Europe in khaki
Regular readers of my will still find a considered diary-style piece here every Thursday. This blog allows me to continue as before, while adding other posts from time to time.
The European Union鈥檚 foreign minister is in earnest discussion with senior, uniformed military men in the rather rudimentary military ops centre in Brussels. He鈥檚 already given the order that European troops should go into action. On pale pine desks, soldiers and civilians operate computers, the screens filling with maps of a foreign country, detailing borders, the weather and even the current condition of roads. Men with lots of pips on their shoulders ponder the best airstrip on which to land the European Union鈥檚 army. Fantasy? Yes, but only just.
First off, I am watching an exercise, not a real operation. Secondly, : it was the constitution that would have given him the title Foreign Minister and that proposal probably won鈥檛 survive a new treaty. Thirdly, the EU doesn鈥檛 have an army, any more than has an army. Like Nato, it does have military personnel from member countries who work together on a regular basis, and if this operation was real it would probably be the getting their boots dirty.
I am at the launch of the ops centre in Brussels. Men and women in subtly different shades of khaki are clustered around computer screens, pointing and having quiet debates. I spot officers from Britain, Cyprus, France, Sweden and Ireland but there will be many others represented in the 40-strong team.
They鈥檙e planning a peacekeeping operation. In the fictional African country of Alisia, attacks by the rebel National Freedom Movement are growing worse and causing huge refugee problems. The distribution of aid has become difficult. The officers here are co-ordinating, via encrypted satellite, with national headquarters in Sweden. There are no infantry taking part in this initial operation, but the centre is designed to put 2,000 of them in the field. This practice and any real operation would be carried out under Mr Solana鈥檚 authority, acting under instructions from the 27 nation states that make up the EU.
'Jackboots marching'
But why does the European Union need this Brussels-based operation? Other EU military missions have been directed from the three existing HQs in Britain, France and Germany. New HQs in Italy and Greece are expected to be up and running soon, so why the need for a sixth? , a former chief of staff in Northern Ireland, is the director-general of the European Union Military Staff and he鈥檚 remarkably frank. He tells me, 鈥淭here are political considerations. France, the UK or Germany may not want to act. A certain political liability goes along with providing the headquarters, an implicit liability. We can鈥檛 be sure the operational HQ of a member state will be available, so this gives us extra flexibility.鈥
A man who lists chainsawing among his hobbies, he has cut to the point. A military operation would never be given the go-ahead if France, Britain and Germany were against it, but it鈥檚 quite likely none of them would want to take the lead role. This is a way of getting round that, and sharing political responsibility.
In the lift on the way up to the ops room an American journalist fulminates, 鈥淭hey won鈥檛 say what it鈥檚 really about, draining sovereignty away from countries like Britain!鈥 A Spanish journalist retorts, 鈥淛ust like Nato?鈥 His answer to her seems to be that the EU has money to carry out its own operations. It is a running sore with some people: why does the EU need its own military, when the bulk of its members are also part of Nato. The suspicion of many is that it plans a 鈥淓uro army鈥, independent of the USA.
Veteran Eurosceptic Lord Pearson, , said the EU鈥檚 desire to have its own force headquarters was 鈥渋nspired by France鈥檚 deep psychotic need to bite the hand that freed her in two world wars,鈥 and could damage Britain鈥檚 relationship with Washington. In the same speech about the European Union, albeit talking about the scope of European law, he said: 鈥淵ou have to be pretty deaf not to hear the jackboots marching, and pretty naive not to realise they are coming this way.鈥
Gen Leakey鈥檚 answer to the question 鈥淲hy not Nato?鈥 is a pragmatic and interesting one. 鈥淚n the sort of area we are dealing with, military force is never the answer. The solutions are civil and political, economic. The peacekeeping approach is increasingly 鈥楥iv/Mil鈥- for instance co-operating with civil police. The European Union has all of this in-house. We also work very closely in conjunction with the Commission, which has huge sums of money to spend on development aid and stabilisation, and so we can co-operate with that side more easily. The advantage is, it鈥檚 comprehensive.鈥
'Division of labour'
In the ops room I see an example of the rather cold-sounding 鈥淐iv/Mil鈥 in action. Jan Moerkerke is a civilian expert in property law, who normally works for the Belgian treasury. He鈥檚 studying border maps on his screen, planning what happens when the immediate crisis in Alisia is over. The refugees who鈥檝e fled into neighbouring Arcadia will want to return one day. They weep no real tears for their lost homes, carry no real pathetic suitcases, clutch no real children. They exist only in the minds of EU planners. But the loss of house and home is one very real consequence of war, one that stores up hatred and bitterness, ready to trigger more bloodshed in a few years鈥 time.
Deciding who should own what land is one of the hardest things to sort out. Jan is in charge of this judgement of Solomon. 鈥淵ou have to face it after a ceasefire. Documents are stolen and burnt, that鈥檚 what happens in a war. People want to come back, but how do we arrange that?鈥 He enjoys this secondment, dealing with big-world problems. 鈥淚 guess Belgium became a bit small,鈥 he says.
Back at the news conference, people feel the question 鈥淒oes it undermine Nato?鈥 hasn鈥檛 been answered. Mr Solana jumps in: 鈥淚 will take that question. There is no question of competition but a division of labour, which is necessary with the number of crises we have. The needs are many and the resources are limited.鈥
I was filming this event for use in a piece about the new European treaty, the idea being that an EU constitution, like an EU military force, is a step (whatever sort of step, in whatever sort of boot) too far for many British people. So far I have heard nothing about what might be included in the new treaty about defence. The EU鈥檚 own briefing on the constitution says 鈥渄efence provisions... have been substantially strengthened鈥. In particular, there is a mutual defence clause.
Whatever is in the treaty, I am pretty certain that this sort of defence co-operation will continue. What do you think? I鈥檓 particularly interested in hearing from past or present military people: Is serving under an EU mandate any different to serving under a Nato or UN one? And any Irish: how does it sit with your traditional neutrality?
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
I'm an American citizen who supports a strong EU. I think it's important to have a world that doesn't rely too strongly on any one nation to lead the way, as if that nation loses touch with what is important and ethical, there is no major power that will act in its place. The creation of an EU military is the inevitable step for an increasingly supranational organization that has already integrated deeply economically. Whereas the proposed constitution would have sped the process along, it should be remembered that military matters are one of the most sensitive areas of sovereignty that the nation state still clings to and it has taken half a century to reach the level of progress the EU sees today. I see the EU as a great power in democracy, humanitarian aid, multilateralism, progressive action, and providing a counterweight to an isolated American agenda. I hope that Britain will choose wisely to embrace their European friends in the beginnings of a EU army, one that will help end conflicts rather than start them.
Very interesting Mark. Keep it up.
Thank you for your forthrightness,
an illuminating choice.
I'm not with the army or anything else you might hope to hear from.
But I feel as you do, and I especially enjoyed the "boot" reference. If this is only a
'fantasy' run, *someone* is still
paying those people to practice
entering and running countries.
Yes, it takes a lot of nerve
for an American (half English,
half Irish) to say this,
all things considered...but
then, I am a dissenter. I
always thank God for the 91热爆!
Kathleen
Ten years ago, I'd have thought it was a pointless duplication of NATO. After six years of George Bush, I'm absolutely convinced that we have to have a separate European force for peace keeping interventions.
To the matter of an EU "military" (or alliance, similar to NATO), I think that it is a good idea for the integrated reasons listed above - the EU "military" would be an arm of the EU, which distributes billions in aid which, more often than not in warzones, gets wasted because the troops under, say, a UN hat are at odds to the people giving the aid.
The UN and NATO are increasingly irrelevant organizations, for different reasons. The UN because it is impotent (my favourite example is the "interim" force in Lebanon, in which my father served before I was born, I served in, and am likely to serve in again because it is being stepped up in the face of failure.)
NATO lost its main enemy, and I don't think it is the organisation to fight the "War on Terror". It is further damaged because of the existence of the EU and its foreign policy ambitions. But who says we should keep NATO around in favour of an EU foreign policy better equipped to "fight" todays wars?
Wars today are not won or lost on the battlefield, they are won or lost in the occupation and rebuilding. Note what the EU headquarters is planning for: The aftermath of a war. What did the Allies fail to do in Iraq? Plan for the aftermath of the war. Iraq is your poster child of why the EU, with its military, economic and political establishments all under the one umbrella, is a better organisation to fight the wars of tomorrow (or, err, today, as a matter of fact.)
As for the issue of Irish neutrality, well, you can debate 'till the cows come home as to whether or not Ireland has real neutrality; or more the "partial" neutrality we've had since WW2, when a German airman would go to a POW camp if shot down, and an Allied one would be sent over the border.
Ireland already unofficially relies on the EU, and the UK in particular, for its defence; with Royal Air Force aircraft patrolling over Dublin's skies on September 12th 2001 at the invitation of the Irish government. The visage of neutrality is a veil.
That being said, losing this veil to the EU is a much better prospect than NATO I think - the emphasis on peacekeeping and rebuilding fits more with Irish views on foreign policy since Irish peacekeepers first went to the Congo in the 1950's with a blue helmet on. With the UN having largely failed (few and far between are the *successful* missions for which Irish soldiers have laid down their lives over the years) this EU military alliance should be the better option for the Irish.
Whether or not the people will want to make this move, or continue to believe that Ireland is neutral whilst expecting Britain to come save the day when anything goes wrong (all the while cursing her name, of course...) is another matter.
a fictional excercise? Fits well with the fictional EU rapid reaction force, the one we were told would be sent to places like Darfur,Somalia,DR-Congo...but don't hold your breath.
Why has the UK agreed to spend money on this when our soldiers could do with extra pay and protection for their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?
You should read the article about NATO and European defence by L. Wayne Merry in the March 2003 issue of "The National Interest" (a publication of the Nixon Centre). Merry is a ormer US diplomat who served both aat the State Department and the Pentagon. He coined the expression "Pentagon's toolbox"
The example given above is an excellent one regarding our traditional neutrality. It's a Peace Keeping operation, more likely than not with a UN mandate. Indeed, it was for just such a crisis that the EU Rapid Reaction Force, which Ireland is a part of, was envisaged. Just like today in Liberia, East Timor, Lebanon, and many other spots around the world, Irish soliders could serve there. They already serve along side soldiers from all over the world, under commanders of various nationalities; an EU commander would be nothing new. The key issue would be the presence of a UN mandate: with that our distaste for unilateralism would be mute, and our version of neutrality assured.
I am a eurosceptic. I want Britain to withdraw from the EU, and reestablish Parliamentary accountability. The Euro is a disaster - a currency with an inflation rate of 15% - which has halved in value or more, but whose bank claims 2.5%. It's a farce.
I would be in favour of a European military force, however. France and Germany are not engaged militarily in the world, making it too easy for Russia to spend a few petrodollars on weapons and start sabre rattling. China is increasing military spend as is Iran. The west needs to get up to speed.
But underlying an army must be money. The european economy is a disaster. First break up the eurozone, reestablish the sovereign nations, and get the european growth rate up to something other than a total embarrassment. then get the money you need to build a proper army which might actually be some use. the world would be a safer place with France and Germany back in the military game on the side of democracy.
