Britain
has taken a dramatic step towards a fully-fledged European army,
signing up to Franco-German proposals for a planning headquarters outside
Nato. The deal reached by British, German and French officials in secret
talks in
This
week saw negotiations over the future of EU defence continue to provoke
controversy. One row centres on the creation of an EU military headquarters.
But there is also heated debate over two proposals in the draft Constitution.
The Constitution proposes creating a
mutual defence commitment between EU members and the creation of what is
described as a "structured cooperation" group – a sub-group of
EU members who would meet on their own to take forward EU defence. Critics
warn that the proposals would lead to a
gradual split between the EU and the rest of NATO. But the Government
insists it will not allow anything which might undermine NATO. Giving the
BBC's annual Dimbleby lecture this week, French Foreign Minister Dominique de
Villepin said, "If it wants to be
able to hold its own on the world stage,
The
German military high command wants to create a fully fledged European army
that would report to a European Union government and be financed by the
European Parliament, documents obtained by the Tories show. They
claimed last night that a memorandum written by senior
EU
defence ministers, meeting in Italy over the weekend, agreed to further and
substantially harmonise their armed forces by the end of the decade.
Meeting informally in
The
Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, has said that “ there is no
doubt” that a military headquarters
for the European Union will be in place by 2004.
He said that the EU’s new military HQ would definitely be set up at
Tervuren, a suburb of
The
mini-defence summit - in which only four EU states will be participating -
has already received its first wave of
fire from its critics that warn it might weaken Nato and create a rival
defence pole to that of the
Mocking la perfide
EU
defence policy in tatters The
absence of the British defence minister, Geoff “Buff”
Hoon from a routine EU defence ministers’
meeting in Greece on Friday and Saturday –
he had more urgent business to attend to in London –
could not have been more symbolic. Nonetheless,
the French defence minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, tried to pretend that all
was well: “Our
transient differences,”
she said, “will
not impede our will to make progress with European defence.”
The only problem with her optimistic statement is that the backbone of
European defence is Franco-British co-operation –
the one relationship which has soured more than any other within the EU.
At the beginning of April, the EU is to take over from Nato in the
running of
consensus concerning the protection of Turkey in case of a war against Iraq. The NAC is therefore meeting again Tuesday morning. France, Germany and Belgium kept their blocking position saying that Turkey should be protected but not through the NATO Alliance. NATO Secretary General, Lord George Robertson, admitted that the Alliance's credibility is now in question. (11/2/03 EUobserver.com) This dispute could spell the end of NATO. The French have always had an agenda to remove the USA from the defence of Europe and this may well bring that about (Mr M Portillo MP, BBC R4 Today Programme 11/2/03)
The EU can finally really develop its Security and Defence Policy by having access to NATO capacities and assets after signing the partnership agreement Monday in NATO Headquarters in Brussels. "This is a milestone in the history of relations between NATO and the EU," said NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson. (EUobserver.com 17.12.2002)
Peter Struck, the German defence minister, has said that Germany will now be ordering only 60 military Airbuses instead of the 73 initially planned, and that it will be purchasing only 600 Meteor missiles instead of 1,490. These measures were announced as part of a savings package which the minister said the government was obliged to introduce in order to keep control of the budget deficit. The planes and the missiles were supposed to be for the planned European Union Rapid Reaction Force of between 60,000 – 90,000 men in which, for the time being, Germany, France, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg participate. Struck said that €6 billion less would be spent on procurement than initially planned for the period 2003-2006; this is out of a total defence budget of €24 billion per year. He said that other cuts in defence spending were also likely to be announced in due course. European industrialists are afraid now that the Typhoon Eurofighter and the Tiger attack helicopter may suffer from these cuts. The former is a competitor to the French Rafale and the latter to the US-made Apache AH-64. Discussions are currently being held with Britain as to whether the UK might take some of the Typhoons which Germany is no longer going to order. Germany will now take only 80 helicopters, instead of 212. The cuts in the Airbus orders mean that EADS, which makes them, now has only 180 aircraft orders on its books in eight countries. Portugal may also be cutting its orders, because its budget deficit must be cut if it is to conform the Maastricht rules. [Jacques Isnard, Le Monde, 5th December 2002]
The Bush administration is being urged to be prepare for a war against terrorism without European allies of the United States. The reason: European Union states have large Muslim minorities and cannot support a campaign that might be seen as in opposition to the Arab or Islamic world. Government consultants as well as officials appear to agree that the administration has lowered its sights regarding a coalition against terrorism. They said President George Bush has been disappointed by the lukewarm to dismissive responses by such countries as Britain, France and Germany to the war against terrorism. "We've been complaining as long as I can remember about the inadequacies of our allies, but if they weren't willing to step up to the Soviet threat, they're sure not going to step up to this one," Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month. "I'm told that the left in France today can't even win an election without the Moslem vote. If that's the case, we're going to have to do this pretty much all for ourselves." WASHINGTON [MENL 7 May 2002]
The military staff, for instance, now has nine generals and 57 colonels. It has a 24-hour nerve-centre and a growing military intelligence arm. EU leaders agreed th Barcelona that it should be ready to launch its first operation in Macedonia this September, despite Ministry of Defence warnings that the force could be vulnerable. (BBC R 4 Today 27/3/02)
Barcelona also gave the go-ahead to the Union's 2 billion Galileo satellite project, challenging America's mastery in space technology. Lacking the votes to block it, Britain is reduced to making the implausible argument that Galileo will not have a military function. It is becoming clear that the Franco-British defence initiative agreed at St Malo in 1998 is mushrooming into something that Downing Street can no longer control. The implication of defining Galileo as "non military" is that it will be available to terrorist groups and hostile nations. The American GPS system is controlled by the military and can be degraded where it could be used by hostile users, Galileo will not have this safeguard (BBC R 4 Today 27/3/02) The implication of defining Galileo as "non military" is that it will be available to terrorist groups and hostile nations. The American GPS system is controlled by the military and can be degraded where it could be used by hostile users, Galileo will not have this safeguard (BBC R 4 Today 27/3/02)
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary and Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, have clashed over whether British soldiers should be involved in the first operation planned by the European Rapid Reaction Force. The documents show that Mr Straw's office wrote to Downing Street on 17January, against strong advice from the MoD, urging that troops be sent to join the planned peacekeeping mission to Macedonia to demonstrate Britain's commitment to the EU. A leaked letter from the MoD to the Prime Minister's office warns, "Military advice is that the fledgling ESDP [European Security and Defence Policy] mechanism is not ready to undertake an operation of this magnitude and risk. The defence and intelligence staff assess that there are already indications that the situation in Macedonia may well deteriorate. There would be a real risk that the EU's first mission would end in failure or rescue by a re-engaged Nato, which would be disastrous in presentational terms." In the strongest possible terms, the MoD advised against sending troops. "An EU-led operation in Macedonia would not only be 'premature' but simply wrong . . . we should not risk stability in the Balkans by opting for an EU-led operation." But Jack Straw said that the "political" case for sending troops was strong and that Britain should not risk being "isolated". ("No" Bulletin 7/3/02) EU leaders agreed in principle that it should take over peacekeeping in Macedonia this year. M Chirac's spokesman, Catherine Colona, said that after a long conversation Mr Blair appeared to have moved towards the French position. He made the decision despite Ministry of Defence warnings that the mission could go disastrously wrong. EU officials said Mr Blair was understood to have made the concession after France agreed partially to open its energy markets to competition. (Daily Telegraph 16 mar 2002)
The Bush administration's proposed $379 billion for defense -- a 15 percent increase over last year's and the largest increase since former President Ronald Reagan's 1981 buildup -- is only the first step in that very expensive direction. This is an expense the United States has proven it can easily afford. At the end of the Cold War, Washington spent about 5.4 percent of its GDP on defense. After the unprecedented economic expansion in the 1990s, were the United States to ratchet up to the same level again, it would need to spend $540 billion, something the U.S. economy could easily support. (Stratfor report 24/1/02) This makes the EU's boast that it will challenge the power of the USA look puny, vain and very foolish - Ed
