Eurocorps: A Force for Europe and the Atlantic Alliance

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to provide information about the Eurocorps, a defense partnership that began with military cooperation between France and Germany and was intended to lead to greater military integration among European nations and, perhaps eventually, greater integration of the European community as a whole. The paper will begin with a brief discussion of the founding of the Eurocorps by its framework nations and the reason for its creation. It will then lay out the organization of the Eurocorps, known in military parlance as the Task Organization, including its command and control elements, support elements, and dedicated and earmarked units. The paper will then discuss the Eurocorps as a potential rival to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, western reaction to such a rival, and the resolution of conflicting interests for European Defense. Finally, the paper will conclude with a summation of the current state of the Eurocorps and what role it will play in the future of European defense.

INTRODUCTION

The idea of the Eurocorps really began as a result of the Elysee Treaty, signed on January 22, 1963, in an effort to promote reconciliation between France and Germany in the decades following the Second World War. After the massive continental devastation caused by that conflict, the political sentiment across Western Europe shifted to one of cooperation and healing of past differences. This political sentiment was reflected in the Elysee Treaty and continued throughout the decades that followed. The La Rochelle Report, published May 22, 1992 formally established the Eurocorps with France and Germany as the founding member nations. Belgium joined France and Germany on June 25, 1993 with Spain following on July 1, 1994 and Luxembourg finally rounding out the current five framework countries on May 7, 1996.

The original idea for the Eurocorps began as part of a push for greater European integration. France had always been a strong proponent of European integration, believing that a counterweight to American political and economic strength was necessary. Hubert Vedrine, a former French Minister of Foreign Affairs, was quoted in Parameters by Robert Wilkie as saying, “France cannot accept a politically unipolar world or the unilateralism of a single hyperpower” (Wilkie, 2002). Wilkie went on to write that “France views the creation of an independent European security force as the capstone on its drive to see the European Union, with France at its heart, as a world power to be given the same deference afforded the United States” (Wilkie, 2002).

Therefore, according to John McCormick, the Eurocorps “âÂ?¦was conceived as a step towards the development of a European Army that would give substance to the Common Foreign and Security Policy, give the EU an independent defence capability, and provide insurance should the United States decide to withdraw its forces from Europe” (McCormick, 2002, p. 203). At its founding, the Eurocorps was intended to perform three major functions: (1) the defense of the territory of NATO and WEU allies; (2) peace-keeping and peace-enforcement missions; and (3) humanitarian assistance (Meiers, 2003).

The first commander of the Eurocorps, Generalleutnant Helmut Willmann, assumed his duties on October 1, 1993 and the Eurocorps officially began functioning after its inaugural ceremony at Strasbourg on November 5, 1993. Before examining the role of the Eurocorps as a potential rival to the American-led Atlantic Alliance and as a major player in the defense of the European continent, it is necessary to understand the organization of the force, including its command and control structures and dedicated and earmarked units.

EUROCORPS HEADQUARTERS AND STAFF

In every military element, command and control is provided by the organization’s headquarters. The Eurocorps is no different, with a headquarters element consisting of approximately 900 soldiers and civilians working at the garrison in Strasbourg (www.globalsecurity.org). Of these 900 personnel, 34% are French, 29% are German, 21% are Spanish, 16% are Belgian, and two additional personnel are from Luxembourg (www.eurocorps.org). According to the official Eurocorps Internet site, the Headquarters Eurocorps is designed to “âÂ?¦plan and conduct operations ranging from humanitarian aid and crisis reactions to the defense of member countries and the Alliance. In operations, the COMEC commands subordinate major units and coordinates land operations supported by air and maritime forces” (www.eurocorps.org).

The Eurocorps Headquarters, operational since 1995, consists of key personnel and sections that support the Commander, Eurocorps (COMEC), currently Lieutenant General Charles-Henri Delcour, during garrison activities, training exercises, and real-world military operations. Supporting the COMEC are the Deputy Commander (DCOM), air and naval representatives, legal advisors, a public information office, medical advisors, and a dedicated staff, led by the Eurocorps Chief of Staff. The positions of COMEC, DCOM, and some other key posts are held on a rotational basis by the framework nations. The COMEC, DCOM, and Chief of Staff are always of different nationalities and hold their posts for two years.