A couple of points that spring immediately to mind.
Money? If there's no european army, (finaced by the EU budget), as such, then the extra spending will have to come from somewhere. The Americans, of course, are happy to spend whatever it takes to fund their military. Will the nations of the EU, with demographic meltdown on the horizon and national pension funding in deep crisis, find the political will to increase defence spending?
The Turks would help of course: they've got a whacking great army and a lot of generals who know all about keeping civilian institutions in line.
And then there's the command structure. I'm delighted to disagree with Lord Pearson on almost anything,but I strongly suspect that the tabloid press in Britain, not to mention some of the newer member states, would have a field day (no pun intended), over the thought of country 'X' or 'Y' having substantive authority and control over a multinational force of diverse ethnicity. The force itself would be continuously suspect too, and any institution run by a committee isn't worth a cup of cold sick.
Nice idea, necessary initiative, but it reeks of drawing board, and will for the next couple of political generations. After that, money will be even more of a problem. It occurs to me also that historically, Europe has a pitiful track record in combining, unless there is a real and very present threat physically assaulting the collective consciousness.
The EU army, if I may be so abrupt to say, has already had a mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It was there to make sure the Congolese elections ran smoothly and looking back at it now, they went very smooth. Thus a first little success for the European army.
The excercise you described in your post just builds up from there. It is a preparation for future mission on African turf. Europe is the only real power in Africa until today. We often have a better estimate about the land than the African nations itself have. Ofcourse we have a horrile history in Africa, but by doing the best we can to provide security and probably the most vital thing of all water.
Each European nation is too small to deal with the problems on its own, but united we can. In Africa we don't have to count on the USA because the interests are too low for them and the UN just keeps on failing. The African Union does what it can, but it is not up for the job. So that only leaves Europe.
On the Irish neutrality, I just want to say, Belgium was neutral until the Germans came marching through, so neutrality is relative.
Mark, to my mind this is a senseless & expensive duplication of NATO's work & responsibilities. The only benefit it could offer is to offer a wider role to the non-NATO neutrals - though some of them, eg Sweden & Finland etc already discretely co-operate quite closely with NATO, & others supply equipment or allow passage rights etc. If this allows the neutrals to offer more effective help to worldwide peace-keeping than the UN's often rather muddled & highly politicised efforts, maybe - but that's not what we are hearing as the proposed EU force's justification at present.
An additional problem is the pressure that EU countries seem to face, Britain especially, to buy usually overly expensive, & often ineffective, military equipment from another EU country just to be pro-European when better cheaper equipment is available either from the USA because of its long production runs, or some 3rd World countries (eg S Africa, Israel, & Brazil) where labour costs are noticeably lower than in the EU. In addition, some of the EU equipment, eg Britain's recent large purchase of Man trucks from Austria are of doubtful value in that they are not even mine, IED, or RPG-protected, despite a British company, BAE, currently making comparable but better trucks for the US Army in Britain!
Some equipment has been good, eg the Aerospatiale/Eurocopter's Puma & Squirrel helicopters, but if you really want to find out what a muddle the EU's military plans are having on weapon purchasing good sense, have a look into the chaos that is currently surrounding the UK's current but completely misconceived FRES project - RPGS, IEDs, & Iraqi & Taliban-style mines have all made it obsolete despite the UK Army's top brass' originally obsessive desire for it - despite its projected 14 billion UK pounds cost (ie about 70 million pounds per vehicle which could be knocked out by a $50 RPG!). And that doesn't even include the Airbus A400M whicjhh still hasn't had its first roll-out, let alone its first flight - yet it's expected to be a EU army's standard equipment, rather than much more economical US aircraft (eg the C17 Globemaster & C130J Hercules)!
If you really want to know about these often quite complicated issues, then I strongly recommend you to follow the regular features on 'Eureferendum.com' about this type of subject. They are real eye-openers! They are very informative, & yet are always very concerned about how the EU wastes our tax payers' money on always very expensive projects that are often pointless duplications of much better NATO &/or US efforts.
As a retired US military officer living in France, I support Mr. Manley鈥檚 comments. Having also participated in NATO exercises, I would like to suggest that the EU not emulate NATO鈥檚 organizational structure. I think what is needed is a truly EU military, modeled, if you will, after the French Foreign Legion. There should be a permanent EU staff and command structure with personnel drawn from all the EU countries. They would take an oath of allegiance to the EU, be paid by the EU, and wear a distinctive EU uniform. In times of need, volunteers from the EU countries would fill the ranks. While serving in the EU military, they would also take an oath of allegiance to the EU, be paid by the EU, and wear a distinctive EU insignia. When the crises was over, they would return to their respective national units, with credit for seniority, retirement, etc. for their service with the EU. The EU would pay for any service related injuries and contribute to their respective national retirement and other military benefit programs for time served. Likewise, weapons systems and logistic support would be rented and ammunition and supplies purchased by the EU from member nations. As with uniform insignia, they would carry distinctive EU markings. With common weapons systems and training methods, such a force could be put together in relatively short order, a month or two, while avoiding the political and command problems associated with the use of national military forces.
An EU army.. excellent. But wouldnt that be just another force for the rest of Europe to sign up to but not participate in? Lets look at Afghanistan. UN resolution: Check. Nato member attacked: Check
Nato leading force there: Check
Number of troops from European Nations (apart from the UK): About 1000, and only in special, non combat roles.
No wonder they are making so many HQ's. They wont be putting the soldiers in the field....
I'm always slightly amused that American commentators get a little jumpy when it comes to an E.U. where its states combine their influence in certain areas for their own goals. With Russia finally getting over the collapse of the USSR and the chaotic capitalism afterwards an E.U. that is capable of responding with the political clout to negotiate with Russia equally is something to aspire to.
Not only that regional security allows for greater flexbility and can capability in operations that are politically sensitive. In situations where the USA does not want to get involved (or it may not be politic to involve them) an EU task force would be able to react. Think what would happen if Bosnia and Kosovo happened now can anyone see the USA intervening militarily?
I've no real concern or reservation with an EU force, in fact it would seem quite sensible to attempt an alternative, I particularly agree with the comments of Roy in France. Of greater importance is the will to actually employ forces once they are deployed, for those unaware of the significance of what I have said I refere you to the unresolved Kosovo situation and the history of UNPROFOR.
A lack of political will and objectives is crippling, you will achieve nothing unless objectives are known, certain and the will to enforce ultimatums is present in the political institutions behind all military forces.
By James Squires: "Number of troops from European Nations (apart from the UK): About 1000, and only in special, non combat roles."
Kindly get your facts right, there are at present roughly 1500 Dutch soldiers in Afghanistan, and they are fighting. So unless you don't deem Holland to be European (and I could live with that), that assumption is both wrong and insulting.
As for a European army, I struggle to see the relevance of it given that under current political circumstances it would not come to amount to much more than an alliance 脿 la NATO.
So in my opinion it would be better to strengthen NATO instead. Since the Cold War has been over for quite some time now, NATO could do with some remodelling. Perhaps it could come to represent the free democratic world rather than just the traditional West? Invite Australia to join, and New Zealand. Or South Africa. Or even India and Brazil.
I have no doubt that an EU army could be created, its detailed allegiance and administrative ethos sorted out in the manner Roy (above) suggests and its chain of command made unambiguous in the way the UN is not. That's not the problem. I doubt even the money is the problem if the sharing out of weapons contracts to EU nations could be addressed. The problem is that the EU nations - especially the large ones - have frequently divergent foreign policies. Patrick Orchard pointed out the potential for such a force in Iraq but it would never have been deployed. French commercial oil interests would have absolutely prevented it. It is no use having a force which can only be used uncontroversially, at the mercy of differing national medias and politics.
I believe that European military cooperation is vital to maintain the
peace and prosperity of the continent. The speeches made by a member of the House of Lords are just anti-German and French nonsense. To suggest that a 'jack booted' EU army will come marching down the Channel tunnel to occupy our island is the kind of out dated and stupid comment i would expect from the old establishment who think this makes them Churchillian when the great man himself was very much in favour of greater European cooperation.
The EU is becoming increasingly involved with aid and peacekeeping around the world and is prepared to make commitments the US is unwilling to do - for example its involvement with the Palestinians. I believe the EU's and the member states inability to react to the war in the former Yugoslavia, a dispute right on its very borders, was a rather shameful episode and if this force helps to intervene in such conflicts without having to wait for the US to get involved then i am all for it.
First off I would like to say I disagree strongly with the views of Henry Curteis, who by his own abmission is euro-sceptic (myopic might be a better term). The EU needs to sort out an effective military force or keep quiet on these matters. All mouth and no trousers is no use to anyone.
We cannot continue to stand by and watch terrible acts being carried out in Africa while complaining about the terrible acts being carried out by the Americans. We Europeans need to show, in a concrete fashion, that there is another way. Peace keeping and yes possibly fighting for the right reasons (saving civilian life, restoring peace, rebuilding countries) instead of basing your wars on where the Oil is.
Also as an Irishman I love being neutral and know as do most that its complete hypocrisy. We allow American troops by the thousands use Shannon Airport and we supported the Allies during the second world war. I say we need to get off the fence, we spend more, per capita, on releif efforts and charity than any other country but do nothing to solve the root causes of many of these disasters.
Sorry if this has turned into a bit of a rant but I, and I believe many others, feel very strongly about this. Summary: The EU needs a fully functioning Army willing to fight for whats right.
I believe it is right that Ireland should be wired in to other European military commands. The key issue here is that involvement in any operation is voluntary - a nation like ours can join in with other like-minded partners if it believes the cause is just.
This is different from the pacts made before WW1 and WW2 when nations bonded themselves tightly to each other in mutual defence treaties: an attack on one meant all had to rush to war whether they liked it or not.
Our 'traditional' neutrality is in fact not even a century old and has at its core the fear of Irish lives being expended just to prop up the British Empire.
Irish attitudes are closer to those of other European nations than the US or anywhere else. So there is no harm in taking part in planning operations with EU colleagues where we can better understand how we might work together - so long as we have the final call on which operations we take part in.
Thanks for that interesting posting and comments.
Overall I am a strong EU supporter and in favour of a WEAK military, but a good working peace troops and support system (for humanitarien aid and in case natural disasters).
Recent history once again has shown that outside intervention in most conflict simply don't work: today's conflicts are asymetrical or internal in nature. Outside pressure usually stirs up the fire, not stop it.
If people have to settle a score or fight internally for power there is no power in the world to stop them: look at the current situation in palestine, the endless infights in Lebanon or the sectarian erruptions in Iraq.
BUT ... we (Europeans) should be able to support and protect humanitarian missions.
The EU mostly relies on so called soft power which seems to work nicely if you have patience. Foreign aid, cultural exchange, technology and trade can be pretty powerful - but in a more subtle way then parking an carrier battle group at some countries doorstop.
And a comment to Yugoslavia: since the end of the cold war we see many articial countries like Yugoslavia and Iraq falling apart as soon as the 'pressure' that held them together is removed in one way or another.
