EUROPE - AN ARMS-SELLING PEACEMAKER
Rio Wierl
In a world like today, where politics and economy is not always that easily separated, two global players - the United States and the European Union - are playing the same game, but just one of them is doing so with their cards on the table.
A dark room full of computer-screens, showing united Western and Middle-Eastern forces fighting terrorism. Yet the focus is not on the shown achievements of joint forces, but on a futuristically glowing orb in the rooms centre, surrounded by three powerful rulers: the Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Saudi Arabian King Salman bin Abdulaziz and the American President Donald Trump. All touching the globe whilst looking serious and determined to achieve their common goals. That of fighting terrorism and making this world a better place.
This is the picture people remember when thinking of Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, inaugurating a Global Center for Combatting Extremist Ideology in Riyadh, in May 2017. During the same overseas trip Trump and Salman bin Abdulaziz have ceremonially signed the world’s by now biggest arms deal to date, worth $350 billion.
Whilst international deals like this between the US and Saudi Arabia are getting commemorated and used for publicity, similar deals made by members of the European Union tend to fly more under the radar.
The Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz and the American President Donald Trump inaugurating a Global Center for Combatting Extremist Ideology in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Source: Saudi Press Agency
The US, a global super-power, makes no secret of its par-taking in global military disputes and proudly flaunts its power in arms markets. The EU, however, likes to pose as a peacekeeping entity that highly values overall respect of human rights and democracy. Yet it is the EU who hides behind its own strongly uphold values, but provides arms to countries who are knowingly violating human rights and democratic principles.
The question therefore is: Who is the one to be more afraid of, the US or the EU?
The perfect diplomat
The European Union with its 28-member states is often pictured as a rather diplomatic alliance, with strengths in negotiating and finding solutions for all kinds of conflicts - internally as well as outside their own borders.
The German Chancellor Angela Merkel for instance is representing herself as sort of a mediator, making statements like: “We will involve ourselves where there are such conflicts, to solve them […] through diplomatic efforts,” in a speech about the ongoing North Korean affairs.
Another strong pillar of the European Union is France. Known for being rather nationalistic, yet predominantly in line with the EU’s core values: freedom, equality, democracy, respect for securing human dignity and human rights.
France’s current president Emmanuel Macron - a former socialist and businessman, supporting the EU whilst making France more and more business friendly – is backing up the mask of a diplomatic, human rights-supporting moralizer.
Superficially diplomacy and strong normative power are the EU’s core ambitions, attracting surrounding nations to join as well as being a role model for others – or at least aiming for the latter. The EU has been able to effectively prevent, solve or transform conflicts, using its economic power, funds and sanctions over the course of the years.
The American contrary
The US’ current president Donald Trump, more blatant in his messages, on the other hand is seemingly matching the strong, dauntless picture of the United States with its rather straight forward, some may even say “in your face”, mentality.
Whether that may be in terms of threatening a currently ostensible opponent like North Korea, stating: “The US has great strength and patience […]. If it is forced to defend ourselves or our allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” in a UN speech.
Or by brazenly criticizing one of America’s closest allies’ head of state, Angela Merkel and her former decisions regarding migration policy, whilst at the same time apparently hinting to shift the focus of trade cooperation further to the north east – towards Russia, if accepting the Americans premises.
Arms up - literally
The American leader’s statements are not just empty howling, however.
According to current figures by The Balance, the US’ estimated military spending for the fiscal year 2019 (period from 1 October 2017 until 30 September 2019) is $886 billion.
Military spending is, right after social security, the second largest item in the United States’ federal budget.
And the US’ spending on its defence is more than the next nine countries on the list – China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Co. - combined.
In line with these numbers, Trump is aiming to increase his troops numbers as well as military equipment. Defence Secretary Jim Mattis commented: “We’re going to have to have sustained growth in [fiscal] 2019 to 2023.”