The British government has been accused of drafting a de facto Euro-army to Afghanistan after letting only one non-European country, New Zealand, join the 15-nation peacekeeping force. Mr Art Eggleton, the Canadian Minister of National Defence, confirmed yesterday that Canada rejected an offer last week to join a British-led peacekeeping force, based in the capital of Kabul, opting instead to accept an American request to join US troops on security detail in the south, reports the Canadian daily newspaper, the National Post today. The British military had requested only 200 of about 1,000 infantry troops offered by Canada. The Canadians found the offer unacceptable because it would have required the Canadian army to break up a battalion group that was trained as a cohesive unit, Mr Eggleton said according to the National Post. Eggleton blamed "European politics" for the problems setting up the Kabul-based peacekeeping force, which is limited by a UN resolution to protecting Afghanistan's interim government in Kabul and securing the city's airport. (EUobserver.com 9/1/02)
The heads of state of the EU declared at the Laeken Summit the EU rapid reaction force operational but failed to clear the way for ensuring the EU force will also have the means of operating. It is operational but with no weapons. Due to opposition by Greece, a NATO-EU accord on the use by the EU of NATO military assets could not be reached. Greece vetoed the agreement, due to suspicions that a deal reached previously with Turkey might threaten its national security interests. Without an agreement on permanent relations between the EU and NATO, the future force will have to lend NATO’s military assets on a case-by-case basis, requesting the support of the Alliance before each operation. The EU force is operational as of Saturday December 15 for light easy humanitarian tasks, and will be able to carry out, as of 2003 when it will be 60,000 soldiers strong, the whole range of crisis management and peacekeeping operations. (EUobserver.com 17/12/01)
The EU is studying the possibility of extending the mandate of the future EU reaction force beyond crisis management and peace keeping and eventually include common defence, with a view to coping with the new security challenges unveiled by the terrorist attacks on the United States, on September 11. The Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, current president of the European Council, told EUobserver that he sees a consensus emerging on the need for the EU to extend its competences on defence, justice and home affairs matters. The ministers of defence of the EU countries are currently preparing for the EU heads of states a report on the new security environment the Union has to face. Moreover, the high representative for foreign policy Javier Solana was tasked to study the possibility of extending the mandate of the future EU force to include the fight against terrorism. Belgian prime minister believes a consensus of going beyond the initial mandate concerning peace keeping operations outside the Union is emerging: "In all discussions I held, in the Franco-German declaration, in the speech of Tony Blair, and also in the resolution of the European Parliament, yesterday, there has been the same demand, concerning the necessary extension of the European policy on defence, security, foreign policy, police, justice, asylum, immigration, fight against terrorism and organised crime. I believe the idea has made its way step by step, and the 11 of September attacks were the element that accelerated that. I do not exaggerate when I say there is a consensus on that point." (EUobserver.com 3/12/01)
Robert Cooper, head of the Defence Secretariat in the Cabinet Office, and an extremely influential advisor of the Prime Minister, said in an article in Prospect magazine (www.prospect-magazine.co.uk.) that the EU should become "an empire". ("NO" Bulletin 8/11/01)
Sergei Rogov, the director of the USA and Canada Institute in Moscow, says that Russia is providing the United States with "stronger support in the fight against the Taliban than all of the Nato allies of the US." Meanwhile, the US ambassador to Russia, Alexander Vershbow, said that the alliance now being forged between Moscow and Washington "has not existed since the times of the Second World War". Vershbow suggested that a US-Russian treaty on missile defence could be signed at the forthcoming US-Russian summit in Texas. [Radio Free Europe Newsline, 29th October 2001]
EU ministers agreed to begin developing a European satellite navigation system. At present the EU relies on the American GPS, which was developed for military purposes. The new EU £2bn system, know as Gallileo, would give the EU its own network of 30 satellites for use in managing air traffic control, mobile telephones, land surveys crime fighting and military uses. The EU is concerned that one day the USA could use the GPS system to pressurise Brussels. (Daily Telegraph 6/4/01)
The EU claims it is a power for peace. But it started the Balkan war by recognising Croatia. It did this to please the Germans. John Major changed his opposition because the Germans agreed to our 'euro' opt-out at Maastricht as a quid-pro-quo. (Sixth Congress For Democracy 13/7/01)
An article in the French conservative daily, Le Figaro the German historian and politician Rudolf von Thadden, whom Chancellor Schröder has appointed as chief of Franco-German relations in the German Foreign Ministry, was entitled with a quote from von Thadden: "Dismantle France a little to construct Europe". He reserved his harshest criticism for Jospin’s failure to pronounce the words "hard core" or "pioneer group" or "centre of gravity", all code words for allowing Germany and one or two allies (usually France) to pursue military operations in Europe’s name. "I deplore the fact that Jospin passed over this imperative to have a dynamic axis, in favour instead of a search for equilibrium. Delors and Schröder, Fischer and Chirac are more coherent: they do not envisage for a single moment enlargement without the framework of two or three "leader" countries." So now we have an official statement from a German government official that the concept of a flexible Europe, or "re-inforced co-operation" as it is known in the treaty of Nice, means that some countries will lead others. [Le Figaro, 1st June 2001]
There is growing evidence that European members of NATO no longer believe Turkey is vital to European security and, because of commitments established under the Washington Treaty, see it as a potential drag on their own military strength. Conflict over Turkey's role in NATO and the European Union will cause a rift between Europe and the United States, which views Turkey as a crucial partner in the Middle East. Ultimately, the debate could split NATO wide open. Without Turkey as a full partner in European security, the Western alliance will be more at risk than anytime in its 52-year history. For instance, some two dozen European, American and Russian officials indicated at a recent RAND Corp. conference that some NATO members are increasingly concerned about the application of Article V of the Washington Treaty, a key underpinning of the alliance that guarantees any member military aid in the event of attack. Participants concluded that Turkey's growing exposure in the Middle East could drag NATO into potential conflicts in which it has little direct interest.(Stratfor report 31/7/01)
The planned European Army not only damages the armed forces of France and Great Britain, but could also endanger world stability, eleven British and French generals and admirals warn today in a letter in the Telegraph. "As former Servicemen, we wish to voice our concerns at the manner in which the ability of our nations to protect our vital interests is being whittled away," the eleven state in the letter, and point to three fundamental problems: Cutbacks, increased global peacekeeping commitments and, most important, a common pseudo-identity in EU defense and foreign policy. The eleven describe the idea of a European Army as "the actions of federalist politicians and technocrats playing at armchair generals, building a fictitious paper army" and the generals warn: "Paper tigers burn." "For the sake of our two countries and for Europe as a whole, we would counsel throwing the scheme into the dustbin of history before the fires begin." (Letter to Telegraph 12.06.2001)
STRATFOR Report: The European experiment of the new century cannot be declared a success until it has weathered a massive economic downturn. Individual European states today are prepared to subsume their national aspirations for economic gain. But with recent economic decline in Europe, the question of what or who can hold the European Union together remains unaddressed. Recent incidents involving Basque and Irish separatists challenge a widely held European view that economic prosperity will quell internal dissidents who could create future conflict. These two incidents are in many ways more significant to the long-term prospects of European unification than the disintegration of southeastern Europe into feuding ethnic states. They challenge a widely held view that long-term economic growth will end nationalist friction and marginalize the internal dissidents who could create future conflict. In Italy, the election of the conservative "Home of Freedom" coalition added a partner to the group of EU nations (particularly the United Kingdom, Spain and Ireland) who oppose the German-Franco move toward a formal, federalized Europe. History shows that secession is the natural tendency during times of economic stringency. When the North American Union faced the same issue in the late 1850s, the question of secession was not settled until the Army of the Potomac seized the strategic initiative at the Battle of Gettysburg. Within the European Union, who will raise and command a force to protect the European Union? An Army of the - Rhine? (http://www.stratfor.com 17/7/01)
