European Union Establishes Permanent Structured Cooperation On Defense PESCO

The European Union has established a defense pact called Permanent Structured Cooperation on Defense (PESCO). PESCO is a binding, intergovernmental framework designed to deepen defense cooperation among EU member states. The goal is to jointly develop defense capabilities that can be used for EU military operations. Member states can also make these capabilities available to the United Nations and NATO.

Currently, 25 EU members have signed the pact, with Denmark, Malta, and the UK abstaining. PESCO is open to NATO members, but there is no provision for non-EU NATO members. The Lisbon Treaty, an international treaty amending the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Rome, provided the constitutional basis for the EU and was signed by EU member states in 2007.

The Genesis of PESCO: A Deeper Dive into European Defense Cooperation

The establishment of Permanent Structured Cooperation on Defense (PESCO) in 2018 marked a pivotal moment in the evolution of European Union (EU) foreign and security policy. It represented a significant step toward a more integrated and autonomous European defense posture, reflecting a growing recognition among EU member states of the need to enhance their collective capabilities in the face of evolving security challenges. PESCO wasn't born in a vacuum; its roots lie deep within the history of European integration and the complex interplay of national interests, geopolitical shifts, and institutional dynamics that have shaped the EU's approach to defense over several decades.

To understand the significance of PESCO, one must first appreciate the historical context of European defense cooperation. The idea of a unified European defense force has been circulating since the aftermath of World War II. The devastation of the war and the emergence of the Cold War led to calls for closer integration among European nations, including in the realm of security. In the early 1950s, the Pleven Plan proposed the creation of a European Defence Community (EDC), which aimed to integrate the armed forces of six European countries – France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg – under a supranational authority. However, the EDC ultimately failed to materialize due to opposition in the French National Assembly in 1954, highlighting the enduring challenges of reconciling national sovereignty with the desire for closer European integration in defense matters.

The failure of the EDC led to a more pragmatic approach to European security, with the focus shifting towards the transatlantic alliance with the United States through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO, established in 1949, provided a framework for collective defense against the Soviet Union and played a crucial role in maintaining peace and stability in Europe throughout the Cold War. While NATO remained the cornerstone of European security, efforts to promote defense cooperation within Europe continued, albeit at a more modest pace.

The end of the Cold War in the early 1990s brought about a new set of challenges and opportunities for European security. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new conflicts in the Balkans highlighted the need for Europe to take greater responsibility for its own security. In response, the EU gradually developed its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which aimed to coordinate the foreign policies of member states and enable the EU to act as a more effective international actor.

A key component of the CFSP was the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), established in 1999. The CSDP provided a framework for the EU to conduct military and civilian operations to address a range of security challenges, including peacekeeping, crisis management, and humanitarian assistance. However, the CSDP faced several limitations, including a lack of political will among member states to commit resources and capabilities, as well as institutional constraints that hampered the EU's ability to act decisively.

Despite these challenges, the CSDP achieved some notable successes, including EU-led military operations in the Balkans, Africa, and the Middle East. These operations demonstrated the EU's capacity to deploy forces and contribute to international security, but also highlighted the need for greater investment in defense capabilities and closer cooperation among member states.

Against this backdrop, the idea of enhanced defense cooperation within the EU gained renewed momentum in the mid-2010s. Several factors contributed to this renewed interest, including:

• The rise of new security threats: The emergence of new threats such as terrorism, cyberattacks, and hybrid warfare underscored the need for Europe to strengthen its security capabilities.
• The changing geopolitical landscape: The rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and the growing instability in the Middle East and Africa highlighted the need for Europe to take greater responsibility for its own security and reduce its reliance on the United States.
• The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States: Trump's questioning of the US commitment to NATO and his calls for European countries to increase their defense spending raised concerns about the future of the transatlantic alliance and spurred calls for greater European strategic autonomy.
• Brexit: The United Kingdom's decision to leave the EU removed a major obstacle to closer defense cooperation, as the UK had traditionally been wary of initiatives that could undermine NATO or lead to the creation of a European army.