An additional feature of the Eurocorps headquarters element is that all framework nations are represented by what are known as Senior National Representatives (SNRs). The posts of DCOM, Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, and Deputy Chief of Staff for Support are held by the Senior National Representatives of four of the five framework nations, giving those personnel dual roles within the headquarters. The SNR from Luxembourg does not fill a dual role and serves only as the Military Assistant to the Chief of Staff.

The Chief of Staff is a general officer who serves as the primary advisor to the Commander, Eurocorps while directing the headquarters staff. According to the Eurocorps’ Internet site, the Chief of Staff “âÂ?¦is responsible for the initiation, dissemination and follow-up of the Commanding General’s policies, directives and guidance. The Chief of Staff orchestrates the Headquarters’ daily routine and directs appropriate staff procedures in accordance with NATO principles and doctrine, and in accordance with the decisions of the framework nations” (www.eurocorps.org).

Assisting the Chief of Staff in the execution of his duties is the Director of Staff, who “âÂ?¦coordinates the support of the command group and, as Executive Officer for the Chief of Staff, is the focal point for the entire Headquarters staff work. He is responsible for the registry, audio-visual and linguistic services and the reproduction of documents” (www.eurocorps.org).
The Chief of Staff, assisted by the Director of Staff, is responsible for the daily management of the staff sections of the headquarters that support the Commander, Eurocorps. The staff is divided into two primary sections, the Operations Division headed by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, and the Support Division headed by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Support. The sections within these divisions are structured in an identical manner to the sections found within the staffs of American military units and among the nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The Operations Division has as its central responsibility the planning and execution of all operations in which the Eurocorps may take part. It consists of 4 sub-sections: G2, G3, G5, and Engineers. The G2 (Intelligence and Security) is responsible for the four operations of the intelligence cycle, namely direction, collection, processing and dissemination (www.eurocorps.org). The G3 (Operations) is further divided into five smaller sections: G3 Plans, which coordinates all operational short-term planning and all operational guidelines; G3 Training and Exercises, which produces training plans and coordinates exercises; G3 Operations, which is responsible for the conduct of the current battle; G3 Fire Support Center, which coordinates indirect fires; and G3 Air, which coordinates the use of airspace in the Eurocorps’ area of operation (www.eurocorps.org).

Two additional sections make up the Operations Division: G5 and Engineers. G5 (Plans and Policy), like the G3, is further divided into five subsections that together plan future operations and develop contingency operations, evaluate exercises and collect lessons learned, and liaison with NATO, other multinational headquarters, the United Nations, the European Union, and other organizations (www.eurocorps.org). Finally, the Engineers, created in June 2001, support the COMEC in the planning of all military engineering support to the Eurocorps and its forces. This includes Explosives Ordnance Disposal, mines, mobility, counter-mobility, survivability, and general engineer support.

The Support Division has as its central responsibility the activities of the remaining Eurocorps staff sections, including G1, G4, G6, G8 and G9. The Eurocorps G1 (Human Resources), much like its Western counterparts, handles all issues regarding personnel within the force, including discipline, protocol, leisure activities and family support. The G4 (Logistics) handles logistics plans and assessments for the Eurocorps, but is somewhat constrained by a feature unique to the Eurocorps: each nation providing units is responsible for the logistical support to its own troops. While the Commander, Eurocorps “âÂ?¦holds sufficient authority over the logistics resources to employ and sustain forcesâÂ?¦,” there is great potential for logistics problems arising from differences in equipment, support capabilities, supply availability, and other sustainment issues (www.eurocorps.org).

The G6 (Communications and Information Systems) has three missions: to provide adequate command and control means to Eurocorps, to ensure connectivity in a NATO or EU-led operation, and to encourage more efficient coordination in multinational joint operations (www.eurocorps.org). The G8 (Budget) is made up of German, Belgian, Spanish and French personnel and is responsible for the budget of the Eurocorps. All contributing nations provide funds for the budget, which is administered according to NATO financial procedures and regulations to facilitate integration during NATO-led operations (www.eurocorps.org). The final subsection of the Support Division is the G9 (Civil-Military Cooperation), which performs three critical functions: establishing and maintaining contacts with the civilian authorities of a host nation, international and non-governmental organizations, and the population; promoting the mandate of the operation and explaining to the people in the street the reason for the operation; and coordinating and facilitating all efforts to assist and to help the host nation and population (www.eurocorps.org). This branch would assist the local population with services such as medical supplies for refugees, engineer help, etc.