Any Euro-defence force that is outside Nato will be a direct challenge to Britain's bilateral intelligence links with America. And as every Whitehall insider is only too aware, the so-called "special relationship" is really an intelligence relationship. After its recent experience of US National intelligence being leaked by the French to their friends in the Balkans, the United States is simply not prepared to risk sensitive intelligence outside "the usual channels". Any idea that France or Germany could somehow replace the United States at the Joint Intelligence Committee meeting in the Cabinet Office every Wednesday, and share a high-quality global signals and satellite intelligence, is a bad joke. Should Britain ever be forced to choose between historic and successful defence partnership, or be cut-off from its integrated, all-source intelligence sharing with United States, then a long-standing French national policy goal to "decouple the Anglo-Saxons from Europe" will have been triumphantly successful. (Letter, Daily Telegraph 2/6/01)
The EU will have to develop its own intelligence arm to back up the planned rapid reaction force, and to defend the single currency, according to a leaked report by the European Parliament, writes the Telegraph. The report concludes a year-long investigation by the Echelon committee in the European Parliament into the American eavesdropping network which can intercept fax, email, telephone and satellite transmissions. (EUobserver.com 27/5/01)
The former German commander of Nato forces in Kosovo, general Klaus Reinhardt has delivered a strong condemnation of French policy on the planned European Reaction Force which he said could lead to the destruction of the North Atlantic alliance. (EUobserver.com 27/5/01)
EU defence spending is falling by 5 per cent a year, said the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), a London-based think-tank, according to the Financial Times. According to the IISS, it would be difficult to create a well-equipped and self-sustaining EU military force without increasing the EU's defence budget. America is likely to judge European efforts on defence by the amount of money spent. John Chipman, IISS director, said, "the US is interested in a European defence project that increases over time European defence capacities and that is well co-ordinated with Nato. Europeans need to demonstrate a real rather than merely rhetorical commitment to the increase of these capacities." (EUobserver.com 17/5/01)
RAF squadrons will be put under the control of a single European air transport command likely to be introduced by EU defence chiefs, The Telegraph has learned. Air and ground crews in European air forces involved in strategic transport - carrying troops, armoured vehicles and attack helicopters to war zones - will be integrated under the command, according to the plan which threatens the RAF's independence and prestige. The proposal, drawn up by the German ministry of defence, will increase concern that Britain's Armed Forces are being dragged into a single European army. It will also alarm US defence chiefs, who are worried that integrating European defence will undermine Nato. Squadrons flying the next generation of military transport aircraft - the four-engine Airbus A400M - would co-operate on training, logistics and engineering support and be placed under a single "European Air Transport Command" by the end of the decade. The proposal follows defence cuts by Germany's Social Democrat government that have left the country's armed forces struggling to meet their targets for joining the European Rapid Reaction Force. Involving RAF personnel in training crews, maintaining and possibly even piloting Luftwaffe aircraft is seen as one way of easing the financial strain. (Sunday Telegraph 22/4/01)
Plans by US President George W Bush to sell weapons to Taiwan were thrown into doubt yesterday when Germany and Holland said that they would not allow Washington to sell their diesel-powered submarines. The sale of eight submarines is the centrepiece of an arms package to Taiwan, but the United States no longer makes its own diesel-powered vessels. This leaves Mr Bush in the unusual position of having promised to sell technology his country does not control, and may have difficulty supplying. (EUobserver.com 26/4/01)
Representatives of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company and the Russian Aeronautics and Space Agency agreed April 4 to pool resources on several projects. Their new partnership will allow Russia to maintain a semblance of a space program and help Europe push its space program to the forefront of the industry. The long-term loser in this equation is the American space program. (Stratfor.com 21/4/01)
Plans for a European rapid reaction force are confused, at the mercy of "differing interpretations", and suffer from a "lack of democratic accountability", a cross-party committee of MPs warned yesterday. In a report likely to fuel the debate about the plans, the Commons foreign affairs committee noted that while the Nice treaty stated that the EU's common foreign and security policy must be "compatible" with Nato, the status of the proposed force was dealt with in a separate annexe agreed by EU leaders. The treaty says moves towards a common EU defence policy "shall respect the obligations of certain member states which see their common defence realised in Nato". The annexe says the aim is to give the EU "an autonomous capacity to take decisions and action in the security and defence field". It adds: "In developing this autonomous capacity to take decisions and, where Nato as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct EU-led military operations in response to international crises, the EU will be able to carry out the full range of... humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking". The Labour-dominated committee said in its report: "It remains to be seen just how soon differing interpretations of the report's conclusions can be reconciled, and what the statement that the EU-led military operations will take place only 'where Nato as a whole is not engaged' will mean in practice." The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has expressed concern about the proposed European force, prompted in part by French insistence that the EU should have an independent military planning structure. This, the committee said, raised the question whether Turkey, a member of Nato but not of the EU, would be able to block operations by vetoing use of Nato assets. (The Guardian April 11, 2001)
The
Government has U-turned to support the EU satellite programme Gallileo. A report
by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the system would have a cost of £2.3
billion. The system performs the same function as the US Global Positioning
System, leading to protests that it will be an expensive duplication. French
President Jacques Chirac claimed that Europeans risk "vassal
status" if they abandon Galileo. However the Chairman of the US
military joint chiefs of staff, General Richard B. Myers, said Galileo could
compromise NATO security. In December Deputy US Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
wrote to Belgian Defence Minister Andre Flahaut, to ask whether the EU intended
to incorporate "military features" into Galileo and warn that,
"if so, we must examine the security implications" (El Pais, 18
December 2001).
The Netherlands has cast doubt on the commercial prospects of the European Union's Euros 3.25bn (Pounds 2bn) Galileo satellite navigation project, which has only just been given the go-ahead by all 15 member states. Transport ministers voted last week to allow Euros 200m to be spent this year on the development of the showpiece project, which aims to track the movements of aircraft, cars and mobile phones with great accuracy. The ministers will decide on the limits of all future public funding by the end of the year. That decision will hang on their view of whether the private sector will provide some Euros 1.5bn to set up the 30-satellite system and Euros 200m a year to meet its operating costs thereafter. Companies will have between June and November to come up with their estimates of how much Galileo's services will be worth. But Tineke Netelenbos, the Dutch minister for communications and public works, who agreed with her colleagues that the project should proceed, has suggested that the market may not be as big as other states supposed. She said that aircraft navigation would only use 2 or 3 per cent of Galileo's capacity, adding that "there are also telecoms companies that will be involved. The problem in Europe right now is that they have serious financial problems", after the expensive auctions for third generation mobile phone licences. The comments are unlikely to please countries including France, Italy and Spain, which have championed Galileo as a strategic alternative to the US's satellite navigation system. The UK, the Netherlands and Germany have always been keen on capping the project's cost to the public sector. (Financial Times 10/4/01) See also Galileo under "Transport"
France's Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Jean-Pierre Kelche, has insisted that the EU rapid reaction force must have its own planning staff and also should be independent of Nato. He sees it as a way of strengthening the EU's military capability, and it would shift the balance of power within Nato away from America and towards Europe, writes the Telegraph. This statement has caused great anger and concern in both London and Washington. "European politicians need to know what is going on," said Kelche. "They need to be able to select options and then conduct operations. Why should we have to go through Nato?" (EUobserver.com 28/3/01)
A key figure in the Bush defence establishment said, "most people have no idea of the extent of the American intelligence community's distrust of the French, whom they believe leaked intelligence information to the Serbs during the recent Kosovo war. So the establishment of British intelligence-sharing with the French, essential to the implementation of the Nice treaty, will necessarily result in an American pullback from co-operation with the British intelligence apparatus." (The Times 27/3/01)
The Finnish general at the head of the European Rapid Reaction Force has repeated that the RRF should not be fully integrated with NATO, contrary to statements by the British Government. General Gustav Hagglund described the Force as a "a question of identity in the same way as the flag and the euro". He said: "We are not talking about a subsidiary of NATO. This is an independent body. We are talking about co-operation with NATO." (Daily Telegraph, 12 April 2001).