These factors created a window of opportunity for the EU to deepen its defense cooperation. In 2016, the EU launched the European Defence Action Plan (EDAP), which aimed to promote investment in defense capabilities, foster innovation, and strengthen the European defense industry. The EDAP included several initiatives, such as the European Defence Fund (EDF), which provides funding for collaborative defense research and development projects.

Building on the EDAP, the EU took the decisive step of establishing PESCO in 2017. PESCO is a framework that allows member states to voluntarily commit to closer cooperation in the area of defense. It is based on the principle of "enhanced cooperation," which allows a group of member states to move ahead with integration in a specific area, even if other member states are not willing or able to participate.

The Nuts and Bolts of PESCO: Structure, Objectives, and Commitments

PESCO is more than just a political declaration; it is a legally binding framework that sets out specific commitments for participating member states. The legal basis for PESCO is Article 42(6) and Article 46 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which allows member states that meet certain criteria to establish closer cooperation in the area of defense.

To participate in PESCO, member states must meet a set of demanding criteria related to their defense capabilities, investment in defense, and participation in joint projects. These criteria are designed to ensure that PESCO is a credible and effective framework for defense cooperation. The key criteria include:

• Regularly increasing defense budgets in real terms: This criterion aims to ensure that participating member states are committed to investing in their defense capabilities.
• Devoting 20% of defense expenditure to investment in defense equipment: This criterion aims to promote the development and acquisition of modern defense equipment.
• Devoting 2% of defense expenditure to defense research and technology: This criterion aims to foster innovation and technological development in the defense sector.
• Jointly developing defense capabilities and making available formations to the EU: This criterion aims to promote closer cooperation in the development and deployment of military capabilities.
• Improving the share of multinational procurement: This criterion aims to promote economies of scale and reduce duplication in defense procurement.
• Achieving closer harmonization of defense requirements: This criterion aims to ensure that member states are developing capabilities that are interoperable and can be used together effectively.

Participating member states are also required to submit national implementation plans outlining how they will meet these commitments. These plans are assessed annually by the EU to ensure that member states are making progress towards their goals.

PESCO is governed by a Council configuration composed of the defense ministers of the participating member states. This Council configuration is responsible for overseeing the implementation of PESCO and making decisions on new projects.

PESCO projects are designed to address a wide range of defense capabilities and operational needs. They can include projects related to:

• Capability development: These projects aim to develop new military capabilities, such as drones, cyber defense systems, and maritime surveillance capabilities.
• Operational readiness: These projects aim to improve the readiness and deployability of EU forces, such as through joint training exercises and the development of common standards.
• Defense industry cooperation: These projects aim to promote closer cooperation among European defense companies, such as through joint research and development projects and the harmonization of procurement procedures.

Some of the initial PESCO projects include:

• European Medical Command: This project aims to establish a joint medical command to provide medical support to EU military operations.
• European Secure Software Defined Radio (ESSOR): This project aims to develop a secure communication system for EU forces.
• Cyber Rapid Response Teams and Mutual Assistance in Cyber Security: This project aims to establish a network of cyber rapid response teams to assist member states in responding to cyberattacks.
• Maritime Surveillance: This project aims to improve maritime surveillance capabilities in the Mediterranean Sea and other areas.

PESCO is open to all EU member states that meet the criteria for participation. However, Denmark, Malta, and the United Kingdom initially chose not to participate. Denmark has a long-standing opt-out from the EU's defense policy, while Malta has a neutral foreign policy. The United Kingdom's decision not to participate was largely due to its impending departure from the EU.

However, following Brexit, the EU has opened PESCO participation to third countries under certain conditions. This allows non-EU countries with close security ties to the EU to participate in PESCO projects, contributing their expertise and resources to European defense efforts.

PESCO and NATO: A Relationship of Complements or Competitors?

