Connect with us

Defense

EU Army: Desires and Capabilities – a Balancing Game

Published

on

On November 6, French President Emmanuel Macron reiterated his call for creating a “European army,” “real pan-European armed forces.” According to Paris, the EU needs an army to protect itself, “taking into account Russia, China and even the United States”. Speaking at the European Parliament a few days later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel generally endorsed Macron’s idea reiterating Berlin’s proposal for the creation of a European Security Council. US President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg were quick to criticize the Franco-German initiative, emphasizing the need to maintain the priority of the North Atlantic Alliance. Austria and the Netherlands have also spoken against.

High-ranking officials in France and Germany have been increasingly in favor of bolstering the “European defense identity” since May 2017 when, in the wake of the first NATO summit, attended by the newly-elected US President Donald Trump, Angela Merkel said that Europe could no longer rely on America. Even though this caused an initial stir among European politicians and experts, the idea has since gained traction becoming a mainstream one. The outcome of the 2018 NATO summit only heightened Europeans’ fears that, after the end of the Cold War, the geopolitical interests of the United States in Europe are to undermine Europeans’ competitiveness in the world.

Moreover, in the context of current transatlantic relations, i.e. due to the upcoming changes in US foreign policy following the midterm congressional elections and the easily predictable clash with Democrats in the House of Representatives, fraught with bogging down the president’s legislative agenda, the international arena is becoming a place where Donald Trump can showcase his political adeptness to his.

Moreover, restoring trust with Europe and other traditional allies can not only smooth out inter-party frictions in Washington, but can also generate a positive emotional response from the American public. Having this in mind, Europeans would certainly need to show their determination to move towards strategic autonomy as an additional bargaining chip.

Another important tactical factor for the EU leadership and the leading EU countries is the coming year 2019, when Europeans will be electing a new president of the European Commission, president of the European Council, head of the ECB, and hold elections in May for a new European Parliament. The informal coalition of advocates of revival of national sovereignty is gaining strength in the EU. Backed by the governments of several Central and Eastern European countries, one of the leaders of the current Italian government, “nationalist” Matteo Salvini, may challenge the “globalists” led by French President Macron and turn the European Parliament into a bastion of euroskeptics already next summer. Under the circumstances, the agenda for creating a common army allows EU leaders to replace the subject of national sovereignty return with the one of gaining sovereignty for Europe.

Meanwhile, the issue of pan-European military construction has been studied for quite some time now and with good reason too. Despite all its strategic might and active formal involvement in the war on terror, NATO has proved itself incapable of playing a significant role in combating new threats to European security such as local network terrorism and humanitarian challenges. The avalanche-like influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees, including victims of forced “democratization” of “rogue states,” some NATO members actively participated in, has left the European Union bitterly divided, precipitating Britain’s decision to leave the EU and even raising doubts about the very future of a united Europe.

Besides, Europeans have grown tired of being in a state of nervous uncertainty caused by Donald Tramp’s “blackmail of Europe with the US’ withdrawal from NATO.” The current situation where without the US NATO practically loses its combat capability, turns Europe into America’s hostage when it comes to security matters. This also prevents the EU from acting more independently even in Europe, let alone the world.

“European sovereignty” is thus becoming a major priority for the EU leaders. In late August, Emmanuel Macron and German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas both emphasized the need for Europe to pay a new role and “strengthen” its position in the new balance of forces emerging in the world. Macron spoke about the need for the EU to “guarantee its own security,” and Maas mentioned a “sovereign and strong Europe” as a foreign policy priority for Berlin.

“I do not believe that China and the United States think that Europe has a level of independence comparable to their own. If we fail to build it, then we are preparing a dark future for ourselves,” Macron warned.

The two leading EU countries, Germany and France, are clearly concerned about the growing challenges to their leadership. Many in Europe traditionally perceive Russia’s and China’s growing assertiveness in the world as a “threat” and “increasing pressure.” However, even in NATO “with the exception of Poland and the Baltic countries, other members see no signs of Moscow planning an offensive. By contrast, NATO members in southern Europe insist on paying more attention to the southern borders of the alliance,” the German daily newspaper recently wrote . Moreover, it was not Russia that set in motion the process of scrapping the INF Treaty Europe has benefitted from for many decades.

Meanwhile, Washington is clearly trying to drive a wedge between Berlin and Paris. And also supports euroskeptics throughout the continent. As a result, Germany is “balancing on the brink of a trade and economic war” with the United States, and from within the basic foundations of European unity are being challenged by “populists and supporters of authoritarianism.” Thus, Germany objectively needs a more “thorough” military policy in order to be “taken seriously”, both in Europe and elsewhere in the world. In his turn, French President Emmanuel Macron seems to be quickly losing illusions about his ability to build “partnership” relations with the current occupant of the White House.