There are still many articial countries out there going back to colonial times, when Europe simply mixed totally different tribes / people into a new 'nation'. And they simply won't stick together, because often tribes are scattered across several countries (look at the Kurds, whose original country is now divided between Turkey, Iran and Iraq).
The "EU Army" is supposed to use NATO capabilities, but still be independent?
Recently the EU police force was to be deployed to Kosovo, with NATO backing. That is all nice and dandy, but then they took Turkey into a supporting role, meanwhile still reserving the right for NATO backing if there was trouble. One of the biggest troop levels are supplied by Turkey.
So there could be a hypothetical situation, where an Greek Cypriot (which Turkey does not recognize as a state, personally I don't either, and therefore cannot join NATO) police officer ordering around Turkish soilders.
Turkey of course denied giving consent and even NATO chief who came to Ankara could not convince them.
It all comes down to this: Unless EU countries put in some serious money and manpower into this project, it will remain a useless exercise in self-satisfaction. Because 15 Austr谋an army engineers or 5 Cypriot nurses do not constitute an army.
Duplication of efforts or not, is completely unrealistic to expect that the EU and the US will never disagree over military/peacekeeping operations in the future, and in consequence, the EU needs a military structure of its own, independent from NATO. An European Army? I'm in favor, and I strongly believe most Europeans would support the idea.
Regarding the proposed Constitution, I think many people don't understand that the alternative to it is not maintaining the actual status quo. The alternative is the nations supporting 'a closer union' advancing towards it without the others (think of the Euro and the Schengen Group) and I guess most Eurosceptics would like that even less than the Constitution...
1. It is NOT Mr Solana to decide on the EU action is appropriate or not. Mr Solana is neither to lunch any EU military operation nor to task the EU OpCdr. It is the EU COUNCIL (which are the 27 Member States of the EU) to make such decision and then the OpCdr reports to the EU COUNCIL only. Mr Solana is OUT of scope.
2. The EU OpsCentre is "rudimentary" (as the Author called it) only due to "some" EU Member States willing to be like that. BTW, the strength is not 40, it is more. And it is a very specificly defined (curiosity)number - under EU Council decision - available to the public. You have not done your homework properly, Mark.
3. As mentioned in a few comments- the "EU Army" has already accoplished some missions. The "EU Army" is the EU MSs' forces assigned for a specific EU operation.
4. BTW: There is no "EU Rapid Reaction Force". There are some high readiness forces, but it is not only the name what is different from the one used in NATO.
5. Recall Balkans in 90'. Europe's own playground. It was the NATO (normally 50% USA) to take care of it. Well... why do we need EU Forces? ...
6. Again.. why do we need EU's own military capabilities having NATO already in place? As Mr Solana said, the military option is never a good answer. It may be only a part of the comprehensive approach to the solution of a crisis. Is there a need for any better example than Afghanistan and Iraq, that the "combat" option only is NOT the right/sufficient way?
7. I have specific reasons for being glad you have put a picture with the EU OpsCentre logo in it. The way it looks makes me think: the EU is a global actor. Political, economical AND military - this is the meaning of the civ-mil response.
The idea of an EU Foreign Minister and army fills me with horror.
We only "signed up" to trade.
Ireland's neutrality is somewhat of a myth. While is a bit naive to pretend Ireland is neutral - all our politicians are quite happy to go along with it, rather than upset the status quo. Ireland is far better described as being non-aligned.
Ireland's official policy of neutrality was a consequence of Independence in the context of geopolitical instability. It is well known we were in fact 'neutral on the side of the Allies' during WW2.
I think a lot of the European military machine is still trying to find its place post cold war, and like any good Government Dept., justifies its budget no matter what the circumstances are.
Ideological war is being replaced by resource conflict and will no doubt continue to get worse with the impacts of climate change and other issues.
I therefore don't really see the relevance for an EU defence army in that context, but I firmly believe in intervention to prevent humanitarian disasters and consider the Balkans conflict "modern" Europe's darkest hour since WW2. How can a European state be neutral when another is in the midst of such a travesty?
Ireland has a long and proud history of UN service and I believe it's peace-keeping role will be complimented and enhanced with its participation in the Nordic battle group (an unfortunate name), who's countries have broadly similar outlooks. I don't see any conflict between these two roles. However I would not agree to joining NATO.
An EU 'army' poses a wonderful image of chocolate soldiers led by generals in Ruritanian uniforms.
Unless EU member states decide to spend serious money on military personnel and appropraite equipment (rather pork-barrel political EADS-like contracts) then it will remain in the realms of 'all mouth no trousers'.
Comparing the proportion of GDP spent on the military in the US versus EU member states shows the magnitude of the gap.
All in all this is a good thing as the idea of unelected and unaccountable EU 'leaders' playing with real soldiers is not acceptable to many here in Britain - especially those who thought they were joining an 'Economic Community'.
As for neutrality: If, for example, Estonia were to be atttacked by Russia, Nato member nations would be obliged by treaty to come to Estonia's aid. What would be the legal obligations of neutral Austria, Ireland and Sweden towards its fellow EU member? (Please don't say this scenario is too far-fetched, more unlikely things happen all the time).
Multi-national forces never work in these times,national intrests interfere and engagment rules of the forces are always watered down to the lowest level leaving a force of several thousand troops standing around while inocent civilians get killed.the new european force will be no different.This force is just eruopes way of saying hey look we dont need the us,but in the end just ending up like them and sticking there nose in places with a good intent but in the end making the conflict drag on longer.there is only one way to end these conflicts and thats to threaten both sides
Another brilliant example of a fictional European organization spending real European money! Another one in line of never ending far reaching project headed by the high representative with a low power. Another exercise of peace keeping in Africa while European conflicts such as Bosnia and Kosovo are more of an American interest. Probably since both of these are not US just as Africa is not Europe. Maybe Europe should concentrate on finalizing already initiated programs, like the border troops controlling the illegal immigrants鈥 influx, and subsequently start new ones. Maybe Europe should establish itself as a credible international player before embarking on this kind of projects!
Answering the call for Irishmen...
As a previous poster suggested, Ireland's neutrality is somewhat of a fig-leaf. It never really existed, and exists even less today. Thousands of American soldiers and planes pass through Shannon airport this year, and this will continue under the new administration.
Irish neutrality is nothing more than a convenient white lie. Despite the great progress made in the last hundred years or so, some parts of the Irish state are still woefully under-developed, mainly due to the short-sighted, parochial outlook of the political elite.
personally i think i support the idea of a Euroarmy because if this is available maybe russia might might be brought to check because with an euroarmy it will definately be able to march russia in terms of force but not in Nuclear which i think the eurozone should control.by having this euroarmy we have a stronger europe that is not threatened by bully russia. kudos to those who brought about the ideas.
I find the current will in these comments for a full EU army quite shocking.
You can say after the Iraq war, how little accountability there is in the UK on military deployments. But we can all agree this is not a Good Thing. To put this decision in the hands of the EU Council of Ministers, or worse still the "Foreign Minister", will only leave us in the same quandary... with majority votes sanctioning whether British and/or Irish troops are sent to conflicts?
Already we have seen in NATO "mission creep" - defensive organisation to peacekeepers in Fomer Yugoslavia to active military service outside its original remit in Afghanistan. The EU army can only go in one direction, I fear. An army swearing allegiance to an EU force (unlikely, knowing the generally patriotic types who agree to sign up for armed service in the first place)
I was under the impression that currently, the EU goverments are grouped into certain areas (UK & Netherlands for one?) and each group keeps a certain number of troops on standby for peacekeeping emergencies, rotating every so often and relieveing the previous group's mission, where agreement to deploy is universal. Is this not the more sensible arrangement? If one set of EU countries wishes to go ahead and provide peacekeepers while others do not, there is nothing to prevent sovereign nations from doing to.
Also: to those who say an EU military would be _more_ willing to intervene in conflict areas as peacekeepers need only look at the history of the French & Dutch in Srebrenica, certain NATO members in the north of Afghanistan, disappointly low French turnout in the UN Lebanese force (note the common denominator)... and the fact that the US government (Or at least Colin Powell while he was still in office) is one of the few to have actually recognised Darfur as a genocide.
Hi Mark,
I'm an Irish citizen born and bred in Dublin. I think an EU millitary force would not compromise Irelands neutrality as long as the force was a 'peacekeeing' and not an aggresive one. However, I think you are wide of the mark when you suggest that the new EU force would compete with the USA. I think we are seeing the start of a grand plan that has been orchastrated for quite sometime. The beginning of a New World Order. We're heading for a world government with one seat of power and one army. This is not going to be a peaceful takeover either. It will most likely be forced upon us. I fear for the future. Can the world not see whats going on! How a man of limited intelligence can get away with a rigged election says it all. Why is Bush still in power and why oh why does he need a missle defence system. Having read Mr Putins full statement in relation to the threat to Russia I have to agree with him. I'm sure many others would too if it werent for the fact that no western news agencies seem to want to give his side of events. Instead they lead with sensationilist headlines like 'Russian missles target European cities'! Really?? Where's the proof! Dark days people....
"So there could be a hypothetical situation, where an Greek Cypriot (which Turkey does not recognize as a state, personally I don't either, and therefore cannot join NATO) police officer ordering around Turkish solders."
Of course the invading nation wouldn't recognize the existence of a country they tried to take.
But more to the point. A EU army for relief efforts would probably work very well. With the ever increasing weakness of NATO and the UN there needs to be a new way with which to fight global problems.
But for wars? I can't see most European nations wanting to get involved in any major way. And quite frankly, I can't see any politicians that would want to put the funding towards it.. maybe they are looking for another raise.
Oh Ed (Post 26) -
Must we still keep on harking back to something which happened 34 years ago?! (Yes, that's over a third of a century)
We're now living in 2007 and by your logic, then we should still be at war with the Germans (and the French and the Boers and the Americans come to that).
Time moves on and things change. Live with it!
(Speaking as a 38 year old who's never had the chance to vote in an EU referendum but would happily vote "Yes please" to becoming MORE European and less euro-sceptic).
Would an EU military have stepped in when Argentina attempted to take control of the Faulkland Islands? Would Spain and Portugal vetoed such an action? What happens when the interests of one member are not shared by other members? Will individual members be free to take action on their own?
Chocolate fireguard, anyone?! I do have a blunt opinion of the militaries of the other EU countries. Beside the Dutch, the rest are only fit for peacekeeping (which seems to be, admittedly, the purpose of the exercise described by Mark).
It is absolutely necessary to have this army. Conventional armies should be scrapped for this. If we'd had this 10yrs ago there would have been no British involvement in Iraq II. The EU is like a lumbering Giant, because it is so big and so old it is slow to act but when it does it should do so decisively. The divisions between countries would stop any one country doing what we did in Iraq.
Never thought i'd say this, but well done EU.
