Im Gespräch: General Patrick de Rousiers
General Patrick de Rousiers ist seit 6. November 2012 Chairman des Europäischen Militärkomitees und damit der militärische Berater der Hohen Vertreterin der EU für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, Lady Catherine Ashton. Im Interview mit TRUPPENDIENST spricht er über die Gemeinsame Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik der EU und die derzeitigen und künftigen Herausforderungen.
TRUPPENDIENST (TD): Dear General, Sir, you were a tactical fighter pilot. There you had to act fast. As the chairman of the EUMC things will take more time to develop. What are your impressions of the job?
General de Rousiers (R): My position is about preparing for the challenges of the future together, deciding where we want to be engaged, building consensus and capabilities. It is about partnership and being in different operations when it is needed. We can be quick, when needed, and the EU is very quick, when it is needed. Of course it takes some time to obtain consensus, because we are 27 partner nations, and, on 1 July, we will be 28 nations, each with a profound different historical background. Every one of them views defence, security and global threats and challenges differently. Thus, sometimes there is a need to try and find a middle ground, where everyone is comfortable. Generally, it is all about information - more than anything else. This is where the EUMS comes in with its important role regarding the military aspect, because it has an intelligence service, and it shares its information in order to ensure operations around the Horn of Africa - or any region desired. This is not obvious for some nations, especially those that do not have naval assets. Some of them never did, and for others that was a long time ago. This is why it takes time, but in the end we see that the EU has been engaged at the Horn of Africa since 2008 in accordance with the Common Security and Defence Policy aspect. Moreover, we are even increasing our engagement there, we are not reducing it. Operating an aircraft is different to this job, but it is like being a wing commander, because you have different squadrons, from different member states, and my task is to try and raise the awareness of specific issues or it may also be the other way round - what quite frequently is the case - that the states come up with certain ideas regarding an operation. I try to get everybody on board on those issues.
TD: You are the most senior military official of the EU. You have to deal with politicians and you attend military-relevant conferences and so on. What is your biggest challenge in that respect?
R: There is one big challenge: I have to impersonate two roles. One role is the senior military advisor to Lady Ashton. The other role is that of the voice of the Chiefs of Defence. When I express myself, the biggest challenge is to be sure what I say and that I say it clearly so that everyone can understand what the ChoD’s of the EU think about an issue or if the statement reflects merely my personal opinion. This is why I was elected by the ChoD’s, because they believe that I have the background that allows me to address Lady Ashton with a subject, talk to her without recurring to the 27 ChoD’s and inform her about what the military institution can do in this specific matter.
TD: What do you think is the biggest threat to the EU?
R: I think that one of the strongest threats to the EU in the future will be the risk of deceiving ourselves that there is no need anymore to be engaged in defence matters. The risk we have is that our capabilities will gradually decline. At present, there are only few nations that increase their defence budgets, and quite a number of nations have been engaged and have deployed their personnel in dangerous operations for the last years and continue to do so. To highlight what is happening in the EU I would like to point out the deployment to Mali for the purpose of a training mission, which was decided upon by all member states. There was still severe fighting taking place in order to regain the integrity of the detachment - not only to attack the terrorists but to regain the integrity of the detachment. Member states and their ChoD’s understood this is not training like training in Europe in a training camp. We need a profound ability to treat casualties in case we have some. Hence, European countries engage under severe conditions. There was a political decision, which had to be implemented, and then we deployed into Somalia and to Mogadishu. We are getting ready for the threats of the future. But then again, there are also a number of nations that decrease their assets, which even do away with a certain number of their capabilities and equipment from the inventory. The problem we are facing is the public perception of the importance of defence spending. The spending is varied, but in general not very high, which is good. This shows that we live in times of peace. The consequence for us, the military in Brussels, is that we need to explain what we are doing.
TD: What is the focus of the EU in the Common Security and Defence Policy?
R: The focus is and needs to be, first and foremost, our neighbourhood. It is the neighbourhood policy that is important. Then there are also internal measures, what we can do in Europe. Not in Europe in terms of collective defence, but what we can do to help in the event of a severe incident. Just remember Haiti or Fukushima, where the military rendered its valuable support just like in any nation. We, in the EU, will need to organise ourselves collectively for a major catastrophe. This is the so-called "solidarity clause” of the Lisbon Treaty. This means that we cooperate in dealing with the consequences of a terrorist attack or a major industrial or natural disaster. We all know that such an incident can happen. It would not be acceptable to our nations that we cannot help each other in such a situation. In such events, the military can help by providing capabilities, of which some are extremely important. Let us imagine a big industrial incident - it does not need to be a nuclear power plant - we have the elements to secure an area and rescue people.