Having presented the basic structure of the Eurocorps headquarters and staff, the discussion will now turn to the forces dedicated to the Eurocorps. Only the French – German Brigade and the headquarters and staff of the Multinational Command Support Brigade are permanently under the operational command of the Eurocorps, with any national force contributions remaining under the national command of their respective nation until transferred to the Eurocorps for a contingency operation or exercise.

FRENCH – GERMAN BRIGADE

In 1987, French President Francois Mitterand and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl announced the creation of the French – German Security and Defense Council, which led to the creation of the French – German Brigade on October 2, 1989. A bi-national army unit composed of approximately 5,000 soldiers, the French – German Brigade entered service at Boblingen, Germany on October 17, 1990 and has been under the permanent operational command and control of the Eurocorps since 1993 (www.eurocorps.org). The Brigade is intended to be a symbol of French – German cooperation and is commanded alternately by a German or French General, serving in a two-year rotation. The Deputy Commander holds the rank of Colonel and is always from the country that does not hold the command of the Brigade.

The Brigade Commander and the Deputy Commander are supported by a headquarters staff that contains a mix of French and German personnel. The staff is a typical staff, consisting of the same basic sections as most western military staffs, including security, logistics, training and operations, and communications. However, for dealing with personnel issues for soldiers from two different nations, the French – German Brigade staff has two personnel sections, one French and one German, two administrative sections, again one from each nation, and a translation services section. The Brigade staff is located at Robert Schuman Kaserne in Mullheim along with the Brigade Headquarters Company and the Brigade’s Support Battalion.

The Headquarters Company is a mixed nationality unit that supports the staff of the French – German Brigade by providing personnel and materiel during garrison operations. During training exercises and military operations, the Headquarters Company sets up, operates and secures the various Brigade command posts. Consisting of approximately 300 soldiers, the Headquarters Company is commanded alternately by French and German officers (www.eurocorps.org).

The Support Battalion is the only battalion in the French – German Brigade that has soldiers of mixed nationality down to the platoon level. French and German officers command it alternately, with the nation not holding the command providing the Deputy commander. The primary mission of the Support Battalion is to provide “âÂ?¦supply and transport of spare parts, ammunition and POL plus the repair of equipment of all brigade units” (www.eurocorps.org).

At Donaueschingen, the French – German Brigade has the French 110e Regiment d’Infanterie and the German Jagerbataillon 292. According to the Eurocorps, both of these units are “âÂ?¦able to seize and hold terrain and gain control of areas quickly” (www.eurocorps.org). Because of space limitations, some elements of the units assigned to Donaueschingen are located in Messtetten and Stetten am kalten Markt.

Located at Immendingen are the German Panzerartilleriebataillon 295 (armoured artillery), the French 3e Regiment de Hussards (light armoured cavalry), and the German Panzerpionierkompanie 550 (armoured Engineers). These units provide the Brigade with fire support, reconnaissance, mobility and counter-mobility capabilities.

Since its creation, the French – German Brigade has been employed on several occasions, for both training and military operations. In 1996 and 1997, the Brigade participated in its first military operation as part of the stabilization force in Bosnia – Herzegovina. Since that first mission, French – German Brigade soldiers have participated in operations in the Balkans, Africa, the Hindukush Region, Guadeloupe, Martinique, the Ivory Coast and Chad. The most visible operation, however, involved the participation of the Brigade as part of the American-led Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. From July 2004 to January, 2005 soldiers of the Brigade, led by Brigadegeneral Walter Spindler, served as part of the Multinational Brigade in Kabul alongside 3,800 soldiers from 28 nations. The primary missions of the Brigade’s soldiers were to perform security operations, assist the Kabul police, train the Afghan National Army, and assist in reconstruction projects. As part of the security mission, the 1,000 soldiers of the French – German Brigade participated in the Multinational Brigade’s 14,044 combat patrols, approximately 80 per day (www.eurocorps.org).