As a former RN Officer in the Fleet Air Arm we would launch on day under British control, another under NATO and another under the Western European Union (WEU - EU aligned). Whilst the Rules of Engagement would differ the main points that require addressing are ensuring bureaucracy doesn't not reduce capability and cost lives. Secondly that apportionment of support is based on need and not internal politics. Too many countries do not support initiatives effectively relying on other nation to support the more hazardous operations. If countries buy-in to a collective approach that means every aspect. Thirdly the EU will always be subordinate to NATO as in times of conflict on any scale, firepower and capability are the order of the day, and the EU just does not have the infrastructure, weaponry and manpower to compete. National forces are already stretched; careful thought is required as to how NATO, National and EU tasking will integrate in the future.
Chadders; I can invisage a number of scenarios where accountability would be increased. Have the decision on whether to send an EU force made by QMV, and *then* the decision by the individual nations or battlegroups on whether to join that force.
Personally I think we Europeans should be more pragmatic and cost-cutting when it comes to integration. Defence procurement in the member states has always been inefficient with vast duplication of efforts. I'm certain there's a lot of money to be saved through exploitation of these economies of scale.
And the foreign ministry! Do we really need 27 embassies in every non-EU country of the world? Britain and Ireland have agreements to allow British embassies to serve Irish citizens in countries where Ireland doesn't have representation. Why not expand that premise? How much money does an embassy cost to maintain, and why bother to continue this duplication of effort? In smaller third countries where EU member states have almost uniform relations to the host, it seems daft.
I think the solution to the problems of EU vs. NATO are simple. Abolish NATO as its primary role is no longer there and shift its European resources to the UE defence force.
Europe has now grown sufficiently to take care of itself with out American help. If the resources are inadequate and this becomes obvious then new resources will quickly be re-allocated. The combine military spend of the UE countries is of the same order of magnitude of the US forces. The main impediment has been the use of conscript armies in the past which cannot be used in real wars and use a lot of resources. This is now coming to an end as the need for professional forces which are at least partly war hardened and are able to use sophisticated equipment has become obvious. The last conscripts are being replaced by professional soldiers. I completely agree with the first contributor Mathew, who despite being an American recognizes that the defence and stability of the world is too important to be in the hands of one man. This just makes the world too unstable which is the present situation. Also the Americans have lost the position of the neutral referee, due to its inability to deal with the Arabs / Palestinians, which makes it a very bad basis for the main problems of the current world. Europe has some potential there as long as it stops automatically following US policy.
It will take some time for the EU to be able to act as an powerful force for Western values along side the US -rather than just to use good old Nato as a subsidy so some EU Member States do not have to pay to maintain a modern military. However, the window of opportunity is closing as Asia expands military spending rapidly.
Only if we share some of the common costs across the EU and integrate EU forces and systems to maximise value and bangs per Euro will the West mantain future influence. This will allow the EU and US to deploy effectively in a complementary manner across ever increasing common commitments. This will however require a new treaty so that a new 9-11 or Falklands is not greeted with a shrug.
Any plans for an EU army are doomed to failure.
Why? Simple. France.
France will demand that French officers/generals are put in charge of this EU army, or at least control several key areas of it. Because France still sees the EU as an extension of French influence.
Throughout the EU's history, France always demanded to lead the most important things, and if they couldn't lead they were not interested.
Hmm...
This all sounds very like the "future operations" model described by many commentators in the salad days immediately post 9/11. America, with its high technology and air power would intervene in a purely military sense and overwhelm the hostile power. Europe would follow on with peace keeping, peace enforcement, nation building and so forth. This model gave Europe the finicky messes to deal with and America the glory, as it were.
The Iraq came along. The lead up to Iraq involved lots of American commemtators dismissing even that model; instead America would do the military work and Iraq would sort itself out by itself.
Right now, having the USA involved in a conflict presents its own set of problems. Right now, actively supporting a US led mission can be seen as tantamount to supporting US policy (hence France and Germany's continued cold feet in Afghanistan). So, clearly, some other structure is needed. And obviously, this is the EU answer.
However, if there is to be a European military structure, formed by "chopping" military assets into temporary commands, it needs one thing. It needs logistical support. It needs an EU based structure to provide fuel, shipping, food and other such support. And that will require political will and money.
It's easy to get a bunch of general officers and specialists together with some nice computers and satellite links. However, putting together a logistics system is going to be the hard part. And without that, any EU Rapid Deployment group is going to be problematic.
Gavin
I am former military man and I would have had deep reservations about serving under an "EU" banner.
The fact that I am British so am supposed to be euro-sceptic is tempered by the fact that I am married to a German and live in Germany so my reservations about serving under an EU mandate has nothing to do with a dislike of anything and everything European.
My concern stems from the situations that we see British forces being put in by the politicians and the senior military officers hailing from other European countries. It seems that when the various governments agree on a mandate to put an armed force into an area then the British armed forces are the ones that carry out the fighting and dying whilst other European nations look on, refusing to actually get involved in anything other than debating the situation.
We have seen Belgium refusing to supply ammunition for the first gulf war, Dutch ships being part of a major battle group that had been ordered to withdraw if they came under fire, Dutch troops refusing to protect the very people they are supposed to be protecting and the situation in Afghanistan whereby the Europeans do not come out of the compounds if at all possible, is a disgrace.
The thought of an EU army is a joke. The commanders would be picked to politically appease one or another government rather than picking someone that is experienced but regardless of this, the British will be expected to go into combat whilst most of the other EU states will send a token force to fly the flag and try to gain influence in the area.
A gentlemen I know that is a current serving officer in the military of an EU country has told me that they do not actually know what they are supposed to be doing in Afghanistan and that their troops believe it is just a flag flying adventure so their government can say "we were there, can we have some reconstruction contracts please".
Nato is already longstanding and it may need re-directing but dissolving it and having an EU force that would be paralysed due to political in-fighting and the fact that the British troops would be in combat whilst the rest posture and pontificating on the sidelines.
Finally, as the British would have to provide the bulk of any force, I am guessing that the British tax-payer will be footing the majority of the bill.
What a very European idea - put together a military organisation with no troops (or none that will turn up), give a veto on all operations to the people who always veto all operations, put in a huge and very expensive bureaucracy to manage lots of people doing very little. Then when something really bad happens wait for America to come to our rescue yet again. If I was an American I would be asking why we are spending billions of dollars keeping forces in Europe to protect people who not only don't want our protection, but are bloody ungrateful when we have to give it?
I'm all for a counter to American imperialism and the formation of a European military maybe the only solution before China and Russia become so agitated with US foreign policy they start throwing nasties about.
I served in the British army for 25 years, very little of it was for peace keeping but trying to leave the mess we created behind gracefully.
The Americans HAVE to be stopped and it's better Europe does it than any other country and military might is the only language the Americans understand.
Who will pay for the EC military forces? But, of course - the UK, Germany, Holland - anyone else? What will they do if they are deployed?
Well...most of the countries would supply token forces that would be kept out of the way of anything dangerous. Who wants EU military forces? In the UK, a few politicians want them for "political" reasons and, probably, pretty much the same applies elsewhere.
If the EU is ever to have a military, it will need to follow the path of the early United States. Originally here we had a confederation government or weak federal government that had to loan troops from state militias for federal service. Eventually (this would definately require a Constitution ) Europe will need to build a small standing army. Troops recruited, paid, and armed directly by Brussels, not borrowed from France, Germany, Ireland, etc. National soldiers could be used in an emergency, but for basic peace keeping you would send in the European standing army (or in a more alarming alternative, mercenaries (read: EuroBlackwater)).
What if this 'European Army' were deployed as peacekeepers to prevent the population of an errant "member state" from choosing independence?
Britain - Northern Ireland; Russia - Chetnia; EU - the former Great Britain?
A "NO" vote in a referendum on the constitution ? - prepare to welcome French, German and Italian troops onto London's streets, people.
-I feel a 鈥楤attle鈥 group with ~1500 combat troops and some armoured vehicles is not prepared or appropriate to do humanitarian relief work. It would be more appropriate to have a pool of specialists such as medics, engineers, signals e t c. for this type of work. Perhaps it would be beneficial to include national civil defence and police/gendarmerie in such a grouping. Equipment such as bulldozers, diggers and sniffer dogs may be more use than 50-cal machine guns? I understand their would be a need for a protection force for these personnel and I believe the ratio used is 1 protector to 1 relief worker/specialist. There is a discussion in Irish government circles about allowing Irish troops to volunteer for NGO organised and UN/government approved relief missions. The volunteer soldier would keep army pay and entitlements. At present they have to take a career break unless its an UN mission. I believe the humanitarian relief groups should have a separate grouping, even if serving under the same command structure and alongside a battle group proper.
-A 鈥楤attle鈥 group will not be very effective if it is not a combined arms grouping i.e. marines, infantry, artillery, tanks, anti-tanks, air support, specialists e.t.c. I realise that the battle groups from various countries will contribute different capabilities, however, only two groups are on standby at any time. If the EU want to have a 鈥榖attle鈥 they must evolve an actual army group. I believe the concept of the battle group could be effective if expanded to a de facto EU army.
-Slightly off the topic, as an Irish & EU citizen I am entitled to join the Irish, British or even US army but I do not believe I am eligible for the normal French army or army civil service, only their foreign legion. Should an EU citizen not be allowed join any EU national army as a first step towards EU defence?
I think the better question would be; "why NATO?" It served its purpose during the cold war but is now a meanlingless entity that does nothing but annoy Russia.
Does anyone really think that any of the European states would take military action should the US be attacked by China?
NATO serves no useful purpose for the US and if nothing else, the US should pull out and let the EU reformat NATO.
The concept of an independant EU military force is intriguing, but it is still much farther from reality than this post would suggest. The EU continues to lack resources in airlift and sealift that would allow it to be a true "crisis-response" force. The EU can engage in small-scale operations, for example Operation Artemis in the DRC, but for large-scale operations requiring quick deployment of combat troops, NATO is still the best bet because it possesses serious (US) airlift and sealift capabilities.
I feel that rather than serving as an international peacekeeper, the EU's growth as a peacekeeper will for some time be limited to Europe and its immediate surroundings. Essentially, the EU is filling the void that has been created as the United States loses interest in European defense and focuses increasingly on Iraq and Afghanistan. The EU has already taken over the NATO mission in Bosnia. The next step will be Kosovo, not Africa.
The development of a EU military apparatus is not really much of a threat to the US simply because US and European security concerns (with the sole exception of Iraq) have been remarkably similar. Nor will NATO disappear. Nor does it remove the likelihood of future "coalitions of the willing". Instead, an independent EU military apparatus is simply a new tool that can provide some added flexibility, and will be useful in peacekeeping missions near or within Europe.
In principle it is a good idea to have an E.U Armed Force. It could act for good against any threat in or to E.U constituent nations!
It would have to operate as a token force with member nations supplying troops for E.U tasks!
It could operate in parallel to N.A.T.O but not undermining the work of NATO! Humanitarian projects to prevent acts of genocide etc. would be useful! A brigade strength from the larger state members could be allocated for E.U duties! The smaller nations commiting smaller units! The command of such an enterprise would be rotated annualy or be in line with the E.U presidential host rotation!
However a contingent should be kept as a reactionary force 24/7 deployment anywhere in the world! Commanded by senior experienced Officers. Not subject to a compulsary rotation!