The four star general in Finland's defence, Gustav Hägglund, was chosen in March by 15 top generals from the EU countries to head the new EU military committee by a mistake. The Danish Chief of Defence misinterpreted instructions from the Danish government to support a Nato-candidate instead of the candidate from a neutral country, a meeting in the Danish Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee unveiled yesterday. The Danish vote was decisive, as the Finnish candidate was elected with 8 of the 15 votes. (EUobserver.com 24/4/01)
"I am surprised," says four-star general Gustav Hägglund from Finland to Finland's Swedish language newspaper Hufvudstadsbladet, when told that he had been nominated as the first permanent chairman of the EU Military Committee. "I thought that it would be considered good to have a leader from a NATO country, because the EU crisis management will employ NATO's equipment. But this choice shows that we are all equal in the EU. It is a choice of a person, and the result was not affected by the fact that I come from a small country." Finland is neutral and not a NATO member. (EUobserver.com 27/3/01)
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday sounded a note of caution on the planned European defence force, saying it could destabilize the NATO alliance. Asked if it would take operational planning powers away from NATO, Rumsfeld told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper that it could "inject instability" into the alliance and "put at risk something that is very special." His comments are likely to undermine the impression given at last month's meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush that there was accord over the European force. Conservatives in Washington and London believe that the so-called European army could kill off NATO by taking over the alliance's functions in Europe... Blair said Britain's involvement with the European force would strengthen NATO by keeping in check European powers who wanted to pull away from the alliance. His comments will be seen as a thinly-veiled reference to the French, who have a long record of ambivalence towards NATO. "If we don't get involved in European defence, it will happen without Britain. Then those people who really may have an agenda to destroy Nato will have control of it," Blair said.. (LONDON, March 18 AFP, also Sunday Telegraph)
Mr Maude told the Conservative party's Spring Conference in Harrogate that after assuming power, he would withhold British forces from any operation of the European Rapid Reaction Force that took place outside the Nato command structure.(Annanova.com 5/3/01)
MEPS are threatening to de-rail plans to set up a European military force by refusing to pick up a 10 million euro bill for defence staff and security costs. The Euro-MPs say they may turn down a request from member states to approve funding on top of the agreed budget for 2001. This would not only threaten the EU's military plans but would also spark a major institutional war by breaking a 25-year-old 'gentleman's agreement' between Parliament and EU nations that they do not scrutinise each other's administrative spending. The extra funds are needed to pay for 51 staff and other expenses that governments say are crucial if they are to set up the EU rapid reaction force and its police back-up unit. MEPs claim that because the staff will be under the direct control of member states and not the Commission, their actions will not be subject to proper scrutiny. They argue this would set a dangerous precedent. "If we accept this supplementary budget now we open a door we will never be allowed to close," said German MEP Markus Ferber, the rapporteur on the subject. "We would be giving member states carte blanche." The row revolves around staff needed by the Council of Ministers in order to get the proposed 60,000-soldier crisis-management force up and running. MEPs are worried that providing the Council with such staff would result in the institution having operational responsibilities normally reserved for the Commission. They claim officials would have the power to devise and implement the Union's defence policy without scrutiny from the Parliament or any other EU body. (European Voice 1/3/01)
Mr Blair had assured Mr Bush that the defence force would not undermine Nato, that planning for any operations would take place within the Nato structure, and that the alliance would get first refusal on any mission before the European Union stepped in. President Bush said, based on Mr Blair's assurances: "I support what the Prime Minister has laid out," and signed up to a joint statement welcoming the plan. A series of annexes to the Nice treaty, however, state that Nato must act "in full respect of the autonomy of EU decision-making" and that "the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation". Nor will the Euro army be subordinate to Nato, for according to the documents: "Relations between the EU and Nato will reflect the fact that each organisation will be dealing with each other on an equal footing." (Sunday Telegraph 25/2/01)
THE French foreign minister, Hubert Védrine, has called for the European defence force to have its own intelligence operation, free from Nato control. His comments appear to undermine British attempts to play down the independence of the new organisation. "The European Union must have a minimum of means of observation, information, analysis and evaluation as well as elements of operational planning," Védrine told The Sunday Times. "The EU should have its own capability and this is also in Nato's interests." Védrine insisted that the force, although complementary to Nato, would be autonomous. He said the EU had agreed that some operations be planned without Nato - and therefore American - involvement. His remarks, which reflect widely held views among EU ministers and officials, present a problem for Tony Blair. The prime minister secured President George W Bush's endorsement of the force last weekend after assuring him the EU's military operations would involve joint planning "within Nato".Although Britain is happy to rely on American satellites for "observation", France and Germany are both keen to develop a European capability. In a sign of Washington's anxiety, however, Alexander Vershbow, American ambassador to Nato, warned Europeans against trying to use the force for anything other than its proposed peacekeeping role. "We need to be careful that we do not get so ambitious that we put at risk the transatlantic framework," he said. "Nato may have to come and bail you out. So keep Nato involved in the planning." (Sunday Times 04/03/2001)
THE idea of a pan-European economic and political union with its own defence force was conceived by SS officers according to documents released today to the Public Record Office in Kew. Maj Gen Ellersiek and Brig Mueller, Hitler's chief of staff during the Battle of the Bulge, came up with the idea as a means of keeping Nazism alive following the expected Allied victory in the Second World War. By March 1946, Ellersiek was in charge of an underground political party called Organisation Suddeutschland. It believed in the establishment of a fully-armed United Europe, Ellersiek told a British intelligence official masquerading as a Foreign Office representative. "What was important was that Britain should realise that if Europe was to survive, we should all think 'as Europeans'," the ex-SS man was quoted as saying. The party's manifesto called for "a pan-Europe as a balance between Russia and the USA". Although the European nations would remain "independent", finance and defence matters would be decided centrally. "The good which was in Nazism still lives in the German heart," Ellersiek said. His party offered "a new revolution for Germany which will set the pattern for Europe". This revolution is to be the work of the new elite, the German prototype of the future rulers of Europe . . . which has emerged purified from Nazism and the trials of war." (Daily Telegraph 15/2/01)
French Defense Minister Alain Richard's recent visit to Moscow confirms French efforts to forge closer ties with Russia. France and Russia have formalized new strategic ties that are to involve much deeper interaction between their military establishments. Surprisingly, France may also gain military capabilities. For Paris, closer military ties are mostly a matter of counterbalancing Germany in European geopolitics. (Stratfor.com 14/2/01)
THE European Union's Rapid Reaction Force will start to compete with Nato once it acquires a full range of strategic military assets, the head of the EU's new military staff said yesterday. Major-General Graham Messervy-Whiting said the force of 60,000 would undertake humanitarian tasks at first but later would progress to more muscular operations similar to those carried out by Nato troops in Bosnia. The British general said in a seminar at the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels: "Initially, we would in no way want to compete with Nato. "In the early years we'll be looking at things below the Nato threshold, things Nato doesn't do, like disaster relief and evacuation of citizens. In due course, once our collective capabilities are developed and we have strategic transport, the EU should be in a position to go higher. "At that point, there will have to be a critical conversation between the European Union and Nato over who takes on what." (The Times 31/1/01)
