Syria: Who’s in and who’s out?

Plenty to ponder over Syria

Following the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad’s regime in Syria, the stakes have been raised. But as the calls for international military intervention grows louder, how have Europe’s various players been lining up? Well, the EU is certainly not “speaking with one voice.” Somehow neither the Lisbon Treaty, nor the EEAS nor the arrival of Cathy Ashton has managed to magically replace 28 individual foreign policies with a single EU one. (We remain shocked!)

So when it comes to Syria, there are now three key questions for the member states: whether to take part in military action; whether to back military action without necessarily taking part and, crucially, whether to do either of these two without a UN mandate. The last is obviously key as Russia is liley to veto any UN resolution with teeth, and has already made it clear it would consider any intervention without a UN mandate a "crude violation of international law".  

So far, we count three EU countries that have signalled willingness to participate militarily even if a UN mandate isn't forthcoming – the UK, France and Denmark. France and the UK - that between them account for most of the EU's military spending - are as usual the key players in the EU when matters are moved into the domain of hard power. David Cameron will today present a draft resolution proposing action against Assad's regime in the UN Security Council "authorising necessary measures to protect civilians" in Syria. Writing in the Telegraph today, British Foreign Minister William Hague argues that:

“this is the moment for democratic nations to live up to their values…We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons in the 21st century to go unchallenged. That would send a signal to the Syrian regime that they will never face any consequences for their actions, no matter how barbarous."

Meanwhile, French President Francois Hollande said yesterday that “France is ready to punish those who took the heinous decision to gas innocents," while French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius told Europe 1 radio on Monday: "The only option that I am ruling out is to do nothing." 

Both, it would appear, very much keep the option open to press ahead without the UN. 

Germany is more hesitant. There is virtually zero chance of Berlin playing a major part in any military operation of any sort. The question is - and this is what the German debate is centred around - will it back military action without a UN resolution. Remember, Germany ended up on the same side as Russia and China - against the UK and France - in abstaining on a UN Security Council vote on Libya back in 2011. However, this move was also triggered a domestic and international political backlash, which the Germans haven't forgotten. The country's Foreign Ministry has welcomed the UK's motion at the UN.

#Syria #Westerwelle welcomes British initiative to address poison gas attack within UNSecurityCouncil. United stance needed! @foreignoffice
— GermanForeignOffice (@GermanyDiplo) August 28, 2013

And there's no lack of scepticism. Phillipp Missfelder, the foreign affairs spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party, said that,"The [German] army has, through its current international operations, already reached the breaking point," and that military action without a UN mandate is "hard to imagine." However, interestingly, fellow CDU MP Ruprecht Polenz, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Bundestag, said that military action against Syria without a UN mandate could be "legitimate", citing Kosovo as a precedence, adding that the use of chemical weapons was a "serious, brutal taboo, which may not remain without consequences”. However, he stopped short of explicitly calling for German involvement. 

The SPD's chairman Sigmar Gabriel has suggested that German involvement should be limited to the diplomatic front, specifically that Chancellor Merkel ought to fly to Moscow to convince Russian President Putin to change his policy.

According to Number 10, Chancellor Merkel and David Cameron discussed the situation and “agreed that such an attack demanded a firm response from the international community.” (Not that this fairly generic statement tells us much.) Germany clearly remains nervous about foreign policy meddling. 

So far Italy is leaning back too. "Italy will not take part in any military solutions without a UN Security Council mandate," according to its Foreign Minister Emma Bonino. "Even the option of a limited intervention risks becoming unlimited," said Bonino, adding that Italy was "already stretched and even over-stretched" militarily in other parts of the world.

Despite Poland's support for the EU developing a stronger and more coherent military presence, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed today that “Poland does not envisage taking part in a military intervention in Syria. In any form.”

Like many others, Spain hasn't yet made up its mind but it is sticking to the hope of a UN resolution. Deputy Secretary General of the Partido Popular, Carlos Floriano, said Wednesday, that the Government will decide its stance “[once it is] aware perfectly of every detail." Meanwhile the Spanish Foreign Ministry said it hoped the UN Security Council “can make decisions that comply with international law.” 

Of the smaller countries, "non-aligned" Sweden is as usual calling  for “the broadest international support possible” but leaving it open how to approach a US/UK/France led operation absent a UN solution. Fellow "non alinged" country Austria is also staying quiet. Portugal says it won’t comment on potential action, with the Ministry of Foreign affairs simply issuing the generic statement that “it is in close coordination with its partners and allies.”

