European Geostrategy

22:42, 24 February 2010

By Luis Simón

In a recent paper published with the European Union Institute for Security Studies, I looked into the relationship between politics and the evolution of the European Union’s military planning and conduct capability. The questions surrounding the Union’s capability for the planning and conduct of European military operations have been some of the most controversial issues throughout the development of European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

In the context of this debate the Union’s most influential Member States have projected their views over the heart and soul of CSDP, namely how autonomous the European Union should be in relation to NATO (a debate which has pitched ‘Europeanists’ against ‘Atlanticists’) or what is the desired balance between ‘civilian power Europe’ and ‘defence Europe’ (what has pitched ‘introverts’ against ‘extroverts’). The so-called Atlanticist versus Europeanist cleavage and the Extrovert versus introvert one often intermesh with each other. In the words of a former representative to the European Union Military Committee:

Some countries favour the concept of civilian ESDP, including the proliferation of civilian missions and the notion of “Civ/Mil” planning, to cripple through the back door the Union’s military instrument.

In spite of France’s perseverance, the ‘awkward alignment’ between the United Kingdom and Germany (two countries who are found on the opposite ends of the so-called ‘extrovert versus introvert continuum’) is particularly responsible for the lack of a permanent operational planning capability in Brussels. Although using different means (opposition by the former, ambiguity and inaction by the latter) and driven by different motives (‘Atlanticism’ in the case of the former, ‘civilian power Europe’ in the case of the latter), the behaviour of these two countries has been key in confounding the creation of the permanent military strategic level of command that Paris has pursued so eagerly.

Both London and Berlin champion the notion of Civ/Mil integration at the military strategic level (the so-called Civ-Mil Operational Headquarters (OHQ)). Whereas London perceives the idea of a Civ/Mil OHQ as a means of drowning the Union’s strategic potential in ‘civilian waters’, Berlin supports the notion of Civ/Mil integration at the military-strategic level out of strategic cultural conviction.

The lack of a permanent capability for the operational planning and conduct of CSDP military operations poses three important problems:

1. It hampers flexibility in the Union’s planning process, as politico-strategic deliberations over potential CSDP missions lack the crucial operational expertise necessary to address crucial political questions, such as how many troops are needed and for how long or how much the mission will cost.
2. The lack of an operational planning capability denies the Union the capacity to develop (advance) contingency planning products, that are so crucial in situations where rapid reaction is required.
3. The lack of a permanent command and control infrastructure has a negative impact upon the quality and security of the European Union’s military communication and information systems and hampers the kind of overall situational awareness offered by a central command, so vital for a Union that aims to think more strategically (as argued in the 2008 report on the implementation of the European Security Strategy).

An official from the Council of the European Union’s General Secretariat put the argument succinctly:

When you plan something from Brussels at the strategic level, there are three fundamental things that Member States would really like to know: how many troops, how much money and how long? We are in no position to answer any of those three questions satisfactorily. In order to do that you need an OHQ that is theatre-acquainted. Since we don’t have it, we try and plan things from a strategic level, but it is very unprofessional and unreliable. Everybody will tell you that politico-strategic planning cannot be done without an OHQ. It is a matter of politics; as simple as that.