Underlying the debate are sharp tactical differences among the ruling wealthy families on how to wage war in the future, given Britain's status as a declining imperialist power whose military forces are stretched to the limit; how to compete effectively with their rivals and allies in Europe and with the United States; and how to respond to the growing resistance of working people and the inevitable instability and crisis of a decaying capitalist order.

The debate on the proposed new military force has intersected with longstanding differences over the degree of Britain's involvement in the EU--an imperialist alliance that works to the detriment of working people--versus having closer ties with the United States.

The idea of establishing a European military force to engage in "crisis management" was first discussed two years ago during a meeting of the British and French governments. It was promoted as a means of beginning to rectify the European imperialist powers' dependence on U.S. military muscle.

The initial plans were drawn up by the British Foreign Office at the behest of Prime Minister Anthony Blair, according to the Daily Telegraph. At the time, the British Foreign ministry stated, "Europe needs a stronger and more influential voice in international affairs, to match its economic weight. It needs to back this with credible military force, which in turn requires a stronger Common Foreign and Security policy backed by stronger military forces that are flexible and capable."

An Anglo-French summit a year later agreed to the proposal for a new military force, which Blair emphasized would be "complementary" to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the U.S.-dominated military alliance that carried out the military assault against the workers and farmers of Yugoslavia in March 1999.

That brutal offensive from the air highlighted the vast gulf in military capability between the U.S. and the European imperialist powers. The December 1999 Helsinki EU summit endorsed the Anglo-French proposal.

On November 20 EU foreign and defense ministers met to make formal commitments to the new force, due to become operational in 2003. Its role is presented as that of "peacekeeping, separation of warring parties, evacuation of civilians from a war zone ,or humanitarian," in the words of one journalist.

Germany, France, and Britain, the three biggest EU members, will contribute around half of the troops. Non-EU countries have also been invited to contribute. The force numbering 60,000 will be drawn from a pool of around 100,000 available troops. The UK commitment is 12,500 ground troops, 18 warships, and up to 72 combat aircraft.  
 
New force under broad-based attack
The proposed new force immediately came under attack from sections of the media, current and former political leaders, various former heads of the armed forces, and the right-wing press. On both sides of the debate some politicians have broken with their parties' official stands.

Conservative Party leader William Hague accused Prime Minister Anthony Blair of "caving in to the French." He stated that the new force "sounds and looks like a European army" and declared that a future Conservative government would bring British forces in it back under NATO control.

Tory Defense spokesperson Iain Duncan Smith said, "What this government has created is the beginnings of a Euro-army, which will weaken and dilute NATO." His colleague, Foreign Affairs spokesperson Francis Maude, stated, "We already have a European Defense Organization--it's called NATO. It's existed for more than 50 years. It's been the principal means by which America remains engaged in our continent. There are real concerns here that what is proposed will undermine and defy NATO."

In a letter to the Daily Telegraph, two former Labour ministers, Dennis Healy and David Owen, joined with two former Tory ministers to criticize the force, claiming that it would undermine NATO. "Creating competing military structures will without question challenge and weaken this alliance," they wrote.

Former Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher called the proposed force "a piece of monumental folly that puts our security at risk in order to satisfy political vanity." Her remarks, delivered on the 10th anniversary of her resignation from office, were widely publicized. In a thinly veiled attack on Britain's imperialist rivals in Europe, especially Germany, Thatcher said, "The English-speaking peoples should be at the heart of Britain's alliances."

The pro-Tory media has joined the fray. The Daily Mail called the plans a "blitzkrieg." The Sun said Britain's defenses would be laid bare.  
 
Sharp tone of debate
Blair described these claims as "scare-mongering nonsense." The truculent tone of the remark was typical of his statements during the debate. He describes his opponents' views as "myths and half-truths," "rubbish," or "dishonest."

"It is only a force [in places] where NATO does not want to be engaged. It's limited to peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks. It's not a conflict force," stated the Labor prime minister. He insists that British troops serving in it would remain under London's control, and that its deployment requires agreement from all 15 EU countries.

