Archive for category Security and Defence
Ireland and the ESDP in Action
Posted by Michael in Security and Defence on September 16th, 2009
With thanks to the IIEA www.iiea.com
A Long Way From Darfur to Here
Posted by Michael in Security and Defence on September 10th, 2009
Europe is run by the elites or so we are told, faceless bureaucrats and those who want to dominate militarily. People who say this should have a chat with Pat Nash, a Christian Brothers educated Limerick man with a love of hurling and rugby, with very little background in the corridors of power in Brussels. Pat took a fairly traditional route in the 60’s becoming a cadet in the Irish Army, like many a few spells in the Lebanon followed. Pat climbed through the career structure focussing more on overseas missions.
In 2007 Lieutenant General Pat Nash became one of the most important people in European Security and Defence Policy. Of course two Irish people have in succession held the most senior positions in the European Commission but to have the commander of a major EU mission coming form a small neutral country was somewhat historic.
The political and military situation in Central Africa is complex and difficult. The whole world however spoke at one during 2007 saying that action was needed to deal with the situation in Darfur where millions of people were being displaced. Much of the impact of this was being felt in the neighbouring countries of Chad and The Central African Republic, both with their own internal problems.
The United Nations passed Resolution 1778 in September 2007 and both Chad and CAR requested assistance to deal with the situation. The resolution stressed the protection of civilians, aid organisations and the need to stabilise the security situation. Nash was faced with a huge challenge in putting together a force which eventually had forces form 26 countries including non EU countries, Albania, Russia and Croatia
The mission presented massive logistical and political difficulties all of which had to be resolved in double quick time. In a country about 6 times the size of Ireland there was 500km of proper road and practically zero infrastructure in terms of transport and air travel. While logistical miracles were performed many of the shortcomings in the EU security architecture were present such as the lack of a permanent OHQ, the absence of dedicated air lift capacity and sufficient dedicated medical support.
It was widely recognised as one of the most dangerous missions that Ireland had ever been involved with and a surge in rebel activity to the Chadian capital N’Djamane delayed the start by some weeks. The military patrols and operations were supported by economic development projects. From start to finish the mission was to last for one year until a U.N. mission could be assembled, the UN clearly recognised the EU’s ability to deploy more rapidly and effectively.
Interestingly Nash has commented that the civilian and democratic oversight of this mission was second to none and far superior to that seen in the United Nations. The mission has been recognised all around as being an enormous success particularly considering the huge risk and complexity involved. The United Nations have now taken on the longer term tasks in the area.
So this is the actual rather than the imagined reality of European Security and Defence Policy. I can’t see any of the militarism or large country dominance so often spoken of in Ireland. In the Political and Security Committee where all the major operational decisions are made Ireland has one vote the same as every other member state. The actual changes in security and defence policies in Lisbon are quite minor. The creation of a foreign minister (it’s not the term used in the treaty) is actually much more minor with the High Representative for Foreign Policy becoming a member of both the Council and Commission to bring the work of both bodies together. All major decisions remain to be made by unanimity.
The most striking thing about this whole area is the gulf between the reality and the fantasy. The EUFOR operation in Chad is only one of many and even a cursory glance at Bosnia, Kosovo and the Congo shows that the founding principles of the ESDP are being translated on the ground. So Yes campaigners must see security and defence policy as a plus not a minus in our approach to EU integration. The legal guarantees from our EU partners cement this view. The EDA is given legal standing in the Treaty and this is covered elsewhere on this site. Suffice it to say it will strengthen and improve this work and that must be welcomed by all.
http://www.raco.ie/signalpdfs/Signal_Sep_08/Command_and_Control.pdf
How to Amaze your Friends Down the Pub
Posted by Michael in Charter Fundamental Rights, EU Law, Security and Defence, The campaign on August 20th, 2009
Have You Read it? The most common question journalists ask politicians about the Lisbon Treaty. The answers became symptomatic of the problems in the Lisbon One campaign, here were a bunch of lazy politicians telling us all to vote for something but couldn’t be bothered to read it themselves. Fair enough, if you set yourself up to sell something in today’s PR conscious world you should have a grasp of it. Vincent Browne likes to jump on this bandwagon calling the Treaty impenetrable and impossible. However there is more going on here than meets the eye. The now departed (from the Lisbon campaign at any rate) Declan Ganley waved around what he called the Lisbon Treaty implying it was somehow secretive and hidden. Of course what he had in his hand was actually a propaganda tract from Jens Peter Bonde, a strange bedfellow as a former Danish Communist.