What exactly does any European have to fear or object to the idea of a European army? Is it threatening our nascent plans to invade Sweden, or something?
What is purpose of that?
Rather than creating another army how about disarming or downsizing the US,Russian, Nato and other major armies so that the world's major players'apetite for accummulating arms and using force to achieve their objectives starts to subside.
Thanks everyone for such variety of thoughts; it's always rewarding.
I found interesting to read about those stupid contracts giving preference to EU countries over better suppliers elsewhere. What does that have to do with the fact of creating a European army? Policies like that can be changed without altering the need for an EU army.
Besides, I hear that licensing is often too tight for military material; does a US missile ever work when the US don't want it to work?
Another question: do Nation States always invest their money in and only in what is really necessary? Hearing some Eurosceptics it seems it's only the EU that ever wastes tax-payers money.
Like in any other issue, the EU's task should be (not saying it IS) about 1. distributing effort and 2. trying to find prosperity for an ever greater number of people.
1. Think EU Army would duplicate NATO? Well, now 27 armies have similar structures and not very different roles (if any indeed..).
2. A EU army, controlled by the Heads of State or Government representatives would be the best choice: Find a war scenario where 100% of European leaders think one should intervene and probably even the public would think likewise. Mind you, many Britons and Spaniards were more supportive of Schr枚der's policy in Iraq than their own Government's.
Mathew Walsh wrote (comment 41):
"Britain and Ireland have agreements to allow British embassies to serve Irish citizens in countries where Ireland doesn't have representation. Why not expand that premise?"
If I'm not mistaken, this is already the case.
A United European Army might happen when Europe is united, until then, how would it go?
Britain: We want to send more troops to Afghanistan.
Germany: In combat positions?
Britain: Ofcourse.
Germany: No
Britain: We want to follow the US into (insert country here!)
France & Germany: No
Spain: We'd like to take our troops back out of (country)
....
Mathew Walsh: "I can invisage a number of scenarios where accountability would be increased. Have the decision on whether to send an EU force made by QMV, and *then* the decision by the individual nations or battlegroups on whether to join that force."
That is perhaps the worst of both worlds. Everyone would be pro-intervention, and then no-one will be willing or compelled to back their words up with action.
Personally, I just don't see the need for an EU army. A working group like the ABCA armies (America, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) to try and promote inter-operability seems the most sensible solution.
Alfonso Martinez: "Hearing some Eurosceptics it seems it's only the EU that ever wastes tax-payers money."
If only we had an audit to find out how much we waste on the CAP!
"Find a war scenario where 100% of European leaders think one should intervene and probably even the public would think likewise."
That will be a very tough find.
I think what Europeans have to fear is that their country's sons & daughters could potentially be sent to conflicts on the basis of other European leaders wishes in a corrupt and undemocratic and unaccountable system; that it will paralyse decision-making on military interventions which should be done at the voluntary, national level.
Wouldn't a European Union Peace Corps be a more effective way of helping stability through food, medicine, shelter and education in the world. A million Peace Corps personnel (in return for free unlimited college) could help employ Europeans helping other peoples and save the world the problem of boring things like wars and loss of resource routes.
From what I am reading here, it sounds like a European army's main purpose would be to provide security in peace-keeping operations. Wouldn't it be more practical to rely on professional, private security firms to do this? They are going to be less politically divided and would allow countries who do not think it is worth contributing combat forces of their own to write a check instead.
A European army will be seen as a threat by most Americans, and I'm sure there are many people such as Doug (#48) who would intend for it to be just that. Why would the European community want to trade one hegemon for another who is closer and worst of all speaks French?
A good, intelligent article, as always - a splendid antidote to the ignorance of much of the British press.
As we all ought to realise, a genuinely integrated "EU army" will not - and should not - be on the table next week: it is not, or should not, be about 'jackboots' or furthering French fantasies of 'taking on' the United States with an "army" devoid of national control.
However, 'euronationalist' wet dreams aside, there is perhaps a case to reconsidering *how* we work together in a world where the type confrontational major warfare for which NATO is designed to cater appears particularly unlikely.
I tend to agree that, where peacekeeping is now the most common calling for our armed forces, there is perhaps much to be said - in theory - for merging the military with the socio-economic, so as to make the kind of holistic "nation-building" strategies that are so necessary for a successful peacekeeping operation that much easier, and allow more effective communication with our partners on other continents.
If the theory can escape the bureaucracy and develop into something meaningful and effective, however unlikely it may be, then I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I just hope our political and military leaders have enough sense to avoid it succumbing to what for the EU would be an intolerabably characteristic 'death by committee'.
Austrian and German newspapers have stated that no country may leave the "EU". British and German "EU"-lovers have told me personally that we may not leave. The only advantage of the new "EU" constitution might be that it will change that. Practically we can leave as long as we have our own formidable Army. I believe that "EU"-lovers intend to do away with our armed forces. We would then find it more difficult to leave. The "EU" is not responsible for the peace we have had in Europe for the last 50 years. It could cause wars of independence. The "EU" Army could be used for internal oppression and for wars of aggression. An EU"-army will not strengthen the "EU". The weakness of the "EU" is its anti-democratic nature, its arrogance and its megalomania.
Thunor (No. 63) - Does it not occur to you that there are plenty of unarmed NGO's in the world already? Has it also occurred to you why organisations like the Red Cross and the UN were forced out of Iraq some time back? Unarmed NGO's cannot always distribute aid, and they certainly can't do things like disarm minefields, clear up munitions, disarm rebel groups and maintain law and order in a lawless and orderless land.
Armies are, in whatever shape or form, required to ensure peace. Odd argument I know, but it's the realistic one.
What rubbish, this would just end up as an excuse for the small countries to cut their defence spending even further and rely on their "bigger brothers" to do the heavy lifting. As it stands the UK and France are the only credible military forces in the EU, and I already know on who it would fall to defend our dear neighbours...
First of all, thank you all for continuing to comment on this issue with such interesting content.
62. If only we had an audit to find out how much we waste on the CAP!
What about shifting the responsibility for negotiating EU-Budget to the EU Parliament so that it stands on par with National budgets? In Germany, Austria and other federation-like States, each level of authority must democratically vote its budget in its Parliament. Why is this not the case within the EU?
Open your eyes, it's not the evil, abstract EU or its more concrete Comission. It's the national leaders that would lose grip on some money on which we would vote. I personally can live with taking seriously European elections.
62. Everyone would be pro-intervention, and then no-one will be willing or compelled to back their words up with action.
Would everyone be pro-intervention? How weird that sounds to me! You agree some lines below: "That will be a very tough find."
62. I think what Europeans have to fear is that their country's sons & daughters could potentially be sent to conflicts on the basis of other European leaders wishes in a corrupt and undemocratic and unaccountable system.
Now that's something one might fear... If the Comission in its current shape was endorsed with the power to decide on war matters having a EU-Army to act with. However, that's not the case. EU leaders are accountable and what I would vote for is that the EU Parliament decides on that.
67. British and German "EU"-lovers have told me personally that we may not leave
I guess I might well be clasified under "Spanish EU-lover" for this purpose; and I can tell you: you may leave.
67. The EU Army could be used for internal oppression and for wars of aggression.
Or for cleaning the streets. It could be used for anything and it's up to us people to choose which its functions will be, instead of closing our minds to the idea just because it's got "EU" affixed to the name.
68: What rubbish, this would just end up as an excuse for the small countries to cut their defence spending even further and rely on their "bigger brothers" to do the heavy lifting.
The point is to add our military spending and use it rationally so that we don't buy the same equipment 27 times when it's only needed once. Maybe so we would have something "credible", which I think, not even France or the UK are, except for their nuclear arsenals.
Thanks again for all the views. I just want to answer Victor B: Both Solana and the officer in charge went out of their way to say, again and again, that this exercise, and any real exercise was ordered under his authority. Of course it鈥檚 true that he takes his order from the council, but I am reporting what the people there said. Of course if he was "foreign minister" he would have right of imitative. They also said the number involved in this operation was 40, and I don't see why they would want to mislead. I am sure that the high representative has a reasonable expense account and can certainly "lunch" the military operation but making fun of typos is a hostage to fortune!
To Henry Curteis
As an erasmus student from France, currently living in the UK, I can assure you that the inflation rate of the euro zone is far from reaching 15 percent. I guess that when you say that you want Britain to withdraw from the EU you don't mean the common market. That would put the United Kingdom in a situation similar to that of Norway for example. That is, you have to pay millions every year to have an access to the common market and you are forced to implement EU laws anyway, the only difference being that you have no say in their making !
'France and Germany are not engaged militarily in the world' As for France's military, your comment clearly shows a lack of knowledge of the current situation. France has around 30 000 troops abroad, including 4000 troops in Ivory Coast, more than a thousand troops in Lebanon, Afghanistan or Kosovo.In 2001 my own father was sent to Kyrgyzstan to take part in the war in Afghanistan with soldiers from the French Airforce. France even dispatched an aircraft carrier in the region and we have military bases in loads of countries (Djibouti, Senegal, Gabon, Tchad ...)France's army is not that different from that of the UK and we've got as much troops abroad as you do !
The problem with an EU army is that it will always be seen as an institution of a sovereign state which NATO is not. It would seek to rubber stamp EU soveriegnty before the ultimate aim of the EU, to acheive that status, has been properly stated. It will be seen as another backdoor step to integration.
It is inevitable that the larger nations with stronger military traditions will bear the brunt of the cost and the action. This is as true of NATO and the UN as it would be of the EU.
Essentially this is a political step not a practical one. The Afganistan example is a good one where Britain, Canada and the US(again) bear the brunt of the operation whilst erstwhile European allies are severely (by all accounts) restricted in what they will or will not do.
To be honest the idea of this is a scary concept. I, do not and would not want such an institution.
In matter of fact I do not really want the UK, or if Scotland ever leaves the UK, Scotland to be apart of the EU.
There is a vast array of potential problems and of course costs in having such a structure. Differing gear, combat practices and training to name but a few.
How would such an organisation be made up? Will each country supply the exact amount of equipment, funds and personnel or is it a case of the larger members carrying the burden.
Who, ultimately has control of the reins? What if one country, say one of the more successful EU countries and not one of the recent, almost third world add ons does not wish to go to war?
What would be the political, worldwide repercussions for creating such an organisation?
No thank you.
There is absolutely NO WAY, the UK should have anything to do with any EU military structure whatsoever.
They are a sorry lot, militarily, and have no political backbone for any kind of fight - completely undependable.
NATO, or an Anglosphere of nations type arrangement would be fine ... but anything that ties us further to Europe is, quite frankly, quite treasonous.
We need to quit the whole sorry mess.
CALL FRANCE'S BLUFF: EU MEMBERSHIP OUGHT TO REQUIRE MEMBERSHIP OF NATO
Make individual countries' membership of Nato a mandatory condition for retaining and/or obtaining membership in the EU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roderick V. Louis
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
near Vancouver, Canada
Instead of having a fictitious African country that needs saving, why not have a fictitious European country?
