This article is more than 3 years old

This article is more than 3 years old

The European Union has scaled back plans for a military headquarters, as America’s allies scramble to work out what a Donald Trump presidency means for the transatlantic alliance.

EU foreign and defence ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday signed up to a plan aimed at improving Europe’s response to conflicts and crises on their borders, but downgraded plans for the headquarters.



Nevertheless, Federica Mogherini, the EU foreign policy chief, who has spent more than two years drawing up a blueprint, described the plans as “a qualitative leap” and promised the EU would start implementation on Tuesday.

She described the EU as a superpower that was not using its security and defence potential.



EU ministers promised to “strengthen the relevance” of the EU’s rapid-reaction forces, known as battlegroups. The EU has been able to send rapid-reaction forces of 1,500 soldiers abroad to stabilise crises since 2007, but has never done so.

Michael Fallon, Britain’s defence minister – and a long-term sceptic on EU military plans – expressed approval that the EU headquarters would only be used for civilian missions.

The EU plan “does not extend to the military … or any kind of EU command and control”, he said.

The document ministers agreed refers to “nonexecutive military missions”, which would limit the role of an EU military HQ to overseeing operations to train soldiers, as well as civilian operations, such as police.

Elsewhere the document refers to consideration of “developing a concept” on a headquarters, another sign of the incrementalism of the plans.

The EU currently runs 17 military and civilian missions, including the British-led naval force protecting ships from Somali pirates, run from Northwood in north-west London, to the multinational team of experts training Ukraine’s police force and judiciary.



But EU countries have been divided over increasing the ambition of EU defence plans. France and Germany, backed by Italy and Spain, have been pressing the case for an EU headquarters. The UK, backed by the Baltic states, argued for scaling back the ambition, fearing duplication of Nato activities.

The plans are a long way from an EU army, an idea championed by European commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and denounced by British Eurosceptics.

Nick Witney, a former British diplomat, who became the first executive of the European Defence Agency (EDA), said it was nonsense to describe the headquarters as tantamount to an EU army.

“There is an objective need for this small controlling element,” he told the Guardian. “There are plenty of occasions where a joint European force can and should be put together.”

He accused Juncker, who plays no role in planning EU defence missions, of handing ammunition to Eurosceptics.

“The real risk to the unity of the west, the real risks to the viability of Nato is not the Europeans trying to do too much,” Witney said. “The real risk is the Europeans not doing enough.”



Fallon had criticised the focus on “expensive” new headquarters and those “dreaming” of a European army.

“The easiest and simplest reaction to the Trump presidency is for other European countries, some of them quite wealthy, to step up their own defence spending and to meet the 2% commitment,” Fallon said, referring to the Nato defence target.

A stronger warning was delivered by a key Trump ally, who said Nato countries would face “a consequence” if they failed to contribute more to the alliance.

Carl Paladino, who ran the president-elect’s campaign in New York state, said there was no reason why the US should “put up with the nonsense of caring for the defence and the security of a country that doesn’t pick up its fair share”.



Bad news for leavers – the EU has bigger priorities than Brexit | Anand Menon Read more

Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, who recently warned the US against going it alone, will take part in a second day of EU defence talks on Tuesday.

“Even if Hillary Clinton had won, there was always awareness that Europeans would need do more for their own defence,” said Sophia Besch at the Centre for European Reform, but a Trump presidency had created “more urgency”.



Differences between EU ministers were also on display over how to respond to Trump’s win. Foreign secretary Boris Johnson said a Trump presidency could be an “opportunity” and “a good thing for Britain”, after snubbing talks on Sunday night where fellow EU ministers were discussing the US election results.

“Donald Trump, as I’ve said before, is a dealmaker and I think that could be a good thing for Britain.”

Asked if he saw Trump as an opportunity, French foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said he did not know what Johnson meant, adding that he saw a risk of a return to American isolationism.

Mogherini, who had convened the Sunday dinner meeting, said Europeans were not surprised by the absence of Johnson.

“I guess it is only normal for a country that has decided to leave the European Union not to be so interested in our discussions on the future of our relations with the United States,” she said.

