The emergence of EU defense research policy from innovation to militarization

Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management Nikolaos Karampekios Iraklis Oikonomou Elias G. Carayannis Editors The Emergence of EU Defense Research Policy From Innovation to Militarization Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management Series Editor Elias G. Carayannis George Washington University Washington, DC, USA More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8124 Nikolaos Karampekios  •  Iraklis Oikonomou Elias G Carayannis Editors The Emergence of EU Defense Research Policy From Innovation to Militarization Editors Nikolaos Karampekios National Documentation Centre / National Hellenic Research Foundation Athens, Greece Iraklis Oikonomou Independent Researcher Athens, Greece Elias G Carayannis School of Business The George Washington University Washington, DC, USA ISSN 2197-5698     ISSN 2197-5701 (electronic) Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management ISBN 978-3-319-68806-0    ISBN 978-3-319-68807-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68807-7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017956210 © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 This work is subject to copyright All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations Printed on acid-free paper This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland This book is dedicated to the “Great Generation” who fought and died for freedom and justice during WWII and all others since and in the future, as freedom is never free Foreword This is a very timely volume Important decisions have been made by the member states of the European Union in order to enhance the Union’s role in military research The consequences of these decisions are potentially far reaching but not yet clear The contributions to this volume help to understand both the nature of the changes and the likely effects in a number of technological, economic and political dimensions Until the late 1990s, the legal predecessors of the European Union were seen, in the famous words of Francoise Duchene, as “civilian powers” And indeed, they had nothing to with military, or even security, matters That is quite a change to the vision outlined by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Vice-President of the European Commission Federica Mogherini in the “Global Strategy” of 2016, further detailed in documents by the Commission and the Council, such as the Defence Action Plan and the Implementation Plan on Security and Defence The “progressive framing of a common Union defence policy” mandated in Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty was advancing quickly in 2016 and 2017 The political process from “purely civilian” to “also military” power Europe is competently analyzed in various chapters of this volume It has been marked by both an underlying secular economic logic and political spurges following international or European major crises The economic logic follows, as is shown in this volume, from the contradictions between the impulse of many national policy makers to protect domestic arms producers on the one hand and the high budgetary costs and military inefficiencies of such protectionism on the other hand Major crises that pushed Europeanization of defense include the Kosovo War of 1999, which pushed the integration of the Western European Union (WEU) into the Union structures resulting in the European Security and Defence Policy, as well as the Iraq War of 2003 which facilitated the creation of the European Defence Agency (EDA) and the formulation of the European Security Strategy The Global Strategy of 2016, in contrast, primarily was a response to intra-EU problems, such as the European financial and refugee crises Brexit and Donald Trump as US President added to the political dynamic vii viii Foreword Military research and development (R&D) has been an important element in the fragile process of Europeanization of defense While there have been many bilateral and trilateral joint R&D projects among EU member states, truly EU-wide activities have remained limited This is not due to a lack of initiatives Also, reluctance to go multilateral has not only been a problem for the EU.  There were a number of attempts at coordinating and pooling R&D among European NATO members as well as in the WEU in the past And the EDA also has consistently tried during the last decade and a half So there is quite some experience with cooperating in military R&D. But projects remained under the strict control of member states Decisions at the level of the Council and in the Commission taken in 2016 and 2017 go a considerable step further by devoting European funds under the control of the Commission to military R&D.  True, the amounts of European money are small compared to what member state governments are spending on military R&D.  However, judging by the earlier dynamics of European civilian security research, described in this volume, which only started after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the early 2000s and has now become a major element of research funding, it is likely to shape and catalyze national funding The European civilian security research proved to be attractive for governments as well as research institutions and companies, including a number of arms-producing companies While not permitted to conduct research toward military applications, they could collaborate on research projects in civil security research which was also relevant for their core business Still, the Europeanization of defense, including military research, is neither inevitable nor without contradictions The contributors to this volume make this very clear A sober assessment, as performed in this book, is necessary in order not to fall for simple ideas, often promoted by