NATO-member Denmark, on the other hand, yesterday signalled that it’s willing to take part in military action even absent a UN-solution, with a series of pretty robust statements from senior Danish politicians. According to an opinion poll published today, 64% of Danes are opposed to such a move, however. 

Greece is likely to come under pressure to open up its strategically important bases to the US but ANSA quotes Greek officials as saying they have themselves “ruled out the possibility of active military involvement”. 

So what about the EU institutions themselves?  We wouldn't want to forget those. They are sticking to the ‘UN Security Council’ line. As Baroness Ashton said on Monday, "Of course the Security Council is extremely important in this. It is the role of the Security Council to look and see how the international community can and should respond."

With Hermann van Rompuy, President of the European Council, also urging similar action on Syria via the UN Security Council, this begs the question, what happens if that isn't forthcoming and the UK/France and US continue to push for military action? This then has the potential to become one of the biggest foreign policy clashes between the UK/France and Brussels since the new EU foreign policy architecture was put into place.

Sorry but UK defence policy is largely untouched by EU membership

Talking about EU military co-operation is always a good way to generate a heated debate, and we expect that the Guardian interview with German Defence Minister Thomas de Maizière will be no exception. Maizière said:

"If Great Britain leaves the EU, it would be a great disappointment to us. It would weaken Nato, it would weaken the British influence within Nato. I think from a military point of view the disadvantages for Great Britain would be bigger than the advantages."

"I am not talking about economic issues or social issues, or whether you drive on the left or the right side of the road, I am talking about security. I am talking about British influence beyond its own borders. I think it is part of the British tradition that Britain has to play a role in the world. Outside the EU it would not lose a role, but it would reduce their own influence and this cannot be in the interests of Great Britain. We in Germany would lose a strong partner for a pro-Atlantic co-operation with America and a pragmatic British way to deal with security issues." 

Now, as we've argued in the past, there are a number of drawbacks from the UK leaving the EU - which eurosceptics of that inclination have failed to properly address - including guaranteed market access, voting rights on laws that govern that market access, "pass-porting" for financial services, extra costs at the border for exporting business (rules of origin) and loss of veto to prevent the EU from doing stupid things. Here, German politicians make good points when they talk about the UK's future position in the EU.

However, the one area that would be largely unaffected - or even completely unaffected - by a possible UK withdrawal from the EU is defence and Britain's military position.The reason is simple: hard power in Europe is simply guided by logic and incentives untouched by the EU institutions. It's a separate dialogue completely.

In other words, Britain would be an absolutely key part of "security Europe" even if it left the EU tomorrow. It wouldn't enjoy either substantial benefits or drawbacks with regards to military cooperation - the EU would be largely irrelevant. Even in the broader field of "foreign policy", the UK would be a key partner.

The UK remains one of Europe's 2 1/2 military powers, being the biggest single spender on defence in Europe - spending as much as Italy, Spain, Netherlands and Poland combined.

Britain would still have its permanent place on the UN's Security Council and its nuclear deterrent. Meanwhile it is telling that France and the UK have chosen to deepen their defence co-operation outside of the EU. When it comes to hard power the EU institutions become invisible; think the Balkans, and more recently Iraq, Libya, Syria and Mali.

The UK may benefit from EU membership in the broad area of foreign policy (for example the recent EU-brokered peace deal between Serbia and Kosovo) but if the UK left the EU tomorrow, it would have no impact on its security capabilities.

Conversely, EU partners may find it easier to press ahead with a "European Army" (though not really given political realities). It might be European, but it sure as hell won't be much of an army.

Let's pick the right targets when arguing for continued UK EU membership.

Will the EU follow France into the Malian desert?

"We are all with you"

Le Monde's cartoonist left a clear image - France's President Hollande rushing off into the Malian desert while the rest of the EU sits behind and pontificates.

France has a history of interventions in Francophone Africa and mostly they are primarily of regional importance. This time though it seems France is trying to fry a bigger fish: the biggest concentration of Islamic fundamentalists in West Africa. So should this be just a French responsibility or should they expect help from the EU? (NATO will always be a second choice for France) Well, evidently the French media feels others in the EU are not pulling their weight.

EU states have a history of under-investment in their own security and failing to help in multilateral actions. In Afghanistan the USA's allies invariably left it with the lion's share of the heavy lifting and in Libya, in the EU's neighbourhood, big states such as Poland and Germany decided to sit it out. 

