Agencies
Poland will make joint European Union financing for defense a priority during its upcoming six-month presidency of the 27-nation bloc, arguing that security is a common European goal, the country’s finance minister, Andrzej Domanski, said Wednesday.
The European Commission has estimated that boosting the EU’s defense capabilities will cost 500 billion euros ($525 billion) or more over the next 10 years.
EU finance ministers will discuss possible financing models in Warsaw in April, Domanski said.
“I believe that security is a common good; therefore, we need a common solution. There must be a European solution,” Domanski said ahead of Poland taking charge in January.
Without saying how much money was needed, he noted that large projects, like a European air defense system, were not only about money but also about cooperation between nations.
He also stressed the need for greater efficiency, describing Europe’s 12 different tank systems as “insane.”
Any joint financing model would most likely entail new joint EU borrowing, a highly controversial idea in Europe’s largest economy, Germany, which faces legal obstacles to joint debt.
Diplomats say legal issues can only be bypassed if new borrowing were a one-off response to an emergency, like after COVID-19.
Diplomats said talks were along two main strands: one that would involve the EU’s long-term budget as security for new borrowing, following the model for the EU’s post-COVID-19 800 billion euro recovery fund.
The other option is a special purpose vehicle (SPV) with paid-in capital that would borrow against that capital, modeled on the eurozone bailout fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which can lend up to 500 billion euros.
The option involving the EU budget would present more difficulties because it would require unanimity of all 27 EU countries, limit participants to EU members and put the European Commission in charge – a prospect some countries do not relish in the context of defense policy.
Creating an SPV would let the EU invite other nations like Britain and Norway, keep the scheme under the control of governments rather than the Commission, and keep the debt raised off the balance sheets of governments.