After all, Europe IS the bloodiest piece of real estate on this planet, not Africa. It would be more realistic.
And as far as the (European) comments about Americans looking on the EU army as a threat, all I can say is that this is long overdue. Europeans should be responsible for their own messes and not expect other countries to constantly bail them out.
But does anyone honestly think that with Europe's history of appeasement and standing on the sidelines that this army will amount to much?
I am an Irishman,Irish Army(retd).
Born during WWII,lived through the second half of the last century in peaceful and largely prosperous times. I gradualy became aware that those who gave their today did indeed allow my generation to have our tommorrow. We who came after them have an opportunity to ensure a enduring peaceful union in Europe.
The Balkans horrror was a deep discrace to us and should never be allowed to happen again.To this end an EU defence force should be developed and each state in the union should contribute to it.
Wouldn't it be more practical to rely on professional, private security firms to do this?
Yeah, we sure as hell need an european Halliburton or something like that.
Look at the war in Iraq and it privatization. Billions of dollars wasted on 'so effective' private contractors and security companies.
And the Geneva Convention and other treaties hardly apply to such companies.
Bad idea. Very bad.
I'd like to ask a very basic question:
How can a unified military force capable of combat be created by an entity which cannot agree even on common energy policy, let alone foreign policy?
Mark,
Seems like you have been taken in by the EU's policy of deception regarding defense policy along with 95% of all other British voters.
The European Defense Agency was set up without the consent of the British Parliament and without a mandate from the British electorate. It was set up by the Foreign Ministers of the EU member states when they had no right to do so. The best that Jack Straw could do in reply to a question about the legality of the EDA in the House of Commons was to say that it was "an aspiration" alluded to in some previous joint statement made after an EU "summit".
The fact is that the EU exceeded its remit and, as it so often does, presumed with breath-taking arrogance that it could the expand it powers to suit its own agenda (full political union), then wear down the electorate over time with the relentless referal to the fact that it had them (in this case in the shape of the EDA) and, hey presto, present us with a fait accompli which the electorate will conveniently comply with by not asking too many difficult questions.
Your report is blind to the fact that the failed EU constitution of 2005 had clauses that were supposed to legitimise the EDA and therefore you are contributing, perhaps unwittingly, to the very ignorance that the EU relies upon to have its anti-democratic way with us. Did the Labour party mention that they would commit the UK to the development of the EDA in their manifesto of 2005? The EDA means that we (the UK) are committed to give prefential treatment to EU defense suppliers, regardless of value-for-money or the Armed Forces own preference. This is not only anti-democratic but also putting the lives of our own servicemen at the mercy of the whim of foreign bureaucrats and governments, i.e. the German government, the French government, the Italian government, and 23 other governments whom the British electorate have no power to elect or remove. I think that when control over British lives is signed away in such a casual fashion that this warrants reporting that makes this abundantly clear.
Mark,
Further to my post a few minutes ago, please read the article 'The superstate is far too big to wait for 'the people' ' under the URL
It contains what Jack Straw said in June 2005 about no part of the constitution being implemented via the backdoor.
As a bonus, see also another article on the same page that revealed that Road Pricing is an fact an EU law i.e. EC directive 2004/52 and is therefore outside the control of the Rt.Hon. Douglas Alexander (Minister for Transport) or any of the British
Government. The Directive specifically forces the UK, at vast expense, to use the EU's Galileo satillite for vehicle tracking. Again, all without the consent or knowledge of the UK electorate. Read and be enlightened.
"Ireland already unofficially relies on the EU, and the UK in particular, for its defence; with Royal Air Force aircraft patrolling over Dublin's skies on September 12th 2001 at the invitation of the Irish government. The visage of neutrality is a veil."
True, along with the visage that the UK is a friendly neighbour. Denmark, France and Italy haven't armed terrorist groups which have planted bombs in Irish towns and cities. Asking the RAF to patrol Dublin on 12/09/01 is like asking the proverbial fox to guard the proverbial chickens.
The matter of a European military is a complex one, a military is one of the definations of a national government and I can understand eurosceptic's fear in the possible creation of a permanent force.
It is my current thought that a EU force should first act as a peacekeeping force, becoming involved in situations for which it is too controversial for other countries such as the USA to become involved. It is even possible that a European Peace-keeping force in Iraq may have more of an effect than a US force (though I find this very unlikely as it would be embarrasing for America if successful) however if it came to a possibility of a declaration of war, the EU should not be able to do this as long as the commission and the EU Council president are appointed and not elected, such an order would have no public legitimacy, but I still believe that a European military is the way to go.
I really don't see how such a force would be in competition with NATO any more than a UK military would be in competition with NATO.
As most of the EU states are members of NATO this simply means more co-ordination among NATO states, we do not complain that Texas and Alabama share a common military force.
A co-ordinated EU military and foriegn policy would surely help counter situations such as Kosovo without the need to involve other NATO states. For wider issues the EU or it's member states, can surely go to NATO - the correct forum for global threats.
As regards the legitimacy of the EU Council - it is an elected body, you vote for our representative when you vote Labour, Liberal or Tory in the General Election.
I am a retired colonel that has participated in Nato exrcizes for more than a decade. Europe's collective Armed Forces are massive and have a lot of potential for world defense, Europe's defense and world peace. Europe's Armies all together are much larger than the US Forces and Turkey's Forces. The United States, Turkey and Great Britain have been consistently undermining the EU's army potential finding ridiculous excuses for NATO's
involvement and protecting London's and Ankara's interests.NATO has no place in the EU. British and Turkish generals provide the US with the EU's
confidential future plans and they have been sabotaging a pan-European defense force for 20 years.Europe has all the technology and personnel to create its mighty defense shield without any help from the US.Unfortunately the former Eastern European nations along with Bulgaria and pro-Turkish Albania have been bribed by the US and have become an obstacle to a pan European Force expansion. The only way to stop that is to make it clear to them through the EU that they need to choose between a Europe's interests and the US's interests. Postpone Albania's and Bulgaria's EU membership application status indefinitely and stop all negotiations with Turkey. Stop giving Turkey special priviges in Euro-defense issues on the merit of its massive NATO Army. Punish all former Eastern European Nations with sanctions if they start signing military alliances with the US instead of the EU.
What a fascinating and daring opinion by the colonel.
I have been a reporter for 30 years and I must admit I am happy that there are intelligent people out there that see the difference between Nato's interests and Europe's
interests. All of Europe feels the same way colonel. Thanks!!!!
When 91热爆 2 television [hardly a body renowned for eurosceptism) presented their docu-drama on life post an EU constitution they included a section in which the newly combined Euro-army was used to confront the US ('confront' as in the Indonesian confrontation of the 1960's..ie restricted warfare) whilst, if I recall correctly, GB was occupied by French and German riot police under Europol control as the 'anglosaxons' were perceived as pro_US. So your own employers seem to agree with the Tory lord.
Also, when I took part in an EU forum on the constitution the French delegation ridiculed the notion of a UK referendum declaring that' it will be irrelevant once the unified Euro-army has held it's victory parade in Trafalgar Sq'. One of the many such comments which converted me from a europhile to a confirmed eurosceptic!
Its vital that Europe get its own military. And I dont mean an equivilant of NATO; which is not a military; just the chiefs working together.
Why does everybody think NATO OR an European army? Thats so silly when we can have both. Why not build a common European army from the 27 we have now and have it be half of NATO with the US military being the other half? Is this really too complicated for people to imagine? It really have to be NATO OR a European army? It cant be both?
Anyways; for a European army it would be vital to have a strong military industrial base in the UK and Ireland, and a strong UK navy. It would be important to have a strong military base in Benexlux and northwest Europe in case of any Russian or Middle eastern attempt on Europe. It would be vital to controle the mediterranean and south Europe. It would be vital to have a strong force in Greece and Romania to protect against any future enlarged rebel terrorist army, and it would also be important to have a large army placed in the east; ready to handle any Russian threat.
This said; the main military would have to be in Germany, France and the UK.
Make the 27 European armies into 1 European army; boost the efficiency and the technology of such an army and use the French foreign legion as an example when building one army from 27. Think strategically to protect Europe, especially from the east. The west could be completely open because 1 European army would be in NATO together with 1 American army...
I just have to stress again and again that there can be a European army in NATO to replace the current dusin of European armies. Is that REALLY such a complicated thought?
I am a German national and the father of 3 sons, 2 of which have served in Kosovo. My sons have told me that they were proud to help as members of a European army but they resented the idiotic instructions that were passed to them at a higher level from the American led coalition. They witnessed the bombing of the Christian Serb villages while the Muslim communities enjoyed full protection by the Clinton administration. It is time that our European forces make their own decisions in similar future conflicts without any interference from America's bullying.
Create a European Army that will stand on its own and all of children and grand children will serve with pride.
Comment no. 80 by Will:-
"As regards the legitimacy of the EU Council - it is an elected body, you vote for our representative when you vote Labour, Liberal or Tory in the General Election."
Glad you raised this point, Will.
How can intelligent people still allow themselves to be fooled by this EU propaganda that tells us that we have legitimate and democratic EU institutions that are ever-so-fairly working hard on our behalf?
The EU Council is indeed 'legitimate' in the same way that the Soviets used to conduct 'legitimate' elections and used to make 'legitimate' arrests of dissidents and put them in 'legitimate' prisons in Siberia. You are confusing legitimacy with fairness.
Let's look at some facts here.
The truth is that the UK has 29 votes out of 345 on the EU Council, and the EU Council can pass laws by Qualified Majority Voting ie. by a vote of 255 for and 90 against, meaning that politicians from the 26 other member states who are not elected by the UK voters have the power to ram whatever they like down the throats of UK citizens and there is nothing that UK voters can do about it (except elect MPs who will pass a law in Parliament to reverse the EU Treaties that created this injustice).
The truth is that the EU was founded on anti-democratic principles and these principles are embedded in its DNA and given life in every institution that it creates, in every Treaty that it lays down. Spaak, Monet and the other founders of the 'European Project' actively despised the electorates of Western Europe back in the 1930s and 1940s. They considered us to be like children who were too immature to know what was good for us therefore they determined to build a supranational government that was unencumbered by the will of the people (all this is well documented - references on request).
Wisely, they realised that the people of Europe were not stupid enough to let them get away with this. Therefore they devised a (so far) successful strategy. Deceit. Playing skillfully on the vanity, pride and duplicity of European Prime Ministers and Heads Of Government (eg. Macmillan, Heath in particular - see secret papers released under the 30-year rule) they steadily built up Treaties and Institutions under the guise of a benign idea that was all about the common good. Above all else, they would implement power-structures that avoided direct accountability to the people they governed.
Are you still with me?