Finally, Paris, Berlin and Brussels have not yet abandoned their plans for further centralization of power in the EU. However, in this case Germany would inevitably increase its clout. Meanwhile, mindful of their extremely controversial “historical legacy” the majority of Germany’s neighbors, namely the “small” European countries, are increasingly gravitating towards the United States – even to the detriment of the European agenda. The EU needs a structure capable of providing its members with “political protection against each other” comparable to that of the US. Hypothetically, the “EU army” is capable of playing exactly such a role. In any case, Paris and Berlin are apparently mulling a similar option.

That being said, there still remain a number of serious obstacles on the way of practical implementation of the plans for independent military construction in Europe. Therefore, it is absolutely unclear if anyone in the EU is able to assume the role of the military-political leader of Europe. Britain has always been opposed to the idea of a European army. However, being the strongest military power among all EU countries, it has served as one of the main guarantors of the Union’s security. But Britain is now leaving the EU. The German defense policy is in a state of prostration, and some of the leading political forces now want to mend fences with Russia. France’s military resources are increasingly focused on fighting the terrorist threat, both at home and in Africa.

Besides, the EU’s two leading powers – Germany and France – are deeply divided over the issue of European military construction. Paris’s foreign ambitions, especially under the new president, are way bigger than Germany’s, fueled by the country’s nuclear potential, the status of a permanent member of the UN Security and the size of its GDP. In the case of Germany, however, any drastic unilateral military buildup can only add to fears of the revival of the “German diktat”. As a result, while generally supporting the French idea of the “European army”, Berlin is strongly opposed to its use outside the EU. France, in turn, is skeptical about Merkel’s ideas about the EU getting a seat on the UN Security Council and the formation of a European Security Council with a view to enhancing the EU’s role in global politics.

Not all EU members endorsed the recent initiatives put forward by Macron and Merkel. Austria has already officially rejected the idea of a European army, citing its neutral status, and the Netherlands has proposed maintaining NATO’s leading role in European defense policy. In the US, there is an opinion that the European project is on the brink of collapse. Under these circumstances, Washington is being invited to present NATO as a new unifier of Europe since even Hungary, Poland and Italy, which are getting increasingly skeptical about the EU, the idea of NATO membership remains “very popular”. And last, but not least, Poland’s persistent desire to deploy a US military base on its territory outside the framework of the formal mechanisms of the North Atlantic alliance is an indirect sign of mistrust of the military prospects not only of the EU, but even of NATO.

At this point in time it is hard to foresee what exactly could have unpredictable consequences for European security – the EU, which is cracking at the seams and “grasping” at NATO’s “straw, or an EU “reformatted” under the auspices of an autonomous military machine with an ambitious French “driver” and a solid German “engine”. It seems that acquisition by the EU of its own military capability could help Europeans get rid of a number of geopolitical hang-ups, above all vis-à-vis Russia. At the same time, this would not enable Brussels to singlehandedly “maintain or stabilize peace” on the continent. Acting alone, Western organizations, such as NATO or the European Union, cannot adequately respond to security challenges, because they do not include all European countries. Unilateral military alliances or coalitions only weaken the “unity of the common security space.”

Russia’s position remains constructive, unchanged and consistent: European security is indivisible, and attempts to “ensure its security at the expense of others” are doomed to failure.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

Pakistan’s Skepticism on India’s NFU Policy Stands Validated

Haris Bilal Malik

Published

on

The South Asian region is widely regarded as vulnerable to the threat of nuclear war. This is largely because of the Kashmir issue’s dangerous potential as a ‘nuclear flashpoint’ between India and Pakistan. This is evident in how the use of nuclear weapons is currently being debated at the highest levels of both the Indian and Pakistani leadership against the backdrop of the latest rounds of tensions over the disputed territory. This includes recent statements by Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh which have alluded to India rolling back its ‘No-First Use’ (NFU) policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons. In the wake of the ongoing hostility in the region, the likely shift in India’s NFU policy is likely to have long-lasting implications for peace and stability across the region.

Keeping in mind the implications of the above-mentioned statement Pakistan’s response has been articulated at various strategic levels in Pakistan. For instance, Prime Minister Imran Khan in his article for the New York Times condemned this likely shift by terming it as a ‘not-so-veiled’ nuclear threat to Pakistan. Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi condemned India’s assertion of changing its NFU policy by terming it highly unfortunate and reflective of India’s irresponsible and belligerent behavior. At the military level, Pakistan has always doubted India’s NFU policy to have ever existed in the first place. This was reflected in Pakistan military’s official spokesperson Major General Asif Ghafoor’s statement in which he clearly said that India’s ‘no first use’ was its sole prerogative and if it wanted to change its policy then it was its own choice.

