Search

Begin New Search Topic Defense Industry Political Geography Europe

21. European Defence: Time to Act

Author:
Alessandro Azzoni
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
The Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 has renewed momentum on the long-standing debate on EU defence, convincing many that the time for concrete steps to meet this ambition – the building of a united European defence grounded in its own strategic and technological autonomy – has finally come. Talks have been ongoing for some 68 years – that is, since the French parliament sunk the European Defence Community project back in 1954. The manifest broadening of public consensus for the idea of European defence is not enough. Thorough technical assessments will be needed to identify priorities and strike an acceptable balance between reducing duplications, optimising expenses and the inevitable transfer of some elements of strategic and operational “sovereignty” in the military domain.
Topic:
Defense Policy, European Union, Defense Industry, Procurement, and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)
Political Geography:
Europe

22. Política europea de seguridad y defensa y sus efectos en la industria de defensa

Author:
Dalia González Delgado
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
La Defensa no ha sido prioritaria paralas políticas comunitarias, aunqueen los últimos años se hatomado conciencia de la necesidad de impulsarla, con una atención especial al desarrollo industrial. En 2013 se produce un hito significativo cuando el Consejo decide debatir,de forma monográfica,el futuro de la seguridad y defensa. Hasta entonces el Consejo primaba las ópticas nacionales y la Comisión actuabahacia la industria,fundamentalmente como regulador para extenderlas reglas de mercado único alámbitode defensa.La crisis de Libia de 2011 mostróla necesidad de disponer de autonomía estratégica. La crisis se produce en un momento de caída generalizada de los presupuestos de defensa que dificultabaabordar grandes programas de forma individual por las naciones. Cobra valor la necesidad de disponer de una base industrial competitiva que respalde las operaciones autónomassin dependencias externas.Eneste marco se promulga la Estrategia Global de2016,de la que derivan la aplicación a defensa de la iniciativa PESCOy el Plan Europeo de Defensa, en el que se incluye un fondo dirigidoa incentivar la cooperación industrial.La dotación del fondo entre2021 –2026 se ha rebajado, pero se ha mantenido a pesar de las presiones por reducirlo a niveles mínimos o incluso suprimirlo.Las iniciativas de los últimos años para propiciar la cooperación en defensa, con especial atención al componente industrial, están en marcha y será difícil volver atrás,aunque los europeos estén inmersos en el dilema entre proteccionismo y cooperación, y en el debate sobre el papel de la Unión en el escenario global.La crisis COVID 19 ha desviado la atenciónhacia otras políticas, pero no ha relegado la actuación en defensa. El futuro presenta un escenario de mayor inestabilidad, y mayor competencia entre grandes potencias en el que Europa no presenta una voz única. En esas condiciones se enfrenta a la necesidad de decidir entre disponer de capacidades adecuadas a sus objetivos políticos o mantener los modelos actuales.Si el objetivo es contar con autonomía suficiente para abordar acciones independientes, el desarrollo de una política industrial de defensa resultará un elementobásico y estará condicionado por las visiones de los estados, el esfuerzo presupuestario, y lacoordinación entre oferta ydemanda.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, European Union, Autonomy, Industry, and Defense Industry
Political Geography:
Europe

23. COVID-19: Which Effects on Defence Policies in Europe?

Author:
Alessandro Marrone and Ottavia Credi
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
The crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic will have consequences on every aspect of the European societies, including the defence sector. The extent to which it will impact the military budgets is heavily discussed, with optimists trusting in slightly decreased investments and pessimists anticipating severe downturns. The fulfilment of NATO capability goals will be at stake, while allies will bring further diversified security needs to the Alliance’s agenda. The EU will have to cope with both pandemic and economic recession for the sake of its own security and stability, without sacrificing the European Defence Fund which could rather be part of a EU-wide plan for industrial and economic re-launch. This report summarizes the main findings of the IAI webinar hold on 8 April 2020 and participated by 22 experts and practitioners from Italy and other European countries.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Military Spending, Transatlantic Relations, Coronavirus, and Defense Industry
Political Geography:
Europe and European Union