Then there are all the areas where we can collectively provide stability and prevent failed states from emerging. That is where we are engaged. And, moreover, there are the new threats, like the cyber threat, which is in reality an old threat. All this can have a big internal impact on our nations. This is something we need to concentrate on.
TD: In that case, do you see any scenarios where the EU capabilities, like the EU-Battle Groups, can be deployed?
R: The EU-Battle Groups are a wonderful tool, very useful, needed, because it is one of the rare instruments by which nations really mix. We share three or four of them. And following the five-day notice to move, they are ready to commit assets. The issue is not "do they deploy or not?” The issue is to get this done. That means that you interact with the various nations. The Battle Group concept provides the greatest added value, which is a better understanding at all levels. From the soldier, who has, next to him, soldiers from different nations, up to politicians and Members of Parliament. It affects a certain number of issues, political ones, but also legal assets, the chain of command, CIS - there are many aspects involved. It contributes much more than just the term "interoperability” - profound interoperability - among the nations, and it forces us, by this process, to go and see how others deal with issues and to think outside the box. This is beyond maintaining partnerships with those with whom we have been cooperating for centuries. There are many different examples of Battle Groups made up of different partner nations.
TD: Do you think that Pooling & Sharing is the solution to the defence crisis in Europe?
R: What do we need? First, to need to be positive - the crisis exists, but in a timeframe of equipment, of building armed forces, it is nothing, hopefully. Otherwise we would be in a desperate situation if the crisis persisted for decades. Although the crisis is there, we need to tackle the consequences. The major consequence, which is puzzling me, is that for obvious reasons national decisions are required regarding all subjects. Nations sometimes take a decision to downsize profoundly their armed forces, to get rid of some capabilities. We need to share our efforts, when possible. Maybe after a decision has been taken, sometimes much later, the need of capabilities arises, and then we cannot react. We cannot expect to say that we have a "solidarity clause” and then, on the other hand, not synchronise our long-term procurement planning and the evolution of our lead defence forces, which are decided by the nations. There is no need to do it right here and that would not make sense, either. But we need to share more in this field.
TD: How do you see Austria in this role due to the fact that an Austrian, Lieutenant General Wosolsobe, has been appointed Director General of the EU Military Staff?
R: Lieutenant General Wosolsobe will have a very challenging job, because he will have to leave his Aus- trian citizenship behind and get an EU citizenship. This is similar to me, I also received an EU citizenship for the French citizenship. This is a challenge, because in all issues this means that you really need to look at all aspects from all viewpoints. He will have to consider Austria as only one of the overall 27 member states, he will look at the Austrian officers and NCOs, who will be in the EUMS as anyone else. He has been chosen due to his ability, his skills, his knowledge and his career, but also because he is Austrian. In all of those positions you are elected, among other things, because you are from a specific country. I think he will bring an Austrian approach to all these issues and that will be very positive. This is why it is nice to have a regular change in those positions, but to have continuity as well, and I’m very much looking forward to working with him.
TD: General, what do you wish for the future?
R: I’m looking very much forward to working with Wolfgang. I’m not look- ing backward to my previous career. Here, the military personnel, who are in Brussels, are really a team. We do not, like back home, have a pyramidal organisation. There is no ChoD here in Brussels. But I’m the representative of the ChoD’s. No one would understand that various voices would state their opinions. So all we are going to do, Wolfgang and I, is to ensure that all issues will be running smoothly. We will provide advice, have continuous exchanges and share the information with Lady Ashton, the European External Action Service, the Political and the Security Councils, the ambassadors. It is up to the nations to decide what we do, what type of Pooling & Sharing we do collectively, what operations/areas we focus on in partnerships, what areas we engage in missions and operations. Afterwards, it is the nations that will have to provide the assets, the human and the financial resources. The EU has no European Army and no one really wants to have such a European Army. But the military is there to support, to prevent misunderstanding or to prevent people from treading on paths, which do not make any military sense. It is more important to be proactive and provide ideas, options. This is what is very interesting here, that you have the whole spectrum of what nations can provide. We do not look at events through a pure military angle and sometimes have to use the other elements of the EU.