Let me give you one example of the EU's contempt for democracy, its very own European Parliament. A good democratic institution, so you might think. Think again, my friend. It has no power to raise new legislation itself. It contains no official opposition like the Westminster model. The place is basically a rubber-stamping operation for EU Council and European Commission legislation. There are no debates as we know them - MEPs are given a standard 90 seconds to make thier speeches before someone turns off their microphone, if they are lucky this may be extended to 2 minutes. Voting is a farce. It takes place at high speed with votes on dozens of clauses and amendments to motions going through in short order. Poor MEPs have to glue their eyes to the signals from a party whip to make sure they press/don't press their voting button at the right time. Once, voting by show of hands was taken because it was going to save the five seconds extra taken by the electronic voting system each time so that the session could break for lunch on time. Someone asked for a re-vote on the electronic system later and the hand-vote was proven dramatically wrong. In EU-land lunch is more important than a fair vote.
Don't believe me? Do your own research if you value your right to self-determination because the EU and the UK Government has taken it away from you, it just hasn't told you yet.
Korea was peace keeping operation. How will the EU pay its armed forces, a common pay scale or does each nation pay its own troops. Who will decide how many troops will be provided by each nation? What if a nation does not want to send its forces on a given mission? France currently does not let NATO over-fly its air space, will the future be different? Why do you think that the UN鈥檚 peace keeping functions need to be replaced by an EU unit? Will they be any more efficient or successful? Can a group of 27 even agree on ordering water at a restaurant? Or is it a power trip, to think that the EU has all the 鈥渞ight stuff.鈥
From my experience of working in Belgium if there were a crisis requiring intervention, don't hold your breath waiting for the EU to send their forces. Also what would happen if Spain invaded Gibraltar? Interesting scenario. I wonder if the new EU HQ plans to practice that one!
I have to disagree with Steve who said Churchill was in favour of Europe. what he actualy said was " If England has to choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the sea". The military co-operation between the UK and the USA is a firmly established fact. At one time there was an American Captain in charge of Training RAF Regiment personnel at RAF Catterick. Members of the Regiment( Rockapes ) also trained at Fort Bragg. As Nations America and England are the same people seperated by the same language. Whilst the French will never forgive us for liberating them twice.
It will never work. No way will the monolithic EU ever be capable of launching an EU military operation. This move will only add to the belief that the EU is becoming a Franenstein.
Britain must retain its own independant military capability.
Why should Europe rest content with its place in NATO? Let's not forget that America, while an ally, is still a foreign power and not primarily concerned with the interests of European nations. The concern that European co-operation would intrude upon sovereignty is understandable, but misses the fact that that sovereignty is no longer present. Look at Suez. Look at the way our armies are encapsulated within NATO.
As for the EU's democratic deficit, it seems to me that a lot of is it caused by nations, like Britain or Poland, who would prefer to keep it an intergovernmental rather than a supranational affair and are interested mostly in their own national, parochial interests. Holding back attempts at further integration will solve nothing, working hard for more parliamentary power and oversight will. By the way, the European Parliament already has more power after the treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam.
Quasi-conspiracy theories do more harm than good. If we wish to continue living the way we did before the EU, and to a large extent the way we still live: either fighting amongst ourselves or living under the umbrella of a foreign power, independent in name but powerless to do anything in the wider world without prior permission, then yes, we should halt all attempt at European integration.
If not, the only other option is to continue Europe's integration, making it more streamlined, more powerful but also more open and more democratic. The age that European nations could go it alone is long past - although some of us haven't realised it yet.
Re: Matthew Manley (Nashville, Tennessee, USA) wrote: I'm an American .... it's important to have a world that doesn't rely too strongly on any one nation to lead ....
DON'T WORRY! YOU AMERICANS CAN'T BE THE LEADER IF NOBODY WANTS TO FOLLOW YOU. That's why we Europeans are creating the European Defence Force to replace NATO.
I don't mind the EU forming an army as long as the UK leaves the EU and let them get on with it. It will be another bottomless pit for them to throw their money into.
In a time of call centres and supermarkets why invade? Standing armys are a fad, their time has passed. Utility and rescue forces which can be seconded for policing and foreign peacekeeping, that's what we need. Floods, avalanche, fire and suchlike will be the frontline. A civic guard more than an invading killing force. This crazy echo from the total war of 60 years ago has got to end. The glazed reactionary madness of Kissinger and Rumsfeld should be a stale history lesson, not starting another grisly chapter.
I can appreciate the enamel grinding years of nuclear cold war, I was fully aware of my chances of surviving a nuclear war when I was 10 in 78. Later Ronnie and Maggie were a terrifying double act. I knew there were nukes on both sides aimed at Dublin and Shannon. Nuclear winter and permanent death for the planet were what I feared, nothing so trivial as occupation.
It's time for an army of sappers. When the European army invades it'll build hospitals, airports, schools and apartment blocks, and a few nice cafes and tasteful shopping precincts. Then they leave and a stream of EU tourists show up to buy nicknacks and employ half the country as catering staff, at least until they finish uni. Something tells me the US is incapable of making those kinds of plans.
I honestly thought the "Nuke the Commies" attitude of the US and the "Hands off our bangers Brussels" attitudes would die with their generation. Apparently not. Well then it's time for a solution to that problem, because my grandkids will read about blast radii and nuclear winter and fallout shelters and gasmasks out of curiosity not necessity.
The Federal Government of the U.S.A. are against any sugestion of a European force assuming responsibility for the defence of Europe and European interests even though this would be clearly logical. N.A.T.O, although set up primarily to defend Western Europe against the risk of attack from the East, a risk that no longer exists, as part of a world wide stratergy to contain Communist exspansionism.
So whats the problem? I would suggest twofold. Firstly, there exists a vast military / industral complex in the the U.S. which costs the taxpayers vast sums each year and is justified by what is little short of scare tactics.
Secondly, and in the long run a far more serious issue for the U.S.A., is the long term future of Russia within Europe. What is Russia joins the E.U.? What if Russia forms part of the European Defence organization?
Every one of us is a living branch of the human tree. Our planet is in a terrible state of disarray. Instead of creating American, European, Russian and Nato armies, we should create an efficient, strong and effective United Nations well funded global military force that will fight genocide, torture and terrorism. The Cold War is over. It is time that we throw the Cold War mentality in the garbage. We are all related to one another. America is a nation of immigrants, not just British immigrants. We are all living on the same little planet
that we are about to destroy with our irresponsible selfish behaviour.
The EU, America and Russia have nothing to fear from one another. We have wasted the last 3,000 years fighting one another. Should it take an alien threat to unite humanity?
I beleive that the notion of forming an EU military is a highly political issue that is uppermost in the minds of the Germans and particularly the French as it will be used as a way to interfere and undermine the relationship between London and Washington. Make no mistake, the formation of an EU standing force will polarize EU states against the US as there will be future events that will compromise the UK's position as principle ally to the United States. The UK's plays a very important part in legitimizing US military activity around the globe to the extent that Blair's inability to assert Britain's authority in Washington is partly responsible for the runaway actions of the Bush regime. President Carter has made this point on many occasions and issues a witheringly critical assessment of Britains role in the run up to the Iraq war. I tend to agree with his views.
As a former British soldier I would NOT serve under a French General or any other EU state as I take particular pride in the history and track record of the British Forces and the sovereignty of the UK and its ability to act independantly of any central EU command. Bosnia is a prime example of fragmentation in command and political desires and in the case of Bosnia ultimately caused the savage break up of the country.
This issue is an other example of how a united EU is an impossible to achieve because of the vast differences in economic ability and political desires. The British ecomomy will continue to grow and solidify its position as the strong man in Europe whilst the French and
German economies are left behind in world rankings. I am in favour of a real terms increase in military spending spending in the UK so that we can protect our global assets and opportunities. By being part of a wider EU force Britain's ability to act alone for our benefit would be curtailed and this is unacceptable. Whilst I have great misgivings over our support for the US in the current form I believe that as global politics change and countries like Russia, China and Russia become more powerful Britains interests are better served by operating an independantly effective military capability that is not diluted by a an EU framework. NATO might be an out dated treaty but forming an EU force that excludes the Americans is seperationist and dangerous.
I find it a source of national embarassment in Ireland that we're not part of a military alliance. Being part of NATO might be a good thing, not least because it would mean a proper military presence in Ireland instead of the peacekeeping force we have for an army right now.
It's not good enough as far as I'm concerned for Ireland to enjoy presumed military protection from the UK against real or perceived terrorist threats.
But most of all, I really don't want to have to rely on the United States for defence. The European Union has the capability, but not the will, to attend to its own defensive needs (and indeed intervene in the world's troublespots). But we leave it to Washington, with its own agenda dictating the world's affairs. I resent Europe's complete surrender to the US of a strong voice in world affairs. A strong EU military force would redress the balance.
What's more, NATO can go to war tomorrow based on the OK from it's main members; a European Army would hold off taking action if the people didn't want it (as it would act like a national army as opposed to international war club). To paraphrase, of all things, Spider-Man; with great power comes great responsiblity.
The EU is a sleeping giant; the source of Western civilisation and the home of everything from haggis to Mercedes to Catholicism - nearly half a billion people generating a GDP of almost 鈧12 trillion. That's not fantasy or aspiration - it's the way things are today. Why do we act like a squabbling county council when we should be telling the US to back off?
I retired from the Regular Army some 10 years ago this month after 32 years service around the world including in Croatia with NATO.
In setting up the Bosnian operation we had difficulty in getting nations to actually ante up the troops. That is still the case when NATO deploys either the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps or AFCENT to Afghanistan. Will the EU Army gain better co-operation and also play its part alongside the full time commitments of the major participating nations? I think not, so what is its purpose?
As reported in the Sunday Express yesterday, the Italian President Giorgio Napolitano told a news conference in Siena that "those who are anti EU are terrorists".
Do you think maybe this military development is ultimately designed to silence those who oppose the creation of a European state?
As reported in the Sunday Express yesterday, the Italian President Giorgio Napolitano told a news conference in Siena that "those who are anti EU are terrorists".
President Kohler also described the tactics of eurosceptics as "populistic, demagogic campaigning".
The words of the two men were seen by many in Germany and Italy as a thinly veiled attempt to link euroscepticism with the demagoguery and populism of the fascist regimes of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
Interesting quotes from alledged democrats? It seems that holding a view contrary to our leaders makes us "terrorists"? Worse, it appears that to oppose fascism makes us fascists!!
Do you think maybe this military development is ultimately designed to silence those who oppose the creation of a European state?
Kathleen, you want to talk about European countries' appeasement? Let's talk about American isolationism. Or unless you're referring to more recent conflicts where you might describe the actions of some EU members as "appeasement" (which would have been a much better for us in the UK) then compare it to American gung-ho war mongering against a nation with an arsenal of WMDs so vast it literally filled not a single warehouse.
And for those who would say that an EU military is made obsolete by NATO, you need to bear in mind that NATO is a military alliance, but the European battle groups and EUROFOR are meant to be the army of a state, the EU, answerable to one government. And we sorely need one, to secure us against potential Russian aggression (Putin recently actually threatened us!) and to co-ordinate our efforts overseas.
Crazy!
We've got Nato we dont need yet another EU "thing" to waste money on
The EU developed its peacebuilding capacity following the criticism of failing to deal with the break-up of Yugoslavia. So since 1991 it has a European Monitoring System (eg Macedonia, Kosovo, Serbia) to oversee respect of peace arrangements, and to monitor and inform military instances (9 observers killed in former Yugoslavia). The European Council in Cologne (1999) set up the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) in the Common Security and Defence pillar with the objective to reinforce the EU鈥檚 capacity in managing and preventing conflicts. The ESDP is a governmental and not supranational instance in matters of conflict management.
