Brussels – A completely new and expanded role — in both meetings and functions — for defence ministers, who are now tasked with giving a more European dimension to what has traditionally been a national domain. The informal summit of EU heads of state and government has led to the political decision to move forward with European defence integration, effectively ‘promoting’ the responsible ministers to a higher rank. It means more meetings and interaction with higher-level heads of government and heads of state.
“Our defence ministers need to play an increased role – to push work forward between European Council meetings and to track milestones for progress,” the President of the European Council, Antonio Costa, said at the end of the meetings. We need to “give more autonomy, because we need to involve our defence ministers more and more at the European level”.
In practice, the aim is to extend the current mandate of defence ministers, who meet within the Foreign Affairs Council. The idea is to free them from this format, giving them greater political weight, especially in their interactions with the leaders.
The political decision made at the informal summit is the logical outcome of a course of action driven by a need considered essential and no longer postponable.
Many leaders attended the Copenhagen meeting, expressing their intention to coordinate on defence, given the rising tensions, especially from the east. Among them was also Mette Frederiksen, the Danish Prime Minister, who was satisfied with the outcome: “I believe we had fruitful discussions today and now we are ready to take the next steps.”
Helping to move along the path set out by the leaders is the European Commission, which brought to Copenhagen a scoping paper for the industrial and operational integration of the defence sector by 2030. A text that, from now on, will also be useful for defence ministers. The priorities have not changed, and they are already known as they are anchored in the White Paper on Defence. However, the President of the EU executive, Ursula von der Leyen, insists on the interoperability of armed forces and military capabilities. “For each critical capability, we will propose so-called capability coalitions with the lead nation. In order to ensure not only the right scale but also the necessary speed,” she said.
Additionally, to ensure faster and more effective industrial development, von der Leyen continues, “we also propose to establish new Tech Alliances to connect innovators with defence users.” A way to connect start-ups, large companies, universities, and the research world.
Drone Wall, still to be defined
However, the Drone Wall project, aimed at preventing violations of European airspace and incursions by foreign aircraft, will require further meetings and discussions. The only thing on which the leaders agree is the need for a defence system to be deployed, but on the rest, there are different ideas. The ability to detect incursions and to have a deterrence system are two elements on which there is convergence among the Twenty-Seven. Still, they have different positions on shooting them down. Denmark, Hungary, and Lithuania are in favour of immediate neutralisation; others are more cautious because there is a problem for the civilian population: one cannot fire in inhabited areas with the risk of shooting down aircraft over houses or roads.
It will also be necessary to clarify who will manage the Drone Wall once it is in place. Will it be the European Commission, the rotating presidency of the EU Council, or perhaps a rotation among the countries that share the EU’s external borders on the eastern flank? This remains unclear and will need to be addressed. In any case, according to the Treaties (Article 42(4) of the Treaty on European Union), “decisions relating to the Common Security and Defence Policy […] shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission, where appropriate.” Paragraph 5 then states that “The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States.”
The legal framework lacks clarity. It provides for forms of flexibility that, on the one hand, aim to grant states more leeway, but on the other hand, risk creating confusion and disputes. The High Representative can lead, or an individual country can take the initiative. One could also imagine a coordination role for the Commission, through the High Representative, with prior approval from the governments, over initiatives entrusted to the governments themselves, all scenarios and complex issues of no minor importance, which will require extensive consultation before they can be untangled.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
