a product message image
{' '} {' '}
Limited time offer
SAVE % on your upgrade

Page 1

ISSN 2192-6921

Independent Review on European Security & Defence − Winner of the European Award 2011 for Citizenship, Security and Defence

Volume No 17

Quo vadis

European Defence? The EU’s December 2013 Summit How to give new impetus to the CSDP

Plea for a European Global Strategy

The future of Europe’s Defence Industry

Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Stockholm

Dr Thomas Enders, CEO, EADS, Toulouse

www.magazine-the-european.com ProPress Publishing Group

Edition 3/2013


Editorial

In the last days of August 2013, to nearly everyone’s surprise, the British Parliament voted against military action in Syria. Prime Minister David Cameron had chosen to consult Parliament, although under no legal obligation to do so. By rejecting the government motion the House of Commons has once again made history: this vote has far-reaching political repercussions at both national and international level. The US President, although also not legally obliged to do so, had no hesitation in announcing his intention to seek congressional approval for military strikes against Syria. France’s President is alone in not wishing to share those decision-making powers with Parliamentarians. France tried to demonstrate that it, and no longer the United Kingdom, is the really reliable regional power in Europe, although so far there has been no vote in the US Congress and no US military strikes for France to participate in. Instead, US-Russian negotiations on the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons got off to a smooth and rapid start- without France, enabling Moscow to break its political isolation.

Humanitarian intervention in the future Does this House of Commons vote mark the beginning of the end of humanitarian intervention? I do not think so, but the interventionist rhetoric that we have heard so much these last 20 years appears to be weakening, due to a lack of convincing results and to the excessive damage to both intervening forces and local populations, creating internal and societal problems. The lesson that Governments have finally learnt is that they must seek the backing of their public opinion and parliaments if they wish to send their soldiers to distant wars whose vital relevance for their home country or even continent is not immediately perceptible to the public at large.

However, as societies become increasingly unconvinced that you can kill your way to peace, it will no longer be sufficient for governments to shelter behind their populations and parliaments. They will need to involve parliaments at the Hartmut Bühl earliest stage in the decision-making process, a habit that in most cases will strengthen governments. “The UK vote was a tactical political manoeuvre that went wrong, but may well be a sign for the future,” as David Chuter wrote to me in a private letter as we were discussing his article in this magazine (page 27), and he continued, “I am convinced that any future operation from now on will have to be voted by Parliament as well”.

Photo: © Hofmann, Adelsheim

Right or wrong…but my country

Seeking consent This new attitude will have an influence on the decision-making process with regard to the Common Security and Defence Policy. It could strengthen the advisory role of the European Parliament, although it will be a long while before the EP exercises genuine scrutiny. After 20 years of constant pressure on EU member states to facilitate the use of military force and to deploy troops without a vote by Parliament, this trend may now be going into reverse. Germany’s particular solution of a “parliamentary army” may be not be applicable everywhere, but to involve citizens through their parliamentary representatives one way or another in the decision to engage in military operations is part and parcel of democratic government.

Hartmut Bühl, Editor-in-Chief

Impressum The European − Security and Defence Union ProPress Publishing Group Bonn/Berlin Headquarters Berlin: Kaskelstr. 41, D-10317 Berlin Phone: +49/30/557 412-0, Fax: +49/30/557 412-33 Brussels Office: Hartmut Bühl Avenue des Celtes, 30, B-1040 Brussels Phone/Fax: +32/2732 3135, GMS: 0049/1723 282 319 E-Mail: hartmut.buehl@orange.fr ; Hartmut.buehl@euro-defence.eu Bonn Office: Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 57, D-53113 Bonn Phone: +49/228/970 97-0, Fax: +49/228/970 97-75 Advertisement Office Bonn: Karin Dornbusch Phone: +49/228/970 97-40 E-Mail: Karin.dornbusch@euro-defence.eu

Publisher and Editor-in-Chief: Hartmut Bühl, Brussels Deputy Editor-in-Chief: Nannette Cazaubon, Paris; E-Mail: nannette.b@gmx.net Publishing House: ProPress Verlagsgesellschaft mbH President ProPress Publishing Group: R. Uwe Proll Layout: SpreeService- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH, Berlin Print: Heider Druck GmbH, Bergisch Gladbach The European − Security and Defence Union Magazine is published by the ProPress Publishing Group. The ProPress Publishing Group is the organizer of the congress on European Security and Defence (Berlin Security Conference), the European Police Congress and the European Congress on Disaster Management. For further information about the magazine and the congresses please visit www.magazine-the-european.com Subscription: This magazine is published in Brussels and Berlin. The copy price is 16 Euro: 3 copies for one year: 42 Euro (EU subscription) 3 copies for one year: 66 Euro (International subscription) including postage and dispatch (3 issues) © 2013 by ProPress Publishing Group Bonn/Berlin ProPress Publishing Group is the holding of the trade mark BEHOERDEN SPIEGEL.

3


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Robert Walter MP Vice-President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg/London

David Chuter Chair of ISIS Europe, Brussels

POLICY and POLITICS 3

Editorial

7

Dalia Grybauskaité, Vilnius

The EU Presidency

The Common Security and Defence Policy 23

Increased stability and prosperity on the entire continent A credible European Union as a solidarity pact

Common Foreign and Security Policy 10

11

Make the 2013 Defence Summit a success! A parliamentary position on the EU Communication for a European Defence Industry Strategy

24

26

Hartmut Bühl, Brussels and Uwe Nerlich, Munich

Robert Walter MP, Strasbourg/London

How to harmonise national defence and security interests within Europe Finding the common denominator

15

17

30

32

Renaud Bellais, Paris

Military spending is not in vogue No momentum for an efficient EU defence

35

Hartmut Bühl, Brussels

A breakthrough for the NATO European missile defence initiative Successul fireing open the way ahead

Dr Ana Isabel Xavier, Lisbon

A design for a European Human Security Strategy The EU must give a signal to the world

19

Gerd Kaldrack, Bonn

The irrelevance of defence in the CSDP Renationalisation is the wrong answer

Dirk Niebel, Berlin

Security and development policy in the EU must go hand in hand No development without security efforts

David Chuter, Brussels

France, Britain and the Common Security and Defence Policy Dancing to different tunes

Europe’s defence does matter Time is running out for the EU

12

Interview with Claude-France Arnould, Brussels

EU Summit 2013 – Capabilities for today and tomorrow The summit cannot be about philosophy

Carl Bildt, Stockholm

Plea for a European Global Strategy How to create common interests

Arnaud Danjean MEP, Michael Gahler MEP, Krzysztof Lisek MEP, Brussels

Interview with Dr Thomas Enders, Toulouse

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

The future of Europe’s defence industry High time to overcome fragmentation

36

Jiří Šedivý, Brussels

Logistic Transformation in the making Logistics are going joint

Photos Cover: © ARTENS, Fotolia; (left) by world economic forum, CC by NC SA 2.0, Flickr; (right) EADS/Marquardt; Photos page 4 and 5 (left to right): private; Rob Munro

4


Content

Jiří Šedivý Ambassador, Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic to NATO, Brussels

Ioan Mircea Paşcu MEP Vice-Chairman AFET, European Parliament, Brussels

SECURITY and SECURITY SOLUTIONS EU/NATO Protection 38

James Edge, Brussels

Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) Capability will be ready soon A need that cannot be denied

40

Air and Sea Power

45

Innovative vehicles for the protection of crisis-management forces Tailor-made solutions

54

57

Bernhard Gerwert, Manching

No information superiority without a network of UAS Europe must develop and procure

Conference reports

Dr Joachim Wulf, Berlin

28

61 Integrated Security Systems to answer the challenges in a globalised world Harbours – no longer a weak point

Nannette Cazaubon

FP7: CATO Project Conference, Bonn Convincing security research result

Chris van Buiten, Washington

Jens Nielsen, Ulm

Elsa Schrier / Adriana van de Laar, The Hague

The 5th Young Europeans EuroDefense Conference Convincing arguments for a united Europe

The future of rotary wing flight New concepts for new operational tasks

51

Christian Neudel, Schwaikheim

Assisting crisis-management forces Legacy and innovation

56

49

Ioan Mircea Pas¸cu, Brussels

The European Parliament view on CBRN Preparedness and Readiness The threats and the risks are real

Cutting-edge technologies for geared turbofan engines A breakthrough in propulsion

47

Franz Achleitner, Wörgl

Susanne Michaelis, Brussels

Smart Energy – improving the energy efficiency of NATO’s armed forces Greater energy efficiency makes for more effective forces

42

53

Hartmut Bühl

GO Connected + Go Smart = Zero Distance AFCEA International, Lisbon

Interview with Claus Günther, Überlingen

Contribution to maritime security through advanced technologies Highest technological standards

“The European − Security and Defence Union” is the winner of the 2011 European Award for Citizenship, Security and Defence

5


EU Presidency

“The more security and

stability there is on our borders, the safer and better off Europe itself is.”

Photo: D oja Gunda Barysait /president.lt

Dalia Grybauskaité

The European Union has to be credible, human, secure and open

Increased stability and prosperity on the entire continent by Dalia Grybauskaité, President of the Republic of Lithuania /Presidency of the Council of the EU, Vilnius/Brussels

Almost a year ago, the European Union received the Nobel Peace Prize for its contribution to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe. During its Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Lithuania seeks to mobilise the support of member states, European institutions and, indeed, all Europeans for a credible, open and growing Europe that not only provides security and welfare for its citizens, but also promotes democracy and stability in the world. This is why the December European Council – the first European Council to address the issues of security and defence in five years – is so important. We must strengthen our security and defence cooperation in times of protracted debt crisis, slow economic growth and high unemployment by means of more cooperation based on pooling and sharing of resources between member states and on smart development of the capabilities that Europe requires. We must also realise that the security situation in Europe closely depends on the situation in our neighbourhood – the more security and stability there is on our borders, the safer and better off Europe itself is. The European Union is a unique project. No other international player possesses such a variety of political, economic and social instruments to promote democratic development and

political stability across the world, while the full potential of Europe’s “soft power” is often underestimated. This is why the European Union’s Eastern Partnership Summit to be held in November in Vilnius is so important. Europe must reach out to its partners not only for closer economic and trade ties, but also for increased stability and prosperity on the entire continent. The world today is less stable, more complex and less predictable than it was ten years ago. A whole spectrum of new threats, including cyber, energy, informational, environmental, and humanitarian has now emerged which requires constant attention and action. But Europe has consistently proven its ability to adapt to new risks and challenges; but to be able to address them in an effective and efficient way, we must look for possibilities for working closely with our neighbours, partners and other international players that share our goals and values. This is why we must seize the opportunity to discuss new challenges and our cooperation with partners not only at the Vilnius Summit, but also in the European Council, which, will be addressing the issues of European security and defence. This will also empower Europe to continue advancing the important goals it received the Nobel Peace Prize for – peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe and beyond its borders.

7


The 2009 Lisbon Treaty, by creating the European External Action Service (EEAS), paved the way for Europe to play a more high-profile role on the international stage. It gave this unique union of 28 states a voice with which to convey its message of human dignity, democracy, human rights and freedom. But only if all member states do their bit in a spirit of solidarity with each other will the European Union be able to consolidate internally and to bring influence to bear at global level in the interests of mankind as a whole.

Documentation

A new EU foreign policy – a European Parliament view (Edit/ak) In October 2013 the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) voted on the report evaluating the Annual Report from the Council on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (2012).In the report, AFET Chairman and Rapporteur Elmar Brok focuses upon the cooperation among different actors involved in the process of EU foreign policy decision-making. He stresses the importance of the EP as an intermediary between the citizens of the EU and the Commission, Council and VP/HR. In particular, the report appeals to the Member States to fulfil their duties laid down in the Lisbon Treaty and to contribute to a more cohesive and consistent EU foreign policy. The European Parliament “Considers that the first quarter of the twenty-first century is characterized by a period of prolonged structural change that is transforming the global order; stresses that this demands a fresh approach to shaping a new multi-polar world order that is inclusive and underpinned by the rule of law and a pluralist democratic model as well as universal values, including human rights […] Stresses that the world financial crisis and the growing assertiveness of new emerging economies pose major political, economic, social, cultural and environmental challenges, including internal problems, for all parties and takes the view that addressing such challenges requires collective and united EU action and the forging of alliances […] Responding to emerging threats Underlines the need for EU foreign policy to be flexible in responding to emerging threats and challenges in areas such as health, energy, climate change and access to water, all of which may have an impact upon our political priorities and our economies as well as on international development States that only by acting jointly or in unity do we have the strength to pursue our interests and defend our values in this world […] Stresses that the effectiveness of the EU’s external action also depends on the full support of its citizens and on the legitimacy it acquires by being anchored in the EU’s fundamental values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and therefore calls for close, regular and timely consultation of the European Parliament in setting clear priorities and objectives for EU foreign policy Urges the Member States to play a constructive role in the Union’s foreign and security policy by promoting strategic policy coordina-

8

tion at the Union level, in particular through effective cooperation between their capitals and Brussels concerning the positions they adopt in multilateral fora, notably at the United Nations and within NATO Maintain policy Takes the view that enlargement remains an important tool of EU Elmar Brok addressing the foreign policy and is in the EU’s European Parliament. long-term strategic interest, which Photo: EPP Group in the EU (official), CC BY-ND 2.0, Flickr cannot necessarily be measured in terms of short-term balance sheets; points out, however, that the enlargement policy needs to take into account the EU’s own integration capacity and the genuine commitment of the Western Balkan countries and of Turkey to take up their responsibilities and address outstanding concerns […] Syria Regrets the fact that the EU gave up its common policy of an arms embargo on Syria, thereby undermining a common approach; condemns the tragic and on-going bloodshed in Syria, which has already had a devastating and destabilizing humanitarian impact, including on neighboring countries […]; calls on the Member States to show solidarity and to provide help to refugees from Syria and displaced persons within Syria […] stresses that the severity of the situation in Syria requires a high level of coherence and solidarity among the EU Member States, working in cooperation with NATO and regional actors, especially Russia, Iran, Israel and Turkey. Cooperation with multilateral partners Acknowledges the role of the UN Security Council (UNSC) as the highest international body responsible for peacekeeping and international security, while noting that recent crises have highlighted its growing inability to act in a timely manner in response to serious threats to international peace and security […]; urges the VP/HR, therefore, to put her efforts into securing a permanent EU seat in the UNSC and steering the reform of the UNSC […]”

photo: Francisco Antunes, CC BY 2.0, Flickr

Common Foreign and Security Policy


Common Foreign and Security Policy

Catherine Ashton’s final report on the CSDP (Edit/nc) On 15 October 2013, Catherine Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission (HR/VP), published her final report on the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The report analyses the strategic context and sets out proposals and actions in three main areas: the strengthening of the CSDP, the enhancement of European capabilities and the reinforcement of the European defence industry. In view of the upcoming European Council on Defence, the HR/VP points out that the European Council should define a strategic direction for the further development of the CSDP and defence cooperation in Europe. After the presentation of her final report, Catherine Ashton issued the following statement: “I was asked by the European Council in December 2012 to present proposals to further strengthen the Common Security and Defence Policy, ahead of a discus-

sion by leaders in December of this year. I presented an interim report in July and I am now issuing the final report. This debate among leaders comes at an opportune moment. The EU needs to protect its interests and promote its values, and it needs to be able to act as a security provider both in its neighbourhood and at the international level. To be credible, this requires capabilities and a strong industrial base. This is both a challenge and an opportunity. Defence cooperation is never straightforward, but there is certainly scope for further enhancing cooperation among the Member States to develop and deploy capabilities. In addition, the defence industry can be a driver for jobs, growth and innovation. The report sets out proposals and actions in three areas: - Strengthening CSDP: the Union needs to be able to respond rapidly to security challenges - cyber, space, energy, maritime and border security. To act as a security provider we need to be able to en-

gage with partners, and to build the capacity of partner organisations and third states, using all the tools of our external action. This is the idea of our comprehensive approach. - Enhancing European defence capabilities: cooperation has become essential to the maintenance of capabilities and to the success of CSDP. It allows Member States to develop, acquire, operate and maintain capabilities together, making best use of potential economies of scale. - Reinforcing Europe’s defence industry: a strong and healthy industrial base is a prerequisite for developing and sustaining defence capabilities and securing Europe’s strategic autonomy. The European Commission put forward a Communication “Towards a more competitive and efficient European defence and security sector” in July. The proposals in my report complement the Commission’s work.” > Final Report: http://tinyurl.com/ozlknus

High Representative Catherine Ashton with Mohammed Javad Zarif, Iranian Minister for Foreign Affairs during the E3/EU+3 talks over Iran's nuclear Photo: © European Union, 2013, programme, Geneva, 7 November 2013

9


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Only if it stands united can Europe pursue its interests

Plea for a European Global Strategy by Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm

Europe’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is on the agenda of the European Council meeting in December. The discussions will undoubtedly be of importance. They will help define how the EU Member States should proceed in their mission to build strong and effective cooperation in the security and defence area, and ultimately to promote human rights and peace in the world.

Thinking about the EU’s future role But the EU will not be able to make much progress unless it starts defining a common strategic framework to help it navigate a more complex world. Therefore, in July 2012, I joined with my foreign minister colleagues from Italy, Spain and Poland to launch a think-tank process aimed at generating debate about the EU’s future strategic role. We are united by a simple rationale: global actors do, from time to time, discuss and review their foreign policy strategies. The US does. China does. And so does NATO. Many EU Member States do so on a national basis. The EU – if it is serious about its claim to be a global actor – should, and might even be expected to, do the same. In the EU, with the help of the relevant independent actors, we should develop a European Global Strategy.

Taking into account the full range of challenges… In 2003, the European Security Strategy (ESS) was adopted. It was a good document. It has provided European external action with practical guidelines. But the world has moved on significantly since 2003. We have entered a period of profound transformations – in geopolitics, the economy and technology. The Security Strategy now seems too narrow to grasp the full range of challenges and opportunities facing the world as we know it and as it might be looking a decade ahead. The collective weight – and possibly also influence – of the EU Member States is diminishing. We are competing globally with other economies, ideas and models of society. Others are catching up and soft power competition appears to be increasing. The ongoing economic crisis and ever-accelerating globalisation pose an unprecedented dual challenge for Europe. The countries of Europe will only be able to uphold their values and successfully pursue their interests if we stand united.

… and internal developments within the EU Not only has the world moved on. The EU has changed fundamentally as well. Since 2003, the EU has enlarged. As this issue of the magazine highlights, it has adopted the Lisbon

10

Carl Bildt has been Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden since 2006. He was born in July 1949 in Halmstad. Mr Bildt earned his degree at Stockholm University and started his political career as a student. In 1979 he became a member of the Riksdag and was, among other political appointments, party leader of the Moderate Party from 1986-1999 and Prime Minister from 1991-1994. Mr Bildt was actively engaged in the nation-building and peace process in Eastern Europe as The European Union Section 1s Special Representative for Former Yugoslavia, Co-Chair of the Dayton Peace Talks on Former Yugoslavia, as the UN SecretaryGeneral Section 1s Special Envoy for the Balkans and the High Representative of the International Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina for reconstruction and the peace implementation process.

Treaty. The Treaty led to the establishment of the European External Action Service with a consequent need for a mission statement. The time has come to engage in a new strategic discussion, taking into account these immense changes. We need a more comprehensive and integrated approach to all components of the EU’s global profile, doing away with the artificial distinction between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ security. We need a common strategic approach to energy security, climate negotiations, the management of migration flows and cyber issues – to name just a few themes among many possible ones.

The way forward Needless to say, we must think more broadly and creatively, bringing in all aspects of the EU as an external actor. But we cannot be so vague and ambitious so as to become irrelevant. We should not produce a revision of the 2003 document, nor a repeat of the 2008 update exercise. The process is important – a strategic debate is almost as important as a strategic document. Because it will help us use the instruments and institutions in a way that promotes the values, interests and goals of the European Union and benefits its Member States, citizens and taxpayers. Because it will allow the EU to strengthen its position on the world stage while becoming more of a driving force. There are many possible ways to proceed in the development of the European Global Strategy. The European Council meeting in December could be one opportunity for starting a more formal process. Only a long-term global strategy will prepare the European Union for the global century.


Photo: Justus Bluemer/flickr/CC BY 2.0

Common Foreign and Security Policy

“The summit offers an opportunity as a starting point for a new phase, not a one-off event with no follow-up” Arnaud Danjean **

Time is running out for the European Union

Europe’s defence does matter by Hartmut Bühl, Brussels and Uwe Nerlich*, Munich The European Union Summit in December 2013 will focus on the “state of defence” in Europe, at a time of rising awareness of the strong interdependency between internal and external security, as well as between social stability and economic prosperity in a globalised environment.

Reconsidering Europe’s defence and … The Heads of State and Government will need to draw a picture of the quasi irrelevance of Europe’s defence with its dramatically reduced military capabilities to a level that does not allow Europe to seriously react to any crisis in areas of interest without strong support from the US, which is less and less willing to take on this responsibility. The summit should therefore re-consider Europe’s defence in the medium timeframe of the next twenty years, taking a thorough look at capability planning, funding resources and industrial policy, which needs to regain the necessary relevance in an increasingly competitive global environment. This suggests the future role of the defence industry.

