Page 57 - Signal_winter_17_web

| PESCO |

or air-to-air refuelling, and few of them spend the 2 per
cent of gross domestic product target set down by Nato
as the minimum needed.
Some gaps will be filled by states getting a better bang
for their buck by bulk-buying equipment, which would, in
turn, make life easier for forces that later have to work to-
gether on the ground.
Today, Ireland spends less on defence per head than any
other EU state. Money from the new €500 million Euro-
pean Defence Fund will be available. This is perhaps the
greatest practical challenge for Ireland. Increased Irish de-
fence spending is planned, but there is no specific target
yet set down.
Irish defence policy has never been the subject of sus-
tained national debate, let alone scrutiny from outside
– where tough questions will be asked about how well
our defence resources are being used to deal with major
threats. Croatian Special Forces on the EU Mission to Chad, to which Irish,
However, there is potential for gain. The Defence Forc- Austrian and Polish Special Forces also deployed in addition to
conventional troops. PESCO would deepen pan-EU military ties in terms
es have already developed systems and technologies of both costs and operations.
which may be of interest to other European partners. Neutrality Fears
Equally, they could benefit from better and cheaper equip- These commitments do not pose any obvious challenge
ment. to Ireland’s neutrality. The so-called “triple lock” on Irish
Meanwhile, Pesco lays down rules to speed up national overseas deployments (which requires some form of UN
decision-making and to ensure the swift deployment of authorisation) remains firmly in place.
forces on unanimously agreed EU operations. However, On equipment matters, Ireland’s exposure is limited.
each state will decide each and every time what it wants Without a significant domestic defence industry, the scope
to do. for Irish participation is likely limited to smaller, specialised
Efforts will also be made to improve common training. producers of high technology which may see new invest-
Direct EU funding of EU military operations is also envis- ment opportunities.
aged – so that costs do not fall only on those that partici- At the same time, the Government’s last defence White
pate in a particular operation as at present. Paper does highlight specific technologies – such as in
In Ireland, the prospect of central EU funding will be wel- maritime surveillance – which would be of significant pan-
come because peacekeeping can be expensive – the 2008 European interest and potentially win substantial European
Irish-led European Union Force (EUFor) mission to Chad/ investment.
CAR has cost taxpayers €59 million. The notification document underlines the fact that Pesco
will deliver on its overall commitments through specific pro-
Irish ambitions in terms of international jects. Each of these will be governed by those who chose
operations will dictate level of involvement to participate, under the overall Pesco umbrella. Projects
in PESCO. can be proposed by any participating member state(s).
These will be evaluated and those deemed best to deliver
on shared ambitions will be recommended for support by
the EU’s foreign policy chief to the Pesco council of par-
ticipating states.
The key here for Ireland is the “opt-in” nature of Pesco
projects. If Ireland is willing to make the general commit-
ment to reinforced defence co-operation, then the day-to-
day reality of Pesco is largely unproblematic.
The State will be free to pick from a broad menu of op-
tions and to work with like-minded states on the construc-
tion of their own preferred projects. The critical question,
however, is whether the overall commitment is possible
and desirable.
This is an edited version of a longer article published
on the UCD Dublin European Institute website. This ver-
sion was published in the Irish Times on November 14th

| WINTER ‘17 | | 55