24. The Poison Pill: EU defence on US terms?

Author:
Daniel Fiott
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:
It took two letters. One, sent to Brussels on 1 May 2019 by two US undersecretaries, accused the EU of damaging transatlantic cooperation and hindering US access to Europe’s defence market through the rules it plans to set for the participation of third states in the European Defence Fund (EDF) and Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). The other, sent to Washington on 16 May 2019 by senior EU officials of equal standing, refuted these claims by showing the objective and transparent way in which the EU had established the EDF and PESCO. Unlike the letter from Washington, which was laced with robust language and questionable accusations, the EU response argued that, even with the introduction of the two initiatives, the European defence market would remain more open than that of the US. The EU institutions also stated that by creating the EDF and PESCO, the Union was showing its collective determination to reduce European capability duplication and enhance interoperability, while also ensuring the competitiveness of Europe’s defence industry. In essence, the EU pointed out that its security and defence initiatives are designed to contribute to transatlantic burden sharing – something the US has been requesting from European allies for some time. While the US welcomes that the Fund allows for the participation of third states, it objects to the fact that recipients and subcontractors supported by the EDF will not be permitted to transfer sensitive information and/or Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) outside of the EU.1 Additionally, the US fears that the unanimity principle governing PESCO could ensure that any future US participation in the initiative could be vetoed by a single EU member state. At the core of Washington’s fears is the idea that EDF and PESCO could lock US firms out of the European market. However, the EU has made it clear that the EDF and PESCO will not alter EU defence procurement rules, lead to EU-owned defence capabilities, affect bilateral defence agreements between the US and individual member states and/or harm NATO defence planning targets and processes. Furthermore, given the US’ own long-standing and legitimate protection of its core defence industrial interests, there is a certain irony to its accusations of the EU because the Union has equally legitimate security interests. Following the exchange of letters between the partners, a number of questions have surfaced. First, despite a sustained campaign of influencing the EU to adopt favourable conditions for the US,2 why has Washington raised tensions with the Union now? Second, given that €13 billion has been earmarked under the EDF, and its own defence budget stood at $650 billion in 2018, why is the US so concerned? With a view to answering these questions, this Brief begins with an analysis of US government data that shows the asymmetry between US and EU defence markets. It then moves on to a discussion about a web of regulations and laws which effectively provides the US government with the discretionary power to control its defence market and technologies. The Brief ends with some reflections on why the US has decided to formally raise objections about the EDF and PESCO now and the deeper reasons underlying American concerns.
Topic:
European Union, Transatlantic Relations, and Defense Industry
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

25. The Mobilization of the Defense Industrial Base in South America Through the Brazilian Admission in the NATO Catalog System

Author:
Sabrina Evangelista Medelros and William de Sousa Moreira
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
This article aims to describe and analyze the conditionalities and side effects of Brazil’s inclusion in NATO´s Catalog (NATO Codification System- NCS) for the national Defense Industrial Base and the country’s development (the agreement dates back to April 1997). The central hypothesis is that, through this process, there was a progressive conditioning of the national defense industry, and correlates, in favor of protocolization, which extended the internationality and scope of national agents, both as buyers and sellers, within this system and subsystems. The analysis of the process of inclusion of Brazil in the NSC and the characteristics and purposes involved and the analysis of the repercussions for Brazil.To do this, before the analysis of the repercussions, there is an explanation of the method used, once the objectives of the article consolidate through a medium-term prospective vision.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Military Spending, and Defense Industry
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, Brazil, South America, and North America

26. Building Capacity for the EU Global Strategy

Author:
Tony Lawrence, Henrik Praks, and Pauli Järvenpää
Publication Date:
06-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
A degraded security situation, the Brexit referendum and the election of a US President at best indifferent to European security matters have led the Member States to search for new security and defence solutions and for new ways to demonstrate European cohesion. The debate on an EU defence dimension is thus livelier than it has been for many years. But, EU security and defence efforts will amount to little if the EU’s new level of ambition is not underpinned by effective military capabilities. Until very recently, European defence budgets have been in decline, and agreed capability shortfalls have not been addressed. Defence cooperation, long recognised as a necessity if the Member States are to deliver the real capability that both the EU and NATO require, is limited by political concerns over sovereignty and trust, technical issues, and the continued preference of the Member States to procure from national suppliers. The uncoordinated and inefficient use of defence budgets leads to a lack of standardisation, poor interoperability, duplication, diminished competitiveness in Europe’s defence industry, and the wasting of money. New initiatives are on the table – Permanent Structured Cooperation, the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence and the Commission’s Defence Action Plan and Defence Fund – which together can have a positive and transformative impact. They will provide the Member States with a recharged set of tools to support collaborative capability development. Historically, though, the obstacle to defence cooperation has not been the lack of tools, but the lack of political will to make use of them.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Markets, European Union, Brexit, and Defense Industry
Political Geography:
Europe