THE PESKY QUESTION OF PESCO

Permanent Structured Cooperation or PESCO has up to now been a dormant provision of the Lisbon Treaty, specifically Article 42 (6), Article 46, and Protocol 10. According to EU Commission president Jean Claude Juncker, PESCO is the Lisbon Treaty ‘sleeping beauty’ that has finally woken. Juncker had been calling for a stronger EU security and defence posture since he was selected as president in April 2014. The UK, because of its fear that a separate EU defence would weaken the NATO alliance, was the last obstacle to progressing implementation. With the UK obstacle weakened due to BREXIT the German French axis seized the initiative to build momentum to proceed. 

Finally agreed in December 2017 PESCO is intended to achieve closer military cooperation among those states that are ready to stick to agreed commitments. Twenty-five of the twenty-eight-member states signed up including traditional neutrals, Sweden, Finland, Austria. Three states Denmark, Malta and UK did not. Being sensitive to all things defence, Ireland did not attend the initial signing but signed up later following a very short Dáil debate.

BINDING STATE COMMITMENTS

The binding commitments by states include increased defence expenditure, cooperation in developing new military capabilities, eliminating existing deficiencies, developing greater interoperability, and enhancing availability and readiness to deploy troops on Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions and operations.

The process has begun with member states selecting from the forty-seven projects that were available, the first seventeen projects for joint implement have been agreed. These projects are broken into two categories, the first in the operation dimension intended to improve participation in CSDP missions and operations, and the second to support capability development.

Ireland has expressed an interest in participating in five of the seventeen projects:     

• European Training Certification Centre for European Armies;       
• Deployable Military Disaster Relief Capability Package;       
• Harbour and Maritime Surveillance and Protection (HARMSPRO);        
• CyberThreats and Incidence Response Information Sharing Platform; and         
• Centre of Excellence for EU training missions.

CHAMPIONS OF PESCO

Those who champion PESCO, especially the French, view it as a stepping stone to a common EU defence. PESCO commits states to not only regularly increase their defence budgets in real term but to also devote twenty percent to their defence spend on procurement, and two percent on research and technology. The new structure will create a multi-billion-Euro weapons fund, and shared financing for battle groups. Currently member states participated in EU missions abroad incur their costs, or as is known ‘where they fall’, in the future they will be funded from common funding.

It would be hard to deny that Ireland signed up for PESCO for political reasons as a sign to our EU partners that post BREXIT Ireland is committed to being a core member of the inner EU willing to engage in every aspect of EU integration. Mr Varadkar stated that he supported the new structure because it was the start of Europe taking control of its own defence and that he had a clear view that ‘A Europe worth building is a Europe worth defending’.

On the military defence side of the equation however one could only describe government statements as confusing and contradictory. Mr Varadkar for example was at pains to describe neutrality as an important and valued principle that makes us stronger in the world not least in the area of international development. However, if that belief is true for Ireland then why is it not also true for the EU and why does Ireland not stay away totally from EU defence funding?

Other government ministers caused confusion by stating that Ireland could not remain neutral when it came to contemporary threats such as terrorism, mass emigration, human trafficking, cyber terrorism, cyber-attacks, cyber security, and interference in elections.

LESS SPENT ON DEFENCE

Of course, most of these are law enforcement and intelligence issues not military defence issues, and the cyber defence of Ireland resides for some peculiar reason with the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources not with the Defence Forces.

An Taoiseach stated that he did not always hold the view that Ireland should be a neutral state but that he has come to learn that the country’s lack of a military force could be diplomatic asset. This is peculiar because if this state wishes to play militarily with the big states in the EU, Ireland as a state is being left demilitarised and unprotected.

Ireland spends less on defence per head of population than any other EU state and comes second in terms of lowest defence expenditure relative to GDP. While PESCO participating states have agreed to an overall collective spend of 2% of GDP on defence it does not commit each state individually to do likewise, Rather the participating members collectively agree to spend 2% of their combined GDP on defence. This confirms Mr Coveney, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, statement that ‘any increase in defence expenditure for Ireland, in real terms, will be very small.’

MOTION RUSHED THROUGH

Professor Ben Tonra, UCD is very accurate when he stated that Irish defence policy has never been the subject of sustained national debate. The Dáíl debate on PESCO was a golden opportunity do so. However, the motion was rushed through the Dáil with opposition politicians claiming that there was ‘no proper notice’. PESCO was approved by a vote of 75-42.

PESCO and dilution of Irish neutrality is a pesky issue. It can be argued that Irish neutrality is not affected by PESCO because: participation in PESCO is voluntary, decision making remains in the hands of participating member states, it does not require integration of member states defence forces, and there is no mutual defence clause. There is also constitutional protection in Article 29.4.9 which would require a referendum if it is to be changed. On the other hand, it would be very difficult to argue that PESCO does not institutionalise the incremental militarisation of Europe.