FEARS that the European defence force could undermine Nato are growing in America with senior Republicans advising President Bush to act swiftly to shore up the transatlantic alliance. Although Mr Bush has been in office for just five days and Gen Colin Powell, the new Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser, have yet to appoint senior staff, the US response to European integration is already emerging as a key issue. In an article in the Washington Post, Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under President Nixon, said: "The European Union is in the process of creating a military force institutionally distinct from Nato." The force, he said, "could produce the worst of all worlds: disruption of Nato procedures and impairment of allied co-operation without enhanced allied military capability or meaningful European autonomy". There has been a weakening of the "emotional bond" between Americans and Europe, he argued, with many EU countries seeking their own "special relationship" with Moscow and viewing Nato as a relic of the Cold War. n yesterday's New York Times, William Safire, a leading conservative commentator, was scathing in his criticism of European defence force plans, which represented a "Euro-isolationism" that was "led by French chauvinists and Brussels bureaucrats". He said that only "the bold" William Hague was "resisting this slow dissolution" of Nato and had given a "Churchillian speech" defending the US-European strategic relationship. (Daily Telegraph 26/1/01)
More warnings over impact of European defence force on NATO. Sir John Weston, former British ambassador to NATO, this week raised concerns that a new European defence identity could lead to the breakup of NATO. Speaking at a New Europe conference, Sir John said that the defence provisions were "excruciatingly bureaucratic" and that it "defied common sense" for the EU to set up a complete set of military institutions in parallel with NATO. ("No" bulletin 4 January - 11 January 2001)
At Nice, EU heads of government endorsed a 60-page document drawn up by the French presidency which, as Robin Cook said at the time, "buttons down exactly what we have decided here". In minute detail, it provides for permanent political and military committees, a general staff to be "operational" this year, EU command and control structures and intelligence and strategic transport capabilities. The document further demands "guaranteed access" that will entitle the EU to call upon, and dictate the uses of, Nato — mainly American — equipment and personnel for "autonomous" EU military operations that in theory will muster a 60,000-strong force within 60 days, deployable for up to a year. (The Times Thursday January 18 2001)
"The transatlantic fireworks generated by the recent EU summit at Nice should have been a wake-up call for European leaders, signalling just how fraught with danger is their proposal to establish an independent European Security and Defence Policy. This has already unleashed a dangerous and divisive dynamic within NATO. If EU leaders do not quickly rethink this policy, they risk undermining even destroying the NATO alliance itself. European leaders should reflect carefully on the true motivation behind ESDP, which many see as a means for Europe to check American power and influence within NATO. It certainly explains the EU's hesitation in expanding the initiative's links with NATO and in accepting NATO operational planning capabilities for ESPP military missions. Such links are vital if we are to ensure that ESDP reinforces the alliance, rather than generating conflicting interests that will necessarily weaken NATO and undermine transatlantic co-operation. For 50 years, NATO has strengthened the bilateral relationships between the United States and its European allies and partners. But as nation states cede more and more of their sovereignty to pan-European institutions, European leaders should ask themselves if they really want the United States to begin turning to the EU's Byzantine bureaucracy, rather than national governments, to address matters of transatlantic concern. It is in neither Europe's nor America's interests to undermine our proven national relationships in favour of one with a European super-state whose creation is being driven, m part, by anti-American sentiment. During the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan defeated anti-NATO sentiments within Europe which were fuelled by Moscow's efforts to divide America and Europe. Today, it is worth noting that among ESDP's most enthusiastic supporters is President Vladimir Putin of Russia, who openly advocates the abolition of NATO. Now is the time for the United States and Britain to exert their influence to ensure that ESDP emerges as a complement, not a competitor. Otherwise, we will rue the day." Sen Jesse Helms Chairman, US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Sen Gordon Smith - Chairman, Sub-committee on European Affairs, Washington, DC (Daily Telegraph letter 28/12/00)
In an implied rejection of America's call for all 23 members of Nato and the EU to rely on the planning resources of Nato's Strategic Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (Shape), M Jospin the French prime minister said the EU should have its own planning staff.(D Telegraph 7/12/00)
William Cohen, US defence secretary, warned on Tuesday Nato would become a "relic" unless the European Union's plans for an autonomous military capability were closely linked with the 19-member transatlantic alliance. Using unusually strong language at a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels, Mr Cohen expressed frustration at the slow pace of progress in beefing up Europe's military strength, and said the EU must not create assets which duplicated those of Nato, particularly in the area of defence planning. His comments on EU/Nato links and military planning were seen as being mainly aimed at France. (FT.com December 5 2000)
THE European Union's Rapid Reaction Force will have operational independence from Nato, Romano Prodi, the European Commission president, insisted yesterday. Both Britain and Nato have privately stressed that in any major operation the new 60,000-strong force will come under the control of the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the most senior European officer in Nato, who is at present Gen Sir Rupert Smith. But in a carefully worded speech Mr Prodi said: "The union must develop an autonomous capacity to take decisions and, where Nato itself is not involved, to launch and conduct military operations under EU command." This appears to back French demands for a separate planning staff from that of Nato, an idea vehemently opposed by Britain and other Nato members, especially America. Mr Prodi has made off-the-cuff comments before, calling the new force a "European army", something the Government insists it will never be. But this time the speech was vetted by experts in the commission and reflects strategic thinking in Brussels. ( Daily Telegraph 1/12/00)
In the cabinet, Mr. Blair is opposed (on British participation in the "Son of Star Wars" program) by his heavy drinking foreign secretary Robin Cook who has both the burden of his left wing past and his pro-European present. His left wing past tells him that being involved with anything so closely involved with America (especially with Republicans) is going to be trouble in any future leadership contest. His pro-European present says that this cooperation will drive a coach and four horses through any European Defence Initiative. So there will be a battle royale between Robin Cook and Tony Blair if Britain says yes to Son of Star Wars, which may explain the prickliness of the government when Hague mooted the plan. (Antiwar.com January 22, 2001)
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said on Saturday that Russia was ready to cooperate with the European Union's new military force. "The possibility of a Russian contribution in the conduct of European Union operations in regulating crises will be studied," Ivanov said. "I am sure that this will open good possibilities for our joint contribution to strengthening stability and security in Europe." Ivanov's proposal could raise U.S. fears of losing influence in European peacekeeping operations, and his remarks sought to highlight cases where U.S. and European interests diverged. For example, Ivanov mentioned Europe's differences with Washington over the possible development of a ballistic missile defense system. (BERLIN, Nov 26, 2000 Reuters)
The European Council regulation proposes the creation of a Rapid Reaction Facility that would complement the Euro army (Rapid Reaction Force) providing such tasks as "policing, monitoring and demining" and whose objectives include the "re-establishment of conditions of public order, security and safety". This will be led by Mr Prodi as the regulation states, "interventions covered by the RRF Regulation will be the responsibility of the Commission". (Telegraph 23/11/00)
Richard Perle, former US Assistant Defence Secretary and advisor to George W. Bush, commented on the RRF: "this is a French-led plan to advance its towering conceit" (Telegraph, 22 November 2000).