But the French are clearly beginning to feel Mali should be different. The Economist quotes French conservative opposition leader, Jean-François Copé, saying “for now, our country is alone at the front.” And on Channel 4 News Former French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner said:

"The British people for such a mission are our closest friend. We need them. For the time being we are alone. I beg you don't leave the French alone. This is a common mission, this is a common threat, we are all fighting extremism."

A reasonable enough plea - though he sort of spoiled his case by adding that in his view "part of the reason" Britain was dragging its heels was because of the Conservatives' sceptical attitude to EU membership, when in fact, Anglo-French defence and foreign policy cooperation is widely seen in Conservative circles as exactly the type of issue and network-based approach that European cooperation should be more geared towards. Also, that a former French foreign minister is begging for the UK's assistance only serves to highlight how important the UK's military and clout is in terms of lending the EU geopolitical credibility. It also says something about the perpetual fear in some circles of the UK being "isolated" in Europe...

How long France will take to complete its operations in Mali is unclear, but the longer it drags on, help in the form of training and logistics as promised by the UK, Germany, Spain, Belgium and Denmark may not be enough. So will this end up becoming a European operation? One thing remains clear: as ever, when it comes to defence and security capabilities, co-operation and political will are far more important than politicians grand designs for European "state" building.

Poland and EU defence: Having your Pączek and eating it

Speaking to the Polish Parliament yesterday, Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski pointed the finger at the UK for not pulling its weight in the domain of European defence, claiming that he was "disappointed" that the UK did not want to build up joint EU defence capabilities, and that those member states that wanted to ought to use the ‘enhanced co-operation’ clause in the Lisbon Treaty to go ahead without it.

Sikorski set out a slightly distopian vision of the future in which:

"Tired by parsimony on defence budgets and Europe's general inefficiency, the US leaves Nato. The post-Western vacuum is filled by Russia in the east and by China in Asia. Transformational crises continue in the Arab world [but] Europe no longer sets a good example. And where is Poland in this black vision? Left to its own devices, on the periphery of a Europe mired in lethargy. Struggling with unfinished modernisation and deprived of a solid basis for national security."

However, actions speak larger than words, and it worth pointing out that Poland’s record on defence spending falls short of Sikorski’s rhetoric; 1.9% of GDP - below the 2% recommended minimum set by NATO. Moreover, when offered an opportunity to cooperate with other European and NATO countries in last years’ Libyan operation it decided to not to get involved, despite being pressed to do so by NATO leaders (although the government did volunteer logistical support).

Sikorski is however right about one thing – Europe’s unwillingness to shoulder the burden of its own defence. The Libyan operation exposed this on a grand scale; although on paper it was an impressive show of European (and non European) cooperation, with states such as France, the UK, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden all sending planes to enforce to no-fly zone. Bulgaria, Romania, Italy, Spain and Turkey also helped to some extent and Estonia and Croatian said they would also help if need be, but Poland and Germany did not help and Cyprus was actively opposed.

Furthermore, the operation exposed Europe’s continued reliance on the US. France and the UK were for instance unable to operate independently, having to rely on US command and control, logistics and assets, with the strains on their forces quickly exposed.

So why has Sikorski decided to attack the UK for preventing the EU having a larger role in defence? Most likely it is a form of political displacement activity: Sikorski knows EU defence budgets are under pressure and there is no real prospect of EU states increasing their capabilities. He knows this structural problem would not be alleviated by more EU structures or headquarters duplicating those that already exist in NATO, but by blaming Europe’s defence failings on the UK he is at least fuelling a debate over the future of Europe’s defensive structures.

In our view, if Poland and other European states want to be serious on defence (if they don't that's a national democratic choice which others have to accept) then they should actually stick to the 2% of GDP NATO minimum guideline. Ironically the only EU member states to comfortably exceed it at the moment (apart from the UK at 2.7%) is Greece (2.9%) – the one country that should cut its defence budget. The USA by contrast to the EU average of 1.7% spends a staggering 5.4% of its GDP on defence. EU countries should also reform their defence capabilities by investing in deployable modern forces. In the modern world cooperation will, as seen in Libya, be via variable alliances and groupings, in that the breath of NATO is indispensable. It is not only Poland that fears a defenceless Europe beholden to Russia, but if it is going to lead on this issue it will have to pulls its own weight first.