Article found in globalwatchweekly
The following section was published in the New Federalist (a pro European super state publication) in December 2015.
Internal market, common currency, common borders and perhaps even a common European Constitution. Europe has never been as united as it is today. Nevertheless, according to several enthusiasts this is still not enough and dreams of a united continent should continue further and include the creation of the EU army.
The idea of the single European military forces is not new and has regularly appeared practically since the beginning of the European project. Initial efforts on joint action(s) in foreign and security policy materialised in the proposal to create a European Defence Community in 1952 which intended to launch an ambitious plan for the establishment of a supranational Pan-European army proposed by French politician Réné Pleven. Paradoxically, this initiative was consequently vetoed by France.
Although the Lisbon Treaty does not refer directly to the “European army”, it defines the common security and defence policy (CSDP) and states that CSDP will lead to a common defence provided that the European Council decides so by a unanimous vote (art. 42 TEU). One component of the CSDP is also the European Defence Agency which was established earlier. Might this agency be deemed as a precursor of the future EU army general staff?
I consider it necessary to also recall a recent statement by Jean-Claude Juncker in the German weekend newspaper Welt am Sonntag (March 2015) where he called for a European army. This initiative was largely supported by Germany, though German defence minister Ursula von der Leyen stressed that is not a question of the near future. On the contrary, Juncker´s initiative was strongly opposed by Eurosceptics, notably in the United Kingdom.
The British would probably consider the creation of the EU army as a step towards greater federalisation and weakening of the role of nation states in Europe. Besides their traditional Euroscepticism the British may have one more reason for distrust: Gibraltar. Entitlement to the peninsula is the subject of a long-term dispute between Britain and Spain. This bilateral dispute even resulted in a trade blockade last year. Another sensitive issue would also be raised with respect to the obligations of certain EU Member States which carry out common defence under the North Atlantic Treaty. Those critics point out duplicate structures of both organisations and unreasonable financial costs for arming and defence.
Despite all this criticism, we should seriously reflect on this matter. Is the establishment of the EU military units not a step in the right direction to ensure durable peace and stability in Europe? Why do global stakeholders still not recognise the EU as a strong partner in international relations? How does the EU want to react to continuous breaches of its fundamental values beyond its formal borders, in particular in Syria and Ukraine?
Therefore, the Union needs its army to consolidate its position in the world, to face the increasing military expansion of Russia and to be ready for immediate actions beyond its borders or even within its own territory having also regard to the ongoing terrorist threat. In my view, NATO as a guarantor of European security is not enough, since not all of the EU Member States are part of the alliance.
Moreover, a joint European army would send a clear signal to the world that Europe is willing and prepared to take responsibility for its own security and defence. Is this not exactly that we all should wish for?
End of New Federalist article
The above article is of great interest and shows the growing momentum to push the agenda of a European army.
The British public is broadly supportive of the creation of a standing army for the European Union, a poll last year suggested.
The YouGov survey found that 36 per cent actively supported a permanent multi-national force drawn from all the bloc’s nations, compared to only 29 per cent who opposed such a move. A large number of people, 21 per cent, said they did not know whether they would support such an army, however.
In March last year when European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker called for the creation of an EU army, he arugued that it would address the problem of the not being “taken entirely seriously” on the international stage.
“You would not create a European army to use it immediately, “Mr Juncker had told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper in Germany.
“But a common army among the Europeans would convey to Russia that we are serious about defending the values of the European Union.”
The Daily Telegraph newspaper reported in September 2015 that German Chancellor Angela Merkel expected David Cameron to support moves to create the force in exchange for renegotiations on welfare spending and immigration.
“If you want favours, you have to give favours,” a Berlin source reportedly told the paper.
In the survey showing support in the UK for the force, the pollster asked: “Would you support or oppose the European Union having a standing army with personnel from each European Union country?”
The survey was conducted on 25 November and 26 November as MPs and commentators debated whether the UK should join a bombing campaign with the United States and France against Isis in Syria.
The findings of the poll are at odds with the UK’s traditionally sceptical attitude to some aspects of pan-European federalism.
The EU already has a small degree of military integration, with the a small Eurocorps military corp based in Strasbourg numbering 1,000 troops. The military is draw from Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Spain.
The EUFOR rapid response forces are also deployed on an ad hoc basis.
Traditional bible prophecy experts who believe that the European Union is prophesied in scripture as the last final world power referenced in the Daniel 2 dream of Nebuchadnezzar, believe that we need to take seriously developments to create a European army believing this could be the very army that the Antichrist will use to bring the world into a massive series of military campaigns.
Daniel 11:40-45 describes the military campaign of the Antichrist in the Middle East.
These verses and related verses in Revelation could very well indicate that when the Antichrist becomes insanely obsessed with seizing Israel and Jerusalem as his capital and changes from a man of peace to a man of war, the nations of the world will see an opportunity to rebel based on impact that a dictator controlling Israel could have on the world economy at the time.
The initial rebellion against him will be led by the “king of the North” and the “king of the South”. The Antichrist responds by invading “the Beautiful Land” and subduing all the area except Jordan.
But just as he seems to be completely victorious, he hears “rumors from the East and from the North” that deeply disturb him. He retreats with his armies to the area “between the seas” where “he will come to his end.” The geographical description here of a location between the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee corresponds to the Valley of Armageddon.
The rumors that frighten him are, in part, the news that “the kings from the East” (Revelation 16:12) who are bringing huge armies have arrived at the Euphrates River and are ready to cross into Israel to challenge him. The rumors from the North could relate to a reconstituted rebellious army from the north.