A European Security and Defence Policy is in the interests of all, writes Geoff Hoon

Defence has not traditionally been associated with the European Union and its institutions, but European security and defence is increasingly important.

This is a time of enormous change for defence in Europe. The EU has expanded to 25 countries and NATO too has enlarged with 26 nations now covered by its security guarantee.

The threats and challenges which Europe faces are also changing. In this context, the EU’s desire to work more effectively together to improve global security – first framed by John Major’s government in the Maastricht treaty, and now known as the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) – continues to generate a significant degree of interest within the media, parliament and the public.

NATO remains the basis of the collective defence of its members through Article 5, and ESDP in no way replaces this security guarantee. The EU and NATO function together coherently and transparently. Nineteen of the 25 EU member states are also NATO allies. The EU acts militarily only “where NATO as a whole is not engaged”, as agreed at the Nice summit in 2000. It is right that if a crisis develops which affects EU members, and NATO chooses not to be involved, that the EU has the option of a response. That response may not be a military one: police, humanitarian, judicial and economic tools are also available.

One of the key aims for ESDP is to improve the defence capabilities of European nations. During the Kosovo campaign the United States was relied on to conduct almost 85 per cent of air strike sorties, and despite European governments having over two million troops in service, they struggled to deploy just 50,000 personnel. The United Kingdom vigorously supports capability improvement, and the establishment of the new European Defence Agency in June will provide further support to these efforts.

In 1999, under the Helsinki Headline Goal, the EU set itself the target of being able to deploy 50-60,000 troops within 60 days, sustainable for up to one year, and capable of conducting the full range of "Petersberg tasks" from humanitarian operations to peacemaking. While this ambition was achieved last year, there remain some critical shortfalls in nations’ capabilities (such as strategic lift and air-to-air refuelling) which still handicap both ESDP and NATO. Progress has been slower in addressing these shortfalls than we would like. It is the responsibility of individual countries to commit to the actual delivery of improvements to military capability, and both the EU and NATO can be used as helpful levers to ensure progress.

The United States supports the development of ESDP, not least because it recognises that this will lead to better European defence capabilities. Improved European defence capabilities will undoubtedly strengthen NATO, and ensure that European nations more fairly share the defence burden with the United States. The danger of the United States becoming disenchanted with NATO, and questioning the purpose of the Alliance if Europe fails to improve its defence capabilities, is real. This alone should be sufficient to spur those who recognise the importance of NATO to champion the development of ESDP as well.

When a European security policy was first being considered, some observers scoffed that it would never be translated from political aspiration to real, usable military capability. Now, with two successful military missions - in former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Democratic Republic of Congo - completed, the EU can point to evidence of where it has made a real difference.

The Congo operation in particular was a short-notice deployment into a dangerous arena. European forces were able to stabilise the situation remarkably quickly, and as the Economist noted recently, prevented a potential Rwanda-scale tragedy. The United Kingdom contributed to both operations. Assuming that NATO agrees to complete its mission in Bosnia this year and the EU takes over in December, the United Kingdom is likely to be the first lead nation for the EU force, on the EU’s biggest operation to date. This potential operation is being planned in very close co-ordination with NATO, and demonstrates how well the two organisations can work together.

This does not mean that United Kingdom armed forces are being incorporated into a "euroarmy". Such perceptions are a result of sensationalism and deliberate misrepresentation. Those who raise such accusations seemingly raise no objections to the armed forces being deployed on NATO or UN operations. EU operations work on the same basis: national forces are offered on a case-by-case basis, dependent on national decisions, and working to national rules of engagement. They are identified in theatre as an international force, whether it be by means of a UN, NATO or EU badge, and just as there is not a standing UN army; there is no EU army at the beck and call of Brussels.

Countries in Europe face the same fundamental security challenges. We cannot hope to meet these challenges individually, nor can we hope to meet them solely through military means. If we want to act effectively in the global environment, we are also going to have to work together. NATO, the EU and the UN all have important roles to play in this collective effort. Of course, these organisations must complement each other. But a flexible, inclusive and open European Security and Defence Policy is vital if European nations are to play their part in improving their individual military capabilities, and if Europe is to contribute more fully and credibly to international security.

Rt Hon Geoff Hoon is Labour MP for Ashfield and secretary of state for defence

Click here to choose another article on EU defence cooperation.