And we are not talking about peanuts. Next to 8,500 new soldiers, 5,000 new sailors, 5,800 new airmen and 1,000 new Marines, Trump wants to increase his military strength also with various further gear, such as a 355-ship Navy, for example.
Overall, these figures in combination with Donald Trump’s behaviour are bringing across a quite clear, force projecting message of superiority:
“The world is most peaceful, and most prosperous, when America is strongest,” Donald Trump said.
Growing numbers in the Union
However strong the US may be though, America is by far not the only entity stocking up its military. The European Union is also advancing its military.
Having a look at defence expenditure as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), it becomes obvious that yes, the US has the by far biggest investment in its defence.
Yet the defence expenditure in most of the European NATO Countries is increasing, too.
According to “Trends in world military expenditure 2016” by SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), all of Europe combined has a significantly higher increase in military expenditure than the United States.
The North Atlantic Alliance has in early 2016 estimated an increase up to 3 percent for military defence expenditures for the same year.
And Aude Fleurant, director of SIPRI’s arms and military expenditure program, told Politico that “in Europe, especially, there are definitely indications that there will be a significant increase in equipment spending.”
The ‘Trump effect’
Looking for reasons justifying those increasing investments, one may bring up Trump’s speech back in 2016 scolding the EU’s NATO members for not meeting the NATO payment targets for military defence of 2 percent of the countries’ GDP.
Because of Trumps blatant threat, indicating the possibility of the US leaving the North Atlantic Alliance some may speak of sort of a ‘Trump effect’ - an expression summarizing all kinds of reactions in response to threats Trump may express.
Nathalie Tocci, one of the EU’s special foreign policy advisers mentioned towards Politico that “the lack of security has become one of the primary concerns of Europeans again.”
And however much the ‘Trump effect’ is questioned by some, the American president indicating the US leaving its NATO allies - facing today’s and henceforth global threats – may be one of the reasons for rising military and defense expenditures in the European Union.
PESCO – security and defense for Europe
There also may be connections with the next major structural step the European Union is taking: the foundation of the new Permanent Structured Cooperation on security and defense (PESCO).
As the name already indicates, the treaty-based framework aims for two major goals: security and defense for the European Union.
Through closer cooperation, enhanced coordination and commonly increased investments the European Union intends to make European defense more efficient and independent from other world powers.
Financial and military resources, as well as costs, are to be shared between the cooperation’s signatories. This is planned to make the EU’s member states military equipment more uniform and to make working together with other nation’s militaries easier.
The EU members’ national sovereignties, however, remain untouched and due to opting in and out decisions for each undertaken project, the participation in individual projects is voluntary for each signatory, though binding once agreed upon.
The US - not a nation to tease
Having a strong military force, however, is just one part of the bigger picture.
Besides being the strongest military power itself, the United States also holds the biggest share in arms exports.
Even without the gigantic arms deal worth $350 billion between the US and Saudi Arabia in May 2017 the US is holding the biggest piece of the pie for years already.
Back in 2016 the total value of global arms trades constituted $31 billion, according to Al Jazeera. $28 billion of which comes from just the top ten global players regarding arms deals. The United States alone accounts for almost $10 billion.
Its biggest purchasers are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Australia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Israel, according to worldatlas. Most recently in 2017 the United States and Saudi Arabia signed “what is considered the largest arms trade deal in US history,” with a financial value of $109.7 billion, for instance.
The perfect sheep-masquerade
The American lion is clearly dominating the global field, not only in terms of its president touching a glowing orb. Though the US is not the only big cat in town.
According to Derek Beach, Professor of Political Science in Aarhus, Denmark, “probably the biggest difference (between the EU and the US) that we’ve seen in a long time is the ability and willingness to play a leading international role in security affairs.”
Whilst “Europeans, for historical reasons and also just lack of power, are more interested in kind of a very rules-bound international society, the United States likes to be a bit more unfettered and able to protect its interests and values internationally.”