Contrary to India’s declared NFU policy, Pakistan has never made such a commitment or statement and has deliberately maintained a policy of ambiguity concerning a nuclear first strike against India. This has been carried out with a view to assuring its security and to preserve its sovereignty by deterring India via both minimum credible deterrence and full-spectrum deterrence capabilities. This posture asserts that since Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are for defensive purposes in principle, they are aimed at deterring India from any and all kinds of aggression. Therefore, even now Pakistan is likely to keep its options open and still leave room for the possibility of carrying out a ‘first strike’ as a viable potential deterrent against India if any of its stated red lines are crossed.

Furthermore, India’s NFU policy is hardly verifiable or justifiable when taken at face value as a credible policy option because of Indian offensive missile advancements and growing nuclear arsenal. This is also evident from India’s enhanced missile developments which include; hypersonic missiles, ballistic missile defence systems, enhanced space capabilities for intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance and the induction of nuclear powered ballistic missile capable submarines. Such recent developments indicate that India’s nuclear weapons modernization is aimed at continuously enhancing its deterrence framework including its second-strike capabilities. As such it is also evident of India’s shift towards employing a counterforce instead of a counter value approach to nuclear warfare. By continuously seeking an edge over Pakistan in terms of more accurate strike and, intelligence gathering capabilities, supported in tandem by enhanced BMD systems, the shifting trends indicate that India might find it more feasible to abandon its NFU policy and flirt with the possibility of a more offensive as opposed to defensive nuclear posture.

However, since Pakistan has long doubted India’s NFU policy anyway, India’s attempt to rethink, reconsider, reinterpret or shift away from its NFU policy would do not really make much difference for Pakistan’s strategic calculus. The first amendment in the NFU policy in 2003 which was based on the Indian Cabinet Committee on Security’s (CCS) review of its nuclear doctrine had already denied the NFU policy. According to this review, if the Indian armed forces or its citizens were attacked with chemical or biological weapons, then India would reserve the right to respond with nuclear weapons. Moreover, India’s preparations for a limited war or a low-intensity conflict against Pakistan under its more recent doctrines such as the 2017 Joint Doctrine of the Indian Armed Forces (JDIAF) and the 2018 Land Warfare Doctrine (LWD) are also based upon more proactive offensive strategies and indirect threats of preemptive strikes which have long since eroded the credibility of its NFU policy.

Hence, based on this context, the likelihood of India shifting its declared position on the No First Use nuclear policy against the backdrop of ongoing tensions over the Kashmir issue presents a highly irresponsible and destabilizing move by the Indian government. Especially during a situation where exercising calm and restraint are of the utmost importance, India has willfully put at stake the delicate strategic balance which exists in the South Asian region. This is likely to pose severe and long-lasting implications for peace and stability across not only the South Asian region but the entire world at large.

Continue Reading

Defense

Russia does not exclude nuclear war in Europe

Published

on

In these latter days the issue of the risk of nuclear escalation in a non-nuclear conflict and war by mistake is acutely on the agenda.

Obviously, strategic stability is in deep crisis. According to the report which is based on the results of a situational analysis directed by Sergei A. Karaganov and held at the Russian Foreign Ministry, “it would be a mistake to think that the new military-strategic landscape is stable. 

From author’s point of view, the main threat comes from a risk of military conflict between nuclear powers, including an unintended nuclear or non-nuclear conflict, which can subsequently escalate into a global nuclear war, with the probability of such escalation now being higher than before.
According to the report, it is clear that Russia is convinced that the U.S. has been consistently destroying its traditional architecture – the system of nuclear arms control agreements, again considering options to use nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict for winning the war, and refusing to begin serious negotiations to strengthen strategic stability.

The author is sure that this creates a vacuum in the field of nuclear weapons and lowers the threshold for their use at a time when the risk of an armed clash between nuclear powers in the current political and technological situation remains quite high.

As for Europe is concerned, the report states that more serious risks of inadvertent military clash come from the U.S.’s continues efforts to build up its military infrastructure, including missile defences and drones, in Eastern Europe, its plans to increase its low-yield nuclear weapons arsenal and put those weapons on strategic delivery systems in order to neutralize the Russian military threat. Numerous the U.S. proposals to strengthen its military presence and deployment of weapons in the territories of Poland and the Baltic States clearly indicate that the U.S. allows the possibility of a regional military conflict with Russia in Europe and is taking measures to prevent Russia from winning it by using of tactical nuclear weapons or conventionally-armed medium-range missiles.

The author consider that this is a rather dangerous tendency: for Russia, the use of tactical nuclear weapons or conventionally-armed medium-range missiles against it would mean a strategic strike and would inevitably trigger a nuclear second strike against the U.S. or those countries which deployed its nuclear weapons.

