In the face of Russia’s repeated assaults on Ukraine and growing alarm in Europe over the increasingly hostile U.S. stance toward President Zelensky, one wonders what it will take to initiate a genuine process of European military integration. Certainly, the often-competing interests of European arms manufacturers do little to foster intra-European cooperation, aside from a few major projects like those of Airbus in the civilian sector. How many competing defence projects seem to emerge among EU countries—such as a protective shield similar to Israel’s Iron Dome—only to be further complicated by Brexit?
Yet, not long after the end of World War II, when resentment toward Germany was still raw, ambitious unifying projects in coal, steel, and nuclear energy reinforced the vision of a united Europe, championed by figures like Robert Schuman, Jean Monnet, and others. The most provocative project of its time was undoubtedly the creation of a European Defense Community (EDC) in 1950, strongly backed by the United States in response to the growing Soviet threat.
The idea of strengthening collective security by creating a unified European army under a common command was nothing short of bold. Even then, the underlying goal was to reduce European countries’ dependence on the United States for defence. However, the prospect of German, French, and other former enemy forces uniting so soon after the devastation of war was hardly welcomed with open arms—especially under the almost shameless pressure from the Americans. The time had not yet come for effective integrated military cooperation—just as it has not today—even though the Atlantic Alliance had already been established.
Moreover, historical rivalries and national interests seem to be hindering any real commitment to collective defence more than ever, despite the growing urgency in the face of the Russian threat. It was for similar reasons that the European Defence Community project was ultimately rejected by the French National Assembly on August 30, 1954. The government of Pierre Mendès France chose not to stake its survival on the issue—a staggering decision for a project of such magnitude after four years of hesitation.
It has been argued that France’s rejection—decisive for the final outcome, as other European countries had already ratified the treaty—was driven by fears of a loss of sovereignty. I had the opportunity to raise this question with François Mitterrand a few months before he became President of France, during a private visit to Ottawa at the invitation of Prime Minister Trudeau, on the sidelines of the 1978 Socialist International in Vancouver.
While accompanying him by car to Montreal—being an ardent admirer of the Fourth Republic and lacking any tact—I bombarded him with questions about it, even as he was campaigning for the presidency of the Fifth Republic and preoccupied with Michel Rocard’s candidacy. I specifically asked him why Mendès France had abstained. Mitterrand replied that it was likely due to the influence of Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber, who, like many at the time, was profoundly shaped by the memory of the Holocaust—especially as he himself was Jewish.
As we know, the rejection of the European Defence Community ultimately led to the integration of European forces, including those of Germany, within NATO.
Recent events such as the war in Ukraine, and even President Zelensky’s most recent setbacks in the face of Donald Trump, have prompted renewed reflection on European military cooperation, in the spirit of a European Defence Union. The EDC should be a repeatable model, given decades of integrated European cooperation at a time when the spectre of post-Soviet aggression cannot be ruled out, if not in a NATO country, then at least in the seizure of Ukrainian territory with US approval, as announced by Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defense. Europe’s security needs are more urgent than ever and should drive greater military integration. The legacy of the European Defence Community could serve as a valuable reference in today’s defence discussions. Time is running out.