The Government was embarrassed over the purpose of the RRF. It had claimed that the force would undertake purely humanitarian projects. But the French Defence Minister, Alain Richard, said that the force should be able to undertake "deep strikes": "The land component should allow us to deal with two simultaneous crises, including a high intensity one with a long term requirement for forces. The ability of the sea and air components to carry out deep strikes would be significantly increased." (Sun, 22 November 2000). It has also become clear that the European Commission will have an important role in EU crisis management operations. According to Commission documents, a "Rapid Reaction Facility" is being established which will allow the Commission to "fully assume its role of co-player in the European Security and Defence Policy field". (www.no-euro.com 24/11/00)
The danger to Britain's vital relationship with America is there in his (Blaire's) own words. Europe will only send in its troops when America and Nato choose to stay out, he says. The first time that happens we will be totally at odds with our closest and most important ally. Blair says British troops will only be used when the British Prime Minister says so. Hah! Can anyone really imagine Blair wanting to lose face around Europe by saying No? (The Sun 22/11/00)
Tony Blair to compensate for what he sees to be our weakness in not signing up to the Euro is using our military strength to pledge the biggest contribution to the new EU army. Blair may say that no force would be committed without his say-so but has there ever been a veto on European action that the EU has not tried to weaken. Moreover what democratic *emergency brake* will there ever be? Over Kosovo Blair dared not risk a full Commons debate and vote before battle was joined. Is he likely to put matters to the vote if British troops are sent at the request of Senor Solana to police Algeria? (The Times 21/11/00)
Despite all the reassuring noises by Nato leaders and others, it is crystal clear that giving new duties and responsibilities to United Kingdom forces, which are already committed to Nato, will make the alliance far less capable of responding to genuine military needs. Suggestions that adding three of the UK's excellent brigades, 72 combat aircraft and 18 warships to take on all these additional duties will not weaken Nato but "strengthen it" can only strain credibility to the utmost. If Nato needs them for a real military mission it will need them immediately, not when they are committed to, or carrying out many miles away, a vague endless humanitarian mission, better suited to the Salvation Army. By definition the proposed EU force would exclude American troops. This also means further diluting rather than adding to Nato's total strength. It will unquestionably undermine the American commitment to Nato and risk the loss of fragile public support in the United States. Finally, though few will say it, there is an increasingly visible undercurrent of anti-Americanism in the EU's leadership, particularly France. America, its Nato allies and other European nations need to work together to preserve freedom for all and prevent aggression. Nato needs to be strengthened not diluted. I would even be bold enough to say that Europe needs us as much as we need Europe. (Caspar Weinberger, Daily Telegraph 23 November 2000)
On Monday European Union ministers of defence and foreign affaires meet in Brussels. They decided on a declaration, ‘Military capabilities commitment’, which in reality will establish the European army. The new European defence forces were embroiled in controversy in Britain last night after the Government was accused of failing to disclose that troops could be deployed as far as Africa, the Middle East and well into Russia. These plans were revealed on Saturday in the German newspaper. The newspaper wrote that the European force could be sent up to 2,500 miles (4,000 km) from Brussels. That would include large parts of Africa, the Middle East and the Caucasus. (EUobserver.com 21/11/00)
"Unheralded by the media, in July of this year, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the U.K. signed a legally binding agreement whereby our entire arms industry came under the control of the E.U. A complete inventory of our military ordinance is now available to all member States. A common European list of military equipment is currently being required as a cornerstone in the development of a common defence policy..." (Jeffrey Titford MEP - Bruges Group, 4 November 2000)
BRITISH servicemen attached to the new "Euro army" may be forced to wear arm badges displaying the yellow stars of the European Union flag. Two badges, one showing the yellow and blue flag of the EU and the other displaying a map of Europe and a sword, right, are being considered as insignia for the new defence force. The disclosure comes as Britain prepares to commit more than 24,000 troops, 72 combat aircraft and 18 warships to the force (Sunday Telegraph 19/11/00) The European Army is to be commanded by a German General. (Electronic Telegraph17/11/00)
The Western European Union (WEU), Europe's obscure and little-understood military wing, called it quits here Monday, gently lowering the lid on its own coffin after 52 years as a cold war baby that never really found its feet. Some of the WEU's consultative functions will be allowed to dwindle away slowly, said its officials, filling the gap until the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI) and the EU's Rapid Reaction Force are up and running, scheduled over the next two years. The WEU headquarters in Brussels has a staff of about 50 facing unemployment, and they are angry, not at the WEU's demise, but because they are not being offered jobs in the EU defense entities destined to replace it. "Why fire some 50 qualified staff members who have the kind of experience that the EU needs to build its Common Security and Defence Policy" they asked in a statement here. (MARSEILLE, France, Nov 13, 2000 AFP) -
A PARAMILITARY police force is being established by the European Union to intervene in conflict areas across the world to protect the community's political and economic interests. Brussels has drawn up plans for a 5,000-strong armed police capability able to carry out "preventative and repressive" actions in support of global peacekeeping missions. Critics say it is a deliberate challenge to the United Nations. The new body, which may be given the name European Security and Intelligence Force (Esif), would work alongside a 60,000-strong EU defence force that is also being set up. The security force - likened to France's gendarmerie, Spain's guardia civil, the Italian carabinieri or the Royal Ulster Constabulary - would be intended primarily for use in trouble spots such as Kosovo. Although it is not clear when recruitment to the force will begin, it is expected to be fully operational by 2003. Critics fear, however, that its units, armed with light machineguns and trained to operate alongside EU ground troops, may eventually be used to suppress disorder within member states. No restrictions on its sphere of operations have been placed in the regulations so far agreed by EU governments, and detailed "rules of engagement" have not yet been drawn up. Details of the new structure would be kept secret, under regulations quietly agreed by EU governments during the summer that end the right of public access to information about both military and civilian crisis management. Effective operational command, however, will be in the hands of Javier Solana, the Spanish former secretary-general of Nato who is now secretary-general of the council of ministers. (Sunday Times Sun, 3 Sep 2000) This all looks suspiciously like the re-incarnation of the Gestapo, the SD or "Einsatzgruppen", armed as they were with "light machine guns" and "operating alongside ground troops." (Eurofaq posting DD 3/9/00)
A source from the Foreign Office says that the Nice Treaty will contain a plan for a 5,000 strong armed "disaster" or "emergency" reaction force able to operate WITHIN EU borders, under the control of the EU and NOT national governments. This was approved (unanimously) at the EU summit in Feira, Portugal on 19/6/00, so it is now a legislative reality. There are plans to set up an EU-controlled armed force; and we also have equally strong evidence that they intend to take for themselves the power to decide, overriding any British objections, to deploy them within the EU including Britain, whenever they want, after Nice. Nice will be subtle. They will pass a proposal that will say - exactly as the E.P. Resolution of 12th April said (proposal n. 53.4) - that "all measures" concerning "freedom, security and justice" will henceforth be subject to "majority voting". Blair will probably vote for this, supposing (and hoping) that no-one will spot its significance. Then, AFTER Nice, they will be able to have *another* summit, at which it will be proposed to reconvert the (already-constituted) "Europa-Korps" to domestic use. At this point, even if Blair (or whoever is representing Britain) does wake up and say "Oh no, we cannot go along with that one" he will be over-ruled because he will have lost the power of veto. And for the first time since 1066, foreign men-at-arms, not answerable to the King of England, will tread British soil. The key point to focus on is at the Nice negotiating table, Blair must ON NO ACCOUNT be allowed to get away with giving up the national veto. That MUST be our obsessive theme from now till December. If he does, they will HAVE US in the palm of their hand. (Eurofaq posting T D-E 11 August 2000)
French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine said in an interview published on Wednesday that Europe someday may need a single nuclear power to speak as a deterrent force for whole continent. But in the interview with Rome's La Repubblica newspaper, he said it was still too early to say what role France and Britain, the European Union's only nuclear powers, would have in it. Vedrine, whose country just took over the rotating EU presidency, was asked if France would be willing to renounce its nuclear military power in the name of a united Europe. "Nuclear weapons are an extreme guarantee of survival," he was quoted as saying. (ROME, July 12 Reuters)
WASHINGTON is ready to reduce its forces in Europe to a token presence if Paris gets its way in forging a new European military alliance at next month's European Union summit in Nice. The new alliance, which has been in the pipeline for some time, is in theory supposed to complement Nato. It is being seen across the Atlantic, however, as a move to undermine Nato and marginalise the United States in European security. The move could spell the end of Nato as anything but a talking shop, according to defence experts in Britain and America. The 15-member military alliance, a Franco-German brainchild, is designed to take over from the Western European Union as the first EU-commanded force, drawing substantially on European manpower, equipment, intelligence and command and control systems already allocated to Nato. Pentagon chiefs have also made clear to European governments that they would be unwilling to share intelligence data with the new EU military alliance. The new EU military partnership is thought by some observers to spell the end of Nato as an effective alliance. The French would like the new EU alliance to be enshrined in a treaty at Nice. This would lay down a structure and staff, and a military committee. The senior civilian figure is to be the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, currently Javier Solana, the former Nato secretary-general. He is said to be acquiring the powers in his new job that he felt he lacked as Nato's chief. He is believed to be working with the French, who have laid claim to leading posts in the structure. The most crucial is the Director-General Military Staff - effectively the EU supreme commander. (Sunday Telegraph 30/10/00)