I am totally in favour of this development. Contrary to the US, the EU is protected from unilateralism and decides multilaterally. Moreover, in comparison to other actors, the EU has a much more ethical approach, founded on values and the defence of democracy and the rule of law. It is hostile to recourse to force and regards this as the last resort. It also has a much more integrated approach to conflict resolution. The long term prevention measures include association agreements, multilateral agreements, stability pacts (Med), supporting democracy and NGOs, financing the independent media, promoting equality of sexes, fighting drugs trafficking, sustainable development, preventing the degradation of the environment. It also has a rapid alert system, uses country strategic papers which are updated annually and special indicators (democracy, rule of law). In particular, the threat of use of sanctions is very powerful (economic, diplomatic, visas).
Since 2003 the EU has conducted operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The EU has also sent observers to Nepal and Rwanda. The democratic transition in Chile was extremely rapid thanks to the major role the EU played.
Of course one major problem is that decisions have to be decided by unanimity, but it has great potential for development.
I certainly would not want to rely on the US anymore!
To J Langan from Ireland:
A strong EU military force wouldn't redress the balance of power in the world. It would just keep the balance of power in the West.
Why does anyone think that a strong EU military will make a difference to the global community? All Europe cares about is Europe. The EU military force will be used to push Europe's views on this planet and protect European interests.
Non-Europeans won't benefit from it at all. Can anyone see this EU force going into Taiwan if China decides to attack it one day? And can anyone actually see Europe taking care of its own messes WITHOUT international help?
As for your comment about the EU being the source of Western civilization, please take a look at your continent's history. This planet's only two world wars came from your side of the pond. The decline and extermination of various indigenous peoples began with European colonialism. And many of Africa's problems can be laid flat out on Europe's doorstep. Doesn't really sound like civilization to me.
An independent EU Army will just end up like the UN.. No authority, and is an excuse for the Germans to rearm. This conclusion is from the comments I have read.
I am a proud European who believes in the creation of a European force for the
protection of European interests. We should not get involved in any conflicts in other continents and should prevent any Nato interference in our army. This will be a strictly defensive force to protect our member states. If for example Muslim Turkey decides to attack Cyprus or Greece we should rush to defend them. We have been very successful with the creation of the Europol and we will be very successful with the creation of the EuroForce. We have the money,the technology and years of war conflicts to create a great Army.
The sleeping giant is not the US--it is our Europe. If small nations like Malta, Cyprus, Greece, Croatia, Belgium, and the
Netherlands are currently capable of mobilizing more than half a million soldiers, can you imagine what a powerful force this could be with the addition of soldiers from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Britain?
We could easily have the greatest Naval Force in the globe as well.
When the American cousins ask us to interfere in stupid conflicts in the Middle East, Taiwan, Korea, Africa we
will simply refuse. Our Army's purpose will be to protect OUR EUROPEAN INTERESTS!!!!!
It saddens me every time that I hear how our loyal and brave service people are making do with inadequate; poor, equipment and support. A European approach to equiping and supporting our, and all European military personnel will surely give them the first class structure they deserve to perform their duty for the benefit of every citizen of europe. The British tax payer needs to be told how much we pay compared to say the Greek or Swedish tax payer. They benefit just as much as we from the sacrfice of our military.
The EU, the European Security and Defense Policy are in contradiction to EU member states alone and NATO itself. We need to go further and those who dont see it, they can stick to opt out policies. There is no common sense that NATO dictates our security and defense policy because US dont have the agreement of most of EU members that are part of NATO counsil. NATO cant frame anymore the new EU security structure. Therefore, due to the current international affair structure, countries such as Italy, Spain, France, Germany dont have another option to create and to go further in their security and defense policies. UK can go alone or with others. UK can chose, however most of EU members cant have that privilege. Lets be honest, Italy, France, Germany, Spain can go further but they prefer UK to be too. Lets stay together, much better for us and for the wallet of our tax payers.
Well, from what I have read so far, it would seem many people have missed the point here.
The fact I am British does not make me an automatic eurosceptic, as some have claimed. Furthermore, on the whole ''Europes Democratic Deficit'' belief, I do agree some of Europes policies and Institutions are not as democratic as we woulh wish them, and far outside British control, such as the CAP and Fisheries policies. However, the whole idea of an EU constitution would be to adress that problem.
People that seem to think any EU Defence Force or Unified military would be organised under the current system are vastly mistake. First, like said elsewhere, we cant even agree on energy, nevermind defence. For this to take place, a vast overhaul of the democratic institutions within the EU would have to take place - the EU constitution is a step towards that goal. Thus, I would wholeheartedly welcome a unified europe defence force once these other problems have been dealt with first.
Furthermore, people need to think less as ''us and them'' and more as part of an entity. True, some EU policies may harm us in some way (take quotas on wool production as an example) but im sure these benefit poorer EU countries (Eastern Europe comes to mind) much more than it affects us. Let us not forget, first and foremost, we are a first world country, much more developed than say, Poland. A mild inconvenience to us may mean a lifesaving for many Polish farmers. Think of that. Lets be less selfish people.
The same applies to the idea of the EU Military. There would have to be mechanisms to ensure some freak scenarios did not occur, such as ''Spains Gibraltar, or Turkey's Cyprus'' as examples.
Not only that, but we also need to grow a spine. Lets not forget the US ''Missile Shield'' in Czech Republic or Poland. Why should the US be doing this? Why not us? To say we do not have the funds, or technology to do so is ludicrous. A combined economic and scientific effort is all that is needed. There are plenty of examples of military hardware comparable or better than us counterparts (Eurofighter Typhoon, Leopard II MBT, Roland Missile Systems, G36 Assault Rifles, to name but a few). The point raised the the Colonel, is exactly that. US interference in Europe undermines our influence and credibility as an effective force. This need to be dealt with first, before any attempt is to be made for a unified military.
The structure and purpose of this army would also have to be adressed. Mutual Defence is a common aim, but maybe mechanisms to prevent its use against founding members (unlikely I think, but still a paranoia some seem to haggle with). Also, where and how it would be used. Palestine and Africa come to mind.
Thus, the fundamental problems (and there are many) seem to discourage people from wanting to achieve this by simply saying ''No thanks'' while dismissing the benefits such a move would bring not only to us, but Europe, and possibly, the world as a whole. I do not think problems by themselves are enough for us to simply back down. On a completely different level, nobody said winnint the Napoleonic Wars or even WWII would be easy, but that didnt restrain the participating countries to try and do so anyway.
Lets get moving people.
.... it would seem from all the comments and your blog piece that Europeans have not really decided what "Europe" means to their future well being. Additionally, nationalism is on the rise in most European countries, and, as a result, cooperation among the countries is really an exercise of the ruling elites... not the majority of citizens who are undermining, and not approving, the grand plans of those elites.
Europe needs to overcome its' tribal differences before Europe can truly become the world power it so craves to be.
Economic self interest could be the route to further cooperation and the creation of an effective and respected European world power. As the global economy's ruthless realities place greater strain on those disparate national economies, then perhaps cooperation for self preservation will overcome burgeoning nationalism. Depends on how well all those national governments educate their citizens on how cooperation leads to strength and how strident nationalism leads to diminishing global power.
The lessons of the 1920's and 1930's seem to be lost right now. It is a much larger economic ocean now, and to survive, Europe will need to band together to achieve the critical mass necessary to defend itself in the economic wars being fought at present. That requires European organizations, not North Atlantic organizations.
It seems to me that this is very much a part of the overall debate that seems to be going on in Europe over identity.
As an American, I followed the creation of the failed EU Constitution with great interest. So many of the issues were modern day incarnations of the arguments leading up to our own Constitution and to see them happening in my own lifetime was fascinating.
But in the end, it seemed that the writers simply weren't willing to make the decision of what will Europe be. Will it be a single great power or will it be a collection of smaller powers. And the decision of whether or not Europe needs an army apart from the member armies feels like another chapter in that discussion.
If Europe is to be a power as Europe, then some form of unified military is an obvious thing to want. If Europe is to remain loosely affiliated member nations, then there is probably no need for a military structure more organized than what already exists in the NATO structure and UN operations.
To Jean Paul Torrier.
Sir, I sincerely hope your posting is a complete joke, because if it isn't, then God help this planet.
Some people don't seem to be aware of the difference of the European Defence and Security Policy (ESDP) and NATO. The former is for peacebuilding exercises outside of the EU; the latter continues to exist for the protection of the EU.
According to my knowledge, there are already many NATO exercises including French, German, Scandinavian and British army and naval forces, so I don't think military personnel have a problem working under the command of a foreigner. I think many are looking forward to their training abroad (including cocktail parties...)! Therefore the peacebuilding exercises under the ESDP don't really pose a problem. Besides, there is always a so-called framework nation that provides the majority of troops (as did France in the DRC).
I think with time the last eurosceptic Brits will realise that in today's world we all have to work together and that each country cannot pursue its own defence strategy.
It's very interesting to read that most who support an EU army have listed Bush's forgien policy blonders as their main reason for supporting it (SOMETIMES unfairly). I would like to remind everyone that Bush is almost gone and so are his policies. What happens when, in one and a half years time under a new president, American foriegn policy changes (probably drastically)? Will the support for an EU army to "counter American (percieved) imperialism" slack off? I hope not.
As an American I hope Europe does build an effective force so it can better help in crises situations. But I fear some want it mainly to confront or counter the US. I also fear that those people do not realize a few things...
1. It may come as a shock to some EU nations who, after forming the force to counter the US (thus needing independant capabilities that they now rely on the US for), realize they have to pay a lot to maintian it. This could make it very unpopular within certian populations. Which, in turn, could lead to some nations having to do more than others, which would also lead to all kinds of arguments.
2. All the mud that is thrown (usually by Europeans) at America would soon be directed at Europe should the EU NOT use the force it has created. In situations like Darfor, Taliban controlled Afganistan, Saddam controlled Iraq, nuclear North korea and Iran (just to name a few) people in many countries said (or still say about some situations) that the US should do more to help, protect, feed, or interveane in somehow.
3. Should the EU actually work its way through all the inevitable beuarocracy that would come with a force made from 27 nations, and actually get invloved in a crises, be prepaired for a lot more mud to be thrown at you. But this time it"s for being imperialistic, interefearing, warmongering, and what ever else you can think of. I hope you have thick skins. Because with power comes a lot of criticism no matter how you use (or dont use) that power.
Personaly, I hope that as Europe grows stronger, Europeans will better undertand the situation that the US finds itself in and that the US and Europe will continue to work together in future world affairs for the betterment of our planet.
Many people may not be aware but the EU already has military and Police officers working in Sudan, mainly the Darfur region. They are training African Union Police and military personnel. Perhaps the people in khaki were not playing out a theoretical invasion as there are many similarities with what is happening in Sudan and surrounding countries.