The relationship between PESCO and NATO is a complex and often debated topic. On the one hand, both organizations share the common goal of ensuring the security of Europe. On the other hand, there are concerns that PESCO could duplicate NATO's efforts or undermine the transatlantic alliance.

The official position of both the EU and NATO is that PESCO and NATO are complementary and mutually reinforcing. The EU argues that PESCO will strengthen European defense capabilities, which will in turn benefit NATO. NATO acknowledges the EU's right to develop its own defense capabilities, but emphasizes the importance of avoiding duplication and ensuring that EU efforts are coordinated with NATO.

However, beneath the surface of official statements, there are some underlying tensions and concerns. Some within NATO worry that PESCO could lead to the creation of a "European army" that would compete with NATO and weaken the transatlantic alliance. They fear that EU countries may prioritize PESCO projects over NATO commitments, leading to a decline in overall defense spending and a weakening of NATO's collective defense capabilities.

Others argue that PESCO is a necessary step towards greater European strategic autonomy. They believe that Europe needs to be able to act independently in its own neighborhood and to take greater responsibility for its own security. They argue that PESCO will strengthen the European defense industry, create jobs, and promote innovation.

The key to a successful relationship between PESCO and NATO lies in ensuring that the two organizations work together effectively and avoid duplication of effort. This requires close coordination and communication between the EU and NATO at all levels. It also requires a clear division of labor, with NATO focusing on collective defense and deterrence, and the EU focusing on crisis management and capacity building.

One area where PESCO and NATO can potentially complement each other is in the development of new technologies and capabilities. By working together, the EU and NATO can pool their resources and expertise to develop cutting-edge technologies that will benefit both organizations.

Another area where cooperation is essential is in the fight against hybrid threats, such as cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns. These threats require a coordinated response from both the EU and NATO, as they often blur the lines between military and civilian domains.

Ultimately, the success of PESCO will depend on the political will of EU member states to commit resources and capabilities to the initiative. If EU countries are willing to invest in their defense capabilities and work together effectively, PESCO has the potential to strengthen European security and enhance the transatlantic alliance. However, if PESCO is underfunded or poorly managed, it could lead to duplication, fragmentation, and a weakening of overall defense capabilities.

India and PESCO: Navigating a Shifting Geopolitical Landscape

India's relationship with the European Union has been steadily growing in importance, encompassing trade, investment, and increasingly, security cooperation. The establishment of PESCO, therefore, presents both opportunities and challenges for India's foreign policy and defense strategy.

Historically, India has maintained a policy of non-alignment, seeking to avoid formal military alliances and maintaining strategic autonomy. However, in recent years, India has been increasingly engaging in strategic partnerships with like-minded countries, including the United States, Japan, and Australia, to address shared security concerns.

India's relationship with the EU has traditionally focused on economic issues, with trade and investment being the key drivers of the partnership. However, in recent years, security cooperation has become an increasingly important aspect of the relationship. India and the EU share concerns about terrorism, cyber security, and maritime security, and have been working together to address these challenges.

PESCO has the potential to deepen security cooperation between India and the EU. By strengthening European defense capabilities, PESCO could enable the EU to play a more active role in addressing global security challenges, including those that are of concern to India. For example, a stronger EU could be a more effective partner in combating terrorism, countering cyberattacks, and promoting maritime security in the Indian Ocean region.

However, there are also some potential challenges for India in relation to PESCO. One concern is that PESCO could lead to a more protectionist European defense industry, making it more difficult for Indian companies to access the European market. India has been seeking to develop its own defense industry and to export defense equipment to other countries. A more protectionist European defense industry could hinder these efforts.

Another concern is that PESCO could lead to a more assertive EU foreign policy, which could potentially clash with India's interests in some areas. India has traditionally pursued a policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, while the EU has been more willing to intervene in conflicts and promote human rights and democracy.