… defining vital interests now and in the future Europe needs to shape its future role by defining its vital interests. The EU’s role as a global strategic player is widely dismissed. It needs once again to be on eye level with other global players and future powers. This includes the military dimension, giving Europe a chance to stay on the path towards prosperity and security despite its outstanding dependence on global trade, supply and access. The forthcoming summit may not produce tangible results, but it would turn into a game changer if it were to reinforce and give direction to this European momentum. And indeed, whatever the current public mood throughout Europe suggests, the future of defence in Europe does matter, if Europe is to prevail as a global power. But time is running out for Europe. Generating and deploying strategic capabilities must concur with the 25-30 year timeframe within which Europe’s future as a global player is at stake. The December 2013 Summit must be the beginning of a sustained process. Failure would derail that process, with long-term consequences. Rebuilding strategic capabilities and rationales for Europe must therefore no longer be postponed.

A European capacity for strategic action Thus a reappraisal of defence in Europe is indeed imperative: constraints of the kind of the current financial crisis tend to erode Europe’s defence without agreed bottom lines, turning “strategic” defence reforms into mere efforts to manage decline. European prosperity and viability in turn will be challenged in an increasingly competitive environment with strong incentives among threshold countries to strengthen indigenous capacities, including for exports. The growing fragility of maritime supply lines and the evolving strategic and military dimensions of the very growth zones on which Europe is more and more dependent suggest a key turningpoint in European strategic policy.

Shaping the future A European capacity for strategic action is likely to become a precondition for Europe’s well-being. And this must be in the common strategic interest of all Member States, even if individual nations are affected in different ways. The burden of future defence will fall primarily on core countries, a scenario foreseen in the Lisbon Treaty with so-called “structured cooperation”. The lack of vision is a standard complaint. The forthcoming Summit thus should not be seen as the “last hope”, but as the beginning of seminal changes. The closer governments, armed forces and security and defence industries cooperate in this endeavour, the more Europe will be able to shape its defence in keeping with its future role in the global world of 2030.

* Dr Uwe Nerlich, since 2006 partner and founding director of the Center for European Security Strategies (CESS), Munich, an SME with an international network for research and consultancies in support of governments, international organisations, industries and media, drawing on expertise in many countries and disciplines based on a flexible structure for project work and cooperative ventures. ** Arnaud Danjean MEP and Chairman of the EP Subcommittee on Security and Defence, “The future is in the hands of Nations” in: The European–Security and Defence Union, Volume Nr 16 page 26, Brussels 2013

11


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Fresh policies must drive Europe’s thinking and planning

How to harmonise national defence and security interests within Europe by Robert Walter MP, Vice-President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg/London

The drawdown of ISAF forces from Afghanistan may be firmly in sight, but the Euro-Atlantic alliance still has a lot of work to do. Without a doubt, Afghanistan in 2013 is far different from Afghanistan in 2001. Transition has brought about many positive changes, from increased access to education and healthcare to improvements in infrastructure and economic activity.

A fragile road to stability However, while the progress is encouraging, the process remains fragile. History has shown us that the road to stability is invariably long and tough. Trust and confidence, the cornerstone of true reconciliation, is difficult to build and even more so to maintain. Be it in the Balkans, Iraq or Palestine, we know that stalemate wrought by continuing suspicion can come at tragic cost. Mindful of the past, we cannot afford to be complacent in the future: if we are to help Afghanistan through the next phase, it’s essential we have the right strategy in place to tackle the root causes of the conflict which still persist: extremism, radicalism, illiteracy and poverty.

The EU needs a new Security Strategy The importance of strategy cannot be overstated: without it, solutions are impossible to attain. Unfortunately, the speed and scale of global changes have not always been matched by comparable overhauls in vision and action. In a world which is becoming increasingly volatile, where intra-state violence is

Robert Walter MP has been a British Member of Parliament since 1997. He is also Chairman of the European Democrat Group and Vice-President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Born in 1948, he graduated in 1971 from the University of Aston in Birmingham. Before entering the House of Commons, he was an international banker and farmer. Robert Walter MP was President of the European Security and Defence Assembly/Assembly of WEU in Paris from December 2003 until June 2011. In 2011 he was elected President of the European Security and Defence Association (ESDA). He is a member of the board and acting President of the Berlin Security Conference.

growing and new patterns of interdependence are emerging, the rationale for a new security strategy is plain to see.

The EU as a collective security provider? As the US shifts its attention to the Pacific, eyes are turning more and more to Europe to take responsibility for its own security. There is mounting pressure on European states and particularly on the European Union for Europe to prove itself a capable and credible strategic player. At the EU summit in December member states, for the first time since 2008, will reflect on the EU’s role as a collective security provider. The debate is much needed and long overdue. Since its inception in 1999, the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) has had a mixed record of success. There have been positive examples of EU deployments but there have also been less successful missions. As a result, there have been growing misgivings about the EU’s ability to develop and maintain credible military capabilities, not least the credibility of standing “battlegroups”. By extension, this leads us to question the EU’s ability to assert a serious and substantive role on the global stage.

Paucity of political will and other shortcomings

British Forces – between tradition and the future. The Queen’s Birthday Parade also known as Trooping the Colour, Horse Guards Parade, Photo: Corporal Paul Shaw, defenceimagery.mod.uk, OGL v2.0 London, June 2013.

12

The CSDP’s shortcomings stem from a variety of interlinked and complex factors, ranging from weak institutional coherence to a paucity of political will. The economic and financial circumstances precipitating cuts to defence budgets across 28 nation-states have made it all the more difficult to build the long-term political consensus upon which an effective CSDP depends. Ten years after adopting the European Security Strategy (ESS), the EU has still not managed to agree a clear


Common Foreign and Security Policy

set of criteria against which member states could decide where, when and how to get engaged. In the absence of clearly defined objectives, strategic planning has remained elusive. This has to change – and the December summit provides an opportunity to agree a way forward.

We need a proactive crisis-prevention policy However, if the EU is to carve out a workable long-term vision, it has to be realistic and pragmatic. One of the main lessons learned from Afghanistan and recent conflicts, is that we need to tackle the underlying causes of conflict before they have a chance to spread and escalate. As we have witnessed time and again, war rarely springs out of nowhere: it is the result of piecemeal deterioration. And yet, until now, EU deployments have tended to be reactive rather than preventative. Allocating more resources to preventative measures as part of a sustained strategy would not only resolve some of the political, economic and institutional obstacles associated with conflict intervention; it also offers an alternative approach at a time when Europe’s strategic environment is changing. As NATO prepares to wind down its military operations in Afghanistan, it will face what has been described as an ‘inflection point’: it must seek a new balance in the contributions made on both sides of the Atlantic at a time of heightened fiscal austerity. There is no escaping the fact that Europeans will have to do more – both individually and collectively – to tackle emerging challenges in the face of reduced defence budgets. If the Alliance is to maintain the essential capabilities it needs to implement its Strategic Concept – such as reconnaissance and surveillance assets, or strategic lift aircraft – multinational cooperation will be increasingly relied upon to provide them in the future. To this end, NATO’s Smart Defence Initiative – which is intended to complement, not compete with, the European Defence Agency (EDA) – has set the scene for closer and deeper collaboration on logistical support and equipment.

Lancaster House 2010 – a smart defence approach Across Europe, additional initiatives such as the bilateral British-Franco agreement are springing up in response to economic and political challenges. These have been viewed with some suspicion, with critics claiming that in bypassing the Lisbon Treaty’s vision of permanent structured cooperation, the emergence of so-called ‘islands of cooperation’ threaten to create a 2-tier Europe. However, they are a manifestation of the Smart Defence approach. As such they should be seen as a help rather than a hindrance to fashioning a forward strategy.

More concerted cooperation in defence The fact is that Britain and France need greater economies of scale to preserve certain capabilities in the current climate. If Europe’s top two militaries can save capabilities despite

Royal Marines from Alpha Company, 40 Commando brace themselves against the downdraft from an incoming Royal Air Force Chinook helicopter during Operation DAAS 7B in Afghanistan. Photo: Rhys O'Leary, defenceimagery.mod.uk, OGL v2.0

budget cuts, EU defence will have benefited. Moreover, these types of agreement encourage concerted cooperation in areas where achieving consensus among 28 member states is difficult. Indeed, an increasing number of countries are recognising the benefits of smaller military groupings as a means of bridging differences in national strategic cultures and procurement processes. These efforts should not be seen as isolated, mutually exclusive pursuits to dominate European defence at the other’s expense: on the contrary, developed in the right way, they could be the catalyst to a stronger and deeper panEuropean military zone that would create a more confident, open and effective defence partnership.

Fresh policies must drive Europe Looking beyond Afghanistan 2014, it’s clear that fresh policies must drive Europe’s thinking and planning in a changing security environment. Wider and more flexible European partnerships should be at the heart of a reinvigorated defence and security strategy. Multinational cooperation does not mean compromising national interests. It means setting clear and achievable priorities, pooling and sharing capabilities and coordinating efforts better. This will not be plain sailing. But if Europe is to secure its own neighbourhood, if it is to build on its achievements in Afghanistan and thwart future threats, it must rise to the challenge.

13


Common Foreign and Security Policy

Optimising the coordination and impact of national and international instruments

Security and development policy in the EU must go hand in hand by Dirk Niebel, Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development, Berlin

Many developing countries are hit by fragility and violence. Conflicts are fuelled by poverty, a dearth of opportunities, lack of freedom and the uncertainty of life. At the same time, the violent fighting in many countries has a devastating effect on prosperity and livelihoods, destroying all reasonable hopes for the future. Against this backdrop, security and peace pose a real challenge in countries affected by fragility and conflict, not only for foreign, security, economic and development policy but also for other policy areas, such as justice.

The answer to the challenges The answer to that challenge is the Comprehensive Approach, linking policies, ministries and actors in an attempt to optimise the coordination and impact of national and international instruments within international crisis management. It means coordinating both the civilian and the military resources of all relevant institutions, pooling them and/or employing them separately in order to reach a common goal of peace and security.

Linking CSDP missions with other EU instruments The EU is currently piloting the Comprehensive Approach in its mission to the Horn of Africa. Adopting the Strategic Framework for the Horn of Africa in 2011 and appointing an EU Special Representative in 2012 were important steps in the right direction. The EU’s involvement in the New Deal for

The German approach In 2012, Germany adopted the Comprehensive Approach in its guidelines “For a coherent German Government policy towards fragile states”, making it the principle underpinning all actions. This includes inter-ministerial cooperation, at least between the Federal Foreign Office, the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Federal Ministry of Defence when drawing up policies and strategies for specific crisis regions. Moreover, it is recommended that mixed Task Forces develop coordinated approaches for fragile countries and regions that go beyond the regular coordination between ministries. The guidelines are thus a sign of increased coherence within the German Government. The guidelines cite the European Union along with the United Nations as an important framework for international action by the German Government.

Dirk Niebel has been Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development in Berlin from 2008–2013. Since 23 September 2013 he has been acting Minister. He was born in 1963 in Hamburg. After his college entrance qualification in 1983 he spent one year in a Kibbutz in Israel, after which he spent 8 years in the Bundeswehr, leaving the forces as Photo: photothek.net an infantry airborne officer. He holds a Masters degree from the College of Public Administration in Mannheim (1993) and served in the Heidelberg Federal Employment Office until 1998. He joined the FDP (Liberal Party) and became a Member of the Bundestag in 1998, and later of the Federal Board of the FDP.

Somalia is another opportunity to improve coordination between the various fields of policy. By pledging 650 million euros at the Somalia Conference in Brussels in September 2013, the European Commission assumed a share of the responsibility for rebuilding Somalia that it will now have to honour by taking a coordinated approach. I therefore find it all the more important that, in the future, the various departments within the EU in charge of the CFSP and development policy make common cause from the outset. That would mean, for instance, that the officials responsible for EU development cooperation should be involved in drafting missions under the CFSP right from the beginning alongside the usual crisis response units. Networking between crisis response and development cooperation from the outset benefits both areas. For security structures, involving development cooperation can be a way of preparing a considered exit strategy.

Adapting financing instruments accordingly If brought on board early on, development players can help ensure that the outcomes of a crisis intervention mission lay the ground for the creation of permanent structures. Coordination can be facilitated if the EU adapts its financing instruments accordingly. So far, there has been a shortage of financing options that are tailored to explicitly security-related challenges, such as peace operations, counterterrorism or drug policy. For want of alternatives, such operations still depend on resources that are actually meant for purely development-related activities.

15


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Documentation The main requirements to be fulfilled So what are the main requirements that an EU Comprehensive Approach must fulfil for security and development policy to go hand in hand? An approach that is limited to diplomacy, defence and development would not stretch the EU to its full potential. To be truly effective, a Comprehensive Approach needs to be as broadly conceived as possible. The contributions by member states and EU institutions must be complemented by the broad involvement of the host nation and its civil society, in order to enable them to become self-reliant in terms of creating stability. Experience at the United Nations shows that adherence to the principle of subsidiarity can lead to better results. That means delegating a maximum of responsibility to local and regional decision-makers. Post-crisis periods are often the breeding ground for a new crisis. Mindful of such crisis cycles, the EU needs to move away from a reactive response, taking a proactive approach instead. It remains to be seen whether the European Union will succeed in putting the principle of the Comprehensive Approach into practice by both improving the internal coordination of EU activities and intensifying its political cooperation with external actors. In conclusion, I can say that being involved in fragile states is not easy, either for the Member States or the EU, and it is not without risk. But not getting involved is an even greater risk – first and foremost for the people in the countries concerned, but also for development, peace and security throughout the world.

The EU and the Sahel region In March 2011, the EU presented the EU Strategy for Security and Development in the Sahel, which supports a comprehensive approach to the region. The EU Strategy is based on the assumptions that development and security are mutually supportive and that the issues faced in the Sahel require a regional answer. It includes four lines of action: • development, good governance and internal conflict resolution; • political and diplomatic action; • security and the rule of law; • countering violent extremism and radicalisation. This Strategy has proven to be a crucial tool for enhancing the coherence of the EU approach and mobilising considerable additional European efforts, with a particular focus on Mauritania, Niger and Mali. Two ongoing CSDP missions in the Sahel region The civilian CSDP mission EUCAP SAHEL in Niger was launched in July 2012 with the objective of fighting terrorism and organised crime. With an annual budget of € 8.7 million, the mission relies on 50 international police and military experts. Liaison Officers are deployed in Bamako and Nouakchott in order to foster regional cooperation between the security forces of Niger, Mali and Mauritania in their combat against terrorism and organised crime. The EU military Training Mission in Mali (EUTM Mali) was launched on 18 February 2013 at the request of Mali and in line with the relevant international decisions, including UNSC Resolution 2085 (2012). The aim of the mission is to support the rebuilding of the Malian armed forces and to meet their operational needs. The headquarters of the mission is located in Bamako and the training is carried out at Koulikoro (60 km northeast of Bamako). More than 200 instructors have been deployed, as well as support staff and a protection force, making a total of around 550 persons. The joint costs of the operation are € 23 million for the mandate of 15 months. In both missions, particular attention is paid to exploiting synergies with other EU and bilateral projects funded through the European Development Fund, the European Commission Instrument for Stability or by EU Member States. Humanitarian aid The Commission's Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has so far allocated € 181 million to respond to the on-going food crisis in the Sahel countries (Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger) of which over € 54 million was used in Mali to help the victims of both the food crisis and the political crisis. The on-going emergency and the recurrent nature of the crisis in the Sahel call for both an immediate response to help the people in need and a long-term strategy to reduce the chronic risks of food security and strengthen people's resilience.

Without the help of NGOs not even food supplies would be guaranteed photo: FMSC, CC BY 2.0, flickr in many areas of the world

16

Source: EEAS, Factsheet “The European Union and the Sahel”, 4 November 2013


Common Foreign and Security Policy

The European Union must give a signal to the world

A design for a European Human Security Strategy by Dr Ana Isabel Xavier, Assistant Professor, Coimbra

Human Security (HS) in the form of a philosophy or code of moral conduct has not yet been academically mainstreamed and some sceptics see it as a concept that nourishes the philosophical debate on codes of moral conduct. So is it likely that the EU will adopt the Human Security “umbrella” as a foreign policy tool and is this desirable?

Searching for concepts Ten years after being proclaimed and approved by the Brussels European Council, Javier Solana’s European Security Strategy (ESS) is still quoted as a landmark, as it acknowledges poverty, disease and ignorance as the root causes of insecurity, leading in turn to terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, failed states and organised crime. Notwithstanding the emphasis on preventive intervention and the importance of multilateralism, the ESS does not clearly address Human Security (HS) or explain how the European institutions can implement the ESS in order to explore all possibilities for a European HS Strategy. Moreover, due to the lack of any initiative on the part of the Member States or EU Institutions to embody HS as a strategic concept for the European Union in a post-9/11 scenario, in 2008 Solana recommended a “Report on the implementation of the European Security Strategy - Providing Security in a Changing World”, in which HS is mentioned twice. On the other hand, the Barcelona (2004) and Madrid (2007) Reports prepared by 13 European researchers led by LSE Professor Mary Kaldor were never officially adopted, either by the European institutions or by the Member States. However, this does not diminish the fact that these reports present a detailed study of the operational capacities for European security, drawing a parallel between the principles and levels of action and ongoing EU crisis-management missions and operations in the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Ten years after Solana’s ESS we must, then, insist on the need to come up with a European Human Security Strategy, defining a “checklist” for multilateral implementation.

A Human Security “catalogue” for action Five interdependent elements may encourage the Member States to agree on a HS catalogue for ESDP missions and operations. The first element can be defined as a holistic approach, both top-down and bottom-up, empowering a network of commit-

Dr Ana Isabel Xavier is an Assistant Professor and a Post Doctoral researcher in International Relations and Political Science. She holds a PhD in International Relations from the University of Coimbra, Portugal, with a thesis entitled “The European Union and Human Security: a crisis management global player in search of a strategic culture?” Photo: private She is a member of the European Commission’s Team Europe, developing training activities on European Studies, Human Rights, Non-Formal Education and Citizenship. She is frequently invited by civilian and military institutions for lectures, as well as by the Portuguese media to comment on European current events, and is a member of the Portuguese Political Science Association (APCP), Portuguese Security Studies Network and the Observatory for Human Security (OSH).

ments at all levels amongst Ministries, Offices and local organisations. HS focuses on the development, empowerment and autonomy of local populations, taking into account their particular conditions and realities. This perspective allows them to become agents for their own change, denying a “one model fits all” solution. The second element relates to the fight against the roots of structural violence. In this element, the assumption is that we must understand the conflict – its causes, dynamics, motivations and impacts – and comprehensively analyse conflicts from prevention to reconstruction, from early warning mechanisms to post-conflict building. A third element leads us to a preference for multilateralism and local/regional coordination based upon two assumptions: firstly, effective multilateralism, which legitimises intervention by the international community; and secondly, the need for coordination with regional and local actors, both because global threats are best solved at local level and because current conflicts are, and will remain for the foreseeable future, mostly intra and inter-border, and not between states. Therefore, to avoid a domino or spillover effect, effective coordination between global, regional and local actors and instruments is essential for the successful resolution of a given conflict. A fourth point essential for ensuring that state building strengthens the mechanisms needed for the state apparatus to govern consists of creating the conditions for a state not to produce uncertainty, violate human rights or deny good governance and the rule of law.

17


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Lampedusa: the journey towards a better future ends in tragedy Source: noborder network, CC BY 2.0, flickr

The fifth and final element is strategic joint coordination between civilian and military means of action, in which the goal should be to protect civilians and not to defeat the enemy. In other words, the primary focus should not be on military victory, on winning the war at all costs, but on winning peace and avoiding collateral damage. This leads us to the positive concept of peace as first argued by Johan Galtung in the 1990’s.

the global stage and to act as a community of norms and values working for stability and cooperation in many parts of the world. Moreover, if we read the conclusions of the Madrid Report carefully, the European Union seems to be moving towards a modified version of the broad interpretation of human security (one that involves both the development and crisis-management aspects, which reinforces the nexus debate between security and development). However, if the EU wants to be a global strategic player, it has a long way to go in order to avoid double standards and dissenting voices that call into question the EU’s cohesion, both internally and externally. Indeed, the EU frequently does not seem to practice what it preaches and in several EU crisis-management laboratories we find inconsistencies, negative externalities and a leaning towards an “our size fits all” model. In particular, some of the case studies highlighted by the Madrid Report show the other side of the coin: a tendency to prioritise state security over human security; securitisation of development and economic growth; systemic contradiction between theory and practice; domino effect on the neighbourhood; tension between the global and regional powers; difficulties with formulating policies and objectives for achieving freedom from fear and freedom from want; lack of political will and of a long-term perspective.

