If the EU delivers on its commitments then closer cooperation could improve defence capabilities, says Bruce George

It is fair to say that it was not Europe’s finest hour. The political dust-up over the decision to go to war in Iraq showed Europe’s foreign policy fissures and failings in embarrassing detail. How things can change. Little over a year later, tempers seem to have cooled, spats have subsided and now European leaders have not only endorsed an uncharacteristically to-the-point European Union security strategy, they have agreed that closer defence co-operation is a good idea. But is it?

Certainly there are great opportunities. These stem in part from two key developments. The first is the decision to create a European Armaments Agency which will identify and fulfil shortfalls in military equipment. A Briton has been put in charge of the initial planning team, with the aim of looking at practical ways to improve defence capabilities and reduce duplication by co-ordinating research and development, procurement and armament acquisition. In turn, EU governments are to commit themselves to a list of capability goals that are to be met by 2010.

The second crucial development, initiated by the UK, will see the creation of a small civil/military EU planning cell, based at NATO’s planning headquarters. It will aim to ensure smooth relations between the EU and NATO on "Berlin Plus" missions, where the EU uses NATO assets. The new unit will also help in planning for EU civilian operations as well and civil/military missions.

Militarily speaking, this should be good news, creating as it does an opportunity to encourage European countries to tackle their capability shortfalls. Germany, for instance, may be Europe’s economic powerhouse, but its limited military capability, in spite of large numbers of troops, became all too apparent when it had to borrow transport planes from Ukraine to send peacekeeping forces to Afghanistan. Even the UK, acknowledged by many as the leading military power in Europe, must hold its hand up and admit a range of capability deficiencies.

The problem stems partly from funding, or lack of it. Each year EU members spend around €160 billion on military equipment. Higher than average defence spending, as a percentage of GDP, by the new EU member states will swell this figure but we still fall well behind the US, and we are not very good at spending wisely. Quite simply, no European power can afford to buy or develop the full range of defence systems that are needed to tackle 21st century conflicts and security conditions.

If the new armaments agency can help to identify where capabilities fall short and ensure that European money is spent shrewdly then we should gain a more competitive defence industry, our troops will be better equipped to deal with new security challenges and we can assure taxpayers that they are getting value for money.

Add to this the sum of the opportunities that the new EU planning cell could provide. If it all goes to plan, then Europe would be primed and able to take action in response to situations where NATO as a whole does not want to act. Politically, a stronger, more efficient and assertive EU can surely only contribute to global security.

And internally, within Europe, the deal reached over the cell also allows everyone to move on and consign to history last year’s "chocolate" mini-summit where France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg argued, controversially, for the EU to have its own command facilities.

So three cheers for closer co-operation? Well, perhaps not. There are just as many risks as there are opportunities. Perhaps top of the list is the continuing suspicion that some still want EU defence co-operation to develop as an alternative to NATO. This would undermine rather than strengthen the alliance which has guaranteed our security for more than fifty years. US disengagement, in my view, would be a disaster for Europe.

There are other potential pitfalls. While the creation of the armaments agency has led to increased expectations that Europe’s capability crisis will be tackled, the reality is that our track record on co-operation and co-ordination is not good. European projects have often been dogged by delays and although NATO’s Defence Capabilities Initiative has shown that countries can harmonise in the area of equipment it has also highlighted the supremacy of national interests over the desire to co-operate on defence research, development and access to markets.

The UK’s access to European markets has generally been less favourable than that offered by us to our neighbours and any armaments agency should have reducing protectionism at the top of its agenda.

If we are to achieve the capabilities we need to enable us to respond to new global security challenges then we must keep a watchful eye on these risks to ensure we maximise the opportunities that we are now presented with.

Rt Hon Bruce George is Labour MP for Walsall South and chairman of the Commons defence select committee

Click here to choose another article on EU defence cooperation.