lobbyists for self-serving reasons Thus, a major push for European economic growth is highly unlikely, given the relatively small size of defense R&D compared to civilian commercial R&D plus the fact that studies consistently have shown that the positive economic spin-offs of military research are limited, resulting in greater efficiency of civilian R&D expenditures for creating economic growth Long gone are the times, for instance, in the 1940s and the 1950s, when defense research stimulated the economy, particularly in the USA and the Soviet Union, in major ways While growth industries such as aerospace and electronics benefited primarily from the size of spending, military R&D spending was important for doing research in areas marked by high technological risks However, the situation changed with the maturation of civilian industries in these sectors and the resulting shift in the balance of spending for civilian and military R&D. Furthermore, a case can be made that Europe as a whole, and some European countries in particular, such as Germany, has benefitted from low defense and high civilian R&D spending Costs and benefits, as well as their allocation to different groups and institutions, from arms producers to the wider public, therefore need to be investigated While the focus in this volume is on the economic consequences, contributors also look at technological and political effects, providing a comprehensive view of the issues Foreword ix Military R&D may not be very sizeable compared to civilian commercial R&D or defense procurement spending, but it is a strategic type of government expenditure, with far-reaching consequences for defense-related issues, but also effecting civilian actors It is obviously of major interest to arms producers in Europe As a group, they will benefit financially when more money is spent on defense-relevant research However, individual companies will be hurt by more open European competition The concentration process, which has mainly benefited larger producers in major producing countries, is likely to continue Smaller member states may lose core defense industrial competencies A related issue is that of arms exports outside of the Union, often politically contentious Europeanization of production is also a factor framing procurement decisions It remains to be seen whether European companies will be in a better position to challenge the technological dominance of US producers at a time when the US government is substantially increasing its spending on military R&D and weapons procurement The laudable objective of this volume is to clarify the issues and highlight the benefits and costs of further Europeanization of military R&D. Hopefully many of those involved in making relevant decisions will take note of its contributions Important decisions have been made, but more will need to be taken Through their differing viewpoints and perspectives, the authors of this volume provide readers with a clearer picture of the complexities and contradictions of the recent past and potential future of military R&D in Europe than has been available so far Michael Brzoska Series Foreword The Springer book series Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management was launched in March 2008 as a forum and intellectual, scholarly “podium” for global/ local, transdisciplinary, transsectoral, public–private, and leading/“bleeding”-edge ideas, theories, and perspectives on these topics The book series is accompanied by the Springer Journal of the Knowledge Economy, which was launched in 2009 with the same editorial leadership The series showcases provocative views that diverge from the current “conventional wisdom,” that are properly grounded in theory and practice, and that consider the concepts of robust competitiveness,1 sustainable entrepreneurship,2 and democratic capitalism3 central to its philosophy and objectives More specifically, the aim of this series is to highlight emerging research and practice at the dynamic intersection of these fields, where individuals, organizations, industries, regions, and nations are harnessing creativity and invention to achieve and sustain growth  We define sustainable entrepreneurship as the creation of viable, profitable, and scalable firms Such firms engender the formation of self-replicating and mutually enhancing innovation networks and knowledge clusters (innovation ecosystems), leading toward robust competitiveness (E.G. Carayannis, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1(3), 235–254, 2009)  We understand robust competitiveness to be a state of economic being and becoming that avails systematic and defensible “unfair advantages” to the entities that are part of the economy Such competitiveness is built on mutually complementary and reinforcing low-, medium-, and hightechnology and public and private sector entities (government agencies, private firms, universities, and nongovernmental organizations) (E.G.  Carayannis, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1(3), 235–254 2009)  The concepts of robust competitiveness and sustainable entrepreneurship are pillars of a regime that we call democratic capitalism (as opposed to “popular or casino capitalism”), in which real opportunities for education and economic prosperity are available to all, especially—but not only—younger people These are the direct derivative of a collection of top-down policies as well as bottom-up initiatives (including strong research and development policies and funding, but going beyond these to include the development of innovation networks and knowledge clusters across regions and sectors) (E.G. Carayannis and A. Kaloudis, Japan Economic Currents, pp. 6–10, January 2009) xi 366 N Karampekios keyword presence has been calculated upon the following formula: one point is credited in the case of a specific keyword