Benefits of a Human Security Strategy Having listed those five elements, we should note that the implementation of a narrative based on a HS doctrine as highlighted in the abovementioned Madrid and Barcelona Reports brings with it major advantages for the purposes of this discussion. The first is that a HS doctrine strengthens the principles of respect for human rights and the promotion of democracy and of regional or global multilateral institutions (such as the European Court of Human Rights) that give individuals direct access to justice. Similarly, it can also strengthen the rules and procedures for protecting civilians in situations of crisis or violent conflict, bringing all aspects – political, military, humanitarian and development – comprehensively under the same “umbrella”. Furthermore, it pays special attention to post-conflict scenarios, where peace and ceasefire agreements do not necessarily mean the arrival of peace and hence of Human Security.

The EU as a strategic actor? The EU is already perceived as a global player concerned with issues of peace and security, as a security provider and normative power. It is recognised as a successful model for conflict transformation by regional integration, engaged in regional conflicts worldwide, especially in Africa, with its strong efforts to strengthen the security apparatus. With its civilian and military crisis-management instruments and peace-oriented policies (including peace building, conflict resolution, development aid, assistance programmes and a neighbourhood policy), the EU seems to have the ability to be a strategic actor on

18

What next? The next step, therefore, is clear: creating the political will to embody a Human Security Strategy reflecting the common ground among the 28 Member States’ strategic cultures in the area of security and defence. The primary objective of the EU has not been to establish HS but rather democracy and especially stability. And the main goal of a crisis-management mission is to stabilise and maintain security, not to change the status quo as such; advice, monitoring, “making suggestions” on how to respect rights form part of the mission mandates, but not imposing changes to constitutions or people’s mindsets. So we are not there yet, given that so far there has been no such thing as a Human Security mission. There are elements of Human Security in all CSDP missions, but that does not make it a Human Security mission as such and the CSDP does not embrace a human narrative. To do so, it must cover all stages of the conflict cycle (crisis prevention, intervention and postcrisis rehabilitation) and must be always followed up by a civilian mission covering the broad spectrum of functions and tasks required. Of course, to some extent, the EU is already engaged in Human Security and, for some countries, enlargement is the ideal instrument, because it really affects the essence of institutions and people’s empowerment. But is this enough to be labelled as Human Security? Is it likely to address the issue of the EU as a “smart power” (as envisaged by Joseph Nye) within a Human Security approach? Questions that surely will remain open to discussion.


Common Foreign and Security Policy

No sign of anything that could be called a “European defence” on the horizon

The future of Europe’s Defence Industry Interview with Dr Thomas Enders, CEO, EADS, Toulouse The European: Dr Enders, you have been CEO of EADS since 2012. Your company is about to be reorganised under the name of Airbus. What is the reason for this? Tom Enders: Firstly, around 85 percent of our business is aeronautics, roughly 70 percent of our revenues come from Airbus alone; Secondly, more than 90 percent of our backlog comes from Airbus commercial aircraft. Thirdly, 80 percent of our overall sales is commercial, defence represents only about 20 percent of what we do – and it has little chance of increasing as government budgets are flat at best. Finally, we must significantly increase our financial performance to continue investing in growth and innovation and to meet our shareholders’ expectations for returns. From these findings it was only a small step to our main conclusions: we need to integrate and restructure our defence business, which today is scattered over all four Divisions, and the space business. And we need to give the company and its divisions the best brand available in order to succeed on global markets. Only the Airbus brand can do that trick. The European: So the outcome of your strategic review was that you wish to maintain your defence sector in the hope of better times to come, but that for the moment it will have to lean for support on other business units. What would it take for your defence branch to start seeing the light at the end of the tunnel?

The A400M landing on a non-paved runway.

“After decades of talk, there is still no sign of anything that could be called a ‘European defence’ on the horizon” Dr Thomas Enders

Tom Enders: Yes, we want to stay in defence and space. And what we are doing is clear evidence of this. We are creating a new Division with Airbus Defence and Space, which currently generates revenues of 14 billion euros and which employs some 45 000 people. To put it into perspective: we own the largest defence business in Europe. But, clearly, in the current business environment, we cannot sit idle. We’re consolidating in order to reduce costs, increase profitability and have better leverage and competitiveness on the international markets. Our European markets will remain important but we will reduce our dependence on them. The European: I don’t see any new flagship project forthcoming, unless the EU, above and beyond drawing up the theoretical documents, were to provide some real impetus, for example by launching a comprehensive strategic programme for an EU-

photo: © AIRBUS S.A.S. 2013, by exm company / A. DOUMENJOU

19


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

owned and operated system of UAS with HALE and MALE. Do you think the EU is ready for such a programme, given that it would lack the necessary structures? And would that be a solution? Tom Enders: I do not see a flagship project on the horizon either – and thus we have to adapt. As for UAVs, I think industry made the case earlier this year at the Paris Air Show, saying that we are ready to cooperate if European governments are serious about launching such programmes. Serious means backed by adequate funding and, probably just as importantly, harmonised requirements and certification procedures. The European: What could be done to resolve the problem of fragmentation? Many efforts have been made over the years to get a grip on the European defence market, but without much success so far. Could the Commission’s recently published Communication “Towards a more competitive and efficient defence and security sector” show the way ahead? Tom Enders: In industry, we are taking action time and again in order to become more competitive and efficient. I don’t necessarily see that on the political level, though. I am not a politician, which is why I am in no position to tell decisionmakers what to do. But as a manager I don’t see how our national defence procurement policies can sustain the industrial base in the long run. With all due respect, maybe we need fewer reports and finally more concrete steps to harmonise defence procurement policies EU-wide. After decades of talk, there is still no sign of anything that could be called a “European defence” on the horizon. On the contrary: I think governments, today, are further apart on foreign, defence and security policy than ever before during the last 20 years. And this comes at a time when none of the European nations have enough means to sustain national foreign, defence and security policies that can be taken seriously on a global level.

Dr Thomas Enders has been CEO, EADS Toulouse, since 2012. He was born in 1958 in Neuschlade, Germany. He studied Economics, Political Science and History at the Universities of Bonn and Los Angeles (UCLA). He earned his PhD 1987. Enders is a Reserve Officer (Major) of the German Bundeswehr. From 1989 to 1991 he was member of the MOD Bonn Planning Staff and joined MBB/Dasa. After the creation of EADS he was appointed CEO of the EADS Defence and Security Division, was nominated Co-CEO of EADS in 2005 and CEO Airbus in 2009, Toulouse.

The European: Do you see any danger of Europe losing technological leadership in the field of security and defence, and if so what might be the consequences for the Common Security and Defence Policy? Tom Enders: Absolutely. We spoke about UAVs earlier. Here, I see us 10 or 15 years behind the US and Israel. Roughly 40 percent of the flying inventory of the US military today already consists of UAVs. If I look to Europe my guess is that the number of UAVs employed by our armed forces is in the single-digit range. That is a pivotal technology sector where we are trailing significantly behind our allies and are on the brink of losing track indefinitely. The European: You tried to merge BAE and EADS, but the nations were not able to share your vision. Do you think that a new Commission might one day be able to organise a restructuring of this sector, or should this be left up to market forces and to the initiatives of far-sighted industry leaders? Tom Enders: The attempt to combine the businesses of EADS and BAE was a decision which I and my counterpart at BAE, Ian King, took. We saw it as an opportunity, not a necessity. A unique window of opportunity had opened last year and it was worth trying. But for such a big operation to succeed, all

Dr Thomas Enders with Hartmut Bühl in the A400M plant in Seville on 30 Septemphoto: Credit - Jürgen C. Rosenthal, Bonn ber 2013

20


Common Foreign and Security Policy

stars have to be aligned and that unfortunately wasn’t the case last year. So consequently Ian King and I pulled the plug on the project. The political objections that made us stop the merger were of very parochial nature, especially in Berlin. That certainly does not bode well for future European projects. The European: You referred to the importance of technology research. The Lisbon Treaty opts clearly in favour of incorporating military defence into EU-funded research. But I see a lot of hesitation in the European Parliament and the Commission. Does the defence industry really want and need access to such research programmes? Tom Enders: Yes, state-of-the-art technology and innovation are what keeps you ahead of your competitors. I don’t want to judge whether military defence has to be part of EU-funded research. That is a political decision. However, one thing’s for sure: European governments will have to fund R&T and R&D if they want to launch new future-oriented defence programmes and preserve a healthy, competitive industrial base. Slogans like “smart defence” are not helpful in this respect. They obscure the reality and provide a smokescreen behind which European investment in defence is further curtailed. The European: Let us talk for a moment about the role of the European Defence Agency (EDA), created as an enabler for cooperation and a creator of capabilities. What view does the industry take of this instrument that is not being sufficiently funded by the nations and how could EDA become more efficient? Tom Enders: The creation of the European Defence Agency is nothing but window-dressing as long as it doesn’t have the necessary mandate. In theory, it could be a game-changer in terms of harmonising European defence procurement policies. But as you rightly say, to date it has been given neither a powerful mandate nor the appropriate funds. That means the European Defence Agency does not come anywhere close to fulfilling its original promise. And, frankly, I don’t see that changing anytime soon. The European: The Heads of State and Government will be meeting in December. Do you believe that this will give fresh impetus to the CSDP and the industry? What hopes do you have of this summit? Tom Enders: I would hope so but won’t bet on it. And this is not my main concern. At EADS, we are undertaking the necessary steps to restructure our defence and space activities to the best extent possible in order to address the challenging situation on the home markets and to increase our international business outside Europe. That is what counts for me! The European: Tom Enders, thank you for this interview.

Delivery of the first A400M (Edit/hb) On 30 September 2013 a ceremony was held at the Airbus production site in Seville, Spain, to mark the handover of the first A400M military transport aircraft to the French Air Force. The next two in this series of 174 aircraft are scheduled for delivery to Turkey in October. The CEO of Airbus Military, Domingo Urena Rasu, made a moving speech in the presence of the Spanish Crown Prince, commending his co-workers on this achievement: “(…) We celebrate what Europe is able to achieve when getting its act together (….). It has been a bit of a bumpy road at times, but with the new agreement signed in 2009, we have made the necessary steps to secure the future for this magnificent aircraft. (…) We celebrate that the A400M is reporting for duty: the best that Airbus can offer based on the Airbus civil and military experience and what will be THE reference in airlift capability for the next decades to come (…)” The handover of the first aircraft, 10 years after the signing of the contract for this seven-NATO nation flagship project managed by OCCAR, brings to fruition an endeavour that several times nearly foundered due to technological and financial challenges. EADS CEO Dr Thomas Enders alluded in his speech to how close a call it was for this aircraft, now the most modern in its category worldwide being delivered to seven NATO countries at the rate of two per month.

Domingo Urena Rasu during his speech Source: airbus Military

Spanish Crown Prince Philippe, with reference to the efforts that some nations must make in order to remain true to this project and to Europe, said he hoped that the European spirit that made it possible to build the A400M would prevail. The purchase of this aircraft in times of financial uncertainty will burden the buyers’ budgets into the late 2020s, with consequences for the procurement of other of equipment. An exciting question is how the A400M will perform on export markets: doubtless it holds many positive surprises in store.

21


There seems to be a lack of will, not only among the political leaders of the EU Member States, but also within the European institutions, to make progress on the Common Security and Defence Policy. With Member States focusing all their energy on their own domestic problems - the economic and financial crisis in particular - there is clearly little room left for broader strategic thinking.

A Position Paper entitled “Towards a stronger Union defence policy”

Make the 2013 Defence Summit a success! from Arnaud Danjean MEP (France), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE), Michael Gahler MEP (Germany), EPP Group Coordinator in SEDE and European Parliament Rapporteur on defence industrial policy, Krzysztof Lisek MEP (Poland), Vice-Chairman of SEDE, Brussels/Strasbourg When the European Council meets on 19-20 December 2013, it will be the first time since 2008 that European defence policy is given top priority. Since that time, the European situation has developed into a very challenging one: Europe has 19 types of armoured infantry fighting vehicles and 14 types of battle tanks, compared to only one of each in the US, and the member states are forced to cut deficit spending. The US focus is shifting to Asia and the EU needs to address a rising number of old threats and new risks. With all this in mind, the heads of

The CSDP is no laughing matter – grave issues at stake

22

state and government must take the necessary decisions on establishing the stronger Union defence policy that we called for in our joint policy paper entitled “Towards a stronger Union defence policy”, issued on 3 September 2013. We called for: • regular formal Council meetings on defence; • the activation of the new provisions of the Lisbon Treaty in the field of security and defence; • the setting up of a permanent EU headquarters for civilian and military missions;

photo:Gerrit Schlomach, Brussels

photo: U.S. Army, CC BY 2.0, Flickr

The Common Security and Defence Policy


The Common Security and Defence Policy

Documentation A European Parliament view (Edit/ak) In October 2013, the European Parliament (EP) Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET) adopted the report appraising the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy, based on the Annual Report on the Common Foreign and Security Policy from the Council to the EP (cp. page 8). The report looks at the possibilities for a more effective and visible use of the various instruments at hand in order to increase the impact of the CSDP. High hopes are expressed regarding the December Summit on Defence, where it is hoped that the importance of the topic in all its facets will be recognised and the full potential of the CSDP unleashed. Increase the effectiveness, visibility and impact of the CSDP The Parliament “Notes that the Lisbon Treaty introduced several new instruments in the area of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) which have not yet been put into practice; […] stresses that the main asset of the European Union is the availability of various policies and instruments, combined through the ‘comprehensive approach’, and that it is possible to achieve better results at all levels by better integrating the CSDP into this approach; and expects the further integration of the CSDP to be analysed thoroughly in the upcoming joint Communication by the VP/HR and the Commission on the implementation of the comprehensive approach; […]” Crisis management “Points to the need to ensure that the EU is in a position to contribute, by means of crisis management operations, to conflict prevention, stabilisation and resolution; […] notes with concern that the number and timeliness of CSDP missions and operations, and the development of civilian and especially military means and capabilities for the CSDP, fall short of what is required, given the EU’s increasingly insecure and unstable neighbourhood; […] emphasises the need to enhance the visibility of European crisis management and to place all efforts under the CSDP; […] expresses its concern, that the comprehensive approach to crisis management has not yet reached its full potential; […] Need for EU headquarters and standing forces “Highlights the fact that successful military operations require a clear command and control function; reiterates therefore its call for the

• a comprehensive defence review to provide an overview of national defence capabilities projects and an EU White Paper defining the EU’s security and defence priorities; • the provision of more and better adapted civilian and military personnel and capabilities in the service of CSDP missions; • the construction of a solid European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) as • the basis for a well-functioning European Defence Equipment Market (EDEM). We see as a consequence the need for a complete overhaul of the current security policy in order to bring Europe’s security and defence policy into the 21st century. We need to make sure that the EU is equipped for the international challenges it

establishment of a permanent military operational headquarters; notes with regret the lack of progress on this issue and the strong resistance by some Member States; stresses further that an effective CSDP requires adequate early warning and intelligence support; is convinced that the EU should dispose of high-readiness standing battle forces, with land, air, naval, cyber and special Maria Eleni Koppa MEP forces components and a high level of Photo: © Office M.E. Koppa, EP ambition; […] highlights the fact that greater efforts should be made to integrate at EU level initiatives such as the Eurocorps and the European Air Group; […]” New important policy fields “Stresses the need to develop an EU maritime foreign policy which aims at protecting and preserving critical infrastructure, open sea routes and natural resources and puts an emphasis on the peaceful resolution of conflicts […]; requests that the European Council reconfirms the importance of space, which underpins the strategic autonomy of the EU and its Member States and the potential to gain autonomous access to space by developing launchers and satellites […], reiterates the growing importance of tackling cyber security threats; invites the European Council to develop guidelines for the implementation of the EU Cyber Security Strategy and to take concrete measures regarding the protection of cyber infrastructure […]; underscores the importance of energy efficiency in the field of defence […], Strengthen Europe’s defence industry “Fully supports the Commission’s efforts to deepen the internal defence and security market and to develop a defence industrial policy, providing adequate support for SMEs […]; stresses that a solid European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) which is able to sustain CSDP and further enhance Europe’s military capabilities, whilst preserving the EU’s strategic autonomy, is crucial for an effective European defence; highlights the link between research, industry and capability development […]” > Full report: http://tinyurl.com/mmtbjaj

faces despite the uncoordinated budget cuts we have seen at national level. We are aiming for a Union that is in a position to deploy military power and to uphold and enforce its interests and values. There is a need to deepen the EU’s security and defence cooperation, which will help slash procurement costs and allow the EU to react faster to international crises. This also means conducting a security and defence policy that is cheaper for the taxpayer and at the same time more efficient. Finally, our position paper represents an important parliamentary contribution to the debate on the future of the EU’s security and defence policy. It is now up to the heads of state and government to implement these demands and make the European Council summit in December a success. www.arc.eppgroup.eu/text/130903_position_paper.pdf

23


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

“I don’t think this European Council should be about philosophy.” photo:© EDA

Europe needs collectively to raise its game in terms of critical capabilities

EU Summit 2013 – Capabilities for today and tomorrow Interview with Claude-France Arnould, CEO European Defence Agency (EDA), Brussels Mrs Claude-France Arnould, Chief Executive Officer, European Defence Agency, Brussels, answers Editor-in-Chief Hartmut Bühl’s questions about the expected outcome of the EU Summit on defence issues to be held in December 2013. The European: Mrs Arnould, the upcoming Defence Summit raises hopes for European defence. What are the expectations from the EDA perspective? Claude-France Arnould: The discussion among the Heads of State and Government at the forthcoming European Council is of the utmost importance for European defence. We need recognition at the highest political level that defence, considering the diversity of threats and challenges, is a priority. In view of today’s constrained financial situation, this effort for defence must be fully efficient, which implies cooperation and searching for synergies. Clearly, we cannot do “more with less”. The European: What are the desired outcomes? Claude-France Arnould: The following three outcomes from the European Council in December would be significant. First and foremost: capabilities for today and tomorrow. This

24

entails a commitment to major projects to address the capability shortfalls that have again been identified in recent operations. Our American partners have stated clearly that we cannot continue to count on them to provide the bulk of these key enabling capabilities. The second is investment in innovation and technology, including dual-use. To retain its strategic autonomy Europe needs to reduce its dependence when it comes to critical technologies. And third, support to industry. But let us be clear: it is not about subsidies. Everybody wants a competitive industry and fair market conditions. It is about concrete programmes, contracts with clear commitments and deadlines. Only on the basis of such perspectives can our defence actors invest in R&T. If they don’t, we Europeans could lose our technology know-how and reach a point of no return. The European: What preparatory work has the EDA done in this regard? Claude-France Arnould: We have prepared very concrete proposals in the areas of Air-to-Air Refuelling, Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, Satellite Communications and Cyber


The Common Security and Defence Policy

Documentation European Parliament report on the EDTIB (Edit/nc) In October 2013, the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) adopted the report by Michael GAHLER (EPP, DE) on the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), in response to the Commission Communication entitled “Towards a more competitive and efficient defence and security sector” published in July 2013. The report recalls that an operational Common Security and Defence Policy needs a strong European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB). Concerned about the reductions in defence investment, MEPs urge the Member States to reinforce European industrial cooperation with a view to ensuring, as far as possible, strategic autonomy by developing and producing efficient military and security capabilities using the most advanced technologies. The report also highlights the need to support CSDP missions through European research and development, and to maintain the excellence of this technologically innovative and efficient industry in order to ensure the technological independence of the European Union. Furthermore, the report points to the need for greater cooperation and exchange of know-how among Member States, on the one hand, and between the European Union and its key partners, on the other. MEPs underline the need for the safety and security of infrastructure and technology as well as the need to develop European ICT and cyber-security standards and to integrate them into international standards. The Commission is urged to step up efforts to build a level playing field in the defence market, limiting the use of market-distorting practices to the strict minimum of duly justified derogations. > Report: http://tinyurl.com/ode8q3c

Defence. These proposals have been included in the report for the European Council from the High Representative and Head of the Agency Catherine Ashton to President Van Rompuy. And we are presenting them to the Ministers of Defence at their November Steering Board meeting.

Claude-France Arnould: There is agreement that the current fragmentation of demand is not sustainable. Cooperative programmes as suggested by the EDA will not only help to fill capability gaps, they will also reinvigorate European industry – again on the basis of competitiveness. Industry is ready to work together: think of the call from Cassidian, Dassault Aviation and Finmeccanica in June this year to launch a common European programme for Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems. The European: The Summit might fail, or might achieve only minimum progress on the basis of the lowest common denominator. Would your advice be to create a new CSDP that avoids the mistakes of the past? Claude-France Arnould: I don’t think this European Council should be about philosophy. It has been less a matter of “mistakes” than a lack of action to follow up commitments. Nevertheless, why do we ignore the fact that since 2003 the EU has concluded significant and successful peace missions and operations contributing to stabilisation and security, in particular in the Balkans, in Georgia, against piracy in the Indian Ocean etc. The European Defence Agency was able to facilitate a number of important cooperation projects. It has made huge strides and continues to develop. What is clear, however, is that, for CSDP to continue to be a success in the future, Europe needs collectively to raise its game in terms of critical capabilities. The only way to do this is through cooperation, because Member States fully recognise that they can no longer afford the luxury of going it alone. Cooperation in defence is not necessarily a natural reflex. But we are on the right track. And with a positive push from the European Council and regular monitoring of key issues at this level, I am confident that, together, we will succeed. The European: Mrs Arnould, thank you for this interview.

