European cooperation on defence equipment matters was one of the EU issues promoted by France during its presidency of the organization. The question of national armament sectors was in fact one that emerged at a European level even before that of defence itself, with European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) in the early 1990s. What we then saw were renewed attempts to institutionalize cooperation mechanisms at a European level, attempts supported and promoted by the traditional arms manufacturing countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Germany and indeed Italy. These mechanisms, involving the Organization for Joint Armaments Cooperation (OCCAR), the Letter of Intent (LoI) or the European Defence Agency (EDA), are intended to facilitate convergence of national policies within cooperative programmes.

However, two observations that might at first sight temper the significance of Europe are worth noting. First, defence equipment policies clearly remain the domain of national governments: European cooperation is therefore by its very nature an intergovernmental affair, leaving little room for any rationale of integration. Second, notwithstanding political demands and statements advocating greater cooperation, governments trying to achieve policy convergence are still experiencing major difficulties. Is it perhaps even true to say that, paradoxically, these problems have multiplied since the end of the Cold War, despite policy announcements and the institutionalization of this subject on the European agenda?

Why Talk of Europe?

We therefore have to address the question of Europe’s place in national armaments policies: in the light of the inevitably intergovernmental nature of cooperation and the often insuperable difficulties of achieving convergence of national policies on a single European item of defence equipment, what conclusions can we draw about Europe’s role? Faced with a lack of systematic integration or convergence between national policies, should one conclude that Europe’s role in this sector is by nature imaginary or strictly rhetorical?