appearing either in the title, or in the abstract or in both of a specific project 19.8  Results This part presents the results of the keyword-based retrieval based on a range of preselected keywords Figure 19.3 presents the number of projects per thematic area within the cooperation theme and the number of the selected keywords (in an accumulative manner) that have been located within the title and abstract description As expected, and presented for indicative reasons, ESRP tops the rank in % of the aforementioned terms appearing accumulatively in the totality of the projects that were funded within this thematic area (146%) In other words, authors at approximately half of the cases invoked a combination (at least ≥2) of different terms to convey the message of the security relevance of the research project Interestingly, the ICT thematic area is the priority in which the greatest number of the (identified) terms is located (#492) In terms of ratio (number of the selected keywords located within the total count of the projects in the specific area), ICT scores 21% – a percentage that would be higher if it wasn’t for the significantly higher number of overall projects The areas of the socio-economic sciences and humanities and the food, agriculture and biotechnology follow suit with 19% of security-related keywords being located within the scope of their project titles/abstracts 2500 146% 2328 150% 130% 2000 110% 90% 1500 70% 1008 1000 805 500 21% 19% 10% 98 96 Health 13% 10% 9% 516 Food, Agric & Biotech 72 ICT NNMPT # of security-related keywords (a) 38 66 Energy Environment 30% 19% 12% 314 253 494 368 492 50% 719 89 458 49 Transport # of projects per thematic area (b) SSH Security 10% -10% (a) / (b) Fig 19.3  Number of projects per thematic area, number of security-related keywords, ratio between the two (Source: eCorda) 367 19  The Security Dimension in the Non-security FP7 Cooperation Thematic Areas Health 120 98 100 80 67 60 40 20 17 5 security defenc(s)e war military threat detection # of projects containing security-related keywords Fig 19.4  Number of security-related keywords in the health thematic area (Source: eCorda) Figure 19.4 presents the health thematic area’s per-keyword analysis Out of 98 projects containing security-related keywords, the overarching majority concerns issues of “detection” (#68) relating to the detection of infectious diseases and emerging epidemics, followed by “threat” (#5) which relates to the categorization of substances, virus and diseases as threats For example, the EMPERIE project developed a management platform for emerging and re-emerging infectious disease entities that could pose considerable security threats such as the Ebola outbreak In a descending order, “security”, “defenc(s)e” and “war” are also found in the area “Terrorism” and “terror”, “military”, “national security”, “political/economic threat”, “dual use”, “cybersecurity” and “cyberterrorism” were not found Figure 19.5 presents the food, agriculture and biotechnology thematic area’s per-­ keyword analysis Out of 96 projects containing security-related keywords, the overarching majority is divided between issues of “detection” (#34) and “threat” (#30), relating to the issues of biological detection of threats (e.g infectious agents and other threats, including malicious acts), as well as threats to the sustainability and security of agricultural, aquaculture and fisheries production For example, the VMERGE project sought to develop a linkage between the surveillance of vector-­ borne diseases on the field that pose major security threats and experimental research that would address the bringing about of novel solutions against these diseases “Security” ranks third relating to food security and security of supply; this is then followed by “defenc(s)e” “Terrorism” and “terror”, “war”, “military”, “national security”, “political/economic threat”, “dual use”, “cybersecurity” and “cyberterrorism” were not found Figure 19.6 presents the information and communication technologies (ICT) thematic area’s per-keyword analysis ICT stands as the most populated security-­ related thematic area with 492 cases of relevant keywords detected Half of these instances are attributed to “security” (#245) This is attributed to the very wide application of the concept of fields and subfields of information technologies, rang- 368 N Karampekios Food, Agric & Biotech 120 96 100 80 60 40 30 25 20 34 security defenc(s)e threat detection # of projects containing securityrelated keywords Fig 19.5  Number of security-related keywords in the food, agriculture and biotechnology thematic area (Source: eCorda) ing from the research field of information security and the cloud ecosystem to the provision of electronic security to public and electronic infrastructures “Detection” ranks second (#167) This is a substantial number and is related to the need to detect topics such as malware, intrusion and the identification and modeling of emerging threats in network architectures For example, the TREsPASS project aimed to develop cyber tools that would predict, prioritize and prevent in a systematic manner complex attacks and, thus, security incidents in Europe The STANCE project sought to increase the trustworthiness and cost-effectiveness of existing security-­ oriented processes involved in source code analysis Lastly, the RASEN project sought to develop a multi-parameter security assessment method These are followed by “threat”, “defenc(s)e”, “terror”, “cybersecurity”, “military”, “terrorism” and “national security” “War”, “political/economic threat”, “dual use” and “cyberterrorism” were not found Figure 19.7 presents the nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies (NNMPT) thematic area’s per-keyword analysis Seventy-two relevant keywords are recorded, of which, “detection” ranks first (#37), followed by “security” (#21), “threat” (#12) and “military” (#2) Being one of the most interdisciplinary thematic areas – and indeed, one thematic area that explicitly recognized the cross-sectoral links to security (European Commission 2007) – it aimed at the provision of novel solution across the entire production sector Dedicated technological objectives such as engineered nanosensors, nanocomposite multifunctional coatings for safety systems (e.g for the development of protecting and functional textiles), bio-nanosensors, nanoanalyzers that facilitate the detection/sensing of explosives and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear agents in the nanoscale are selected security-related technological priorities For example, the security 245 11 terrorism defenc(s)e terror military national security threat 56 detection 167 cybersecurity # of projects containing securityrelated keywords 492 Fig 19.6  Number of security-related keywords in the information and communication technologies thematic area (Source: eCorda) 100 200 300 400 500 600 ICT 19  The Security Dimension in the Non-security FP7 Cooperation Thematic Areas 369 370 N Karampekios NNMPT 80 72 70 60 50 37 40 30 20 21 12 10 security military threat detection # of projects containing securityrelated keywordS Fig 19.7  Number of security-related keywords in the nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies thematic area (Source: eCorda) SAFEPROTEX project aimed at the development of protective uniforms, incorporating multiple protective properties and designated for rescue teams operating under complex, risky and security-related conditions Also, the i-PROTECT project aimed at developing a new generation of intelligent personal protective systems (e.g optical fiber sensors, gas and temperature detectors) dedicated to protecting respondents to security incidents Equally, the PROSYS-laser project set out to develop passive and active high-performance textile technology for manufacturing protective clothing for the same population segment “Terrorism”, “terror”, “war”, “defenc(s)e”, “national security”, “political/economic threat”, “threat”, “dual use”, “cybersecurity” and “cyberterrorism” were not found Figure 19.8 presents the energy thematic area’s per-keyword analysis Thirty-­ eight relevant keywords are recorded, of which, “security” ranks first (#23), followed by “detection” (#8), “threat” (#5), “defenc(s)e” and “terror” (#1) The preponderance of security within the energy context is attributed to the association between national security and the availability of natural and renewable resources for energy consumption – what has been called energy security The uneven distribution of energy resources among countries stands as a source of potential political friction Similarly, the issue of threats is associated with the emergence of new threats to energy security in the form of the increased world competition for energy resources, as well as due to the increasing consequences of climate change For example, projects such as SECURE and REACCESS treat the issue of current and future energy availability by way of incorporating variables such as terrorist events and provide alternative scenarios of secure energy provision “Terrorism”, “war”, “military”, “national security”, “political/economic threat”, “dual use”, “cybersecurity” and “cyberterrorism” were not found Figure 19.9 presents the environment thematic area’s per-keyword analysis Sixty-six relevant keywords are recorded, of which, “threat” (#33) ranks first, followed by “security” (#16), “detection” (#10), “defenc(s)e” (#6) and “military” (#1) 19  The Security Dimension in the Non-security FP7 Cooperation Thematic Areas 371 Energy 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 38 23 security 1 defenc(s)e terror threat detection # of projects containing security-related keywords Fig 19.8  Number of security-related keywords in the energy thematic area (Source: eCorda) Environment 66 70 60 50 40 33 30 20 16 10 10 security defenc(s)e military threat detection # of projects containing security-related keywords (a) Fig 19.9  Number of security-related keywords in the environment thematic area (Source: eCorda) This is so in view of the variety of global environmental threats as well as those located in the European areas near abroad (water security, food security, soil erosion) that require the development of technological means in order to address them (e.g early warning systems for risk management and civil protection) For example, both the WASSERMed and CLIMB projects analyzed the security threats arising from the increasing scarcity of water resources by way of integrated monitoring and modeling systems “Terrorism”, “terror”, “war”, “national security”, “political/economic threat”, “dual use”, “cybersecurity” and “cyberterrorism” were not found Figure 19.10 presents the transport thematic area’s per-keyword analysis Eighty-­ nine relevant keywords are recorded, of which, “security” (#42) ranks first, followed 372 N Karampekios Transport 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 89 42 25 15 security terrorism terror military threat detection # of projects containing security-related keywords Fig 19.10  Number of security-related keywords in the transport thematic area (Source: eCorda) by “detection” (#25), “threat” (#15), “terror” (#4), “military” (#2) and “terrorism” (#1) Transportation security has become a vital priority for governments, operators, passengers, etc As such, the objective has become to reach for fully integrated transport security monitoring and detection systems and deploy intelligent transportation systems (e.g in aircraft security) that would be able to cope with safety and security considerations For example, the BEMOSA project sought to develop a dynamic and realistic behavioral modeling during airport security threats Also, the