The European: These are the main issues, but I believe you have other subjects of importance to present? Claude-France Arnould: We also recommend supporting research and innovation through the prioritisation of critical defence technologies and greater synergies with existing EU instruments. Another important topic we have put forward is the harmonisation of certification of military equipment, in particular, but not exclusively, aircraft, including Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS). This will increase operational interoperability, speed up the delivery of military products and significantly reduce costs. The European: The issues of Pooling & Sharing of capabilities and reducing the fragmentation of the defence market have been at the top of the agenda these past 12 months. In which areas are you expecting a breakthrough?

Counter-IED

photo:© Austrian Armed Forces

25


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Dancing to different tunes

France, Britain and the Common Security and Defence Policy by David Chuter, Chair of International Security Information Service (ISIS) Europe, Brussels

Effective International organisations generally follow one of two models. Either there is a state, or states, able to impose their will on the rest, or there is a powerful common interest among all states that drives cooperation. Europe once had both of these: arguably it now has neither.

No commonality in security and defence Although a façade of neoliberal ideological unity still holds European economic policy largely together, there has never been even superficial commonality in the areas of defence and security. The result has therefore been a series of lowest common denominator missions, which nations agreed to for reasons that were often different, and sometimes opposed to each other. The essence of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) problem can be summarised simply enough: any serious European defence capability has to be built in the first instance around the forces of Britain and France. The capabilities of other countries are clearly important in some cases, although the practical defence value of many of the smaller EU states is very limited. But even if these two states cooperate successfully at the tactical level, and have certain wider inter-

David Chuter has been an independent lecturer, author, translator and consultant since his retirement in 2008. He was born in 1952, and educated at London University, where he took a BA and a PhD. He worked for the UK Ministry of Defence from 1976 to 2008, mainly on politico-military issues, including three and a half years on secondment as Special Adviser to the Policy Director of the French Ministry of Defence in Paris. Dr Chuter had a parallel academic career as a Research Fellow at the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College and at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). He is the author of four books and numerous articles on defence and security subjects www.davidchuter.com, and davidchuter.wordpress.com

ests in common, such as limiting the spread of nuclear capability, their strategic aims have been opposed for decades, and, if anything, they are drifting further apart.

Why the difference?

Since the 1940s, British security policy has more and more been concentrated around influencing the United States. In the days when Britain had a worldwide empire, a network of military bases, large armed forces and an independent defence industry, this policy made more sense and was easier to implement. Now, all of these assets have disappeared, and the British have only memories, and an increasingly small and dysfunctional defence structure, to work with. Instead of an asset, the US link has turned into a curse: Britain’s entire strategic position is dependent upon American favour, which could be withdrawn at any moment. As a result, Britain’s strategic posture is defensive and backward looking. The post-1945 dispensation, which they helped to create, suited the British well, and they still want to keep as much of it as possible. Since the 1940s, the French have pursued a policy based on independence, first at national and then at European level. Without even the theoretical possibility of cultivating the same kind of relationship with the US as the British The 2010 Lancaster House Treaty was signed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and have, they have instead tried to pursue the British Prime Minister David Cameron in London’s Lancaster House Source: license-public domaine / wikipedia.de development of independent capabilities for

26


The Common Security and Defence Policy

The reality is that any form of security cooperation beyond a superficial level is only possible when there is a shared sense of fundamental strategic interest between those involved. David Chuter

themselves and for Europe. This has not prevented a reasonably close, if discreet relationship with the US, but of an entirely different kind, based on simple mutual self-interest. The problem for the French - and by extension Europe – is that a capability for Europe to act seriously in the defence field requires reconciliation between these two diametrically opposed policies. The British see the CSDP as a potential trap into which they will fall unless they are careful, and a structure which cannot begin to substitute for even the reduced influence they have with the United States and NATO. The French see CSDP as the future, but they are entirely dependent for its success on the cooperation of the country in Europe they believe they can trust the least, and which they believe is, in the last analysis, not a genuinely independent actor, but a fief of the United States. For twenty years, therefore, European efforts towards common defence and security have depended largely upon an ungainly and laborious compromise between the most the British are prepared to concede, and the least the French are prepared to accept.

last hundred years, nor regular political initiatives to deepen that cooperation – most recently the Lancaster House agreement of 2010. At this pragmatic level, cooperation can be easy and effective, but as soon as strategic issues arise, things become much more difficult. There is no reason to believe that this latest initiative will be any more successful than the others, unless and until some underlying strategic change takes place on the British side. But this is unlikely.

No win-win position in sight A closer relationship with France and Europe cannot, even in principle, substitute for the strategic technological advantages the British think they would lose, even if twenty years ago it might have done. For the British, clinging to what they have represents the least bad of a series of unattractive options. If there are pragmatic similarities that should impel the two countries to cooperate, there are equally fundamental strategic differences that will prevent this in practice. It looks as though the eternal dance of attraction and repulsion will continue for the foreseeable future, greatly slowing, if not actually preventing, serious defence and security cooperation developing at the European level.

Documentation The Lancaster House Treaties

Can the problems be overcome ... at all? In theory, it should be possible to overcome this problem. After all, it is argued, the two countries have a long history in common, they are both nuclear powers and permanent members of the Security Council, and are both former imperial powers with links to Africa. Moreover, both have capable armed forces and public opinions ready to accept overseas deployments. All of this is true, but in practice most of it is superficial. And even the apparent surface similarities can conceal great practical differences. Thus, the origins, nature and afterlife of the French presence in Africa, as well as the origin and purpose of the French nuclear programme, are entirely different from their British equivalents. The reality is that any form of security cooperation beyond a superficial level is only possible when there is a shared sense of fundamental strategic interest between those involved. It is the lack of this shared sense that has made attempted cooperation between the two countries such an exasperating process for those who have been engaged in it. This has not prevented pragmatic cooperation on all sorts of security issues over the

(Edit/ak) The Lancaster House Treaties are the results of the UKFrance Defence Summit in 2010. The two declarations on defence and security co-operation and on joint radiographic/ hydrodynamics facilities were signed by President Nicolas Sarkozy and Prime Minister David Cameron on 2 November 2010 at the Lancaster House in London. The agreements were ratified by the two national Parliaments and were further and amended at the Franco-British Summit in February 2012 at the Annual Conference of the Franco-British Council in May 2013. “We have decided […] to develop co-operation between our Armed Forces, the sharing and pooling of materials and equipment including through mutual interdependence, the building of joint facilities, mutual access to each other’s defence markets, and industrial and technological co-operation; […] and to develop a Combined Joint Expeditionary Force suitable for a wide range of scenarios, up to and including high intensity operations. It will not involve standing forces but will be available at notice for bilateral, NATO, European Union, United Nations or other operations. We have instructed the Senior Level Group, which will be set up under the terms of the new Treaty for Defence and Security Co-operation, to oversee work in all of these areas and report back to us […].” > UK-France Summit 2010 Declaration: http://tinyurl.com/oekcw7n

27


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

CONFERENCE REPORT

The 5th Young Europeans EuroDefense Conference 2013 Report from Toledo by Johanna Elisabet Schrier and Adriana van de Laar From 14-20 July, a selected group of 80 ambitious and talented young Europeans gathered at the Spanish Infantry Academy in Toledo for the 5th Young Europeans EuroDefense Conference, organised by the EuroDefense Associations of Portugal and Spain. Six delegations composed of graduate students, junior military officers and young professionals from Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain spent a week in this historic venue exchanging ideas on “The Defence of Europe: Past, Present and Future”. The week’s activities included lectures and excursions, working group sessions and discussions late into the summer night. Specific themes were debated in working groups and position papers proposing practical solutions for the most pressing issues put forward. The academics, diplomats and retired and active generals and general staff officers from the different member states were highly competent discussion partners for us young Europeans. The organisation was perfect, but the conference venue should not be confused with Toledo’s Alcázar, renowned in the 19th and 20th centuries as a military academy. After World War II,

Conference Reports the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco ordered the construction of a new infantry academy just across the river, overlooking the city and the Alcázar. Some architectural elements of the Academy clearly reveal this history, most notably the stained glass ceiling in the main dining hall, depicting the Spanish national arms during Franco’s reign. This image triggered lively discussions on how a country should deal with its past, but also about Europe’s evolution after a long history of belligerence.

Shaping the future of Europe Europeans share a history and traditions dating back to the Roman Empire, but modern European history has been marked by armed conflict. Only since the end of the Second World War have no wars in the traditional sense been fought on European soil, allowing a safe and prosperous Europe to launch the process of integration: the result is the EU, nowa-

Johanna Elisabet Schrier is a consultant at IB Consultancy in Brussels focusing on CBRNe, European Security and Defence Policies. She has been involved in a variety of projects, including a number of studies commissioned by the European Commission and the European Defence Agency. She was born in 1984 and obtained Photo: private her Bachelor’s degree in History (2005) and Bachelor’s in Political Science (2008) at Leiden University, the Netherlands. In 2009 she completed her Masters in International Relations at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. After her studies she was awarded a scholarship for a Post Master’s Course on Dutch Foreign Affairs at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations.

28

days often referred to as a “soft power” in the global theatre. However, the success of this European project raises questions about the future steps in the integration process. A number of conference participants were strong advocates of a multi-speed Europe: indeed, a number of major achievements in the field of integration are the de facto products of such an approach, most notably: - the Schengen Treaty, which was even signed outside the framework of the European Treaties; - the European Defence Agency (EDA), in which Denmark is not a participant; -and the Eurozone, with only 17 participating Member States. Other delegates stressed the importance of a closer Union, moving forward together only when all Member States (MS) unanimously agree on the speed of integration and the next steps in the process. History teaches us that variable geometry allows major strides towards integration, while unanimity in a Union composed currently of 28 EU Member States (MS) appears to be becoming increasingly less feasible.

Adriana van de Laar is a legal assistant focusing on privacy law at a leading Benelux law firm in Amsterdam. She was born in November 1986 and has obtained a Bachelor of Political Sciences (2005) at the Science Po Bordeaux, a Bachelor of Law (2012), a Master of European Studies (2012) and a Master of AdminPhoto: private istrative and Constitutional Law (2013) at Leiden University. Prior to her current position, Ms van de Laar was an international policy officer at the Dutch Data Protection Authority, The Hague/Brussels working at the secretariat of the Chair of the Article 29 Working Party and as an editor for the quarterly magazine of the JASON Institute, The Hague.


The Common Security and Defence Policy

The view over the old town of Toledo with the Alcazar from the infantry academy housing the congress.

The present developments It was, however, generally agreed that multiple speeds should not become the norm and that unanimity and inclusiveness should remain the guiding principles for the integration process. The debate was overshadowed by two pressing developments in the area of defence. The first is the EU-wide trend towards shrinking defence budgets, with irrevocable consequences for the defence capabilities of individual EUMS and the military clout of the EU as a whole. The second is the declining public support for the military in general, and for military operations outside the EU in particular, which also has an impact on the mandates of military personnel in the field. During the round table on “EU military missions”, five military officers shared their recent experiences of EU operations and missions. Lieutenant Colonel Alfonso Azores, for instance, explained the difficulties involved in guaranteeing the safety of the training officers deployed for EUTM (EU Training Mission) Somalia, which had to take place in Uganda due to the lack of the requisite infrastructure and security conditions in Mogadishu. EUCAP (EU capability-building mission) Sahel is also being carried out in a high-

risk environment; however, this is a civil and hence non-armed mission. For military personnel it is challenging to work in a civil and multicultural environment, but the operational mandate can be even more demanding: military personnel may be prevented by an ill-adapted or overly restrictive mandate from doing their job properly.

Towards human security The focus of EU actions abroad is currently shifting towards human security, with the emphasis on the security of the individual rather than of the state. According to Professor Ana Isabel Xavier, this is becoming increasingly decisive for interventions in conflict regions. Human security missions differ from the classic type of intervention in that they are aimed at protecting individuals not only from conflict, but also from environmental and economic threats. In the future, human security-driven missions will probably outnumber traditional military missions. The transition to this type of mission, more in keeping with the EU’s perception of itself as a global peacemaker, is reflected in the shift away from heavy armaments towards lighter, hence less expensive equipment. Such missions not only represent a good com-

photo: by Cotallo-nonocot, CC BY-ND 2.0, Flickr

promise with the constraints of shrinking military budgets, but are also more likely to gain public acceptance and to be politically less controversial.

Conclusions At the end of the weeklong process of reflection that brought many new impressions, the delegates presented the outcome of the working group sessions. Perceptions and opinions vary not only from country to country, but at all other levels as well. Unsurprisingly the delegations were unable to come up with a single blueprint for the future organisation of European defence; just like at a European defence summit, it seemed impossible to get all opinions aligned. The participants nonetheless gained valuable insight into each other’s threat perceptions and interests, encouraging them to seek solutions that were acceptable for all rather than privileging the interests of a few to the detriment of others. We believe that this willingness to engage in open discussion and understand other points of view is what has been keeping the European continent safe for more than 60 years now. Dialogue seems to be our most successful – as well as the cheapest and most publicly acceptable – defence strategy.

29


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Renationalisation is the wrong answer

The irrelevance of defence in the CSDP by Gerd Kaldrack, International Project Consulting - KIP, Bonn In his speech of 26 July 2012, Mario Draghi, Head of the European Central Bank, emphasised that everything must be done to save the euro. The Monetary Union needs to be fundamentally changed. The only way out of the crisis is to take a chance on more Europe, i.e. to shift more national responsibility to the European level.

No European Security Union on the horizon Little progress has been made on the necessary development of a Financial and Monetary Union. Only the idea of a Banking Union has been seriously pursued, with the collectivisation of debt placed at the centre of the debate. A Transfer Union is on the horizon, but not a Security Union, despite the new global security situation. Russia, China and India are upgrading their armaments. The coast opposite the south of Europe is in turmoil, Egypt is reeling, the Levant is burning, the Balkans and the Caucasus remain trouble spots, piracy threatens global trade routes and, on top of all this, security-relevant climate change is progressing. At the same time, the balance of the global security architecture is shifting. The United States is switching its main focus to the Asia-Pacific region. Its role in NATO will be reduced. Europe must take responsibility for its own security. As a global economic player it must be able to conduct an active Security and Defence Policy for peace and security at its borders and in its areas of interest. This consensus was documented in the Treaty of Lisbon (2009). Global challenges can only be met by Europe as a whole. No EU Member State can do this alone.

Europe needs its own military strength Decisions and concepts abound. In 2011 the EU counted some 1.7 million soldiers in its armed forces. Yet the 1999 project for an EU rapid reaction force composed of 50 to 60 thousand troops failed. It was replaced by the concept of 1 500 to 2 000strong EU Battlegroups, which offer little operational value and have never been deployed. France and Britain have cut their intervention force quotas, while Germany has maintained its quota at about 10 000 professionals. The 2003 European Security Strategy (ESS) enshrines the concept of comprehensive security based on both civil and military means as a fundamental principle. However, the establishment of an EU civil-military headquarters failed, as did the provision of an EU budget for military crisis-management missions. Instead, each state has to bear its own mission costs. The “Athena Mechanism for common costs” (e.g. reconnaissance) amounted to just € 38 million in 2010. For civilian crisis management the EU as a global player has a budget of € 9.2 billion at its disposal,

30

Gerd F. Kaldrack, Dipl. pol.sc is Chief of KIP Kaldrack International Project Consulting, which was founded in 1993. KIP is specialised in environmental protection, renewable energies and security and defence matters. Important phases in Gerd Kaldrack’s military career were positions as a helicopter pilot in the Army Aviation, General Staff Course 1973-75, Photo: private Army Long-Term Planning and Head of the Environmental Protection Division in the German MoD. In 1993 he retired as a colonel from the military and began a civilian career as a consultant and publisher of numerous contributions to the debate on CSDP, most recently of the reader on “An operational Army for Europe”, co-authored with Dr Hans-Gert Pöttering.

but only € 0.4 billion were budgeted for the CSDP in 2013. Civil and military emergency operations are conducted side-by-side but remain unconnected. The problem lies in the insistence on the outdated notion of national sovereignty, with each nation having its own army solely at its command.

Sovereignty versus solidarity The result is a reduction of national defence budgets and a restructuring of the armed forces, leading to a loss of skills and shrinkage of the European security and defence industrial base. What the EU needs is sustainable coordination of the armed forces planning and defence budgets of the 28 Member States. It should apply the Lisbon Treaty tools of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PSC) and Pooling and Sharing. The irrelevance of EU security policy is an aggravating factor; however, the civilian sector recently made progress with the inauguration of the EU’s highly modern Emergency Response Centre (ERC) through which all 28 Member States plus five other countries coordinate their disaster response. The Centre cooperates closely with national points of contact, which will have rapidly deployable, international and voluntary “mission pools” at their disposal. The only robust solution would be to remove the CSDP from the intergovernmental process and to turn it into a genuine civil-military common task. Next it is necessary to define the respective tasks of the EU and the Member States and to establish a security budget for civil-military crisis management. With rapidly available forces and predictable financing the EU should be able to assume a level of global responsibility in keeping with its political and economic weight. Sovereignty can only be maintained together.


The Common Security and Defence Policy

Comment by Hartmut Bühl But so far the political will to further develop the idea of a Security and Defence Union to which nations would hand over a share of their alleged sovereignty has been lacking. Given this situation, fundamental changes or rapid advances in the CSDP are not to be expected. Only a pragmatic approach that avoids the sensitive issue of national sovereignty can pave the way for more integration. Common training is one such approach.

Europeanisation of military training A European training network and integrated training concept based on existing national centres of competence and training structures would have many advantages, in particular major savings and efficiency gains, particularly if they also offer joint civil-military training. No nation would suffer a loss of sovereignty by applying PSC and pooling and sharing to training. Modern, networked, simulation-based education and training methods, although expensive, are particularly suitable, including for mission preparation in the event of an engagement. Scenarios involving cross-border disasters and major incidents requiring joint European responses and concerted action can be simulated, saving time and money, and above all lives. The EU or several Member States at least should concentrate first on developing one or more European educational institutions. Helicopters, for instance, always scarce, are needed in all EU missions: a “European Helicopter Training and Competence Centre” should be developed on the basis of existing training facilities in Germany and France. This approach would also prevent an uncontrolled reduction of national training capacities. A Europeanisation of military training with common burdensharing would be a first step towards taking advantage of the opportunities offered by PSC. The European Council (EC) will be focusing exclusively on the CSDP at its session in Brussels in December 2013. It should clearly define the way forward and set goals for integration, with the Europeanisation of military training as an immediate first step. The success or failure of this EC session will ultimately determine whether this area will have its own “Mario Draghi and markets” working to save the CSDP and to bring the appropriate pressure to bear. The EU cannot just stand by and watch another drama in its vicinity like those in Libya or Syria.

News: A400M Training A400M Training Services Ltd., a joint venture between Airbus and Thales UK, will offer, under an 18 years contract with the MOD London, a multi-million pounds training services programme. The contract covers all facilities, including the construction at RFA Brize Norton in Oxfordshire of the training school itself, which will welcome the first trainees in 2014. The school - open to the A400M user nations - will train a range of air and ground crews to operate and maintain the aircraft. France and Germany are planning to establish in 2018, in the centre of France, a common A400M training centre open to all user nations.

The Franco-German Brigade – a new role? The French Government’s decision to transfer its 110th infantry regiment – currently stationed in the Black Forest and part of the Franco-German Brigade – back to France in 2014 will certainly mark the end of the Brigade in its current form. Officially this decision was taken on budgetary grounds. But for the French Minister of Defence the reasons go deeper: they are political. Political reasons The Brigade, once the symbol of Franco-German military cooperation, has always been subject to Germany’s constitutional requirement for military operations to be given prior parliamentary approval, which means that France cannot simply deploy it at will. This “parliamentary reservation” has been a known fact since the treaties were drawn up in 1987, but for Helmut Kohl and François Mitterand the Brigade was above all a symbol that sent a political message to the rest of Europe. Now, it would seem, France no longer sees any point in keeping expensive and well-trained troops stationed in Germany when it cannot deploy them. Parliamentary reservation A view that is difficult to understand but that is widespread amongst France’s political class is that this “parliamentary reservation” is a device used by the Germans to duck their obligations of solidarity: but it is often hard for anyone who lives in a presidential democracy to grasp the processes at work in a parliamentary democracy and in particular the powerful role of the German Parliament. Seen from the French perspective, it is difficult to comprehend that Parliament should be involved in the decision to engage in a military conflict. The French President refuses to allow Parliament to share his all-encompassing authority over military matters and his powers of command as the Chief of France’s armed forces. Even after the example set by the British and Americans in seeking parliamentary approval for intervention in Syria, François Hollande still believes with regard to matters of armed conflict that only the directly-elected President of the Republic can decide what is right for France. A successful 25 years In military, human, training and cultural terms the 25 year-old Franco-German Brigade can be deemed a success. Only in one area is this not the case: that of joint and rapid engagements in armed conflicts. There have been sufficient opportunities in Africa and Afghanistan. The Brigade can, however, boast positive achievements in the field of humanitarian interventions and disaster relief. The decision does not come as a surprise As early as 2009 there was talk of repatriating this regiment stationed in the German town of Donaueschingen: Nicolas Sarkozy was in urgent need of a unit to replace his Pioneers’ Regiment based in Illkirchen near Strasbourg. But Angela Merkel came to his aid, transferring a German batallion from Immendigen to Illkirchen, where it was welcomed with open arms and which it has called home for more than two years now. Whatever happens to the Franco-German Brigade – whether it is disbanded or continues to exist in a new format – it would be fatal if, as a counter-move, the German batallion were to be withdrawn from France.