The French – German Brigade, as a bi-national military unit, is not without its peculiarities. Because both French and German languages have equal status within the Brigade, bilingualism is an important element in daily operations and is therefore a critical criterion for selecting those personnel assigned to the Brigade. To enhance the compatibility of the Brigade with NATO, English is becoming increasingly important as the operational language during training exercises and during the conduct of military operations. Additionally, because the Brigade is bi-national, tactical doctrine cannot be based on the military philosophies of its member nations. To prevent doctrinal conflict, operations are conducted according to NATO-inspired procedures issued by the Eurocorps.

MULTINATIONAL COMMAND SUPPORT BRIGADE

The second unit permanently dedicated to the command and control of the Headquarters Eurocorps is Multinational Command Support Brigade, consisting of a staff and a Headquarters Support Battalion. The staff consists of approximately 80 personnel who together perform critical support functions, including NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical), Engineering, Military Geography Support, Military Police, Force Protection, Electronic Warfare, and Signal Support (www.eurocorps.org). The staff is led by the Multinational Command Support Brigade Commander, who serves a two-year tour that rotates among nations. The Commander is responsible for providing those functions necessary to ensure the deployability of the Headquarters Eurocorps, including information management, communications, and life support (www.eurocorps.org).

To assist the Multinational Command Support Brigade Commander, a Headquarters Support Battalion is assigned to the Lize Compound in Strasbourg. Consisting of 380 personnel, including 12 civilians, during peacetime, the Headquarters Support Battalion has the mission of providing support to the Headquarters Eurocorps (www.eurocorps.org). The battalion, which was created in 2001 to replace the former Bataillon de Quartier General, consists of three multinational companies: the Headquarters Company, which provides billeting, in and out processing, laundry services, and recreational activities; the Transport Company, which organizes the transportation of Headquarters Eurocorps personnel and equipment; and the Command Post Set-Up Company, which can set-up two command posts and provide for their physical security.

EARMARKED UNITS

In addition to the Eurocorps’ dedicated units, several military elements have been earmarked by the framework nations for training exercises and military operations. The first such unit is the French Etat – Major de Force numero 3 in Marseille, which consists of an armored brigade, a mechanized infantry brigade, and specialized support units as required. The German contribution is the 10th Armoured Division, which contains a headquarters element in Sigmaringen, the 12th Armoured Brigade in Amberg, and the 30th Mechanized Brigade in Ellwangen. Belgium has earmarked the Belgian Operational Command Land, headquartered in Evere, with the 1st Mechanized Brigade in Leopoldsburg and the 7th Mechanized Brigade in Marche-en-Fammene. The Spanish contingent consists of the Spanish 1st Mechanized Division, headquartered in Burgos, with subordinate elements in Cordoba (the 10th Mechanized Brigade), Badajoz (the 11th Mechanized Brigade), and Madrid (the 12th Armoured Brigade). The final unit earmarked for the Eurocorps is provided by Luxembourg and consists of a reconnaissance company based in Diekirch. This small contingent has 180 soldiers who provide reconnaissance, anti-tank, and logistics capabilities that will normally be integrated into the Belgian contingent during actual operations (www.eurocorps.org).

As stated before, only the French – German Brigade and elements of the Multinational Command Support Brigade are dedicated to the operational command and control of the Eurocorps, with the earmarked units remaining under the command of their respective nations during peacetime activities. In addition to its dedicated and earmarked units, the Eurocorps is prepared to provide command and control for other forces that non-Eurocorps nations may contribute for specific operations as part of a European defense capability.

POTENTIAL RIVAL AND WESTERN REACTION

Earlier it was noted that the Eurocorps was created to provide a European force independent of the American-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Certainly there exists the potential for a European force to rival NATO. As McCormick writes, “If the EU were a military union, its combined armed forces would make it one of the two biggest powers on earth (McCormick, p. 193). Initially, the United States welcomed such a force as a means for Europeans to share in the defense of the continent and to take on some of the burden being carried by NATO. As Alan Tonelson says, American military and political leaders “âÂ?¦have vigorously sought greater European military and economic contributions” (Tonelson, 2002). These contributions were sought for both political and economic reasons, so that Europeans could share in the responsibility and the cost of providing for the defense of the continent.