GETAWAY focused on the generation of simulations to enable better evacuation routes of overground and underground terminals Equally, the SECURESTATION project developed a comprehensive quantitative risk assessment methodology and analyzed the effects of security incidents with the use of advanced predictive tools in order to optimize passenger station and terminal design for safety, security and resilience to terrorist attack “Defenc(s)e”, “war”, “national security”, “political/ economic threat”, “dual use”, “cybersecurity” and “cyberterrorism” were not found Figure 19.11 presents the socio-economic sciences and humanities (SSH) thematic area’s per-keyword analysis Forty-nine relevant keywords are recorded, οf which “security” (#29) ranks first, followed by “threat” (#8), “military” (#4), “war” (#3), “detection” (#2), “terror”, “defenc(s)e” and “terrorism” (#1) SSH enabled a number of security-related technological development and forward thinking by positing the intervention rationale on a range of societal considerations that would be addressed in a security-forward manner Projects of interest within this thematic area ranged from situation awareness and assessment (surveillance) to the impact of security in aspects of society (such as organizational aspects) to security foresights and scenarios including the evolving character of the concept For example, the SANDERA project explored the future impact of security and defense policies on the European Research Area making use of foresight methods – a project that itself started under the INNOMIL project (re-evaluating the role of defense R&D in inno- 19  The Security Dimension in the Non-security FP7 Cooperation Thematic Areas 373 SSH 60 49 50 40 30 29 20 10 security 1 terrorism defenc(s)e terror war military threat detection # of projects containing security-related keywords Fig 19.11  Number of security-related keywords in the socio-economic sciences and humanities thematic area (Source: eCorda) vation systems) in FP6 “National security”, “political/economic threat”, “dual use”, “cybersecurity” and “cyberterrorism” were not found 19.9  Conclusion By way of selected keyword identification method, we have sought to locate security and security-related keywords in thematic areas other than the ones that are directly security related within the cooperation theme of FP7 In pursuing this, we remained aware of the limitations placed by the ever-evolving notion of security and the subsequent methodological difficulties in locating research projects that present interest within the scope of communities of practice dealing with issues of security and defense R&D and innovation policy According to the evidence, certain thematic areas presented more interest in terms of security-relevant considerations For example, the case of ICT and its links to security can be accommodated within the scope of communication technologies as enabling technologies cutting across horizontally the full spectrum of security infrastructure The case of NNMPT points to the production of technology modules (sensors, coatings) necessary for security and security-related activities Also, the transport thematic area addresses the technological means relevant to cope with the issue of enhanced insecurity during the various phases and means of transport from point A to B. Lastly, the SSH placed security (and defense) within the larger context of European policy planning, for example, in the European Research Area By way of this approach, we aimed to document the argument that the rise of non-civilian research priorities appears much more prevalent than originally thought This runs counter to the far-reaching assertion that research priorities have had an explicit civilian nature, and in the cases that this norm was not abided to, this happened to a very specific set of priorities and circumstances that allowed for such a detour – nevertheless, for all the remaining research 374 N Karampekios and thematic areas, this was not the case or so the saying goes On the contrary, we provided evidence of the far reaching of non-civilian research priorities within the scope of areas such as socio-economic sciences and humanities, ICT, energy, food, agriculture and biotechnology, to name a few In retrospective, the establishment of the European Defence Fund and the European Defence Action Plan appears to be part of a series of anomalies in the European science and technology policy In a comprehensively civilian orientation and focus, for reasons ranging to external and internal threats, namely, terrorism, and as of lately in the quest for economic competitiveness and industrial performance, European policymakers were willing to allow for carefully delineated and, indeed, isolated, research themes that allowed for such non-civilian anomalies Examples are the ESRP (also PASR in FP6) and the space thematic areas that focused on security Importantly, is it within both PASR and ESRP that defense industries were highly active both in terms of setting the technological priorities via stakeholder engagement (e.g see membership in GoP and the Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe’s role) as well as increased participation and networking (for PASR’s industrial participation, see Karampekios and Oikonomou in this volume, and for ESRP’s see Siokas also in this volume) Also, defense-oriented European agencies, such as EDA, became increasingly involved in the management and operation activities in FP7 As such, starting in FP6 and, certainly, in FP7, the defense industry sector became highly acquainted with the European “method” of science and technology funding  – and, vice versa, EU authorities became increasingly aware of the legitimacy of the sector’s claims and objectives While evidence is still lacking, this is probably taking place during the Horizon 2020’s Secure Societies