Bayonets bared for Europe's military future-by Enzo Mangini
You can do anything with bayonets but sit on them,’ Napoleon’s foreign minister, Talleyrand, once famously observed. The EU is discussing the shape of its bayonets and how to make them well in advance of deciding what to do with them.
On 21 November last year, an Associated Press report announced: ’EU adopts plan to open Euro 35 billion arms market.’ It referred to a meeting of defence ministers in Brussels, which decided to introduce a new code of conduct for the industry. This code, which takes effect in July, will open the European arms market and military procurement to the sort of deregulated market policies that the EU is now pursuing in every possible sphere. A particular cause for concern is that this deregulation coincides with a concerted process of merger and consolidation within the industry, whereby the ’free’ market is leading to increasing domination by the biggest companies. Since this particular market involves tanks, aircraft carriers and electronic surveillance, and not underwear or oranges, the concerns are correspondingly larger. In the past ten years, the wave of mergers and acquisitions in the European military industry has reduced the number of players and increased the size of those who remain - notably in key sectors such as missiles, aircraft and helicopters, with further mergers ahead in shipbuilding and the manufacture of ground vehicles.
Today, the military market in the EU is dominated by a handful of big conglomerates: BAE Systems (UK), EADS (France-Germany and Spain), Thales (France) and Finmeccanica (Italy), to name the biggest. Governments and corporate lobbyists are pushing for another wave, which would further reduce the number of firms. This is one of the specified aims of the EDA, clearly stated in its mandate when it was established in 2004. The degree of concentration is reaching US proportions. A 2003 Pentagon report found that the 50 largest defence suppliers of the early 1980s had been transmogrified into the top five contractors today. Indeed, competitive pressure from the US is the main driving force cited by European industry CEOs and politicians alike when it comes to explaining the merger fever. The need to stand up to the US military-industrial complex and preserve European political autonomy is also often given as the reason to support the idea of a ’strong’ Europe.
National - or European - pride can help this militarisation on its way. A lot of our fellow citizens, even on the left, are proud of challenging the US - of being better ’peace-keepers’ - though probably not so many would like to admit it openly.
No comments:
Post a Comment