However, despite the initial welcoming of a European defense capability, the United States quickly changed course because of a fear that NATO would become irrelevant in the defense of Europe. As Tonelson writes, “Compelling questions have been raised about whether Washington truly desires significantly improved NATO burden-sharing. After all, a Europe that shared fully the Alliance’s burdens would win a claim to share fully the Alliance’s decision-making power, and it is clear that Washington is exceedingly comfortable in the driver’s seat” (Tonelson, 2002). This sentiment is echoed by Wilkie, who says, “âÂ?¦Washington tends to pull back for fear that NATO, the crown jewel of American foreign policy, will be damaged and America will lose influence on the continent” (Wilkie, 2003). As a result, says Meiers, “The Eurocorps became the most important source of friction between the United States and the European allies” (Meiers, 2003).

Despite American fears, the capability of the Eurocorps has never reached the level envisaged at its creation: “The Eurocorps was marked by two key weaknesses. First, it was not adequately managed within any of the European institutions (being available to the EU but not institutionally managed by it). Second, the fact remained that countries like the United Kingdom, a major player in European defence, were at best lukewarm towards the idea of a European military capability outside of NATO’s structures. The French eagerness to expand such a force remained a negative feature in the eyes of Europe’s more Atlantic-leaning nations” (Coates, 2002). This second point is echoed by McCormick who writes, “The fundamental problem lies in a philosophical division between Atlanticists such as Britain, the Netherlands and Portugal, which emphasize the importance of continuing the relationship with the United States, and Europeanists such as France, Italy, Spain and sometimes Germany, which look more towards European independence” (McCormick, p. 200).

Even one of the founding member nations of the Eurocorps was hesitant about undermining NATO, as Robert Art explains in Political Science Quarterly: “Although Kohl had agreed to launch the corps with France, he insisted that it had to be compatible with NATO and argued that the corps would bring France back into close military cooperation with NATO by giving it ‘a European door to enter the Alliance.’ Germany also insisted that its own troops in this corps would be ‘double-hatted’-under NATO and Eurocorps command-and therefore that the Eurocorps ‘cannot be asserted to be an alleged plan for a European army outside of NATO'” (Art, 1996).

RESOLVING THE DISPUTE

A solution to the friction over the Eurocorps was found in the SACEUR Agreement, signed in January 1993 by the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (an American general) and the Chiefs of Staff for France and Germany. The SACEUR agreement put the Eurocorps under the operational command of NATO as a defense force or as a rapid reaction force, while the French government retained the right to decide when and where French forces would be utilized by the Alliance. According to Art, “âÂ?¦the agreement consisted of three parts: the Eurocorps would be assigned to NATO command if the Alliance came under attack; the Eurocorps would also be under NATO command during crises and NATO-run peacekeeping operations; and in peacetime, when the Eurocorps was not under NATO command, NATO’s command had the right to review its operations so as to determine its compatibility with NATO’s planning, training, and doctrine” (Art, 1996).

The SACEUR Agreement left the Eurocorps, as The Economist says, “Roughly where the British and Americans have always wanted it to be-not in rivalry to NATO, but as a vehicle for modest military operations in which the Americans do not wish to take part” (Economist, 1995).

THE EUROCORPS AND NATO

After the SACEUR Agreement in 1993, the Eurocorps began preparing for its new role as a NATO Response Force. The NATO Response Force is the Atlantic Alliance’s greatest crisis management tool, providing a permanently available, multinational joint force to handle crises quickly and efficiently. As such, extensive preparation for the Eurocorps was necessary before certification by the Atlantic Alliance, scheduled for 2006.

