The UK and France have been willing to follow the USA’s example of military force and shown support for the idea of an EU army. Other nations have clearly rejected this approach on the basis of pacifist arguments and because they are reluctant to commit to the high level of military spending this would imply. While the EU does like to see itself as the diplomat of the world and flaunt its achievements with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it still ponders the possibility of a middle-of-the-road strategy of militarization and securitization. There is no necessity as regards the creation of European Union Army because member states already cooperate sufficiently with each other.
Creating an EU army would prove to be unnecessary because most European states are already members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. For several decades NATO has been defending the military interests of Europe. It is hard to see a problem that NATO cannot solve, which the European Defence Force could instead. NATO exists to deal with situations of such magnitude that the nations of Western Europe are likely to adopt a common defence policy. In contrast, the EDF is targeted at smaller geopolitical incidents which would otherwise be ‘beneath’ the notice of NATO. Unfortunately smaller incidents by their nature do not have uniform effects on all EU member-nations, and are therefore unlikely to generate a consensus of policy among EU nations. The EU has as much power as it has, regardless of whether they have a single military or each nation cooperates accordingly with its own forces. A single military may give the appearance of more power, but nothing more unless great policy changes went along with its creation. It can be concluded, therefore, that there is no urgent necessity for creating a common European army at this moment and for now NATO is sufficient for the EU defence policy.
Creating a common European Army would...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document