The EU military-industrial complex Sources, Actors, Outcomes GUE/NGL Conference "The EU as a driving force for armaments" Brussels, 9 November 2011 Iraklis Oikonomou Hellenic Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Preliminary remarks Problems with "military-industrial complex": – politically-charged term – implying the existence of a conspiracy – difference between benefiting from - and initiating - a policy – often conflated with militarism and war – prime contractors are nationally-based – EU is not a state Reference work: Frank Slijper, The emerging EU military-industrial complex, 2005, TNI.

Definition The EU military-industrial complex is......a relatively cohesive bloc of socio-economic, politico-institutional, military and ideological forces operating at the EU level, aiming at the promotion of the interests of internationalised European military-industrial capital and the strengthening of the Union's power projection capacity through armaments policy integration.

Sources I: Internationalisation Privatisation in 1980s – early 1990s Concentration of capital: Larger corporations Centralisation of capital: Greater market share Declining budgets, competition from the US, rising costs for R&D Internationalisation: European consolidation of military-industrial capital Armaments as a tool for growth and development

Sources II: Formation of ESDP The Anglo-French consensus European Security and Defence Policy: – power projection – semi-autonomy from the US – unity of internal/external security – development of capabilities = a strong and competitive European arms industry Armaments as a tool for power projection

Actors I: The Industry Individual companies (EADS, Thales, Finmeccanica, BAE Systems) AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (2004) merging EDIG, AECMA and EUROSPACE. Political representation is an outcome of economic internationalisation. Merging of economic activities led to the centralisation of political activity through ASD

Actors II: EU institutions European Commission - DG Enterprise – (generating long-term policy initiatives) Council of the European Union – (providing high-level political consensus) European Defence Agency – (coordinating armaments collaboration, R&D) European Union Military Committee – (setting military requirements) European Parliament – (legitimising existing Commission initiatives) EU Institute for Security Studies – (contributing arguments and expertise)

Actors III: Civil Society & the State Private think-tanks Informal political groupings Labour Arms-producing member states No real "civil" society – industry is ever-present. Arms-producing member states operate parallel to the complex. Lack of any counter-hegemonic force.

Outcomes I Funding for... Security Research (FP7) Military Research (EDA) Space (Galileo, GMES) Aim: strengthening of arms-industrial competitiveness through EU subsidies. With the exception of the European Space Agency, there is no single procurement authority Thus: Research & Technology funding is more important than actual procurement.

Outcomes II Elements of a European Defence Equipment Market Formal participation of military staff in EU decision-making through ESDP institutions Formal participation of industrialists in decision-making through experts' reports (STAR21, LeaderSHIP 2015, GoP, ESRAB) Legitimation of increased and homogeneous military spending through ESDP

Conclusions The EU military-industrial complex is complementing national complexes, rather than substituting them. The complex is not only about lobbying; it is about transnational class power. There are elements of a complex (institutional units, common goals, day-to-day interaction) The complex encompasses institutions with differing forms. Social purpose matters, not form. The complex is real, but contradictory – There is no single politico-economic subject. – There is no single EU state

A proposal Establishment of a Brussels-based center for the study of EU security and armaments policy: – collecting data and documentation – encouraging critical research – stimulating public debates – informing alternative policy proposals = strengthening social resistance to militarisation

Questions – Comments? SPECIAL THANKS TO