The Observer, January 28, 2005
Volume XXXVII, Issue 15
The Right Stuff: European Union bureaucracy replaces military rule
If you had told my grandfather, who was born in 1917, that there would ever come a time that the Europeans would be out of the business of making war, he would have laughed at you. But since the Europeans began minting the euro, the strongest indicator of the European Union's (EU) success or failure, European nations have changed the way their armies operate. This fits with the "us first" attitude the EU has espoused more and more since the late 1990s, with the member nations caring more about improving their own economic and social institutions than anything else. But as the EU continues to grow, member nations will find it increasingly difficult to maintain their strong currency and social reforms without changing the way the EU conducts business and funding military operations adequately.
In nations like Belgium and Germany, the military has become a popular place to seek long-term employment. Civilians seek military jobs as hairdressers, cooks, and office assistants because the jobs offer quality pay, are guaranteed until retirement, provide excellent benefits, and membership in one of the powerful military unions – an unheard-of agency in the United States. The United States spends about one third of its defense budget on compensation for military personnel compared to nations like Germany and Spain who spend twice that, and Italy and Portugal who spend upwards of three quarters of their budget on compensation. Even more surprising is the comparison of age: the average Belgian solider is 40 years old and the average American solider is 28. Belgian defense minister Andre Flahaut recognizes that the army is substantially older than others, but ponders that he is "not sure that the mission of the Belgian military is to fight." At least Flahaut isn't pulling any punches and sees his military for what it is: an amalgamation of varying types of public service with access to firearms.
Changing the way members of the EU utilize their militaries is more than an issue of persuading them. The military unions combined with labor laws and a general feeling that militaries are no longer necessary work against any changes in the military infrastructure. The fact that member nations of the EU can not run deficits greater than three percent of their gross domestic product makes budgeting new military spending more difficult. German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has spoken out against this guideline recently, as Germany's deficit nears the three percent mark for a fourth year in a row. But modifying the deficit guideline can not be a quick process because of an EU characteristic Europeans take pride in: diverse languages. The business of the EU is not conducted in any one specific language, and every meeting of member nations requires interpreters skilled in 20 officially recognized languages, a number that grows with the addition of nations. A backlog of documents in excess of 60,000 pages currently waits for translation as well. Perhaps the European solution to this mess would be to require member nations enlist large numbers of multilingual interpreters in their armies.
Maybe I'm wrong to look at the demilitarization of the EU as a problem for Americans. At least the odds of World War III erupting in or around Germany have decreased substantially. But acting as a global peacekeeping and anti-terrorist organization will eventually have its wear on our own armed forces. Having allies in the EU who can assist us with able personnel and their own equipment would help alleviate our troops being overstretched.
More importantly, it would provide Europe with a mobile fighting force to deal with the aftermath of a major terrorist attack, or, better yet, prevent one.
