Foreign Minister Michael Frendo might have been at his most reassuring best when on July 12 he informed the Standing Committee for Foreign and European Affairs that:
¤ Malta was only interested in the training component of the European Defence Agency; and that
¤ senior legal advice had been obtained that there was nothing unconstitutional in doing so.
Malta has a small army and a limited amount of weaponry. It is neither an armaments producer, and hardly in the business of arms procurement.
Which makes the question whether it was so necessary and unavoidable to join the EDA even more relevant and topical.
Last month a group of defence industry companies issued a joint statement urging EU member states to beef up their spending on defence research, technology and acquisition, to turn their political commitment on new defence capabilities into concrete realities and to make use of limited budgets through the launching of the EDA.
The decision to create a European Defence Agency under the control of the member states was announced by European leaders in Thessaloniki in June last year.
The above-mentioned arms producers heralded the creation of the agency as a landmark event since they considered each of its tasks as essential to European security, with each being of utmost importance to the defence industry in Europe.
There are many arms lobbyists who want to see the EDA develop as fast as can be; so much so that some of them have stated publicly that slowness in the next stage of build-up, complexity of decision-making processes and a lack of resources, notably for R&D investment, would inhibit its full development.
Their biggest complaint was that taken as a whole Europe's national defence budgets still provide disappointing levels of military output.
All this should leave no doubt that the main beneficiary of the EDA are not the member states themselves but the European defence equipment suppliers.
Otherwise what point would there have been in the defence industry's main spokesmen having resorted to such double-speak as "the agency will need to play a role in encouraging member states to find common solutions to near common requirements..."?
Added weight to this argument is given by the fact that the arms industry in Europe is under enormous competitive pressure from the United States.
This was confirmed by the following joint statement:
"While it is not the wish of Europe's elected governments or of industry to develop a Fortress Europe, it is equally not their wish to see indigenous defence technology overtaken or dependence on foreign technologies become a necessity, especially where technology transfer terms are very restrictive..."
It is with all this in mind that one begins to understand why "the opportunity" to establish the EDA with resources to match its challenge was described as something not to be missed.
A call was actually made on all EU member states to ensure that "this will not be a fig leaf to cover the nakedness of any real efforts to improve European defence..."
It makes it even clearer to understand why in 1999 the EU governments had agreed to forge an EU defence policy to support their common foreign policy.
In accepting to join the EDA Malta indirectly accepted to lend moral support to the largest defence contractors, even though arms procurement might not be on its short-term agenda.
Europe's main concern seems to be that of closing the transatlantic capabilities gap.
Lt. Gen. Gianni Botondi, on behalf of the Italian Ministry of Defence, spelt it all out when he declared that the agency would be a first step towards the creation of "a single competent body responsible for armament co-operation in Europe..."'
The EU Military Staff's Ian Abbot was even reported to have said that, apart from giving the EU a unique capability, this agency would, combined with other multinational organisations (NATO, perhaps?), enable it to use its resources for all phases from conflict prevention to post-conflict stabilisation.
He also stated that the tasks ahead of this agency would test the motivation of new and old EU member states to support the agreed defence strategy.
It is true that the EDA might not be a mere armaments provider but more of a co-ordinating body, but the cat was let out of the bag by Hilmar Linnenkamp, who said that it may seek help from some of the relevant NATO bodies and that the aim is to use "existing agencies and procedures" rather than develop new bodies!
The issues at stake do not concern only capabilities but also vulnerabilities.
The setting up of the agency comes at a delicate stage when the EU is due to take over the peacekeeping operations in places, like Bosnia.
In a recent paper for the Centre for European Reform it was argued that "the first job for the agency will be to pressure EU member states to spend more on new military equipment".
It is true that Malta might be playing a secondary and somewhat insignificant role in this new organisation but one is nevertheless bound to question the relevance and wisdom of taking such a decision of joining, in the first place.
I know Minister Frendo as a rational, level-headed person. Alas, his Cabinet's decision to join the EDA was neither rational nor level headed.
leo.brincat@gov.mt