31


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

No momentum for an efficient EU defence

Military spending is not in vogue by Renaud Bellais, Associate Researcher in economics, ENSTA Bretagne, Brest, France

Half a decade after the beginning of the Great Stagnation and the resulting crisis in public finances, the impacts on military spending are visible in the statistics. Even though defence has been relatively well preserved, resources in absolute value terms are contracting and the purchasing power of the armed forces has been further eroded – while the international situation appears quite unstable and threats are both heterogeneous and ubiquitous. European countries, then, face a paradoxical situation. In the short term, one may wonder why this context does not encourage deeper military integration within the European Union. In the long term, given today’s level of defence efforts, the current industrial model does not appear to be sustainable. One can note that there has been a hysteresis effect in military spending. Public finances were impacted by the economic and financial crises, but it took few years for the downward trend in defence efforts to become visible in the statistics. Nevertheless that trend is now clearly apparent, as European countries devote less and less of their wealth to defence matters. The NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on defence appears to be more unachievable than ever. Some may consider this not to be an issue, since the threats are not that important for Europeans and there is no rush to engage in a military build-up. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of military spending is decreasing even more quickly than the apparent effort. Indeed, European countries face a “poverty trap”, in which the poorer you are, the less you share and the

Military spending without pensions (% of GDP) 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

United Kingdom1

2.44%

2.58%

2.66%

2.66%

2.58%

2.56%

Poland

1.84%

1.61%

1.74%

1.81%

1.77%

1.88%

France*2

1.64%

1.58%

1.66%

1.67%

1.56%

1.55%

2

1.14%

0.96%

0.96%

0.92%

0.87%

0.79%

Germany

1.00%

1.03%

1.14%

1.11%

1.13%

1.09%

Spain

1.16%

1.17%

1.16%

1.06%

0.95%

1.04%

EU spending (€ bn.)3

192

194

191

196

189

178

Italy

1 Including deterrence spending 2 excluding Gendarmerie spending for non-military missions 3 2012 constant euros Source: EuroDefense, annual statistical analysis, Paris, 2013.

32

Dr Renaud Bellais is an associate researcher in economics at ENSTA Bretagne, Brest (France). A graduate of the Lille Institute of Political Studies (1994) and the University of the Littoral Opal Coast (1998), he is currently an economist for the department of Public Affairs France at EADS Headquarters in Paris. He gives lectures on defence economics Photo: private and innovation economics at several schools and universities. Before joining EADS in 2004, he was a lecturer at the University of the Littoral Opal Coast and a researcher at the DGA (French Ministry of Defence procurement agency).

less effective your defence effort is. Europeans spent only €47 billion on defence investment in 2012, 3.8 times less than the United States. Yet the sharing of efforts is not increasing at European level. According to the European Defence Agency, collaborative procurement represents about a quarter of equipment procurement, and only a seventh of R&T takes place in the framework of cooperative projects. One might expect this crisis to encourage a deepening of Defence Europe, but in fact the poverty trap results in a concentration of the remaining resources through an increasingly national approach.

We need a new industry model Spending less than €100 per inhabitant a year on defence capabilities, European countries can no longer expect a big bang for the buck. This raises the question of the industrial effectiveness of nationally-organised industrial bases. If the demand side is unable to pool its resources or, at least, cooperate, can one expect a creation of a new industrial model from the supply side? As the “One MBDA” model shows in the British-French bilateral relations, the lack of a Defence Europe is bound to push companies to adapt and restructure their assets in order to increase economies of scale and favour a specialisation of sites all over their geographical footprint. It is likely that, even in arms production, industrial value chains have no choice but to internationalise. This is certainly how one could interpret the intensification of the defence trade between the two sides of the Atlantic. The US-EU arms trade appears to be increasingly based on intermediate goods, which results from a globalisation of value chains through cooperative programmes, but also beyond.


The Common Security and Defence Policy

Defence expenditures as % of GDP 2001 to 2012 (nato standard or alike, without pensions)

V1: French Nuclear Forces with 20% and British Nuclear Forces with 8% are included in the respective budgets. V2: French Gendarmerie and Italian Carabinieri with a rate of military activity at 5% and 15%, respectively; incl. funds provided by Industry or Source: EuroDefense, France Research Ministries

Relaunch of European Defence European decision-makers should grasp the opportunity of the European Council meeting in December, where defence issues are to be discussed, in order to re-launch the construction of Defence Europe. Without such political impetus, it is very unlikely that both demand and supply can overcome the current stalemate. Pooling and sharing should become more than just a slogan; it is critical for European countries to pool their diminishing resources. This is the essential condition for improving the taxpayer’s return on defence efforts and increasing the deployability of European forces equipped with appropriate capabilities.

millions of euros American exports to the European Union

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

3813

3556

3493

2264

2260

2682

European exports to the United States

1390

1502

1654

1897

1907

2305

Source: United States Customs, Washington, 2013; conversion from US dollars to euros based on EBC’s annual bilateral exchange rates.

The independent magazine for European Security and Defence

17 Volume No , 2011 for Citizenship European Award Winner of the & Defence − European Security t Review on

Towards a more integrated Atlantic defence industry

Defence Security and

Independen ISSN 2192-6921

Published in English (February, June and October) Quo vadis Defence? ropean

Eu

€ 42,including postage and delivery within the EU

Three editions per year, price

mit 2013 Sum P December The EU’s new impetus to the CSD How to give

Plea for a Europ gy Global Strate

of Europe’s The future try Defence Indus

ean

for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt, Ministerm Sweden, Stockhol

of

Dr Thomas Enders, CEO, EADS, Paris

ean.com ne-the-europ www.magazi Group ProPress Publishing

Edition 3/2013

Edition 1/2014

• The EU after the sum mit • The NATO-Agencies Re form • C4ISR-Mobility Securi ty

Deadline for advertisem

ents: 18th January 2014

For further information or orders please consult www.magazine-the-european.com or order the current issue for € 16,Behörden Spiegel-Gruppe, Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 57, 53113 Bonn

33


#

#

#

# #

# #

Interfaces of Security Architecture National – European – Global

Visit Europe’s larges t symposium on Internal Security :

 18 – 19 February 2014, Berlin Congres s Center www.european-police .eu

About the Conference The “European Police Congress” is an international information platform for police and decision makers from security authorities and industries. Its intention is to strengthen the dialogue between the authorities and enable the participants to establish new contacts with colleagues from all over the world. Every year critical discussions on up-to-date issues are held and the latest developments in technologies for the professional use in the security sector are presented by the exhibitors. The European Police Congress is the largest conference on Internal Security in the European Union.

Top speeches on the agenda, including:

National and international requirements for the German Federal Police Dr. Dieter Romann, President, German Federal Police, Potsdam Source: Bundespolizei

Cross-border Cooperation in the fields of Money Laundering, Cyber Crime & Child Abuse Troels Oerting, Assistant Director, Head of European Cybercrime Centre (EC3), Europol, The Netherlands, The Hague

Discussion of the Ministers / Senators of the Interior, including:

Lorenz Caffier, Minister of the Interior, Mecklenburg-Hither Pomerania, Schwerin

Frank Henkel, Senator of the Interior, Berlin

Boris Pistorius, Minister for the Interior, Sport and Integration, Lower Saxony, Hannover

Accreditation and further information www.european-police.eu or martin.jung@behoerdenspiegel.de


The Common Security and Defence Policy

MEADS technologies mature to achieve European Air & Missile Defence (AMD) capabilities

A breakthrough for the NATO European missile defence initiative by Hartmut Bühl, Brussels

On 6 November 2013, the MEADS missile defence system developed by the United States, Italy and Germany intercepted and destroyed two targets simultaneously: a QF-4 airbreathing drone coming from the south and a Lance missile that was flying a ballistic missile trajectory from the north. “No fielded ground mobile air and missile defence can intercept targets from two directions at the same time, as MEADS did today,” said Gregory Kee, Programme manager for NATO after this success.

Italy and Germany will keep working on the basis of MEADS MEADS technology can now be leveraged as mature, networkready battle management, sensors and launchers to achieve the networked Air and Missile Defence (AMD) capabilities envisioned by Germany, Italy and the United States. The Defence Ministers of Germany and Italy have stated the importance of completing the MEADS programme as the foundation for their planned national air and missile defence capabilities. The development of the MEADS capabilities forms the basis for the German and Italian contributions to the NATO European missile defence initiative. Poland recently expressed strong interest in becoming a MEADS principal. Poland’s air and missile defence requirements are complementary to those of the other two countries.

The MEADS programme The MEADS programme operates on the basis of cooperative development between MBDA Germany, MBDA Italy and Lockheed Martin, USA, using a highly successful industrial model. It is readily extensible to Poland, whereas the established prime contractors for competing systems would likely be offering subcontracts for portions of their production. MEADS is unique in this regard. Since many of the competing systems are production designs, there is not much technology available beyond making parts for additional units. MEADS, however, is completing development testing and finalising production designs, and that opens many more avenues for participation by Polish industry. Officials from Poland also observed the test as they move to launch a competition valued at € 2.2 to 3.7 billion in January for a new air and missile defence system.

Successful MEADS dual intercept flight test

photo: MEADS

Better performance but less expensive – an overview MEADS was intended to be the next generation in groundmobile air and missile defence replacing a wide range of western systems. MEADS has many attractive features: it is a multinational programme, it is highly mobile, it permits full NATO interoperability, and it remains the only mediumrange air and missile defence system to provide continuous full 360-degree coverage. According to MEADS International, compared to fielded systems, MEADS is significantly less expensive to own. It uses less manpower and requires 80% less maintenance. A single MEADS battery can defend up to 8 times the area of Patriot, actually in service, using fewer system elements. The MEADS programme employs 1400 skilled workers worldwide. The European missile systems companies MBDA Germany and MBDA Italy employ over 600 at facilities in Rome and Schrobenhausen. Nearly 800 Lockheed Martin employees are working on MEADS at four company locations. In addition, major subcontracts to Selex, Lechmotoren and others expand the MEADS high-tech employment footprint.

35


After the redeployment of its forces from Afghanistan, NATO is expected to shift the emphasis from operational engagements to operational preparedness, with a view to remaining capable of performing its core tasks while maintaining its forces at a high level of readiness. The Connected Forces Initiative (CFI) will help to maintain operational readiness through expanded exercises, incuding common logistics, education and training and a better use of technology, e.g. in the area of alternative energies for forces.

Invisible yet indispensable

Logistics transformation in the making by Ambassador Jiří Šedivý, Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic to NATO

Military logistics is like oxygen. One fully realises its vital importance only in the moment of its absence. It may seem unfair that well-functioning logistical support is invisible and usually taken for granted by those whom it supports; visibility comes usually with failure. But logisticians are a modest lot, used to working hard behind the scenes of military operations, knowing well from the history of warfare that the success or failure of most of the major campaigns – from Alexander the Great to our times – has largely been defined if not decided by logistics.

Logistics are going joint Yet logistics became at the same time highly visible and successful during the recent NATO exercise Capable Logistician 2013 (CL 13). The exercise was organised in June 2013 jointly by the Praguebased Multinational Logistics Coordination Centre and the Slovak Ministry of Defence in the Slovak training ground Les̆t.

36

It was the largest event of its kind since 2004, date of the last NATO logistics exercise, Collective Effort. However, CL 13 was three times bigger, involving some 1750 personnel and around 600 pieces of equipment committed by 24 NATO Allies and 3 Partner nations (Austria, BosniaHerzegovina and Georgia). All in all, representatives from 35 countries participated in the exercise as either players or observers. Moreover, a total of 14 elements from the NATO Command and Force Structure as well as Agencies were represented, together with several external organisations and agencies, such as the EU Military Staff, EDA, EUROCORPS and the African Union, as observers.

Test bed for collective and smart logistic solutions

Photo: www.mlcc-home.cz

The main objective of the exercise was to test and develop collective and smart logistics solutions, to assess the level of interoperability

Photo: NATO/ Flickr

North Atlantic Treaty Organization


North Atlantic Treaty Organization

of logistic systems and equipment – such as ammunition, fuel, water (including drilling wells and purifying water on the spot), material handling, helicopter operations, movement and transportation – and to enhance the standardisation of procedures for current and future operations. All this is fully in line with our collective effort to use limited resources more efficiently through multinational cooperation. The Capable Logistician 2013 exercise provided a testing ground for several Smart Defence projects as well as the Connected Forces Initiative and interoperability principles. It also had Smart Energy sources in operation, including a solar energy installation. The redeployment phase of the exercise tested procedures relevant for the ISAF transfer from Afghanistan. And there was also a linkage to NATO post-2014 when we will seek to maintain and develop the connectivity of our forces through better and more intensive use of training and exercises.

Developing the connectivity of our forces Capable Logistician 2013 was a significant milestone in the field of logistics transformation and multinationalisation. Not too long ago the logistics domain was regarded as a purely national responsibility. Our operations over the past twenty years (Afghanistan in particular) have completely changed this perspective. Today logistics in multinational operations is a collective responsibility. What we have learned by trial and

Training for logistics cooperation in Slovakia

Ambassador Jiří S̆edivý, who has been Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic to NATO in Brussels since 2011, is a graduate of Charles University, Prague (PhD in Political Science) and of King’s College, London (MA in War Studies). From 1999 to 2004 he was Director of the Institute of International Relations in Prague and Assistant Professor of International Relations at Charles University in Prague, and played an important role in the Czech Republic’s accession to NATO. During this period he also served as an external adviser to President Vaclav Havel. From 2004 to 2006 he was Professor at the George C. Marshall European Centre for Security Studies in Garmisch-Partenkirchen. In 2006 he became Minister of Defence and was tasked in 2007, as Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, with the preparation of the Czech EU Presidency. He joined the NATO International Staff as Assistant Secretary General (ASG) for Defence Policy and Planning in 2007.

error in the Balkans, the Middle East and North Africa is now being translated into collective concepts and ready-to-use multinational solutions that were tested during the CL 13 exercise to be employed in future operations – be it under the NATO or EU flag. The fact that the multinational Joint Logistics Support Group (JLSG) HQ which co-ordinated the exercise will be used for the Visegrad Four EU Battlegroup in 2016 is a good case in point of using our limited resources in a smart and efficient way.

photo: NATO/ Flickr

37


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

A vital capability that has long been lacking will soon be made available to NATO

Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) Capability will be ready soon by Colonel (ret) James Edge, General Manager NAGSMA, Brussels

The idea of a NATO owned and operated Alliance Ground Surveillance Core capability has been around for two decades. It all started in 1992, when the need for a strategic ground surveillance capability was identified in NATO in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War. In the course of the years, a number of different tracks and solutions were proposed and pursued, but eventually ended up being abandoned for a variety of reasons. The current approach started to take its shape in the margins of the NATO Summit in Chicago, where, on 20 May 2012 a procurement contract for the AGS system was signed, paving the way for the delivery of a vital capability that will be made available to all NATO member nations. The AGS Programme will provide NATO with a complete and integrated ground surveillance capability that would offer the Alliance and its nations unrestricted and unfiltered access to ground surveillance data in near-real-time and in an interoperable manner. AGS will also contribute to all three NATO Strategic Concept core tasks through using its Swath & Spot Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and its Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) capabilities to collect information that will provide political and military decision-makers with a comprehensive picture of the situation on the ground. The system The AGS Core Capability being financed by 15 Nations will be composed of an air segment comprising airborne radar sen-

NATO AGS operations scenario

38

James E. Edge has been General Manager for the NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) Management Agency (NAGSMA) since 21 January 2013. He holds a MS in National Resource Strategy from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, an MBA from Golden Gate University and a BS in Engineering Technology from Texas A&M University. Jim Photo:private Edge retired from the United States Air Force in 2005 with the rank of Colonel, having served in the Pentagon as the Deputy Director for Strategic Aircraft Systems in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Prior to taking up his duties with NAGSMA, Jim Edge was the Director of International Business of a US Company and before that, he was Deputy General Manager of NACMA in Brussels.

sors and Command and Control and a ground segment comprising fixed, transportable and mobile ground stations for data exploitation and dissemination, all seamlessly interconnected through high-performance data links. In addition, it comprises a support segment which will allow initial training, maintenance and logistics to be performed. The support segment will also contain information to baseline the Life Cycle Support to support the military user, which will be funded by the full Alliance.

photo: NAGSMA


North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NATO AGS Global Hawk scanning an Area of Interest

Air Segment The Air Segment includes Unmanned Air Vehicles, based on US Global Hawk RQ 4B, Block 40 and Air Vehicle Mission Command and Control (AVMC2) Entities in Fixed and Deployable configurations. The unmanned air entities provide a standoff ground surveillance capability, primarily in the form of GMTI data and SAR imagery. The users will be provided with data for situational awareness, targeting, battle damage assessment, and other ISR capabilities via both line-of-sight (LOS) and beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) communications links. Ground Segment The Ground Segment, largely developed by European industry partners, includes various General Ground Station (GGS) Entities in Mobile (MGGS) and Transportable (TGGS) Configurations, Maritime Mission Module (MMM) and Fixed Mission Operations Support (MOS) Entity that have capabilities to support command and/or operations. Each GGS entity will have the capability to support additional AGS Core users via Remoteable Workstations (RWSs). Ground entities will support users from strategic to tactical echelons. Each GGS entity will have the capability to request, receive, process, store, correlate, display, analyse, and exploit MTI and SAR data as well as other sensor data and exploited products, and will support dissemination of data and information into connected interoperable NATO and/or National systems.

photo: NAGSMA

(TIM) conducted in August 2012. The TIM acted as a Post Award Conference from the Technical and Logistics perspectives, establishing expectations for the execution of the contract. Contractually, there were four major event milestones conducted during this period, the Programme Management Review (PMR) #1, System Requirements Review (SRR) and the Post Award Baseline Review (PABR) / PMR #2 (concurrently). The year closed with both NAGSMA and Industry working to address the discrepancies in the data deliverables provided for both the SRR and PABR. In 2013, two major events from the Contract execution are scheduled, the System Design Review (SDR), which is an incremental effort that started in April 2013 and finished in May 2013 to describe the system architecture down to all the functional elements of the system and the Preliminary Design Review (PDR), which further details the design allowing “make or buy� decisions along with selection of re-useable solutions, products and further supplier selections. This will be the basis for finalizing developmental planning supporting the Critical Design Review (CDR) in May 2014 and the start of formal production. Notably, production of aircraft number one began in August. At the end of the year 2013, contract execution was progressing on schedule and on budget.

Support Segment AGS Core Support Entities will consist of facilities, installations, and equipment needed to support the air, ground and mission operations support entities, including training of the UAV C2 operators, Ground Mission Simulator Training and other necessary personnel. Sigonella AB in Sicily was chosen as the main operating base.

Execution of the AGS Core Capability Contract With the signature of the AGS Core Capability Contract, the 60 months, Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract execution formally started with the first formal Technical Interchange Meeting

NATO AGS in operation

photo: NAGSMA

39


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Being more effective by using less energy

Smart Energy – improving the energy efficiency of NATO’s armed forces by Dr Susanne Michaelis, NATO’s Emerging Security Challenges Division, Brussels

In the late 18th century, when General George Washington offered his fellow General Nathanael Greene the post of chief logistician in his army, Greene initially refused. He considered logistics to be too insignificant a subject to make him famous: “Whoever heard of a quartermaster in history?” Greene’s reluctance to take the lead in logistics still resonates with us today. The more missions are characterised by long distances, rapid deployments and remote locations, the more difficult it becomes to supply forces in a particular fuel.

Logistics at high risk Since the American Revolution, horses have been replaced by vehicles, aircraft and ships, all using fuel instead of hay. The logistical challenge, however, with supply routes being attacked and budgets being cut, remains the same. Indeed, since World War II, the average fuel consumption per soldier has increased more than tenfold due to all the additional equipment that is necessary to fight an unconventional enemy in difficult territory. Add to this the rising price of fuel and it becomes clear why governments are actively seeking to reduce energy consumption: According to some estimates, 3-4 million litres of fuel are used every day in Afghanistan, and by the time one litre of fuel reaches the operational theatre the “fully burdened cost” is between US$ 2 and US$ 12, or more, depending on the distance, protection requirements and means of delivery (e.g. by land or air).

But it is not just the cost factor that is worrying. The more fuel we need to transport, the more we increase the risk for our soldiers. According to the US Department of Defense, from 2003 to 2007 in Iraq and Afghanistan, a total of more than 3 000 Army personnel and contractors were wounded or killed in action from attacks on fuel and water resupply convoys. Hence, in both financial and security terms, having to transport large quantities of energy is a “lose-lose” situation. Can these unfavourable trends be reversed? Are there ways to reduce the military’s dependence on fossil fuel, shrink our logistics footprint and enhance the security of our troops? And can one perhaps even save money in the process?