Challenge Obviously, this know-how will prove most beneficial in terms of the upcoming European Defence Fund This chapter provided evidence that such attempts to hold off non-civilian priorities were much more porous than anticipated In most, if not all, thematic areas within the Cooperation theme, projects’ authors make use of terminology that points toward considerations of the projects’ security relevance This runs counter to EU considerations to fund exclusively civilian research priorities and can be considered another or better parallel episode toward the rise of security and defense research priorities Further avenues in this line of research could focus on identifying similar security-related keywords that have received funding from other thematic priorities within FP7, for example, within the scope of the European Research Council or the Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen and other Joint Research Centres Equally unaddressed are the relevant technology developments taking place under the Internal Security Fund (e.g terrorism and other security-related risks program) operated by the Commission’s Migration and Home Affairs A second line of research could focus on locating patterns, for example, concerning the type of the attracted industrial participation (large companies, SMEs, defense industry), that can be identified within the scope of these security-related projects of these civilian thematic areas within the cooperation theme and identify patterns that could potentially differ from the overall pattern of industrial participation within and across thematic areas 19  The Security Dimension in the Non-security FP7 Cooperation Thematic Areas 375 Bibliography Bigo D, Jeandesboz J (2010) The EU and the European security industry questioning the ‘Public-­ Private Dialogue’ CEPS, INEX Policy Brief No Citi M (2014) Revisiting creeping competences in the EU: the case of security R&D policy J Eur Integr 36:135–151 Commission of the European Communities (1974) Research, science and education: scientific and technical information Office of the Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg Commission of the European Communities (1994) Research and technological development Achieving coordination through cooperation COM(94) 438 final Commission of the European Communities (1996) The challenges facing the European defence-­ related industry, a contribution for action at European level COM(96) 10 final Commission of the European Communities (1997) Implementing European Union strategy on defence-related industries COM 97(583) final Commission of the European Communities (2000) Towards a European research area Communication from the commission to the council, the European Parliament, the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions COM (2000)6 final CSES (2011) Ex-post evaluation of the Preparatory Action on Security Research (PASR) interim evaluation of FP7 security research, final report Centre for Strategy, Evaluation and Services https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/e-library/documents/policies/ security/pdf/interim_evaluation_of_fp7_security_ex_post_pasr_final_report_en.pdf Edler J, James AD (2015) Understanding the emergence of new science and technology policies: policy entrepreneurship, agenda setting and the development of the European framework programme Res Policy 44:1252–1265 European Commission (2007) Work programme, cooperation, theme Nanosciences, nanotechnologies and new production technologies C(2007) 560, Brussels European Commission (2017) Development of Community research – commitments 1984–2013 (13 (current prices) http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/pdf/fp-1984-2013_en.pdf European Council (2003) A secure Europe in a better world European security strategy Brussels http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf European Parliament (2006) Decision no 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 18 December 2006 concerning the seventh framework programme of the European community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007–13) German Council of Science and Humanities (2010) Recommendations on German science policy in the European Research Area German Council of Science and Humanities, Cologne Guzzetti L (1995) A brief history of European research policy Office of the Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg Hayes B (2006) Arming big brother The EU’s security research programme Transnational Institute, TNI Briefing Series 2006/1 High Level European Advisory Group on Aerospace (2002) Strategic aerospace review for the twenty-first century European Commission, Brussels James AD (2004) European defence research and technology (R&T) cooperation: a work in progress In: Bialos JB, Koehl ST (eds) European defence research and development: new visions and prospects for cooperative engagement Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, pp 123–145 Joint Research Center (2005) Emerging technologies in the context of “security” in the framework of science and technology, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, EUR 22181 Office of the Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg Joshi A, Motwani R (2006) Keyword generation for search engine advertising IEEE Xplore, Washington, DC https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW.2006.104 Karampekios N, Oikonomou I (eds) (2015) The European defence agency: arming Europe Routledge, London 376 N Karampekios Kiryakov A, Popov P, Terziev I, Manov D, Ognyanoff D (2004) Semantic annotation, indexing, and retrieval J Web Semant 2(1):49–79 Layton C (1969) European advanced technology: a programme for integration Allen & Unwin Press, London Levi M, Wall DS (2004) Technologies, security, and privacy in the Post-9/11 European information society J Law Soc 31(2):194–220 Mörth U (2000) Competing frames in the European Commission – the case of the defence industry and equipment issue J Eur Public Policy 7(2):173–189 Pavone V, Santiago Gomez E, Jaquet Chifelle D-O (2016) A systemic approach to security: beyond the tradeoff between security and liberty Democr Secur 12(4):225–246 Peterson J, Sharp M (1998) Technology policy in the European Union St Martin’s Press, New York Schäfer PJ (2013) Human and water security in Israel and Jordan, Springer briefs in environment, security, development and peace no Springer, Berlin Servan-Schreiber JJ (1968) The American challenge Atheneum Press, New York Sören P (2009) The birth of the European Union: challenging the myth of the civilian power narrative Hist Soc Res 34(2):203–214 Thoma K, Hiller D (2011) Introduction In: Thoma K (ed) European perspectives on security research Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften & Springer, Berlin, pp 9–12 Tigner B (2002) Terrorism concerns prompt talk of EU funding research: idea a radical departure from national control Defense News, 23 September 2002 Xu Yu J, Qin L, Chang L (2010) Keyword search in databases Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael Chapter 20 Conclusion Nikolaos Karampekios, Iraklis Oikonomou, and Elias Carayannis This volume set to explore the phenomenon of EU military research, from a variety of theoretical perspectives and by analyzing a variety of actors and processes The European Commission’s involvement in non-civilian research and development (R&D) is a development with profound consequences not only for the European security or technology but for the European integration as a whole All analyses in this volume point to something deeper than merely yet another funding program; what is at stake here is the very nature and orientation of the European project It is not by coincidence that the terms ‘innovation’ and ‘militarization’ have been included in the book’s title; they depict the profundity of a phenomenon that has been discursively articulated as a tool for the promotion of technological innovation and capability development but actually takes the form of something much bigger, an all-encompassing trend of militarization that touches upon the economic, political, strategic, institutional and, indeed, ideological foundations of European integration The contributions to the present volume should help stir future research and interest, in the direction of a whole new agenda that emerges from the setting up of the European Defence Fund (EDF) One strand of analysis will unavoidably deal with questions of efficiency and effectiveness For example, how solid is the linkage between the actual capabilities needs of the Union and the established defense R&D mechanism? How could this mechanism be optimized in order to avoid duplication N Karampekios National Documentation Centre / National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens, Greece e-mail: nkarampekios@ekt.gr I Oikonomou Independent Researcher, Athens, Greece e-mail: iraklis.oikonomou@gmail.com E Carayannis (*) George Washington University School of Business, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: caraye@gwu.edu © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 N Karampekios et al (eds.), The Emergence of EU Defense Research Policy, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68807-7_20 377 378 N Karampekios et al of efforts and achieve a high level of cohesion and correspondence with the priorities set by member states, the European Defence Agency (EDA) and other relevant bodies? Will the Commission’s defense R&D program translate into concrete procurement, and how could this be further facilitated? In other words, how could this program be improved in the future, in both its research and acquisition strands and in terms of technical efficiency, research excellence and capability development? On the macro level, examining the growth potential of security and defense R&D as a result of Horizon 2020 funding is an obvious theme This includes issues of innovation potential turned into sound entrepreneurial capability, synergies with the civilian sector, growth in exports, employment and spin-offs that come out of the academic sector Counter factual analysis could help in identifying the importance and impact of security and defense R&D in the actual trajectories of the aforementioned variables This is linked to another set of questions at the EU level: can the creation of defense industrial geographical clusters of excellence be attributed to EU funding for R&D and industrial development? Where, in other words, does EU defense R&D stand in the context of a European 4.0 industrial policy? The place of defense in the European research area, in terms of research partnerships with the academic community, including academic mobility, and use of research infrastructures, is expected to gain prominence in the coming years On the meso- and micro-scale, one topical question involves the ‘secure societies’ societal challenge in Horizon 2020 and the pilot projects of the Preparatory Action on Defence Research (PADR), including the industries that participated, the research and academic base and the type of output (e.g patents, publications) produced Also, to what extent and how will near-­market technologies be developed and operationalized as a result of EU funding? The issue of intellectual property rights is, in this respect, an important dimension of the debate Needless to say that addressing the question of Brexit is a topical task How will the UK fare in both the security and defense R&D foreseen in Horizon 2020 as well in relevant EDA activities? Will legal and regulatory conditions having to with Brexit limit the country’s participation? Uncertainty in these issues could certainly replicate with the other member states, forcing them to employ a cautious