Lord Robertson, NATO's secretary general, visited Washington to calm American fears about the EU' security and defense policy. The job is not easy because the American foreign policy community can detect the anti-Atlanticist drift coming from Europe's capitals - including Lord Robertson's former colleagues in government. The French president wants to build a counterweight to the United States; the German foreign minister voices his own fears of US hegemony. The Spanish foreign minister concedes that there are those in Europe who believe that anything done within the NATO alliance will not be European. A new consensus is emerging in Washington, and it is Euro-sceptical. (D Telegraph 6/4/00)
Title V of the Treaty of the European Union creates mechanisms for EU Commission involvement by right in defence and foreign policy issues, including issues confronting individual states. Admittedly, there are limitations on qualified majority voting (QMV) which preserve powers of national veto, and there is an undertaking "not to prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states". But other articles specify the involvement of both the Commission and the European Parliament whenever any defence or foreign policy issue is under consideration, let alone in action. Had Norway been in the EU, it would have had to inform Brussels of the secret Oslo Middle Eastern peace talks, and permit Brussels' intervention if it so decided, Had Mr Blair to recover the Falkland Islands, he would have first to ensure that he refrained "from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or is likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations." (Article 2). In effect, we would need permission to defend our own. (Daily Telegraph London 28/2/2000) This is denied by the CEC which says "Nobody is suggesting using the same kind of Commission role seen in traditional fields of policy and any suggestion that its power would be insidious seriously underestimates the authority of the Council in this area." (CEC Press Release 9/4/00)
Mr Prodi appeared to question repeated assurances by Mr Blair that closer defence co-operation was not leading to the creation of a European army. He said he was "not joking" when he talked about a European army, and the EU had taken a firm decision to create a common body for peace-keeping efforts. "When I was talking about the European army I was not joking. If you don't want to call it a European army, don't call it a European army. You can call it "Margaret," you can call it "Mary-Ann," (Electronic Telegraph 4/2/00). ROMANO Prodi, President of the European Commission, fuelled fears over his federalist ambitions when he said that the EU was forming its own army and government. He challenged countries such as Britain to join the process or "disappear" from history, saying that the Commission was gradually evolving into a government body. Mr Prodi said that there were already well-developed plans to create a common European body of defence. "If you don't want to call it a European army, don't call it a European army," he said. "You can find any name, but it is a joint effort for peace-keeping missions - the first time you have a joint, not bilateral, effort at European level." (The Times 4/2/00)
European Commission President Romano Prodi surprised his Latvian audience Feb. 10 by declaring that "any attack or aggression against an EU [European Union] member nation would be an attack or aggression against the whole EU, this is the highest guarantee." If implemented as stated, this marks a quantum shift in EU policies from the purely economic into the security realm - a change that Russia cannot afford to ignore. Now Russia will feel just as threatened by EU expansion as it has by NATO expansion. Prodi's announcement intensified the ever-escalating race to establish a new frontier between Russia and the West. It is Prodi's statement that will truly shock Russia. The fact that the proclamation came from the European Commission's president - the highest non-rotating position within the EU superstructure - indicates that the intent to implement security guarantees is no mere trial balloon, but new EU policy. Russia's acquiescence to EU expansion will rapidly come to an end, and what little is left of the Russia-West "friendship" may be completely gone. (Stratfor 11/2/00 http://www.stratfor.com)
Last November the French President made a provocative anti-American speech. Other Europeans are quick to remind Americans not take the French seriously when they called the US a hyperpuissance. A separate European defence "identity" will inevitably change Nato and perhaps eviscerate it. If the Europeans desire, and then achieve, a separate, unified, military capacity, without recourse to the US, they will have eliminated the rationale for Nato as we have known it. A view is gathering weight in the US, harking back to Thomas Jefferson, who said, writing about Napoleon: "It cannot be to our interest at all Europe should be reduced to a single monarchy". Whoever wins the US presidential election, Europeans can be sure that America's days as a well-bred doormat for EU political and military pretensions are coming to an end. (FT 11-2-00)
Britain's armed forces will be trained in the future to serve in a Euro-style army, Ministry of Defence officials predicted. A training strategy is being drawn up to take effect from 2010 and will take into account the possible formation of a European army. This will include training of British personnel in continental military establishments.{The Times 24/2/00}
US administration officials and Congress members are looking for the exit from Kosovo. Since total withdrawal of NATO forces is impossible without even more chaos, another solution is appearing: Blame the Europeans and demand that they shoulder more of the burden. Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has claimed that the real problem in Kosovo is that Europeans have not fulfilled their obligations. They were supposed to send police, as well as $35 million for policing functions, but only a few of the former and none of the latter have arrived. The Europeans, however, are not eager to undertake full responsibility for KFOR. Except for the British government, the rest of Europe was more than a little restrained in enthusiasm for the war. But there are far deeper issues for European governments at this point. One is Russia. The emergence of acting President Vladimir Putin and a much more assertive, anti-Western Russia is a result of last year's war. European governments regard the end game of Kosovo, in which the Russians were outmaneuvered and humiliated, as a Pyrrhic victory. The Germans in particular now must deal with an increasingly truculent Russia - in which they have invested billions that they will never again see - and are not eager to be the flag-bearers of an operation that continues to irritate the Russians. (Stratfor7/2/00)
France's Foreign Minister used remarkably undiplomatic language to talk of American "arrogance, free-market pragmatism and menacing impatience". Resentment of the French desire to be free of American "hegemony" already infests the US military. In October Lieutenant-General Michael Short, the Allied commanded during the Kosovo conflict, made his opinion of the French government perfectly clear: the obstruction of the target selection process had put the lives of pilots at risk, including his own son. Until now, Washington has relied for the survival of Nato on a bridge between itself and dotty European centralism. The bridge was called Britain. But alarm bells rang in the National Security Council when Tony Blair are signed the St Malo defence agreement with the M Chirac. Then Britain joined the Cologne declaration on the need for a "capacity for autonomous action". The senior NSC official said recently "The question is if Britain goes over to the other side, what we going to do?" America's military boffins are close to perfecting a system to knock down ICBMs launched by such rogue states as North Korea or Iraq. Current plans are to deploy these missiles in Alaska, guarding against attack from the Pacific, then 100 somewhere else to provide an umbrella for America and its Nato allies against the Middle East. The Pentagon would happily site this second tranche in Britain, where they could be easily linked to the early warning radar at Fylingdales in Yorkshire. The way things are going with Paris decrying American hegemony and Mr Blair allowing Nato to suffer the greatest internal pressures in its history, the protective umbrella will be deployed in North Dakota. Britain will be left outside it, open to the risk of a very unpleasant drenching. (Daily Telegraph 12/11/99)
We (USA) and our Canadian neighbors will be watching closely to see how the EU defines its security relationship with the other six allies who do not happen to be EU members: Iceland, Norway, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and, of course, Turkey. We hope that European Security and Defense Identity will allow non-EU allies to help shape planning and decisions for European-led military operations, and to participate in those operations if they so desire. We would also hope that, once ESDI is a reality, all allies would, whenever possible, continue to act together.The Anglo-French Summit at St. Malo last December raised concerns among non-EU Allies that they might not be sufficiently involved in planning and decision- making structures. Then came the EU leaders' declaration at Cologne in June, which could be read to imply that Europe's default position would be to act outside the NATO alliance whenever possible, rather than through the alliance. (Strobe Talbott Deputy Secretary of State Remarks at a conference on the future of NATO The Royal Institute of International Affairs October 7, 1999)
Fears that a resurgent Germany will become a dominant military force in Europe are misplaced. It is more likely Germany's military will shrink relative to its population and GDP. A position paper on the future of the German Armed Forces, the Bundeswehr, authored by the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), favored cutting the overall size of the force to 300,000 from its current level of almost 340,000. Support for the German military continues to wane among the German population as cuts in social spending are matched - or even exceeded - by cuts in military spending. Germany is now set on a course where its defensively organized forces will rapidly lose military effectiveness and the capability for forward deployments. This will have serious implications for both NATO and any planned European Defense and Security Identity (EDSI). Most of all, it will complicate the security picture for Germany's eastern neighbors - particularly Poland and the Baltics - which are counting on the ability of the Bundeswehr to defend them from potential Russian threats. Germany's politicians are having a tough time convincing voters to continue spending billions to modernize the German military while they make cuts in social benefits. Germany will have trouble meeting its obligations to any new European Security Force, whose leadership will then fall to the French or the British. While the French will be attracted to a militarily weak Germany, the additional military burden being placed on their own armed forces could be severe and this - more than any political considerations - could spell real trouble for the future of EDSI. (STRATFOR report: http://www.stratfor.com/ 24/3/00)
The Clinton Administration is so concerned by the French habit of undermining its foreign and defence policy that senior American officials openly speculate that current Franco-American friction could weaken Nato. On issues ranging from defence co-operation to Iraq, the Americans regard the recent French record as unconstructive and unhelpful. Irritation has turned to real anger now that France is questioning the legality of the Pentagon's proposed National Missile Defence system, which is designed to protect America from attacked by rogue regimes such as North Korea. "We took it very damn seriously when Europe was under threat from missiles which could not reach the United States," said an official, recalling how the Americans shipped cruise missiles to Europe in the Eighties as a deterrent against Soviet attack. (Daily Telegraph 21/1/99).