New energy efficiency concepts The answer to all of these questions is a resounding “yes”. Energy efficient technologies and cultural change that have been successfully introduced for civilian purposes could easily be adapted to serve the military. Renewable energy sources, rechargeable batteries and energy efficient LEDs, to name but a few, “just” have to become more robust, endurable and simpler to use. Some NATO member states have already tested new energy efficiency concepts and these demonstrate that through advanced materials and equipment, such as better insulation, the use of solar power and energy storage systems, as well as behavioural change, the fuel consumption in a camp of 200 to

A field of 480 m2 of solar cells was installed by the Royal Netherlands Army in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan, in October 2012. The field is producing 200 Photo: Royal Netherlands Army kWh per day. In addition, light tubes were replaced by energy-saving LEDs. The Return on Investment (ROI) was 9-12 months.

40


North Atlantic Treaty Organization

500 personnel can be reduced by 30%. A low-energy compound is a real force multiplier, as it frees precious resources for other important tasks. Another example is an integrated power system that a soldier can wear as a vest. Today, a soldier carries many kilograms of sophisticated electrical devices. The batteries that power GPS, night vision goggles and communication equipment are heavy and of a short lifespan before they need to be replaced. Again, a combination of advanced technologies, including rechargeable “power-forall” batteries and wireless transmission of power using new textiles, can provide our soldiers with equipment that is smaller, lighter and with a longer lasting energy supply. The fighting power of a soldier is increased, as he can operate for longer, in a more agile and safer way.

NATO takes it seriously Through NATO, these efforts can be pulled together and made interoperable. To this end, NATO’s Emerging Security Challenges Division (ESCD) set up a “Smart Energy Team” (SENT), a group of experts from six Allies (Canada, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, the UK and the US) and two partner countries (Australia and Sweden) who will identify national energy efficiency projects that are most promising for being pursued multinationally. The findings will be used to recommend and initiate Smart Defence projects on “smart energy” leading towards cost-saving multi-national capabilities. ESCD’s role in this process is to: 1. provide a platform for information exchange among SENT members, NATO stakeholders and nations; 2. raise awareness and initiate a mind-set change; and 3. encourage multinational cooperation.

Experience from exercises During the military exercise “Capable Logistician 2013” (CL13) that took place in June in Slovakia, SENT presented one of its tangible milestones: a “Smart Energy component’ demonstrating possible solutions for reducing fuel consumption. Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom provided the manpower and equipment that included a hydrogen fuel cell, solar panels, LEDs, an intelligent energy storage and management system, and an insulated tent. Besides raising the visibility of energy issues among the over 1 700 military leaders and soldiers who participated, this exercise enabled SENT to formulate recommendations for updating and drafting NATO standardisation documents. This will help to bring “smart energy” into NATO’s Defence Planning Process – because this is where it ultimately belongs.

Dr. Susanne Michaelis is Chairperson of NATO’s ‘Smart Energy Team’ (SENT) comprised of experts in military energy efficiency. She is a molecular biologist by education and joined the European Commission in 1995. In 1996, she moved to NATO as Associate Programme Director, ‘Science for Peace’. During her career, Dr. Michaelis developed new Photo: private initiatives under NATO’s Scientific Affairs, Public Diplomacy and Emerging Security Challenges Divisions. In her current position, she is facilitating a multinational approach aimed to enhance ‘Smart Energy’ by combining research & development, awareness raising and policy making. Dr. Michaelis is also science advisor for environmental security and represents NATO as Management Board Member in the Environment and Security Initiative.

Now is the time for SENT and NATO stakeholders to work together on defining standards for reducing energy consumption and the logistical footprint. Standards for training and education, equipment and materials as well as guidelines and best practices will provide NATO’s armed forces with a basis for changing the way they plan their missions, procure equipment and conduct operations. In a letter dated 19 December 1781 financier Robert Morris lauded General Greene for managing to keep his army supplied to such an extent that it remained in the field with very little outside assistance. Today, as budgetary scarcity and operations in remote locations have become the norm, such management skills are again in great demand. With “smart energy”, NATO aims to support the General Greenes of the modern world in moving the armed forces towards energy efficiency and a smaller logistical footprint. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to the organisation he or she is affiliated with, nor to the organisations mentioned in the article.

Looking back in order to forge ahead NATO has over half a century of experience in standardisation and a specific policy for that purpose – more than any other institution. It already has policies and agreed standards for environmental protection, electrical power supplies and fuel.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell: A prototype of a portable hydrogen fuel cell producing 2 kW electricity developed by the Fraunhofer Institute Chemical Technology (ICT), Pfinztal, in cooperation with FutureE Fuel Photo: by NATO/SMic Cell Solutions GmbH, Germany.

41


The sea is a source of wealth, tightly interconnecting countries in complex and time-critical ways. With the freedom of the seas constantly under threat, maritime forces today play a key role in securing sea lanes, coasts and harbours. Air and naval forces conduct continuous airborne, sea and ground surveillance operations, but can also constitute a formidable deterrent and intervention force. They cannot bomb a country into peace, but they can pave the way for peace.

An opportunity that Europe cannot afford to waste

Future Unmanned Aerial Systems for Europe by Bernhard Gerwert, CEO of Cassidian, Munich

The history of military aviation is inextricably linked with the evolution of information procurement and the pursuit of information superiority. An increasingly essential requirement for the success of future military operations in an environment marked by asymmetrical crises and conflicts is the availability of a complete and comprehensive aerial situational picture. This picture must capture all groups – both those involved and uninvolved in the conflict – and serve as a basis for differentiating between them and identifying their actions, with a view, in turn, to deriving independent actions.

New quality of reconnaissance The growing complexity of situations means that there is an even greater need on the one hand, for this picture to be available immediately, and on the other hand, for it to be constantly updated over a longer period of time. Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) increasingly provide those aerial reconnaissance, surveillance and observation capabilities. UAS can be equipped in a variety of ways and are capable of hovering over the area of interest for extended periods without, moreover, endangering pilots. Reducing the danger to staff undoubtedly leads to “better” decisions in terms of mission success, irrespective of whether the danger comes from radiation from a damaged nuclear power plant or from enemy air defence troops. UAS will play an important role in all areas of capability and

42

performance in the network-centric operations of tomorrow. Within the European armed forces, however, this network will for the foreseeable future show big capability gaps that will, over the years, lead to blind spots in reconnaissance.

Lack of willingness to invest There is no denying the increasing importance of reconnaissance capabilities precisely in asymmetrical threat scenarios, yet the willingness to invest in the technologies necessary for those capabilities is stagnating in Europe, with far-reaching consequences. Military demand is nonetheless certain: UAS integrated into data and command networks will in future play a key role in resolving military crises and conflicts, which is why it is essential to make them available to the armed forces. At this point, the question arises as to how these requirements can be translated into equipment and provisions. Can and should the necessary equipment be procured as available on the market? Does the unmanned aerial component of the requested information and tactical operation network possess the desired characteristics? Or would it be better to develop the requirements into a customised solution through an industrial development process?

Dual-use products not always optimal Whether off-the-shelf products represent the more cost-effective solution, taking into account the costs over the entire

photo: Official US navy, CC BY 2.0, Flickr

Air and Sea Power


Air and Sea Power

service life, is debatable. In addition, purchased solutions are in most cases incongruous with the requirement profiles and prescribed corporate regulations. In this respect, the rules and requirements would need, upon sale, to be adapted to the equipment purchased, or extensive modifications would have to be made – if at all possible. This year the German Air Force learned the hard way about the ultimate consequence of purchasing aircraft that do not meet the regulation profile. It must also be clearly understood that giving up development and production activities means in the longer term a loss of experience in both the technology and production areas.

Bernhard Gerwert has been CEO of Cassidian since 2012. Born in 1953, he has an economics degree from the University of Bielefeld and an Electrical Engineering degree from the University of Paderborn. Prior to his current positions, from 2007 to 2012 he was CEO of Military Air Systems and a Member of the Board of EADS Defence & Security. Photo: Cassidian Until July 2007 he was President and CEO of the EADS Defence Electronics Business Unit, after having served as Senior Vice President of the Air and Naval Defence Line of Business.

Europe needs its own capabilities – now Looking at the issue of ensuring capabilities not only from the economic but also the industrial policy point of view, the European military aviation industry badly needs to manoeuvre itself into a position from which it is able to develop and expand its own UAS capabilities. “Catching up” later on technical know-how, capabilities, skills and experience is hard, if not completely impossible, which is where a European UAS programme takes on a strategic dimension. Europe is already well positioned in the field of tactical UAS, but only the superordinate MALE segment is in a position, in terms of payload capacity, endurance in the theatre of operations and the corresponding satellite connections, to provide the decision-making aids that enable military missions to be planned comprehensively. The time to start building up these capabilities is now. The key European nations have indicated their needs and scheduled

entry into service from 2020 onwards. A programme of this kind requires not only current capabilities for developing systems that meet the demands in terms of agile, autonomous and, in future, multifaceted and fully network-centric UAS, but necessarily also the ongoing development of technologies and capabilities for the next generation of military aircraft.

Europe still has industrial capabilities The European defence industry is still able to design, develop and manufacture aircraft, even in the most technologically demanding field of unmanned flight. Europe can still develop independent reconnaissance capabilities. Information superiority goes hand in hand with information sovereignty. Europe could thus equip itself independently of the US or Israel, precisely in this sensitive area of intelligence.

Future European MALE– concept study and design proposal for a future European MALE UAS, Artist’s Photo: © Cassidian Impression

43


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Typhoon Meet: Eurofighter – an example of successful European photo:© Eurofighter GmbH military aviation cooperation

Looking at this once again from the economic standpoint, the solution to the given scenario can only lie in European cooperation. The scarce resources available must be jointly used for a common solution – the sum total of individual requirements would then result in a quantity that would make development and production costs appear manageable. It would then be all the easier to reach agreement on certification regulations for UAS flight in controlled airspace. Europe could even assume a defining pioneering role in this respect − a not impossible undertaking, since the need exists in all European countries. It should therefore be possible to adjust the respective requirements and to combine them in a common product. For instance, the Tornado and Eurofighter combat aircraft were jointly developed and were/are being manufactured and used in European collaborative ventures, with support from industry.

Heron I – leased UAS interim solution currently being used by the German photo:© Cassidian Armed Forces

Harmonising needs These examples show that harmonising needs is just as viable as apportioning planning, development and production shares fairly in terms of industrial policy, while simultaneously ensuring that all partners have equal access to the technology used.

Meeting operational needs There is no stopping technological progress, which will also extend into the military sphere, above all when the threat to our own soldiers’ lives can be reduced through information

44

superiority. Operationally speaking, therefore, the future of airborne reconnaissance belongs to unmanned systems. Europe as a whole will not be able to escape the dynamics of technology. It remains to be seen, however, how long the constituent countries will be prepared to limit their own freedom of design by relinquishing technological capabilities and, as a consequence thereof, knowingly tolerate the depletion of industrial skills.


Air and Sea Power

New technologies permit reduced noise and climate protection

Cutting-edge technologies for geared turbofan engines by Dr Joachim Wulf, Chief Engineer, Technology Demonstrators, MTU Aero Engines, Munich

Aircraft engines of the future will have to be quieter, more fuelefficient and cleaner than the engines in service today. MTU Aero Engines has been working for years on new technologies to further improve the environmental compatibility of future engines. The future belongs to the geared turbofan engine™ (GTF). Pratt & Whitney and MTU are collaborating on the PurePower® PW1000G to develop a game-changing propulsion concept and are planning to build a complete family of engines based on this concept.

GTF is a real breakthrough This technology holds the promise of reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 15% each, and of cutting present perceived noise levels in half compared with today’s engines. Among its key components are the unique, high-speed lowpressure turbine made by MTU and a high-pressure compressor jointly built by Pratt & Whitney and MTU. This year, MTU was honored with two German innovation awards for the highspeed low-pressure turbine. The GTF concept is catching on with air framers: Airbus is offering the geared turbofan engine for its re-engined A320neo; Bombardier has selected it as the exclusive engine to power its new CSeries; Mitsubishi will equip its MRJ with this new type of propulsion system; Irkut has chosen it for its MS21, and Embraer has picked the GTF engine for the upgraded versions of its E-170 and E-190 family of aircraft.

Dr Joachim Wulf is Chief Engineer, Technology Demonstrators at MTU Aero Engines and has been responsible for the development of all of MTU Aero Engines’ technology demonstrators since 2012. The longstanding German company engages in the design, development, manufacture and support of commercial and military aircraft engines and Photo: MTU Aero Engines industrial gas turbines. Wulf studied Mechanical Engineering at the Technische Universität, Munich, from where he earned his PhD. After joining MTU in 2001, Wulf worked in various positions at the company’s headquarters in Munich before taking on the role of Engineering Director at MTU Aero Engines Polska in 2008, with responsibility for setting up the engineering and development location in Rzeszów. Today, on-site operations include parts repair and assembly activities in addition to engineering and development.

Reducing noise and protecting the climate Thanks to its efficiency and markedly reduced noise emissions the GTF will make an important contribution towards climate protection in the future and there is still great potential for improvement. Under the European Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative, which is approaching the home stretch, the successful technology will again be substantially enhanced. The various project activities, which span the whole gamut of game-changing aircraft, engine, system and eco-design concepts, are coordinated by the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking especially set up for the purpose. Targets to be met by the year 2020, let down by the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE): Aircraft are expected to emit 50 % less carbon dioxides (CO2) and 80 % percent less oxides of nitrogen (NOx) as compared with year 2000 levels. The perceived noise level is to be halved.

Clean Sky activities MTU Aero Engines is participating in this mammoth project. High-pressure compressors and low-pressure turbines have for decades been among MTU’s key areas of expertise. In the Clean Sky activities, too, we are mainly focusing on these two modules for the next generation geared turbofan™ engine applications to demonstrate the maturity of the technologies for new, weight-saving designs and materials when subjected to further increased mechanical and thermal loads. MTU is also responsible for building a demonstrator engine. As part of the programme’s “Sustainable and Green Engines” (SAGE) platform, five demonstrator engines will be built. MTU has taken on responsibility for the SAGE 4 sub-project. Plans are to have the demonstrator assembled and ready for testing in the first quarter of 2015. On July 12 this year, the SAGE 4 team passed the preliminary design review with flying colors and is now mid-way through the SAGE 4 sub-project. The design of the demonstrator engine must be completed; all components must be released for production by the end of 2013. The first component prototypes have already arrived in Munich and these prototypes will be put through their paces in components tests. For this purpose, the modified engine parts are provided with a variety of sensors that measure, for instance, the temperature and pressure distribution under simulated load conditions. They also permit the engineers to analyse the behaviour of the parts when subjected to vibrations at different frequencies. If all tests are successfully passed by mid-2014

45


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Four-point bending test: An SLM seal carrier is subjected to vibration resistance testing.

the components can be installed. MTU experts will assemble and instrument MTU’s high-speed low-pressure turbine and the turbine exit casing developed by Sweden’s GKN Aerospace, another partner in the Clean Sky initiative. Then the test engine can be fully assembled and installed in the test cell. Testing is slated to begin in April 2015.

Saving weight through new technologies One thing is for certain – already at this stage: The engine built for the SAGE 4 sub-project is lighter than any of its predecessors. In the high-pressure compressor, new seals made from carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) will replace the previously used titanium parts. These CFRP seals weigh less than their counterparts in the rare metal titanium and are less expensive. Further savings in weight will be achieved by the use of components made by additive manufacturing processes, such as inner rings with integrated honeycomb seals for the high-pressure compressor. These parts are built up from a metal powder bed using the selective laser melting (SLM) technique. Additive manufacturing makes production much easier, faster, lighter and provides engineers with substantially greater freedom of design. Another innovative technology, which likewise helps reducing the weight of the geared turbofan, will make its debut in the low-pressure turbine of the SAGE 4 demonstrator. Normally, the airfoils of the individual turbine stages must be of a particularly rigid design to prevent them from vibrating as they are exposed to the hot gases flowing between them at high velocities. But the good vibration-resistance properties come at a price: The airfoils weigh more. The newly developed airfoils with integrated vibration damping are capable of withstanding the critical frequencies occurring in operation without suffering damage. The airfoils are lighter and leaner. This affords aerodynamic advantages that have a positive effect on the overall efficiency of the engine.

46

photo: MTU Aero Engines

Ambitious Engineer Agenda To further increase the efficiency of the next-generation geared turbofans, MTU’s air system specialists and design engineers are currently working to optimise the use of cooling air in the low-pressure turbine. And since the cooling air is part of total air flow to be compressed further upstream in the engine, less cooling air saves energy, and the engine can produce more thrust as a result. The reduction of noise continues to be a topic featuring high on the engineers‘ agenda. In a first step, acoustic damping liners will be used on the turbine exit casing built by SAGE 4 partner GKN. Such liners, which attenuate the propagation of certain frequencies, have already proved their worth in the bypass duct upstream and downstream of the fan. For use in the hot engine section they had to be modified to make them resistant to elevated temperatures. With the technologies MTU is developing for SAGE 4, the company wants to reduce the engine’s fuel burn by around 3% as compared with current geared turbofans. The longterm goal is a 5-8% reduction. Such a reduction would be a major step forward. Although today’s engines achieve extremely high efficiencies each additional tenth of a percent makes a whole lot of a difference, helping cut down on fuel burn and hence reduce CO2 emissions. The new SAGE 4 technologies might be mature for use in production engines by 2020. MTU’s associates in the SAGE 4 sub-project are the BritishSwedish GKN Aerospace group and the Italian engine manufacturer Avio Aero. Other partners include a number of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), research institutions as well as universities. These partners work on specific, directly funded SAGE 4 development tasks defined by MTU and its associates for a limited period of time.


Air and Sea Power

Passion and the courage to innovate lead to remarkable results

The future of rotary wing flight by Chris Van Buiten, Vice President, Sikorsky Innovations, Stratford, USA

When you lead an organization whose charter is the aggressive and sustained attack on the toughest problems in vertical lift flight, you know your outlook will be long-term. We at Sikorsky Aircraft ask ourselves, what we can do today to ensure a portfolio of competitive rotorcraft products and services in 2020 and 2030.

Find skilled people, and let them innovate Several years ago, Sikorsky brought together a small group of deep thinkers and talented engineers under the banner of Sikorsky Innovations with the aim of being intensely collaborative and agile. These attitudes drove our desire to design, build and fly a small next-generation fly-by-wire co-axial helicopter to 250 knots flight speed from vision to reality in just 43 months. The program proved the efficiency of the X2 co-axial design for just $50 million.

S-97 RAIDER rapid prototyping

Chris Van Buiten is the Vice President of Sikorsky Innovations at Sikorsky Aircraft, where he runs the group for maturing next-generation technologies, including X2 technology™, active rotor and autonomy, as well as defining next-generation products. He was a Glenn L. Martin Aerospace Scholar at the University of Maryland, where he received a Photo: private Bachelor of Science in Aerospace in 1989. He received a Master of Science in System Design and Management from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Sloan School of Business in 1999. In 1989 Chris Van Buiten joined Sikorsky, where he has served as Chief of Preliminary Design and Manager of Advanced Design and has led Sikorsky’s Strategic Planning Group.

metal or plastic to produce parts. A second technique, called Friction Stir Welding, combines frictional heat and pressure to join two metal surfaces. Yet another process seeks to develop simplified structures by eliminating fasteners, such as rivets and adhesives.

Since 2010, Sikorsky Innovations has carried the same collaborative model, again within a rapid prototyping construct, into a second X2-based project. By the end of 2014, our 35 industry team members will have designed, fabricated, assembled and flown the first of two 11,000-pound gross weight S-97 RAIDER™ light tactical helicopters. Currently in final assembly at Sikorsky’s West Palm Beach, Fla., facility, the aircraft will demonstrate the game-changing capabilities of an armed scout helicopter capable of carrying six troops and external weapons. The combination of counter-rotating main rotors and a push propeller will give RAIDER helicopters a full range of extraordinary agility and maneuverability with 3G turns at high speed, and hover capability at 10,000 feet in hot temperatures where most helicopters cannot operate.

Developments in the United States We are developing a third X2-based rotorcraft in the medium weight class for the US Army’s Joint Multi-Role (JMR) Technology Demonstrator program. JMR seeks to evaluate next-generation technologies for a Future Vertical Lift helicopter that will replace BLACK HAWK and Apache helicopters by the mid2030s. In October 2013, we and our partner Boeing signed a six-year investment agreement with the Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center. The SikorskyBoeing JMR team will make a significant investment to design, build, fly and test a technology demonstrator aircraft for its flight in 2017.

Cooperative R&D with Government

Autonomous and adaptive

In Poland, Sikorsky-owned PZL Mielec leads a consortium of manufacturers that is collaborating with the Polish Government to invest in innovative new manufacturing technologies. The goal is to design and build advanced composite and metallic aero structures in a multi-year research and development partnership that brings together industry and universities.