Anyway the news is you can very easily read the Treaty. I’ll say that again, you can very easily read the treaty. Now like everything this needs to be put in context. As most people know EU Treaties have been made by amending the original treaty of Rome. I’m happy to say this is ridiculous and leaves the EU open to accusations of secrecy and garbled euro legalese of which Vincent Browne is so fond. What really matters here is what is in the treaties now and what will be there after we vote. As it happens this is of course available online. Indeed you can have what the treaties will look like if Lisbon is accepted, the current treaties with changes, additions and subtractions in different colours and the actual Lisbon text . The first two are thanks to the Institute for International and European Affairs, I think all sides of this debate recognise the excellent work done in compiling these although I have to declare an interest having worked there some 12 years ago! Links are here http://www.iiea.com/publications?offset=10&max=10&sort=publicationDate&order=desc unfortunately they are no longer free but were in Lisbon 1, not sure why that is. Richard Corbett MEP has them here for free http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/assets/docs/briefing/annotatedtreaties.pdf …not sure about intellectual property rights and all that but it’s a public site.
The treaties are set out in chapters with headings….I know, I know its sooooo complex! I intend to go through most of these headings looking at the changes and the issues involved in the coming weeks. For the moment I will stick to some introductory comments
The first thing people will notice is we are actually talking about two treaties or a set of amendments to two treaties. The Treaty on European Union and The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The latter is effectively the treaties to date with their amendments (single market, freedom of movement etc.) and the former more political and cross cutting principles.
Brother Kelly used to tell me not to use a small word when a large one will do. The EU has taken this up with gusto leading to all sorts of chaos when it comes to the numbering of articles and sections in the treaties. The method of amending treaty after treaty leads to a constant renumbering. Having the two treaties doesn’t help either. The Lisbon Treaty itself contains a note on numbering which is adhered to by the IIEA and I think should be used by everybody. So if you want to amaze your friends down the pub with “Oh yeah I read that” keep logging on!
European Defence Agency
Posted by Michael in Security and Defence, Uncategorized on July 2nd, 2009
EU Supported Police in Kinshasa
For a number of people the European Defence Agency has become the bogey man of the Lisbon Treaty. Given the perceived complexity of the whole thing and perhaps due to the legally binding guarantees received by the Government this body provides an easy target after all it’s to do with guns and things so must be bad, right?
As with most aspects of European policy a closer examination provides a different picture. The European Defence Agency already exists having being established in 2004. The purpose of the Lisbon Treaty is to give a solid legal basis to the agency, rather like many agencies in Ireland which have existed on an administrative basis before been put on a statutory footing.
One of the big issues in the evolution of security and defence policy in the EU has been the difficulties in getting forces from several different countries to work together for example in peace-keeping missions in the Balkans. This can be down to different cultures, traditions and languages. However one of the main issues is the lack of interoperable equipment. This can lead to one set of communications systems not been compatible with another, troop transporters being unable to take equipment or radar or reconnaissance equipment not functioning correctly.
When we examine the historical tendency of cold war forces to be trained and orientated towards large scale battles on the plains of Europe as opposed to the inter ethnic strife that they have had to grapple with in the Balkans we can see that despite the rhetoric the EU is far form a military superpower. If it is to provide any assistance in solving conflict it needs to change. The entire point of defence and armaments co-operation in the EU is to address these problems, no more and no less.
Again as with all decisions of the EU the legal basis must be clear and the documentation establishing the EDA is available for all the see and read if they care to. The European Council acting under then Article 14 of the Treaty of European Union adopted Council Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP
On the 12th of July 2004.
The text of the founding document makes it clear that the EDA is subject to the Council of Ministers so cannot get involved in the military adventurism suggested by some. Such meetings will of course be totally open to the public on major matters should Lisbon be adopted.
Critically Article 2 of the founding document makes clear the mission of the Agency namely
“The mission of the Agency is to support the Council and the Member States in their effort to improve the EU’s defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the ESDP as it stands now and develops in the future”
The European Security and Defence Policy is again set out in the Treaties, at the heart of it are the Petersberg Tasks which prioritise peace-keeping and crisis management, areas where Ireland has a considerable background and involvement. Thus the entire role and function of the EDA is to support the EU missions, not wantonly to sell arms around the world. Irish troops serve in several ESDP missions with Dail approval and under a U.N. mandate. Thus the work of the EDA is of critical importance to Ireland and to our foreign policy which informs our participation in such missions.
