This article was originally written on 1 December 2012 and published on blog.luxzenburg.org. It is republished here as a historical document and reflects the author’s ideas at the time of writing.
Nu.nl headlines: First flight of new European combat aircraft. The French Dassault has invested around 400 million euros in the aircraft — a remarkably low amount for a more advanced aircraft than the JSF. Far better value for money than what the Americans have delivered in developing comparable aircraft.
Why does the Netherlands not cooperate more intensively within the EU? There is far more to gain from that than from being a junior partner in an American project in which we have virtually no say — and certainly no ownership.
The logic is simple. EU member states jointly spend around 290 billion dollars on defence. But they divide this across 28 paratrooper training programmes, 27 small air forces, equally many small navies and tank units. The aircraft of the Europeans were all designed in the 1970s, with the occasional exception (Eurofighter Typhoon) from the 1980s. Those of the Americans, Russians and Chinese were designed in the 1990s and the first decade of this century.
The Americans spend — at 600 billion dollars — more on defence than the rest of the world combined. They have one paratrooper training programme. Russia spends 90 billion. Also one. The EU spends 290 billion and divides this across 28 separate programmes.
Every individual member state loses out. If we cooperate with the current fragmented resources, we also lose out. At some point the nationalist egos of politicians and citizens will truly need to be set aside in order to cooperate effectively. Only then do we stand a chance — against a more assertive Russia, or any other country.
The Americans have repeatedly indicated that a free ride on their robust defence cannot continue indefinitely. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Do we really need to bloody our noses in a drawn-out, bloody war first, before we can say we have learned from history?