Superficially the Union is acting rather hesitant when it comes to military disputes, considering the mostly reluctant temper before entering the Iraq war in 2003, for instance. However, we now may have finally reached the turning point, unmasking the wolf in the sheep’s clothing.
The EU apparently imposes embargoes onto whichever country it deems deserving.
With conventional arms control the Union, intends to ensure weapons not to be sold for reckless usage. Disarmament, however is clearly not on the list of goals.
Even taking the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports into account, the EU’s achievements in preventing debatable arms sales are rather to be described as fragmentary.
When the peacemaker enlivens the trouble spot
”Serious flaws in the European Union's key arms control agreements” are to be found, according to Amnesty International.
One example of European duplicity are the ongoing arms deals with the Middle Eastern kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
According to The Guardian 17 EU member states have been selling arms to the Gulf state back in 2016. Due to the ongoing disputes with Houthi rebels in Yemen and numerous human rights violations as well as thousands of killed, injured and contaminated people in the Gulf region, it is by now to be questioned whether arms sales to Saudi Arabia are justifiable.
Recently in October 2017 Bodil Valero, a Swedish Green Party MEP (Member of the European Parliament) said: “We should say no to selling weapons to Saudi Arabia because the common position wouldn’t allow it.”
But how to stop European companies selling arms to certain, maybe militant areas?
As we talk about companies, it should be an economical rather than a political issue, right?
It may be the companies selling the arms, but it is the countries’ governments responsibility setting up the rules for doing so.
According to The Guardian, a spokeswoman for Frederica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy chief, stated that “the final decision whether to authorise or deny an export remains at national discretion of member states,” passing on the responsibility to individual member states, instead of taking it on as an EU duty.
Acting against its own core values
Together with the US, the United Kingdom has recently profited more than ever before due to arms deals with Saudi Arabia. Whilst doing so, the UK is technically still limited by the EU’s common system of trade rules.
The European Union has eight common criteria defining rules on arms exports control. All of them aiming for trade solely when common western values, such as respecting and securing human rights and democracy, are not endangered due to the undertaken arms deals.
The 8 common criteria defining rules on arms exports control of the EU
- with assessments to be made on a case-by-case basis -
(1) respect for the international obligations and commitments of EU Member
States, particularly sanctions (including arms embargoes) and international
agreements;
(2) respect for human rights and international humanitarian law by the recipient
country;
(3) the internal situation in the recipient country;
(4) risks to regional peace, security and stability;
(5) national security of the Member States as well of their friends and allies;
(6) behaviour of the buyer country towards the international community,
including its attitude to terrorism and respect for international law;
(7) risk of diversion towards an unauthorised end-user or end-use;
(8) compatibility of the arms exports with sustainable development in the
recipient country
An embargo on Saudi Arabia, for instance, would mean a huge decrease of revenue and is therefore rather unachievable in the European Parliament. All member states have to vote in favour of the ban, and too many of them are profiting from the current non-restricted trading situation.
Whilst two-thirds of the arms the UK exports is going to the Middle East – in 2015, 83 percent solely went to Saudi Arabia. According to opinion polls, around two-thirds of UK citizens consider arms deals with Saudi Arabia as unacceptable, however.
Europeans attitude towards arms deals is, in general, shaped by opposing any undemocratic and autocratic behaviour. Therefore, selling arms to any kind of regime endangering international law and threatening to violate human rights is deemed to be unacceptable.
Differing faces of the European Union
Both entities – the US and the EU - have their own domestic and international policies. Both not comparable to one another. Yet both powers play an important role in the worlds current political and economical status, setting landmarks for the worlds course.
In this setting the diplomatic acting of the European Union whilst trading with arms in the back sends inconsistent signs towards not only European citizens, but also towards conflict areas, their civilians, rulers and possible insurgents. This may get even clearer, now that the European Union is even setting up its common military defence.
What face the European Union will show the world in the course of the next couple of years and maybe decades seems to remain a question-mark.