Britain, supported by France and Germany, on Monday proposed creating a European rapid deployment force of roughly 40-60,000 troops over the next few years capable of intervening in and managing crisis situations in Europe and beyond. Such a force, designed to stay in the field for periods of around 60 days, was outlined to an historic joint council of EU foreign and defense ministers here, the first such meeting ever held. In order that such a force could be deployed for that long, they said, it would have to have manpower two-to-three times superior to the actual mission -- roughly 100,000 to 120,000 troops in a state of readiness. The French, while agreeing with the British idea, felt it should become a reality sooner than the three years London suggested. "We must be in a position to deploy, within no more than a year and a half, and outside European (union) territory, a rapid reaction land force with air and sea support," French Defense Minister Alain Richard. He added that by 2005, Europeans ought to be thinking of beefing up such a force to a level of six to seven brigades and 600 to 700 planes, said the source. The so-called European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI) would free European members of the alliance to take military action, using NATO resources, independent of their richest and most powerful partner, the United States. (Nov 15, 1999 AFP BRUSSELS)
BRUSSELS- Britain, supported by France and Germany, on Monday proposed creating a European rapid deployment force of roughly 40-60,000 troops over the next few years capable of intervening in and managing crisis situations in Europe and beyond. Such a force, designed to stay in the field for periods of around 60 days, was outlined to an historic joint council of EU foreign and defence ministers here, the first such meeting ever held. In order that such a force could be deployed for that long, they said, it would have to have manpower two-to-three times superior to the actual mission -- roughly 100,000 to 120,000 troops in a state of readiness. The French, while agreeing with the British idea, felt it should become a reality sooner than the three years London suggested. "We must be in a position to deploy, within no more than a year and a half, and outside European (union) territory, a rapid reaction land force with air and sea support," French Defence Minister Alain Richard. He added that by 2005, Europeans ought to be thinking of beefing up such a force to a level of six to seven brigades and 600 to 700 planes, said the source. The so-called European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI) would free European members of the alliance to take military action, using NATO resources, independent of their richest and most powerful partner, the United States. (Nov 15, 1999 AFP)
The shadow defence secretary has told a Congressional committee that the European Union, and France in particular, is progressively breaking up Nato with the acquiescence of Tony Blair's government. He said that Britain's "U-turn" on the European Strategic Defence Initiative had been a decisive moment and would undermine the security of America and Europe in the face of growing threats from terrorism and nuclear-armed rogue states. Washington is becoming increasingly alarmed at the prospect of ESDI, which would see a military alliance under EU control. (Daily Telegraph 11/11/99)
Speaking in New York, Baroness Thatcher the former Prime Minister, exploited American concerns about a European defence identity and accused Tony Blair of reversing Britain's traditional hostility towards such ventures. Taking the unusual step of attacking British Government policy from abroad, she put the drive towards a separate European defence on the same level as the single European currency. Both were aimed at "the Utopian venture of creating a single European superstate to rival America on the world stage. She is understood to be particularly concerned over whether Britain will be involved with plans for France and Germany to share intelligence information. Both have policies of open public access to such material. This weekend's summit will appoint a committee to prepare for a military arm to complement the EU's foreign policy. Mr Blair and President Chirac of France have been the driving forces behind the venture. This was what particularly worried Lady Thatcher, who said it had been a "long-standing French aspiration" to create a European superstate. She said Nato had worked well for two reasons: the acceptance of American leadership and the understanding that, in any crisis within the Alliance, Britain could be relied upon to support America. "The creation of a separate European defence, whatever the qualifications and assurances, threatens both those conditions, and so poses a serious long-term danger to Nato's cohesion and effectiveness." (The Times 7/12/99)
The European Court of Justice has ruled that women must be allowed to bear arms in the German army. The ruling overturns a previous ruling by a court in Hannover which confirmed the German law against this. By overturning that ruling, the ECJ has summarily overturned the German constitution, whose Article 12a says that women may "under no circumstances" bear arms in the army. Apart from the constitutional importance of this ruling, it also shows the extent to which matters of policy are now subject to the say-so of foreign judges: the German constitution's rule against women bearing arms was drafted in connection with the rules on conscription, which will now have to be revised. As the Handelsblatt says, "The 15 European judges are penetrating deeply into the structures of German defence and security policy." [Handelsblatt, 12th January 2000]
Romano Prodi, the European Commission president, said yesterday that Europe was forging its own government and army, and challenged the EU's big states to join together or "disappear from the history books". In a strong challenge to British Eurosceptics, Mr Prodi argued that the European Commission was gradually evolving into a fledgling government. Those who disputed that a European military force was being created were splitting hairs, he suggested in an interview with The Independent. "You need time, but step by step - as in the Austrian case - the European Commission takes a political decision and behaves like a growing government," he said. "When I was talking about the European army I was not joking. (The Independent - 4th February 2000)
"A single European army is not military, it is political". European leaders created the Euro to replace the DM as a means of removing national budgets, thus preventing war. There is no scope for a national defence policy in Europe. (Prof Andrea Bosco, South Bank University Conference, 9th December 1999).
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, ... Will she say whether there are any legal barriers, or whether any legal barriers are proposed, to the use of the European defence force internally within the EU in support of the civil power? Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, . I turn now to the question of the European rapid reaction force. I hope that we may call it by that name because I am trying to avoid any suggestion that it is a European army, as several noble Lords have tried to suggest. As I have made clear before, that idea is explicitly refuted in the conclusions of the summit. The noble Lord is not right to raise the spectre of that being a possible way of dealing with the situation. As I said when replying to an earlier question from a noble Lord, the situation is such that if, for example, there was a humanitarian crisis and NATO was not fully engaged, there might be a possibility of that happening. However, as the noble Lord will know, the organisation of, and the mandate for, that kind of force is in its early days. Although it is theoretically possible that some type of internal humanitarian crisis might prompt that kind of action, it is difficult to respond to a hypothetical situation. (House of Lords Hansard 13 Dec 1999 : Column 34)
Hans Eichel, Germany's new Finance Minister said: "Why do the 15 EU states still need 15 foreign ministers and 15 diplomatic services? Europe would be incomparably stronger if it spoke to the outside world with a single voice. Why do we still need purely national armies? One European army is enough" (Rheinische Post, reported in the Daily Telegraph, 2nd January 1999).
The Amsterdam Treaty has been able to do little to resolve the thorny question of the formation of a European defence. Consequently, it has provided for no measures in respect of the creation of a European Army. However, one step has been taken, through the impetus of Members of the European Parliament with the establishment of a "voluntary European service for young people", a civilian service that could, without a doubt, serve as a first step towards a European military service. (Fontaine report of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, on the establishment of a "voluntary European service for young people", adopted on 20.7.98)
The Cologne summit made a significant stride towards creating a common European foreign policy when it appointed a High Representative for that policy, the former secretary-general of Nato, Javier Solana. The presidency conclusions say, "the Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so." To this end it may instigate regular meetings of EU defence ministers and create "an EU Military Committee consisting of Military Representatives making recommendations to the Political and Security Committee; an EU Military Staff including a Situation Centre; other resources such as a Satellite Centre, Institute for Security Studies." (European Foundation Intelligence Digest Issue No. 71 4th June 1999)