The Prime Minister this month met with Nato’s new Secretary General, Mark Rutte. While there was naturally much agreement about the main threats facing the alliance today, one topic remains prickly: the Government’s desire for a UK-EU ‘security pact’ and the European Union’s plans for defence – something that has been causing senior Nato figures increasing discomfort.
In his farewell speech last month, the outgoing Nato Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, delivered a broadside against EU defence plans: arguing that current and proposed initiatives risk duplicating or even undermining the alliance.
The remarks come at a tense moment for European defence. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has shattered longstanding conceptions of security and propelled the subject to the top of the political agenda in Brussels. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was re-elected this summer partially on the promise that she would establish the EU’s first ever Commissioner for Defence.
What von der Leyen, and many others, envision is a ‘European Defence Union’, in which Brussels has significant control over defence industrial policy, capability development and possibly even command structures and armed forces.
The idea is not a new one. As we outlined recently in a Legatum Institute report, attempts to create a European defence entity can be traced back to just after the Second World War. However, recent events such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and US signals on China have prompted the EU to accelerate plans.
This isn’t to say that all EU member states have reacted with enthusiasm to Brussels’ invigorated interest in defence, not least when it still seeks to punish countries like Poland for record defence spending. member states are sceptical of Brussels’ intentions and understandably hesitant about ceding powers over defence and national security to the EU.
For some, the potential benefits of industrial consolidation are outweighed by considerations of sovereignty. When proponents of the EU defence project point out that Europe unnecessarily has several types of battle tank while the US has one, the reality is that the bloc consists of sovereign nations with competing geopolitical and defence priorities. It is unlikely they will relinquish military industrial capabilities that limit their ability to act in their national interest.
EU member states generally still view Nato as the bedrock of European security. They are right to. While EU officials have been at pains to stress that the EU’s initiatives will complement the alliance, Stoltenberg’s comments suggest otherwise, warning that EU efforts would divert resources into duplicative projects.
Perhaps even more destructive are the barriers that EU defence plans throw up between the EU and non-EU NATO members, who account for 80% of Nato’s defence spending. Protectionist policies governing the distribution of resources and intellectual property rights from the European Defence Fund, for instance, will make it much harder for EU companies to work on projects with non-EU counterparts.
Meanwhile, joint defence procurement could exclude the UK, Norway and Turkey and damage cooperation, while the EU’s ambition to create its own military standards is at odds with the longstanding Nato ones which allow interoperability across the alliance.
Stoltenberg’s comments are therefore something of a headache for the new Starmer Government. The UK has long opposed the development of an EU Defence Union – especially while it was an EU member – precisely because it risks undermining Nato and is disadvantageous to British interests.
In their first months in office, the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary have made several trips to European capitals to ‘reset’ relations and advocate for closer security ties. Hopefully they have also raised the risks that EU defence initiatives pose for collective security.
What remains unclear is precisely what benefits a security pact would bring. Our leaders have struggled to explain this, with ideas ranging from cooperation on cyber to a host of social and economic agreements. Treating UK defence as a bartering chip to get a deal on a veterinary agreement or youth mobility scheme doesn’t seem conducive to security at home or on the Continent.
A binding pact with the EU risks pulling Britain into supporting the development of a European Defence Union over which it has little influence, and whose explicit aim is to reduce reliance on third party states – such as the UK.
Stoltenberg may be gone, but the concerns remain. Given that only months ago Rutte opposed the issuing of EU joint debt to finance defence projects – to the chagrin of many in Brussels – it seems that Nato’s scepticism of the EU defence project won’t abate with the change in leadership.
Instead of an ambiguous pact, the UK could improve European security by communicating discomfort with EU policies that could undermine Nato. If Jens Stoltenberg, the social democrat former Prime Minister of Norway is warning of the risks, and Mark Rutte, the centre-right former Prime Minister of the Netherlands shares his scepticism, it is surely time to take their concerns seriously.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