The ESDP currently has a number of active missions where Irish troops serve and many former ones. For example the provision of policing and security services in Bosnia, Policing and monitoring missions in Kosovo and Georgia. The list goes on to include the Congo, Chad, The Palestinian Authority. One might well ask where is the war mongering here? All these missions involve recovering societies from conflict and providing a new start. They are generally aligned with generous aid packages. This is the essence of the EU’s approach to security policy. It is in support of these missions that we have an EDA.
As with many aspects of the Lisbon debate the Government has moved to reassure the public about a variety of issues. Many people who have followed the integration process for a number of years do not see a great need for this but if these reassurances effectively reaffirm what people knew already what harm. Media reports suggest that legislation on the EDA is to be one of these. Insofar as this makes it clear that as with all aspects of ESDP participation is voluntary, such reassurance are helpful.
The Defence Agency in co-ordinating the defence activities in the member states in the areas of procurement and joint projects can also create more efficiencies and value for money. Despite constant repetition this does not necessarily incur extra expenditure; in many areas it will simply mean a different type of expenditure. For example the reduction in infantry and tank based divisions in favour of smaller special forces to deal with urbanised ethnic conflict and force separation would probably mean less cost. A greater emphasis on technology and dual use resources such as tactical transporters and close air support may also create efficiencies.
The United Nations Brahimi report on peace keeping in 2000 placed a particular emphasis on devolving these duties to regional actors. The EU has taken up the challenge. The U.N. and peacekeeping is at the centre of Irish foreign policy. The EDA assists Europe’s and Ireland’s efforts in this area and is a positive rather than a negative aspect of the Lisbon Treaty.
Angus must try harder!
Posted by Michael in Security and Defence, The campaign on July 2nd, 2009
It is hard to know where to start on reading Angus O’Snodaigh’s views on the current situation with regard to the Lisbon Treaty recently in the Irish Times. Rather like Ian Paisley of old and the latter day rejectionist unionists Sinn Fein see the need to say No in so many different ways regardless of what is on offer.
Maybe we will start with the greatest inaccuracies and work our way down.
I was stunned to see Mr. O’Snodaigh regurgitate the discredited Article 48 argument. He says “This article allows the Council of Ministers, by unanimous decision, to alter the text of existing EU treaties” and then goes on to imply this is some major change. He completely ignores the fact that it is clearly stated in the same article (48.4 and 48.6) that in relation to the ordinary and simplified revision procedure “The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”
In Ireland this means a referendum. Furthermore the EU currently has no competence in the area of direct taxation, so such a revision would give rise to a new competence. It is clearly stated later in 48.6 “The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties”
So all these procedures need a referendum in Ireland and the Government has said it is opposed to harmonization, the EU has no competence in the area, the text says it can’t happen and the guarantees reinforce this, but still Sinn Fein cry wolf!
While Sinn Fein’s position on militarisation gives rise to a wry smile what is it that they mean? Irish troops currently serve in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chad under the EU and with a U.N. mandate; these are the operations that the EU security and defence policy and the Defence Agency are designed to support. Believe it or not these forces have guns, use troop carriers and are “militarised”
Should the people of these countries not have the chance of reconciliation that Sinn Fein worked so hard for in Northern Ireland? Sinn Fein seem quick to forget how EU member states supported our peace process the least they could do now is to support the EU as it seeks to do the same elsewhere.
Neutrality says Mr. O’Snodaigh is not only what you do with your troops; it is also about alliances you form. Indeed, we can clearly see what alliances Sinn Fein formed when neutrality was developed during World War Two and they were not pretty ones.
Where are the reduced voting weights at Council that he speaks of? Gerry Adams at the Forum on Europe couldn’t stand up this argument either. The double majority voting changes some aspects of population but maintains the idea that for something to become law it must have the support of 55% of the member states, as is the case today! The only Treaty that guarantees the loss of a Commissioner is Nice, only Lisbon gives a legal basis to the member states to change this.
Sinn Fein will have to do a lot better than this critique to persuade people of their view on such a momentous decision for our country.