approach in networking with UK actors, something that may result in a lose-lose situation given the UK’s top research capacity in defense matters On the armaments level, the replacing effect of EU R&D funding to member states’ defense industrial partners in view of the continuous decline of domestic defense R&D funding is a topic that will have to be addressed when PADR and EDF become fully operational This leads to another set of interconnected questions, examining, e.g whether this funding will result in cutting down on duplications and the boosting of harmonization in technology development The operationalization of defense technologies as a result of EU funding in, e.g standing EU battlegroups, and the reformulation of European defense strategies that will build on these technologies are an interesting point The same holds for the complementary arrangements that will be developed with NATO in terms of R&D and technology development At the same time, a much broader agenda could be envisioned, touching upon the fundamental questions posed by the turn of the Commission to military R&D. Whether 20 Conclusion 379 or not the militarization of EU research policy is an instance of a broader wave of EU militarization and what other instances can be traced are overarching questions concerning the broad orientation of the EU. Is, for example, a mere coincidence that the decision to set up the EDF was accompanied by the decision to establish the military planning and conduct capability, or does this twofold economic and strategic move point to a broader, irreversible trend? Additionally, theory matters, especially in such an interdisciplinary field like the one of military R&D; how, then, can European integration theory interpret this case? Another critical question is economic in nature: is the shifting of research funding from the civilian to the defense sector a wise course of action as far as European competitiveness and innovation are concerned? Is, in other words, defense research the right tool to fuel growth and employment in the European economy as a whole, and not only in the defense sector? Also, the incorporation of a military arm in EU research funding constitutes the formal departure of the notion of the EU as a civilian power Politically, what does the emergence of EDF tell us about the direction of European integration? In terms of accountability, does the lifting of the restrictions in funding arms development enjoy sufficient legitimacy, and has this process involved civil society sufficiently? And what about the international dimension? How will the further drive to European autonomy in the field of armaments impact on transatlantic relations? The triptych of ideas, institutions and interests is at the heart of the emerging EU military R&D research agenda Ideas are of prime importance in both the emergence and the future evolution of EU military research policy And the analysis of the ideational foundations of the shift to EU military R&D deserves a special place in the future agenda envisioned here What ideas have informed the establishment of an EU defense budget? Ideologically and conceptually, how did EU institutions move from the idea of civilian Europe to the current state where a military R&D dimension seems the ‘natural’ and, indeed, necessary course of action? To what concepts and intellectual schemes are we to trace the path that culminated to the EDF, and what individuals and institutions paved the way to that end? The institutional part of the story is equally challenging from a theoretical point of view, given that the merging of the two worlds, defense and research, reflects also the merging of two institutional worlds that have traditionally underpinned the two respective policy areas What changes does the introduction of a military arm to EU research policy signify in the balance of power among EU institutions and, specifically, between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism? What has been the role of leading member states in promoting the agenda of defense R&D in Brussels? How will the expansion of the Commission’s competence be received by the broader EU institutional setting? Last but not least, the study of interests must start with those actors that stand to benefit from this development, and especially the obvious ones such as Europe’s arms manufacturers How economic, industrial, military and bureaucratic interests intermingle in this policy area? Also, to what extent national interests feed into the general, European interest that the Commission de facto produces? The volume provided preliminary answers to some of these questions In any case, the multiplicity and divergence of the answers provided demonstrate that the militarization of EU research policy is a contested topic, where the 380 N Karampekios et al supposedly ‘technical’ and ‘objective’ dimension of the matter cannot conceal its politicized nature EU defense R&D is, in other words, for someone and for something, and it is up to socially conscious researchers and informed citizens to explore fully the impact and meaning of this development as far as the direction of European integration is concerned Hopefully, this volume will prove a useful compass for the purpose of this exploration ... are the implications of the emergence of EU defense R&D for technology, research and innovation in Europe as well as for the theorization of European integration as a whole? These are some of the. .. Carayannis Editors The Emergence of EU Defense Research Policy From Innovation to Militarization Editors Nikolaos Karampekios National Documentation Centre / National Hellenic Research Foundation Athens,... to the case of space in order to highlight the role of the European Parliament (EP) as an actor in the broader EU security- and defense- related ecosystem The chapter look at the development of