Speed is just one pillar of innovation for Sikorsky. We are also working to make aircraft more autonomous, and more aware and adaptive to their operational environment. What if a helicopter could transition between dual-pilot, single pilot and unmanned flight modes simply by turning a switch? Or if it could adapt the shape or speed of its rotor blades? We believe these features will appeal to operators looking for multi-mission versatility. Safety of flight is another pressing issue that we are addressing head on. In August 2013, Sikorsky Innovations unveiled a major research program — designated Matrix Technology™ —

Manufacturing technologies in Poland Among the manufacturing technologies supported by Sikorsky is Additive Manufacturing, a technique that progressively adds

47


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Sikorsky prepares the CH-53K heavy lift helicopter program’s Ground Test Vehicle at West Palm Beach, Florida, for “light-off” in December 2013 when the GE engines and rotor blades are turned photo: Sikorsky for the first time.

to develop, test and field systems and software that will improve significantly the capability, reliability and safety of flight for autonomous, optionally piloted, and piloted VTOL aircraft. Developing on-board system intelligence and multilevel contingency management is the key to success. The Matrix aims to improve the unmanned rotorcraft loss rate, from one aircraft per 1,000 flight hours today, to one per 100,000 flight hours. Only with this order-of-magnitude improvement in flight safety and reliability will operators allow their large helicopters to perform complex autonomous missions with minimal human oversight and at low altitudes where obstacles abound. For its autonomy initiative, Sikorsky Innovations has acquired and outfitted both an S-76® and a BLACK HAWK helicopter with fly-by-wire controls and MATRIX autonomy technology to act as flying labs. These aircraft will test new applications almost daily.

operational tempo. A data center collects and analyses the maintenance, operations and health data downloaded from every helicopter across a fleet, every day. Over time trends and patterns become visible. Sikorsky Aerospace Services has matured fleet analytics since monitoring the first S-92 helicopter in 2006. Today, more than 200 S-92 aircraft have accumulated 600,000 flight hours. It’s a goldmine of data that lets us predict material requirements, and recommend cost savings and maintenance reductions — ensuring that every S-92 helicopter benefits from the experience of the entire fleet. After benchmarking the S-92 program, the US Marine Corps recently established an analytics center for the H-53E helicopter fleet. The intent is to migrate the capability to the CH-53K platform when the first squadron becomes operational in 2019.

CH-53K helicopter

Human powered flight

The courage and passion to innovate resides across Sikorsky, not just within a small band of specialists. That is especially true with the CH-53K heavy lift helicopter programme where Sikorsky has introduced a suite of new technologies and tools that is changing the way we design and build helicopters. The 88,000-pound (4t) gross weight “K” model will enable the US Marine Corps to carry 27,000 pounds (12,2 t) over 110 nautical miles under “high hot” ambient conditions. This more than doubles the external load carrying capacity of the current CH-53E SUPER STALLION™ helicopter. Three years before assembling the first prototype “K” helicopter, we began building the aircraft in a 3D virtual reality lab. This VR lab allowed Sikorsky engineers to “get inside” an animated view of the airframe to determine whether the aircraft would be as simple to put together, and then maintain in the field, as designed. This approach saved months of rework, and delivered cost savings in the tens of millions of dollars.

Though not a Sikorsky accomplishment, we can take partial credit for a feat of human engineering that occurred in July. AeroVelo, Toronto, was the only team able to meet the technical requirements set by the American Helicopter Society in 1980, to design and build a helicopter that could rise three meters, and hover over a 10-meter-by-10-meter box for one minute using only human-generated power. The Atlas team flew for 65 sec., reached a height of 3.3 meters, and stayed within the 10-meter box to win the $250,000 Sikorsky prize. www.vtol.org/aerovelo

Fleet analytics Our fleet analytics initiative is aimed at reducing the operating cost of helicopters while improving availability, safety and

48

Ninety years strong At 90 years young, Sikorsky Aircraft has spent the last 74 years designing, building and supporting the world’s best performing, safest and most reliable helicopter products. Our company founder Igor Sikorsky proved that if you have the courage and passion to innovate, you can achieve remarkable results. His first flight of the VS-300 helicopter in 1939 launched the rotorcraft industry that sustains us still. Three generations later, we continue to redefine what is possible in vertical flight.


Air and Sea Power

Port of Tanger Med: security hot spot between Africa and Europe

Integrated Security Systems to answer the challenges in a globalised world by Jens Nielsen, Head of Integrated Systems, Cassidian, Ulm

Up until now, the historical bases for maritime security have been essentially national and to a large extent they still are, since maritime security remains one of the sovereign duties of the State. Nevertheless, although globalisation has introduced new opportunities, it has also introduced new threats. At least 90% of commercial transport is seaborne, making maritime security and safety top priorities for the world economies. But it is not the biggest issue authorities have to deal with: since the beginning of the third millennium, mass terrorism, piracy, illegal immigration, smuggling and environmental hazards have been intensifying. Governments are therefore increasingly going to open themselves to a more global and highly integrated way of addressing the question of maritime security, while incorporating their national achievements. Initiatives like the ISPS (International Ship & Port Security) Code for goods transport or EUROSUR for the surveillance of the Schengen borders go in this direction.

Integrated maritime security solutions Cassidian is playing a key role in developing integrated security solutions, whether on the ground, in the air or at sea. Regarding maritime security, Cassidian‘s expertise ranges from coastal surveillance to comprehensive security solutions reaching as far as the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone). Cassidian has already installed maritime solutions in more

Jens Nielsen is Head of CASSIDIAN’s Integrated Systems Business Line. Born in Denmark in 1962, he graduated with an MoS in Aeronautical Engineering from the Technical University of Munich in 1990. The same year he began working for Dornier as a Flight Test Systems Engineer on the Do328 programme. From 1994 to 1999 he Photo: private worked for BMW Rolls-Royce and was assigned as Senior Engineer to the BR715/B717 programme at McDonnell Douglas/Boeing. In 1999 he became Chief Systems Engineer for Fairchild Dornier’s 728 jet airliner programme and in 2002 Head of Engineering for Controls and Navigation Systems at Diehl Avionik Systeme. Mr Nielsen joined EADS CASSIDIAN ELECTRONICS in 2005, where his last position was that of Head of the Mission Avionics Business Line.

than 40 countries, comprising over 100 control centres as well as more than 500 radars.IMARSECTM (Integrated Maritime Security) is Cassidian‘s maritime security system. Its purpose is to enhance maritime security and safety thanks to fully integrated solutions designed to prevent and fight threats and tailored to protect such areas as ports, refineries and coast-

Components of the integrated security system of Tanger Med Graphic: © KircherBurkhardt Infografik

49


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

lines or on the high seas. One important reference is the Tanger Med harbour in northern Morocco, where the integrated security system has been in operation since June 2013.

Vital need to protect Africa’s largest port Tanger Med is the largest port in Africa and a hub for shipping between Southeast Asia and Europe on the Strait of Gibraltar, with the European coastline visible at just 14 kilometres’ distance. One third of the world’s container ships pass through this strait. The Tanger Med Port Authority (TMPA) is responsible for guaranteeing the protection of the area against thieves, illegal immigrants, drug-traffickers and terrorists. The average number of illegal attempts to enter the port is 600 per month – with a record of 1600 in one month – the aim being to stow away on vessels to Europe. For TMPA, it was important to enter into long-term collaboration with a respected contractor and to opt for the most advanced technology. At Tanger Med, Cassidian has deployed and integrated 15 subsystems, representing over 2 000 electronic devices.

A wide range of systems and subsystems The system is used by the majority of Tanger Med security authorities as well as by customs and police. Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) employ radars, cameras and a communications system to monitor ships, in order, for example, to prevent collisions. Maritime or land-based threats are addressed by integrated subsystems such as intelligent video surveillance, biometric access control, scanners or secure communications. The 12 km long fences around the port area are equipped with 700 sensors within a system known as Perimeter Intrusion Detection. If, for instance, someone attempts to climb over the fence, this is detected by the sensors. The site is also equipped with 470 cameras. In contrast to conventional video surveillance, the system is capable of drawing attention to the correct video images. If the sensors detect a movement along the fence, the relevant video images are automatically displayed to the operator. A Patrol Management System identifies the locations of the security staff in real-time using Professional Mobile Radio GPS. If the system detects a possible threat, the patrol closest to the threat site is alerted. The hypervisor software, which manages all these subsystems and collects all the relevant information, is called iPORT and was fully developed by Cassidian. The centrepiece of the system is the control room: this is where all the information comes together, to allow the right decision to be made at the right time. Between 15 and 20 attempts at unauthorised entry into the port are thwarted every day. Without the system, this would be impossible.

50

Documentation EUROSUR regulation adopted by the Council On 22 October 2013, the Council of the European Union adopted the regulation establishing the European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR), which aims to reinforce control of the Schengen external borders. EUROSUR will establish a mechanism for Member States’ authorities carrying out border surveillance activities to share operational information and to cooperate with each other and with the FRONTEX Agency in order to reduce the number of irregular migrants entering the EU undetected, and to increase internal security by preventing cross-border crime, such as trafficking in human beings and the smuggling of drugs. The new system is expected to contribute to improving the operational and technical ability of the Agency and the Member States to detect small vessels, and to become one of the key tools enabling the EU to prevent tragedies at sea such as that which took place recently off the island of Lampedusa (Italy). In this respect, the Regulation states: “The practice of travelling in small and unseaworthy vessels has dramatically increased the number of migrants drowning at the southern maritime external borders. EUROSUR should considerably improve the operational and technical ability of the Agency and Member States to detect these small vessels and to improve the reaction capability of the Member States thereby contributing to reducing the loss of lives of migrants”. The EUROSUR system has been progressively developed since 2008. It will improve daily cooperation between national authorities by establishing an information sharing and cooperation mechanism, which will enable Member States’ authorities to carry out coordinated border surveillance activities and work with FRONTEX at the tactical, operational and strategic levels. EUROSUR will apply to the surveillance not only of the external land and sea borders of the Member States but also of their air borders, as well as to checks at border crossing points if the Member States voluntarily provide such information to EUROSUR. The EUROSUR regulation will apply to the Member States located at the southern and eastern external borders as of 2 December 2013 and to the remaining member states from 1 December 2014 onwards. Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom are not taking part in the adoption of this regulation. Source: Council of the European Union


Air and Sea Power

Addressing new threat scenarios with tailored system and equipment solutions

Contributing to maritime security through advanced technology Interview with Claus Günther, CEO Diehl Defence Holding, Überlingen

The European: Today around 90 percent of international trade comes and goes by sea. Safeguarding international shipping and waterways through protection and surveillance of maritime trading routes as well as harbour and container security are major tasks in view of widespread piracy and terrorist attacks. Which technologies in Diehl´s naval portfolio are capable of addressing today´s maritime threat scenarios? Claus Günther: Diehl Defence offers technologies addressing this new threat scenario and supporting naval capabilities with tailored system and equipment solutions. They range from guided missiles and ammunition for ship-borne guns providing self-defence as well as precise engagement of sea and land targets to reconnaissance and surveillance systems for reliable threat detection. The European: Can you provide examples of your naval missile expertise? Claus Günther: Diehl Defence delivers the anti-ship missile RBS15 Mk3 as the main weapon system for the German Navy´s new K130 corvette. Moreover, the RBS15 Mk3 missile was procured by the Polish Navy for its ORKAN class fast patrol vessels. RBS15 Mk3, jointly developed by Diehl Defence and Saab Dynamics, is based on the RBS15 Mk2 predecessor which has proved its worth with the Swedish and other navies. A special feature of the missile with a range of more than 200 km is its capability of precise engagement of land targets as well. The European: Are you assembling various missile components in Germany? Claus Günther: Yes we do this at a modern integration and test center in Nonnweiler (Saarland). There Diehl Defence assembles the missile’s seeker, guidance and control section, the warhead and propulsion into an entire system. The European: Diehl Defence is a major partner in the trans-Atlantic Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) program – a collaboration of Raytheon, MBDA Deutschland and Diehl. Can you provide details? Claus Günther: RAM, which is operative in more than a dozen navies, is an advanced ship-board defence system against anti-ship missiles, aircraft and helicopters. Diehl’s workshare comprises manufacture and integration of the missile´s guidance and control sections including the infrared seeker

System SIMONE – Passive Infrared Monitoring System photo: Diehl Defence

head as well as the launch canister. In March 2013, the German Navy placed a procurement contract for 445 RAM 2 missiles of the Block 2 upgrade version. The European: In an industrial consortium, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and Diehl Defence are currently pursuing the IDAS project (Interactive Defence and Attack System for Submarines). What does Diehl offer? Claus Günther: IDAS offers entirely new self-defence possibilities of submerged submarines against threats from the air, from surface vessels and from coastal areas. Thanks to an

51


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

innovative fiber-optic data link, the submarine’s operator is capable of controlling the missile during the entire flight. The European: Have you ever performed tests with IDAS? Claus Günther: An IDAS prototype has already performed a successful controlled test firing from a class 212A submarine of the German Navy in the Baltic Sea. The European: Will other partners be joining the programme? Claus Günther: Indeed, in May 2013, the Turkish company Roketsan joined the IDAS consortium. The European: What are the highlights in Diehl's naval ammunition portfolio? Claus Günther: Diehl Defence developed the 76 ammunition family for the naval gun OTO Melara 76 mm L/62. The ammunition is in series production and operative in 20 navies worldwide. The European: This is the “conventional version”, but do you already have a new version under development? Claus Günther: Indeed, France awarded Diehl Defence an order for the development of the new insensitive 76 mm naval ammunition. As opposed to the conventional variant, the new insensitive type does not detonate in case of enemy shelling or fire on board. This enhances safety and protection of the vessel’s crew. The European: Let me turn to VULCANO, a joint programme with OTO Melara. What does VULCANO stand for? Claus Günther: VULCANO is a joint programme with our Italian partners. Diehl Defence is developing the VULCANO guided ammunition family with the 127 mm naval and 155 mm army variants. Dual mode capability of GPS/IR (Infra-Red) or

From left to right: RAM ship-board defence missile, RBS15 Mk3 anti-ship guided missile with land attack capability, IDAS guided missile for photo: Diehl Defence submarine self-defence

52

Claus Günther has been CEO of the Diehl Defence Holding GmbH and Member of the Executive Board of the Diehl Group since 2007. He was born in 1954 in Gelsenkirchen, Germany. He took part in officer training in Hannover from 1972 to 1974, followed by studies of economics and organisational science at the Bundeswehr University, Hamburg, Photo: private until 1977. After an officer career, Mr Günther held various positions at Buderus AG from 1985 to 1989. He then was Member of the Executive Board of SMC Corporation, Tokyo. In 2002, Mr Günther became President of the “Operating Affiliated Companies” Corporate Division Board of Diehl Stiftung & Co. KG and simultaneously CEO of the Hydrometer Group, Ansbach.

GPS/SAL (Semi-Active Laser) Terminal Homing offer a quantum leap in high precision target engagement. The European: The US marines use your Floating Smoke Pot. Claus Günther: Diehl Defence produces various NATO-qualified smoke agents for the protection of troops, vehicles and ships. Our Floating Smoke Pot is in service with the US Marine Corps. The European: Let me come to surveillance. What can Diehl offer navies in terms of reconnaissance and surveillance technology? Claus Günther: In spring 2013, Diehl Defence started delivery of the passive infrared surveillance system SIMONE (Ship Infrared Monitoring, Observation and Navigation Equipment) for the German Navy’s new Frigate F125. SIMONE is suited for early and reliable detection of threats to ships such as pirates and terrorist attacks. The European: What are the system’s specific strengths in harbours and in coastal waters? Claus Günther: In harbours and coastal waters conventional radar systems rapidly reach their limits. SIMONE´s infrared technology not only detects even very small suspicious objects such as inflatable rubber boats or swimmers and provides 24 hour/360° coverage of the vessel’s immediate vicinity. It also serves as a night navigation assistant in troubled waters. The European: We have been through all the systems you mentioned at the beginning. Last but not least: what are you offering by way of state-of-the-art surveillance systems? Claus Günther: Diehl is offering the German Navy a reconnaissance solution for SAATEG VTOL requirements based on the CAMCOPTER S-100 UAV of the Austrian company Schiebel. The system is to be operated from the new K 130 corvette. The European: Mr. Günther, thank you for this interview.


Photo: expertinfantry, CC by 2.0, Flickr

Protection It is highly likely for the foreseeable future that for operations in an asymmetric environment the emphasis will continue to be placed on the protection of crisis-management forces against the full panoply of threats and risks. Among those risks are CBRN attacks and IEDs (improvised explosive devices); these concern not only personal equipment but all tactical or operational movements and logistics.

Tailor-made solutions for the specific needs of civil and military customers

Innovative vehicles for the protection of crisis-management forces by Franz Achleitner, CEO Achleitner GmbH, Wörgl

Achleitner’s reputation in the field of protected vehicles for military, security and special purpose makes ours a highly recommended company among clients all over the world. It has developed many innovative products for exclusive needs, including the militarised and protected survivor 4x4 family and the mantra 4x4 troop carrier or command vehicle. Achleitner also develops different tailor-made solutions for more specific customer needs. All our standard products are signalised with high mobility approved in all terrains. Our vehicles are suited to all transport requirements.

Franz Achleitner has been CEO of ‘Franz Achleitner Fahrzeugbau und Reifenzentrum GMBH’ and ‘Achleitner Sicherheitstechnik GMBH’ since 19 May 2005 – the third generation in the family business. He was born in April 1965 in Tyrol, Austria. After completing his education and obtaining various advanced qualifications he found his place in Photo: Achleitner the field of vehicle manufacturing at Achleitner. He is now in charge of about 200 employees and is also responsible for development, in particular in the area of security vehicles.

Protected mission vehicle The PMV SURVIVOR II 4x4 protected mission vehicle is built with a crew cabin designed as a monocoque cell to provide the highest protection against Ballistic threats- Mines- Improvised Explosion Devices (IED). This vehicle is based on a series truck chassis with a gross

vehicle weight (GVW) of up to 15t, three 100% differential locks and permanent four-wheel drive. It comes with an optional fully automatic transmission, thus introduced logistics (NATO) is a given. Protected mission vehicles come nowadays in a new range of sizes and styles and include a troop carrier with up to ten seats, a command and control vehicle and a protected ambulance vehicle. The vehicle has lashing points for transport by air, sea and rail. Additionally, the protection concept has been designed in a modular add-on fashion allowing the protection level to be upgraded in the future.

Worldwide logistic support and training

PMV SURVIVOR II

photo: Achleitner

Training services and spare part availability are Achleitner’s key principles. Our quality and service guarantee our success and our products catering to the very latest technical crisismanagement requirements are highly recommended all over the world.

53


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

There are real threats and risks

The European Parliament View on CBRN Preparedness and Readiness by Ioan Mircea Paşcu MEP, Vice-Chairman AFET, European Parliament, Strasbourg/Brussels

Dr Ioan Mircea Paşcu MEP held a speech at the CATO Conference on 9/10 October 2013 in BONN underlining the importance for the European Union of the CATO security research project for future preparedness, readiness and cooperation in CBRN Protection. The CBRN threat is real and the risk associated with it is important, in spite of the apparent agreement between specialists that the use of such agents by terrorists is less attractive compared to the use of other conventional means, due to the difficulty of access to such CBRN agents.

Military versus civil preparedness This is due to the fact that CBRN weapons have been used in warfare and, consequently, played an important role during the Cold War, remaining part of state arsenals even today. This has created a paradox: in general, the protection against them is concentrated at the level of the military, while the probability of their active employment today is higher in the civilian sphere; consequently standards, equipment, training and readiness differ between the military and civilian “first responders”. In consequence, there is a need to raise the performance level of civilian “first responders” to bring it closer to that of the military ones, and to integrate the latter into the response to civilian CBRN incidents, achieving an efficient continuum with the civilian response to them. It should be stressed that when classic deterrence is inapplicable, given the very nature of the actors involved – namely terrorists ready to die to accomplish their “mission” – a new form of deterrence, based primarily on the effectiveness of the

Dr Ioan Mircea Paşcu Dr Ioan Mircea Paşcu was born in 1949 in Satu Mare, Romania. 1980 Ph.D. in Political Science from the Institute of Political Science; 1989–1992 Member of Provisional Council for National Unity and Presidential Councillor as Head of the Foreign Policy Direction; 1993 State Secretary MOD Bucharest; 1996 MP and Chairman of the Defence and Home Affairs Committee; 2000 Minister of Defence; 2005 Observer to the European Parliament; 2007 Member of the European Parliament and Vice-President of the Foreign Affairs Committee and Member of the Strategic Advisory Board of the US Atlantic Committee. His last book: “Battle for NATO − a personal account”, Bucharest 2007, 326 p.

54

response, should be given pre-eminence, thus offering also the indispensable guarantee of defence, in case deterrence fails …

The Golden Hour Since time is of the essence – see the importance of the “golden hour” derived from actual battlefield experience – in parallel to trying to orchestrate a common response at the level of the EU, one should also make sure that the local response is adequate, timely and effective! This does not mean that one should favour local over community efforts – not at all – but rather that the latter’s role should concentrate on monitoring, early warning, common training, facilitation of interaction and, most importantly, dealing with the effects of a CBRN attack on any of its members.