In his attempts to appeal to patriotic sentiments Blair has spoken of "the importance of Britain's role in Europe." On November 24, he wrote to all Cabinet ministers instructing them to be more "patriotic." He also appointed a "patriotism envoy"--Michael Wills--who said, "The Labour Party is deeply rooted in British traditions and values. I would say it represents what is best about being British."

In an editorial, the Times poured scorn on Blair's claims of a "humanitarian" purpose for the new force, describing it as "a highly mobile military force which will no longer have to rely on the U.S." for logistical support, utilizing "attack helicopters and the other apparatus of high-intensity warfare. You do not need such kit for humanitarian tasks."

Labour foreign secretary Robin Cook was more candid than Blair in explaining how defense of British imperialist interests drives the new force's backers. "Britain has a strategic interest in the stability of the continent. Britain therefore has a strong national interest in a greater ability of Europe to manage instability in and around Europe," he told parliament.

The current U.S. administration has indicated approval of the Blair government's moves. Cook and U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright jointly authored an article that appeared in the liberal Sunday newspaper the Observer on November 26. Referring to weaknesses in the performance of the European powers during the 1999 bombing campaign that targeted workers and farmers in Yugoslavia, they wrote, "Not enough European armed forces are ready for the diverse, rapidly evolving challenges of the post-Cold War world.... This is work in progress. There is no room for complacency. European forces must become more mobile, deployable, and sustainable. They must improve their lift logistics and intelligence capacities."

At a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels in early December, U.S. secretary of defense William Cohen warned that NATO could become a "relic of the past" if it is not connected to the European Union's rapid reaction force. He said that too many questions about this force remain unanswered. According to a BBC report, British defense secretary Geoffrey Hoon described Cohen's speech as "very frank and robust."  
 
Divisions in Conservative Party
Reflecting sharp divisions in Conservative ranks, former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer Kenneth Clarke expressed his firm support for the force, claiming it was the product of the policies of the former Conservative administration. Michael Heseltine and Douglas Hurd, both prominent Tory figures and former cabinet ministers, joined two Field Marshals who are members of the House of Lords in signing a letter that read in part, "European defence co-operation is not about creating a Euro-army in competition with Nato: it is an essential underpinning of the Atlantic alliance." Christopher Patten, former Conservative chairman and ex-British governor of Hong Kong, also weighed in on the side of the Blair government.

Major challenges lie before the competing imperialist governments in order to actually establish the rapid reaction force with the technological capability projected for it. While there are no shortages of armed personnel--2 million people are under arms in the EU countries--steep increases in military spending will be needed to make the force viable and to close the gap with the United States.

Conflicts between European and U.S capitalists lie ahead over the supply of military hardware and equipment. The Daily Telegraph reported that "it is not clear how the force will meet its operational target date at a time when most EU states are cutting their defence budgets to the bone. The Europeans lack military transport, especially heavy aircraft...and rely on Nato for intelligence and logistical support."  
 
Rivalry among European powers
At the same time the rivalry and jockeying for position among the EU powers show no signs of abating. Serious disagreements remain over who is to assume command.

Meanwhile, there are sharp divisions between the governments in the run-up to the next EU summit meeting in Nice, France. German foreign minister Joschka Fischer came under sharp attack by both the French foreign minister and the Minister for Europe for his ideas on "European federation." One British newspaper, The Guardian, gleefully described the Franco-German alliance as "swinging on its hinge." At the same time, unnamed British diplomats and government members reportedly criticized the "inept" French.

The poor state of Britain's armed forces has also come under the spotlight with growing calls for increased military spending. The Times reported November 30 that a 30 mph speed limit was being imposed on the entire fleet of 780 British Army "Warrior" armored vehicles, owing to a faulty drive shaft. This was the latest of what the Times describes as "a whole series of setbacks over the past two years" with military hardware. The Royal Navy's entire fleet of 12 nuclear submarines was recently recalled after leaks were detected in the vessels' reactor cooler systems.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home