Recently the European Parliament will be debating the general EU
budget for 2017/18. The main focus of the debate is likely to be the
knock-on impacts of Brexit and the falling pound, infrastructure,
migration and the many other major challenges facing the continent.
Understandably,
a lot of significant items are likely to be overlooked, including a
crucial point, that could see the EU taking steps towards adopting an
institutional military-industrial strategy. Buried within the budget is
the EU’s first proposed Preparatory Action for defence research.
If
the budget is agreed, this would effectively be a trial-run that would
see the European Parliament subsidising military research for the first
time. It would represent an important precedent. At present, the
European Commission finances exclusively civilian or dual-use R&D
through its €80 billion Horizon 2020 programme.
The
proposal, would cover the period of 2017-2020 at the estimated cost
of€50-100 million – paving the way for a full research programme that
the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), which made
the proposal in the first place, estimates would cost at least €3.5
billion between 2021-2027.
Right from the start, the
process has been influenced by those with a vested interest. The group
that put the EUISS report together included high level representation
from some of the biggest arms companies in the world. In fact, the
majority of those on the Group of Personalities that the EUISS appointed
to develop proposals are from the arms trade, so the pro-military
conclusion is not particularly surprising.
In effect
the arms industry has been brought in to advise the EU on military
strategy and reached the conclusion that what is needed is more military
spending.
Needless to say, arms companies already
benefit from huge amount of public money. A lot of arms company R&D
is already funded by member states. Supporters of the change have made
clear that they do not foresee any parallel reduction of national
budgets for military research, with manyn Member States still bound by
their NATO commitments.
There is no question that
security is a major challenge and that the EU has a critical role to
play in addressing it. However, threats to security are multi-faceted
and the solutions that the EU proposes to address them must be clearly
based on the Treaties and core values of the EU.
The EU
was envisaged as a peace project. The European Parliament stood up for
those values this February, when it voted to support an arms embargo
against Saudi Arabia due to its devastating bombardment of Yemen. Many
of the weapons being used in the destruction are made in Europe, with
many being manufactured by the same companies that would benefit from
the proposed subsidy.
The EU should be investing in
jobs and research projects that promote sustainable industries and
contribute to the prevention of conflicts. This proposal could mean
taking funds from other projects for something that would only benefit
those that profit from war and conflict.
In a busy news
agenda, the change may not be generating the headlines that the
precedent deserves, but it is getting grass-roots opposition, with over
62,000 people having signed a European Network Against Arms Trade
petition to oppose the spending.
Underpinning the
opposition is the broader question of what kind of Europe we want. Do we
want a social Europe that invests in people and peace, or do we want
one that focuses on arms, militarism and war?
As UN
Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has said ‘the World is over-armed and
peace is under-funded.’ The EU could play a big role in changing this,
but right now it risks doing the exact opposite
There
is an international dimension to it too. The ADS, a trade body for arms
companies, is clear about its motivations for supporting the proposal,
which it says is focused on trying to “maintain and improve long-term
competitiveness in the European Defence Industry.”
No
explanation is provided for where the money would come from. Would it
mean cutting 3.5bn EUR from other budgets? What would be cut in order to
fund it? There is also very little explanation of how it will be spent
or what checks-and-balances will be in place to stop it from becoming a
blank-cheque for arms companies.
Do we want a social Europe that invests in people and peace, or do we want one that focuses on arms, militarism and war?
Read more: Is the EU About to Grant a 3.5 Billion Euro Subsidy to Weapons Companies?
