Establishing the European Military Complex
For eurocrats in Brussels, it's foremost a question of economics and not security
In his farewell speech almost 45 years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made reference to what he called the military-industrial complex, which represented the conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry. Although pundits often point out how Eisenhower warned against the increasing power and influence of this military-industrial complex, what they fail to mention is that he was not against it. Indeed, he saw it as a necessary evil to combat "a hostile ideology" (i.e., communism) which was, in his words, "global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method." And like George W. Bush's "war on terror" in the Third Millennium, with communists replaced by Islamic fundamentalists, "the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration", thereby requiring citizens "to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake."
Although not totally against the existence of a military-industrial complex, what Eisenhower was nonetheless concerned about was the "proper" meshing of huge industrial power with the military establishment. Ironically, almost half a century later, it's this exact same situation which now confronts the European Union. Under the guise of "security", eurocrats in Brussels are busy hammering together an "EU security strategy", the European version of the military-industrial complex, with technology research as its core component.
One of the main architects in the creation of this European military-industrial complex is Günter Verheugen, the same person who was in charge of the expansion process of during the previous European Commission under Romano Prodi. In many ways, he helped to lay the groundwork for the new EU security strategy during the expansion process. In order for the European military-industrial complex to work, with Germany and France as the industrial-technological hub, from where "security products" emanate, an expanded Europe is needed which reaches east as far as possible. Those at the "far end of Europe", whose "job" is to protect the EU's eastern frontier, then become the main consumers of this new security technology. In other words, the new member states of Central and Eastern Europe have become the dumping ground of security technology from western Europe, in much the same way as in the Cold War years most "allies" of the US became the dumping ground for various weapons, including nuclear missiles.
As the Commissioner in charge of EU expansion, it was Verheugen's job, therefore, to make sure the expansion process proceeded as smoothly and widely as possible. Now, as the EU Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry under the present European Commission of Jose Barosso, Günter Verheugen is well placed to oversee the official implementation of the European military-industrial complex. He made this quite clear at a defence agenda conference in Brussels earlier this year, where he noted that the development of an EU strategy for collective security requires a competitive defence industry and innovative, technologically advanced security solutions. Accordingly, the upcoming Seventh Framework Programme research programme (FP7), where the programme on security research will be established, is expected to help meet those challenges.
"We increasingly need high-tech security solutions developed from civil technologies and applications," stated the Commissioner. "In this regard, the Preparatory Action for Security Research is paving the way for a future large scale programme on security research under the umbrella of the 7th R&D [Research and Development] framework programme," he added.
According to Verheugen, the so-called "new" fight against terrorism, which has become a mandated priority for all EU member states, requires a comprehensive strategy covering a wide range of measures, including supporting the industrial base necessary to provide adequate security systems, military equipment, and civil crisis management capabilities. He pointed out that traditionally, the so-called "security industry" has been excluded from the benefits of EU policies. Verheugen is confident that the new European Defense Agency will help strengthen the competitiveness of the industry in Europe.
Not only has EU basic research programmes been hijacked by the establishment of the European military-industrial complex, but so too has the European space programmes. These programmes were primarily for benefit of environmental monitoring and research, but now they will also contribute to security. In particular, the European capacity for Global Monitoring of Environment and Security, the GMES programme, which is to be established in 2008, is expected to contribute considerably to "securing the provision of information" needed to avert threats and respond to crises.
One of the key selling points for the military-industrial complex in Europe, which has allowed it to be established with barely a whimper, is the way in which it has been framed and pushed through EU institutions. "The exploitation of civil-military synergies is a key priority within this new security context," explained Verheugen. "Europe needs increased research and development investments not only in defence and security, but also in civil technologies, which can lead to further security applications. The European defence industry landscape proves that diversification and the exploitation of the synergies of dual-use technologies are now the rule." Meanwhile, the general public, which increasingly estranged from EU and its institutions, for the most part has no idea what the hell is going on.
The China Connection
Unlike the American military-industrial complex, the European version is not primarily focused on arms production. Europe can never "compete" with the US on this front, so it has chosen technology-based "security" solutions instead as its main component. As recent attempts by the EU to have the arms embargo against China lifted demonstrate, competition between the arms industry on both sides of the Atlantic is fierce.
Yet China has its own arms industry, and the lifting of the embargo has little to do with selling arms to China. Rather, Beijing is more interested in the technology related to the arms industry -- and not the arms themselves. The US interest in maintaining the embargo, therefore, has as much to do with keeping China from modernising its arms industry as with the official line of maintaining the balance of power in the region.
The EU, on the other hand, is looking for a "killer app" that will help lift Europe from the economic quagmire it presently finds itself in. So-called security technology, therefore, may provide the answer as it would be able to circumvent the arms embargo against China whilst still providing Beijing with the technology it is seeking.
Although the EU can never hope to match the military budget of the US, Brussels is nevertheless determined to make the most out of the funds that are available to develop the capacities and technologies it needs to maintain a viable military-industrial complex. "That requires greater coordination and an increased focus on R&D in European defence budgets," observed Verheugen. He added: "the transatlantic financing gap will remain, but that should spur Europe to act quickly in order to limit the current fragmentation and duplication. Europe's security ambitions compel us to achieve the highest technological levels by building on European centers of excellence, wherever they are to be found."
To this extent, big business is seen as key, not only in terms of increased investment in R&D, but also for training their workers and developing new products to meet the needs and requirements of the European military-industrial complex. Consequently, the European Commission is currently carrying out an impact assessment study to create a pro-business framework in this field.
In the end, the establishment of a European military-industrial complex represents a marked shift from the Europe that was. As the center of the anti-MAD movement (Mutual Assured Destruction) during the cold war era, which sought to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race, Europe has now moved in completely the opposite direction, and now hopes to be one of the main participants of a new drag race on the highway to hell.