Thus, countries which are ready to deploy any kind of weapons suggested by the U.S. will turn themselves to real targets for Russia.
Nuclear war in Europe is no more a ghostly threat, but a very real one.

Continue Reading

Defense

Infectious Diseases and National Security: Who will frame National Health Security Policy of Pakistan?

Published

on

Health plays an influential role in fostering economic growth and sustainable development. Because of its indirect impact on human development, better health boosts rates of economic growth and contributes to wealth creation. In the past decades, new healthcare challenges and emerging infectious disease outbreaks have drawn global attention particularly in developing countries like Pakistan. Traditionally, health and security occupied separate domains, but in recent years the imperative fusion between health and national security has been recognized by policymakers, security and defence analysts in both developed and developing countries. The last two or three decades have seen sharp rise in non-traditional threats to national security, such as infectious diseases. There are many lines of attack that infectious diseases can intimidate national security i.e. increased rates of morbidity and mortality, massive damage on public health and health infrastructure, political instability, and economic volatility.

Emerging and reemerging infectious diseases, and their pandemic potential, pose a challenge to national security in the 21st century that cannot be overlooked. Though, the historical threat to national security by epidemic diseases is not new; the threat has increased in recent past and is growing rapidly in Pakistan. Correspondingly, reemergence of mosquito-borne infections such as dengue, chikungunya, zika, and more virulent forms of malaria and new more severe forms of viral respiratory infections have evolved. Pakistan is one of several countries, which together bear 95% of the burden of infectious diseases, and the trend is on the rise. According to statistics, Pakistan had not been able to control the burden of communicable diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, dengue fever, typhoid, hepatitis, cholera and other infectious diseases. Malaria, dengue, polio, and tuberculosis, are among the top killers. Pakistan is ranked fifth on the list of high-burden TB countries, and worst of all; Pakistan is one of the three remaining countries where poliomyelitis, also called polio, is still endemic. An average of about one million lives claimed yearly by malaria (estimated 12% of the rural population is believed to carry malaria parasites in their blood) and anticipated mortality rate of 48 thousand deaths per year as a result of TB cases. Similarly, infectious diseases are the biggest killers of children in Pakistan, causing 60% of all child deaths under 5 years of age.

At present, Pakistan is facing multiple challenges in healthcare, which can be broken down into social issues, technical constraints, lack of trained human resources, infrastructure, effective legislation and policymaking, awareness and negligence. The structure and function of the current healthcare system in Pakistan is far below international standards and ranked at 122 out of 190 countries in terms of healthcare standards. Pakistan does not have an organized healthcare system; even health priorities are not properly defined by present government (except Health-card). There is no evidence of strong political will, and inter-ministerial and inter-departmental conflicts, corruption, awful governance, and lack of correspondence are rampant to cope with national health security issues.

Epidemiologically, the behavior of epidemic is usually compared to previous outbreaks. The reemergence of Dengue virus (year-to-date, thousands of dengue cases are reported and hundreds of deaths in last few months) along with the dispersion of infectious diseases geographically throughout Pakistan demonstrate that Ministry of Health (MoH) and Ministry of Defence (MoD) are not incorporated and interconnected to address the national health security issues. Likewise, research and development (R&D) for new tools and technologies to prevent, detect and respond to emerging disease threats and outbreaks have not been considered by authorities with growing need in the country. As seen with the Dengue and Chikungunya outbreaks, there is a shortage of appropriate diagnostic equipments and vaccines to manage the response and lack of regulatory framework for fast-tracking and surveillance technology, tools and techniques when rapid respond is indispensable.

To cut a long story short, health security has become a national priority in many countries, supported by loyal and devoted leadership. They are approaching health security in a holistic manner, including, social, technical, economic, diplomatic, military and intelligence-related aspects. On the contrary, the link between infectious diseases and national security is relatively a new concept in Pakistan. A new paradigm is needed that links infectious diseases to national security and recognize the broad effects of diseases on society. Response to infectious disease threats should be strategic priority of health and security agencies in Pakistan. Ministry of Defence needs to acknowledge its role in ensuring that the state’s population is fit and healthy since there are no signs that the Ministry of Defence is awakening to this responsibility. At a time when our conception of national security is evolving rapidly, we must look hard at uncertain and non-traditional threats, specifically. Today, Pakistan is facing a wide range of threats to national health security, including disease outbreaks and pandemics. As health threats are evolving, protecting Pakistan from 21st century health security threats need a clear strategic direction and teamwork between Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Health. Of course, with uncertainty and ambiguity, a large amount of work is needed to bring analytical clarity to the national health security paradigm.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy