategic autonomy, which implies having the capabilities and capacity to operate independently from the United States and NATO. The EU now has a structure where they can coordinate joint capabilities and temporary humanitarian and peacekeeping missions by request from the United Nations. Strategic autonomy is important with a United States focusing more towards the Pacific and less towards Europe. PESCO can also provide the EU with more political influence on the international stage based on the realistic understanding that military capabilities equal political power inside the international world order. Diplomacy is no longer the only option on the table for the EU in dealing with other great powers. Finally, PESCO can create new jobs for the challenged European defense industry, which has lost market shares to the U.S. and Chinese defense industries. PESCO encourages the participating member states to spend more on security and defense, and it will definitely have a positive effect on the European defense industry.
In what ways might current defense initiatives not be sufficient for achieving strategic autonomy?
PESCO is an intergovernmental initiative and participation in it is currently voluntary. For instance, member states like Denmark and Malta do not have to participate in PESCO. The participating member states in PESCO are also not legally obligated to live up to their commitments inside the PESCO framework, and they can choose to opt out of the initiative at any time if they wish. Hence, diverging national interests and priorities can challenge PESCO. PESCO neither gives the EU direct control over national capabilities nor military units. It is still up to the member states if they want to deploy capabilities or boots on the ground, and this will influence the EU’s capability to respond to conflicts and security threats negatively. Finally, PESCO is underfunded compared to its strategic scope and ambition. Security and defense integration is expensive, and the European politicians need to allocate way more resources to PESCO and the EDF for it to become fully operational.
Going forward with security and defense integration inside the EU
In the end, the European politicians need to ask themselves some existential questions before going forward with PESCO or other defense and security initiatives in the future. What are the long term strategic goals for the EU in terms of defense and security? Does the EU even want to become an independent military power on the international stage? What are the advantages and disadvantages with the current initiatives in the EU? Answering these questions is crucial in order for the European politicians to solve the historic security and defense dilemma that still unites and divides the EU today. I believe PESCO may be the answer for the EU, but it needs supranational authority, additional funding, and political support from all the member states in order to become a suitable alternative to NATO. Otherwise, what is PESCO good for? Absolutely nothing.