Despite these potential challenges, India has generally welcomed the establishment of PESCO. India recognizes the need for Europe to strengthen its defense capabilities and to play a more active role in addressing global security challenges. India also sees PESCO as an opportunity to deepen security cooperation with the EU.

To maximize the benefits of PESCO and minimize the potential challenges, India needs to engage actively with the EU and to articulate its interests clearly. India should seek to promote greater cooperation between the Indian and European defense industries, and to ensure that PESCO does not lead to a more protectionist European defense market. India should also engage in dialogue with the EU on foreign policy issues, to ensure that their respective interests are aligned.

One specific area where India and the EU could potentially cooperate under the PESCO framework is in the development of maritime security capabilities. India and the EU share concerns about piracy, terrorism, and other threats to maritime security in the Indian Ocean region. By working together, India and the EU could develop joint maritime surveillance capabilities, conduct joint patrols, and share information on maritime threats.

Another area where cooperation could be beneficial is in the field of cyber security. India and the EU both face increasing threats from cyberattacks, and could benefit from sharing information and expertise on cyber defense. They could also work together to develop international norms and standards for cyber security.

Ultimately, the success of India's engagement with PESCO will depend on the willingness of both sides to work together constructively and to find common ground. If India and the EU can build a strong and mutually beneficial security partnership, PESCO has the potential to strengthen their relationship and to contribute to a more stable and secure world.

The Long-Term Implications of PESCO: A Reshaping of Global Security Dynamics?

The establishment of PESCO is not just a short-term initiative; it has the potential to reshape the global security landscape in the long term. By strengthening European defense capabilities and promoting closer cooperation among EU member states, PESCO could lead to a more multipolar world, with Europe playing a more assertive role in international security.

One of the key long-term implications of PESCO is that it could lead to a more balanced transatlantic relationship. For decades, the United States has been the dominant power in NATO, with European countries largely relying on the US for their security. PESCO could help to redress this imbalance by enabling Europe to take greater responsibility for its own security.

A stronger Europe could be a more effective partner for the United States in addressing global security challenges. By pooling their resources and expertise, the US and Europe could work together to combat terrorism, counter cyberattacks, and promote stability in conflict zones.

However, a more assertive Europe could also lead to tensions with the United States. If Europe begins to pursue its own foreign policy interests that diverge from those of the US, this could lead to disagreements and friction. It is therefore important for the US and Europe to maintain close communication and coordination, to ensure that their respective policies are aligned.

Another long-term implication of PESCO is that it could lead to a more competitive global arms market. By promoting closer cooperation among European defense companies, PESCO could help to create a more efficient and innovative European defense industry. This could lead to the development of new and advanced weapons systems that could compete with those produced by the US and other countries.

A more competitive global arms market could have both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, it could lead to lower prices and greater innovation. On the other hand, it could lead to a proliferation of weapons and an increase in global instability.

PESCO could also have implications for the future of European integration. By demonstrating the benefits of closer cooperation in the area of defense, PESCO could pave the way for further integration in other areas, such as foreign policy, economic policy, and social policy. However, PESCO could also lead to divisions within the EU, if some member states are unwilling to participate in closer defense cooperation.

The long-term success of PESCO will depend on a number of factors, including the political will of EU member states, the effectiveness of EU institutions, and the evolution of the global security environment. If PESCO is successful, it could lead to a more secure and stable world, with Europe playing a more active and responsible role in international affairs. However, if PESCO fails, it could lead to further fragmentation and instability in Europe, and a weakening of the transatlantic alliance.

In conclusion, the establishment of PESCO represents a significant development in European security and has the potential to reshape the global security landscape. While there are potential challenges and risks associated with PESCO, it also presents opportunities for greater cooperation and a more balanced distribution of power in the world. The coming years will be crucial in determining whether PESCO lives up to its promise and contributes to a more secure and stable future. The implications extend far beyond the borders of Europe, impacting countries like India and influencing the dynamics of international relations for years to come.