In preparation for its certification process, the Eurocorps conducted the European Spearhead Exercise in 2005. The exercise was designed with potential NATO Response Force missions in mind and was conducted in several phases in order to encompass as many operations as possible. European Spearhead began with theater reconnaissance and an initial entry operation, and then moved to peace support, where units had to deal with multiple challenges. According to the Eurocorps, units were confronted with militias unwilling to leave the area designated as a DMZ in a UN Peace Plan, snipers, arresting of war criminals and humanitarian aid in refugee camps (www.eurocorps.org). Finally, the exercise concluded with open armed conflict among the former civil war factions and Eurocorps forces. The result was an exercise covering a wide range of contingency operations that tested the command and control capabilities of the Headquarters Eurocorps and its subordinate elements.

In May 2006, the NATO exercise Steadfast Jackpot will certify the Headquarters Eurocorps as a NATO Response Force Headquarters. Following the certification of the headquarters, the NATO exercise Steadfast Jaguar in June and July 2006 will be conducted on the Cape Verde Islands to certify the French – German Brigade and other affiliated troops as operational for NATO Response Force missions. During Steadfast Jaguar, the Headquarters Eurocorps will serve as the Headquarters Land Component Command. Following certification, the French – German Brigade, under Eurocorps command, will be part of the NATO Response Force for a period of six months in the second half of 2006. By the second half of 2008, the French – German Brigade will have to provide about 1,500 of its 5,000 soldiers to the NATO Response Force (www.eurocorps.org).

CONCLUSION

The Eurocorps was created in 1992 as a defense partnership between France and Germany, with Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg joining as framework nations. Originally founded as part of a push toward greater European integration and an independent European defense capability, the Eurocorps was greeted by the United States as a possible means for allowing Europeans to share in the burden of providing for the defense of the European continent, a burden borne by the American-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization since shortly after World War II. This initial reception by the United States quickly was quickly reversed because of fears that the Eurocorps and a separate European defense identity would undermine and possibly replace NATO as the preeminent European defense force. Additionally, several European nations were wary of undermining NATO and insisted on any European defense capability serving as a complement to, rather than a competitor to, NATO.

Plagued by inherent weaknesses, the Eurocorps never reached the level of capability originally envisioned at its founding. As a result, a new role for the Eurocorps was developed with the signing of the SACEUR Agreement in 1993. Now the Eurocorps will complement NATO instead of seeking to replace it, thereby helping NATO bear the burden of European defense while putting a “European” face on some crisis response operations.

As NATO Secretary – General Javier Solana writes in Joint Forces Quarterly, “NATO is supporting the growing aspiration of European allies, particularly those in the European Union and Western European Union, to take on greater responsibility for such security issues as peacekeeping and crisis management. The new command structure creates a distinct option for European-led crisis operations. By shifting more responsibility to the European allies, a more mature transatlantic relationship can emerge, with a fairer sharing of roles (Solana, 1999).

WORKS CITED

Art, R. (1996). Why Western Europe Needs the United States and NATO. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 111, No. 1, 1996. Retrieved from Ebscohost database on the World Wide Web: http://ebscohost.com.
Coates, C. (2002). Spanish Defence Policy: Eurocorps and NATO Reform. Retrieved from Ebscohost database on the World Wide Web: http://ebscohost.com.
Eurocorps Web. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.eurocorps.org.
Global Security Web. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.globalsecurity.org.
McCormick, J. (2002). Understanding the European Union. New York: Palgrave.
Meiers, F. (2003). A Change of Course? German Foreign and Security Policy After Unification. Retrieved from Ebscohost database on the World Wide Web: http://ebscohost.com.
Solana, J. (1999). NATO: Prospects for the Next Fifty Years. Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 21, Spring 1999. Retrieved from Ebscohost database on the World Wide Web: http://ebscohost.com.
Tonelson, A. (2002). NATO Burden-Sharing: Promises, Promises. Retrieved from Ebscohost database on the World Wide Web: http://ebscohost.com.
Unknown. (1995). A New NATO. The Economist, Vol. 337, Issue 7944, December 9, 1995. Retrieved from Ebscohost database on the World Wide Web: http://ebscohost.com.
Wilkie, R. (2002). Fortress Europa: European Defense and the Future of the North Atlantic Alliance, Parameters, Winter 2002-2003. Retrieved from Ebscohost database on the World Wide Web: http://ebscohost.com.