The contribution of the European Parliament The EP’s main contribution is “The Report on strengthening chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear security in the European Union – an EU CBRN Action Plan” written by my colleague, Ms Ana Gomes, for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in 2010 (A7-0349/2010). In this report the Rapporteur points to the new division of competences between the EU and the Member States (MS) resulting from the Lisbon Treaty and reflected in the plan. It calls for a strengthened common approach to CBRN through the creation of a mechanism for compulsory assistance in the event of a CBRN disaster. We noted with astonishment that in addressing the issue, the European Council did not make any reference to the Lisbon Treaty’s Solidarity Clause …. The MS should do more than sharing best practices and the EU should establish a European civil protection force. Also, the Report notes both that the Commission failed to ensure the replacement by the industry of high-risk chemicals with lowerrisk alternatives – thus eliminating a potential source of supply for terrorists/disaster – and that the final version of the CBRN Action Plan adopted by the Council in November 2009 was a watered-down version of the draft presented to it in June 2009.

The Importance of CBRN research In its Report on the EU CBRN Action Plan the European Parliament underlined the need to provide the requisite research and development funding in order to ensure the implementa-


Protection

tion of applied research and major demonstration programmes with an EU dimension. Securing the necessary R&D funding and promoting innovation are key elements of the Parliament’s position in the current negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020. We have constantly called for the sharing and use of best CBRN knowledge and expertise from both the civil and military fields. The European Parliament is a firm promoter of the European defence and technological base and is also convinced of the need for an EU industrial policy in the field of civil security.

Conclusion Inevitably there have been new developments since the writing of that Report. For example, the Commission – together with the Council – has addressed the need to confer substance to the mechanisms designed to implement the Lisbon Treaty Solidarity Clause specifically referred to in my Report on the “EU’s Mutual Defence and Solidarity Clauses: political and operational dimensions”* and activated the Emergency Response Centre in May 2013. My Report stresses that the implementation of the Solidarity

Clause and of the crisis response mechanisms in general is not just a matter of setting up procedures for the moment a major crisis happens, but is fundamentally about capacity-building, prevention and preparedness. It is evident that the EU and the MS are aware of the risk and are relatively well equipped to deal with the CBRN threat; if there is something to address it is fragmentation and duplication, rather than scarcity. Last but not least I would like to make a personal comment with regard to the CATO project: • The CATO project is of the utmost importance for the functioning of the EU’s CBRN Strategy and its implementation. • MEPs – directly elected by and hence directly answerable to European citizens – have an obligation to address these matters publicly in all seriousness. • The reason I am here today with you is to support your efforts and I thank you for your endeavours and ambition. > European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the EU's mutual defence and solidarity clauses: political and operational dimensions: http://tinyurl.com/nczmgho

55


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

CONFERENCE REPORT

Convincing Security Research results FP7: CATO Project Public Conference, Bonn 2013 by Nannette Cazaubon, Journalist, Paris The first public CATO Conference – on “Leading edge research and innovation in CBRN Preparedness & Response” – was held from 9 to 10 October 2014 in Bonn, in the historic neo-Gothic Collegium Albertinum, a former seminary. Some 120 participants – politicians, members of the administration, academics and industrialists – gathered for two days of discussions of the results presented by the CATO consortium to the plenary. With CATO entering its last year, the consortium’s findings thus far were demonstrated in eight interactive workshops, giving participants a foretaste of the final results that can be expected at the end of 2014.

Conference Reports

What is CATO?

The historical venue of the CATO Conference in Photo: Rob Munro Bonn

CATO, standing for CBRN crisis management, Architecture, Technologies and Operational procedures, is a Research and Technology (R&D) project funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (FP 7). Supported by ARTTIC, Paris, which plays a coordinating role, the CATO consortium comprises 25 companies, universities, research centres, police and other bodies from the European Union and Israel, which interact continuously with external advisers, collecting their feedback on project results.

The project aims to develop a holistic open toolbox for dealing with CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) crises arising as a result of terrorist use of CBRN materials or non-conventional weapons, or on sites where there are CBRN materials. It addresses the issue of how to overcome the fragmentation of CBRN protection in terms of preparedness and response, a key objective of the European Commission and European Parliament.

CATO-Lab workshops sparked a lively interest

56

The Conference highlights - The Vice-Chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), Ion Mircea Paşcu, MEP, highlighted the EP’s interest in CBRN preparedness and response, stressing that the CBRN threat and risk were very real. The EU Commission and the European Parliament wished to overcome the fragmentation of CBRN protection in the European Union, he said. “A new form of deterrence based primarily on the effectiveness of the response, should be given pre-eminence, thus offering also the indispensable guarantee of defence” (see page 54). -The EU CBRN Action Plan was the central discussion theme of a high-level panel moderated by the editor-in-chief of this magazine, Hartmut Bühl, and bringing together members of the three European Commission departments concerned with CBRN issues as well as a representative of the European Defence Agency (EDA). It was commonly agreed that a revision of the EU’s 2009 CBRN Action Plan, as proposed by the European Parliament on the basis of the report submitted by Ana Gomez report in 2010, was the right approach, and that national hesitations on proposed measures in the EU Council

Photo: Rob Munro


Protection

Ioan Mircea Paş cu MEP confirmed in his speech the importance of the CATO-project Photo: Rob Munro

should not have the effect of watering down the common efforts at EU level. - The presentations by Dr. Victor Remez from Ness TSG, Israel, gave a good overview of the project architecture, which was completed by Dr Mike Griffin’s explanations on the status and functioning of the CATO Lab. The project’s advanced status gives every reason to expect a positive outcome at the end of 2014 that will give

added value to the EU Crisis Mechanism. There was a clear and common understanding, supported by the representatives of the EU institutions, that the CATO Lab should have access to the EU’s Emergency Response Centre (ERC) that has been operational since May 2013 within the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO). Experts from Austria, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States gave presentations on specific CBRN protection issues that gave the participants a broader view as well as providing valuable ideas for the CATO consortium. Special aspects of dealing in practice with threats and risks were addressed in a panel moderated by Christian Baumhauer, CEO of ARTTIC, with reference to the experience of other FP 7 projects: Practice, EQuATox and Opsic. Eight interactive workshops showing the technical status of the different parts of the CATO project and its mode of operation met with a positive response from partici-

pants, who rewarded the professionalism and realism of the workshop leaders with their active cooperation, suggestions and ideas.

Conclusion The two-day conference was a success, it enabled participants both to understand and to contribute to the further development of a promising project which will enhance the EU Crisis Mechanism.

The CATO-Coordinator Victor Remez, Ph.D. Technical Director, Ness Technologies, Tel Photo: Rob Munro Aviv, opening the Conference

Legacy and innovation

Assisting crisis-management forces by Christian Neudel, Head of Public Relations, Kärcher Futurtech, Schwaikheim Kärcher Futuretech GmbH, an internationally renowned protection and supply systems specialist based in Schwaikheim, near Stuttgart, was spun off to become an independent subsidiary of Alfred Kärcher GmbH & Co. KG in 2005. Futurtech is currently active in the business areas of CBRN Protection Systems, Water Supply Systems, Mobile Catering Systems, Field Camp Systems and Services.

Innovative state-of-the-art systems The systems are designed to support and safeguard the lives of all actors involved in disaster situations, accidents and development aid, police and military operations, in order to ensure their fitness for rescue actions, their stamina and their survival. With its highly mobile customised state-of-the-art solutions, Futuretech rates itself among the highest performers worldwide in the areas of peacekeeping and disaster relief

Christian Neudel has been a member of the staff of the Press and Public Relations Office of Kärcher Futuretech GmbH since March 2012. He was born in 1984 and holds an MA in Advanced Management and International Brand and Sales Management, as well as a BA in Information Management and Corporate Communications from the University of Photo: © Kärcher Applied Sciences in Neu-Ulm. He has also studied abroad, in Spain and New Zealand. Before taking up his current post, he was the sales representative for the Caravan Saloon in Düsseldorf.

operations. Its innovative state-of-the-art systems and complete product range make Futuretech the world market leader in “professional systems for peacekeepers“.

57


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

TEP 90 – state-of-the-art in decontamination

Photo: © Kärcher

Experience Water: During the ISAF missions in Afghanistan, Futuretech’s customers produced over 100 million bottles of purified drinking water directly where it was needed. They use water purification systems consisting of several WTC 6000 and WTC 1600 to provide safe and clean drinking water. This purified water is then directly bottled using a number of Futuretech WBP 700 water bottling plants. The product family has recently been enlarged to include a new system called WBP 1300. It is able to fill up to 1 300 PET bottles per hour with clean drinking water, almost double the output of the previous

model. At the same time, the manpower requirements for this operation have been cut by half, resulting in considerably lower operating costs. Decontamination: Futuretech also supports the CBRN troops in Afghanistan with its state-of-the-art decontamination system called TEP 90. The TEP 90 is a highly mobile, rapidly deployable decontamination system for mission-optimised, thorough CBRN decontamination close to contaminated mission forces. Due to high-tech decontamination technologies and agents, it meets all the relevant technical requirements of a high-performance decontamination system and is the only system worldwide able to cater for such a vast range of decontamination scenarios.

Kärcher Futurtech:

Waterclean WTC 1600 GT

58

Photo: © Kärcher

The company has an annual turnover of approx. €43 million and more than 120 employees working in the central office in Schwaikheim in the areas of development, sales, marketing, administration and maintenance. The Management Board consists of Thomas Popp and Volker Welzenbach. The production and repair of technical appliances and protection systems are carried out mainly in the Futuretech factory in Obersontheim. In addition to producing for customers in the Federal Republic of Germany, the company exports primarily to Switzerland, Sweden, Russia, Luxemburg, Great Britain, the United States, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Senegal and Singapore.


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

News: Council conclusions on the regional impact of the Syria crisis On 18 November 2013, EU Foreign Affairs Ministers adopted Conclusions on the regional impact of the Syria crisis. The Council reiterates its grave concern for the humanitarian, social, economic, political and security impact of the Syrian crisis on the entire region, especially Lebanon and Jordan. Conclusions (Excerpts) “(…) 2. The EU is gravely concerned with the fact that 9.3 million Syrians within Syria are in dire need of external assistance. In particular, it reiterates its concern for the fate of 6.5 million of internally displaced Syrians and of more than 2 million refugees in neighbouring countries, all in need of external assistance. The EU is gravely concerned about the impact of the upcoming winter on the most vulnerable and the polio outbreak inside Syria and urges for timely vaccinations, which require that all parties to the conflict grant full access to health teams participating in the polio immunization campaign throughout the country. 3. The EU commends the authorities and population of, most notably, Lebanon and Jordan as well as Turkey and Iraq for their support and extraordinary generosity towards the people fleeing the conflict in Syria, and recalls the importance of them maintaining the open borders policy. The EU recognizes the destabilizing impact this influx of refugees has on the host communities, especially in Lebanon and Jordan. (…) 4. The EU reaffirms its commitment as the largest donor in the context of the Syrian crisis to support governments, host communities and beneficiaries in countries with most refugees. It welcomes plans for a pledging conference in the beginning of 2014 (“Kuwait II”). The EU will do its utmost to further increase its commitment and calls on international partners to increase humanitarian and economic support to those most affected in Syria and the neighbouring countries. For their part,

60

EU Foreign Affairs Ministers meeting in Brussels, 18 November 2013

all donor countries should in accordance with the principles of burden sharing ensure the fulfilment of pledges already made. 5. The EU commends those countries that keep their borders open in order to provide a safe haven and protection for people fleeing the violence in Syria, including Palestinians. In recognition of the immense burden placed upon the neighbouring countries, the EU underlines the importance of supporting local host communities through social and economic measures to mitigate the impact of refugees, and to help financially the host countries to respond to the growing humanitarian needs of refugees. All parties should facilitate the delivery of aid based on humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality. 6. The EU also recalls the need for increased humanitarian, development and macro financial assistance in the short and medium term across the region under a comprehensive response strategy to be based on a comprehensive joint analysis of needs from the UN and international financial institutions. (…) 7. The EU reiterates its grave concern about the restricted humanitarian access in Syria, which is also contributing to the outflow of Syrians, many of whom are also facing worsening food shortages, to the

Source: The Council of the European Union

neighbouring countries. Therefore, the EU calls on all parties, and particularly the Syrian government, to immediately implement in full the UN Security Council’s presidential statement of the 2nd of October in order to ensure the expansion of humanitarian relief operations, to lift bureaucratic impediments and other obstacles and to facilitate safe, unhindered and immediate humanitarian access to populations in need of assistance in the entirety of the Syrian territory, including across conflict lines and across borders from neighbouring countries. The EU calls on all sides of the conflict to allow for local ceasefires to facilitate humanitarian work and to respect all obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law. All those violating these obligations must be held accountable. (…) 9. The EU underlines that the deteriorating spill-over effects of the Syrian conflict in the region make it all the more urgent to put an end to all violence in Syria and find a political solution that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. The EU reiterates the importance of quickly convening the Geneva II Conference to this end. Recalling the October 2013 Council conclusions on Syria, the EU welcomes the recent positive stance of the National Coalition of the Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (SOC) towards participation in the Conference as an encouraging step. (…)”


Protection

CONFERENCE REPORT

Go Connected + Go Smart = Zero Distance AFCEA Europe TechNet International 2013, Lisbon 23 to 24 October 2013 TechNet International 2013 was co-hosted by the Portuguese AFCEA Chapter, “one of the most active in Europe” as General Manager AFCEA Europe, Major General (ret.) Klaus-Peter Treche, said in his opening remarks before some 330 participants in this two-day conference plus exhibition. Portugal’s interest in this subject was clear from the strong and active participation by the country’s authorities in this event organised under the high patronage of the Portuguese Minister of Defence. Both the State Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, Dr. Berta Cabral, and the Joint Chief of Staff of Portugal Chief of Defence, Vice Admiral Pereira da Cunha, underscored their country’s desire not only to overcome the current financial crisis but also to conduct the reforms needed for Portugal to remain a reliable partner both within NATO and the European Union.

Key elements of the conference A key issue addressed by this Conference organised in cooperation with the NATO Communications and Information (NCI) Agency, in addition to the ongoing NATO command structure and agency reform, was that of the characteristics of modern C4ISR applications, which featured throughout the two days of speeches and panel discussions, in connection with the question of mobile solutions for armed forces.

It came as no surprise, given the nation hosting this conference, that a broad spectrum of maritime security and awareness aspects was also presented and discussed.

Security and mobility By sheer coincidence, the news that the German Chancellor’s cell phone had apparently been under NSA surveillance for years broke during the first morning of the conference. “We can provide better protection” was the general comment of the industries participating in the Conference. With reference to the risk of industrial espionage, some speakers admitted that one weak point in this field is the tendency of companies to neglect the current cyber protection requirements.

Keynote speeches: accounts of practical experience The first keynote speech was delivered by the former Commander, ISAF Regional Command North and Commander of the German ISAF contingent in Afghanistan, LtGen Erich Pfeffer, who gave an account of his own experience of C4ISR in Afghanistan. He explained that it was possible but difficult to guarantee secured mobility during operations. Rapid Environmental Assessment of the Maritime Battlespace was the subject of the second keynote speech delivered by

General Manager AFCEA Europe, Major General (ret.) Klaus-Peter Treche, during his opening speech. From left to right: Mr. Chuck Shawcross, Director of Service Strategy, NATO Communications and Information Agency (NCIA); Vice-Admiral José Domingos Pereira da Cunha, Chief of the Joint Staff, CHOD Portugal; Major General Klaus-Peter Treche, DEU AF (Ret.), General Manager, AFCEA Europe; Dra. Berta Maria Correia de Almeida de photo: Jürgen C. Rosenthal Melo Cabral, Secretary of State Assistant to the Minister of National Defence, Portugal

61


THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Panel Sessions Rear Admiral António Manuel Fernandes da Silva Ribeiro, General Director of the Portuguese Hydrographic Institute (PRT), who explained that the maritime battlespace calls for special awareness and means to protect the environment. Modern technologies are already engaged but need to be further developed with a view to a better preparedness and response.

Panel Sessions In the course of four special theme tracks the rationales of the guiding theme “Go Connected + Go Smart = Zero Distance” were carved out and discussed from an operation and technology perspective. While the first day included a spectacular live hacking demonstration by Mr Tobias Schrödel, an independent consultant on IT Security and Awareness, the second day presented another veritable highlight: CASSIDIAN’s Head of Advanced Concepts, Professor Dr Holger Mey, presented his provocative ideas on risk calculation in addition to going smart and connected at zero distance “A long and busy conference lies behind us”, said Peter Treche in his concluding remarks in the presence of the President of AFCEA International, Kent Schneider, who participated actively in the discussions over the two days. “I am deeply convinced that our theme Go connected + Go Smart = Zero Distance which was dealt with in such depth in the four special sessions is and will become more and more important not only for the military, but also for homeland/internal security-related fields of action”, he said. It was interesting to see, by comparison with the last three TechNets, how the comprehensive approach, combining civil and military security, has become an increasingly constant feature in the presentations by companies and institutions. TechNet 2013 was a definite success and AFCEA Europe is already preparing for Bucharest in 2014.

62

SESSION 1: ENTERPRISE MOBILITY Chairman: Colonel John Doody (Ret.) FBCS FCMI CITP IISP MIOD, Interlocutor Services Ltd. Eye Opener: Mr Tobias Schrödel, Consultant, IT Security and Awareness • Future Mobile Solutions for the Armed Forces, Markus Lehmann, Head of Defence, T-Systems International GmbH, GER • Secure Mobile Devices in a Federated Ecosystem, Daniel Turissini, CTO, WidePoint Corp, and CEO Op. Research Consultants, Inc, U.S • Defence Operational Transformation David Lawford Mee, Business Development Defence, Cisco EMEAR and Edwin Tromp, Vert. Solution Architect for National Security anc Defense, Cisco Systems • Enterprise Mobility Dr Michael Street, Principal Scientist, Service Strategy, NATO Communications and Information Agency

SESSION 2: SECURE NETWORKS Chaired by Air Commodore (ret) Bruce Wynn, Freelance Cyber Consultant • New Crypto Client Approaches for Futur Mission Networks – Multi Mission Capable Crypto Clients Johan Hesse, Head of international Sales Public Sector secunet Security Networks, AG • The Modern network: Trusted Computing’s Power to Transform Bill Solms, acting President & CEO, Wave Systems Corp. • Secure Waveforms in Modern Military Radio Systems Thorsten Müller, Sen. Software Developer, Rhode & Schwarz GmbH&Co. KG • Information Assurance and Securing the Human Infrastructure: Best Practices for the Design of Secure Command and Control Facilities Peter Henderson, Vice President and Founder, Thinklogical • Protected Networks in a Coalition Environment Malcolm Green, Chief CAT 9 Communication and Infrastructure Services, NATO Communications and Information Agency

SESSION 3: SITUATIONAL/MARITIME AWARENESS Chaired by Rear Admiral Carlos R. Rodolfo, PRT NA (Ret.), President AFCEA Portugal chapter • EMSA’s Integrated Maritime Environment Markku Mylly, Executive Director, European Maritime Safety Agence (EMSA) • Practical Challenges of MSA at Sea Captain Jorge Novo Palma, Portuguese Navy-former Force Commander EUNAVFOR in ATALANTA • How to Leverage Geospatial Data for Optimal Maritime Situational Awareness Christoph De Preter, Head of Global Sales & Distribution, Luciad • Situational Awareness – What can be done from Space? Dr Fritz Merkle, Member of the Executive Board, OHB System AG • Connected and Smart Maritime Surveillance from Space LtCol (ret) Rüdiger Koppe, Senior Manager Business Development Defence and Security, Astrium GmbH • Maritime Surveillance Multi-System Approach Sérgio Barbedo, KAM Defence and Edisoft General Manager, Thales Portugal

SESSION 4: REAL – TIME WARFIGHTING Chaired by Petr Jirásek, Cyber Security and IT Adviser, Chairman of the AFCEA Cyber Security Working Group • Lessons learned from a Decade of Conflict-a JALLC Perspective Colonel Mircea Mîndrescu, ROM and John Redmayne, Operational Research Analyst (JALLC) • Real-time Warfighting Support at Mission Speed Cameron Chehreh, Chief Enterprise Engineer, CRP of General Dynamics Information Technology, Intelligence Solutions Division • Command & Control for the Last Mile LTC Martin Münster (Ret.), Head of ESG-Koblenz Office, ESG Elektroniksystem- und Logistik-GmbH • Zero Distance Requirements for the Support of Distributed Simulation and Training Ulrich Wiedemann, Vice President Sales, Defense and Security Division, IABG mbH • Securing your Technical Infrastructure, Protecting the Network and Delivering Innovation for and to the DoD Mission and IT Environments Mick Keyes, Senior Technologist, Office of the CTO, Enterprise Group, Hewlett-Packard Company


Profile for esdu

The European Security and Defence Union Issue 17  

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement