Comments on: A European Army??

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 27 May 2010 09:11:50 +0000

Eurocentric,

Excellent point! The neutrality debate is very much based on the propaganda of war years and the post-war years. As you rightly pointed out it was only because the UK was in NATO, we didnt join!

You raise very important questions that no one in Ireland and certainly not in the political elite are willing to answer. Its funny to see that it is a comedian that is asking these questions! It dosent say a lot for our leaders.

By: Eurocentric

Eurocentric — Wed, 26 May 2010 16:32:27 +0000

I definitely think that Ireland should open up on debating neutrality. I remember during Lisbon II the neutrality debate in the Irish Times, where the pro-neutrality side traced its “history” back to WWII, completely missing Ireland offering a bilateral alliance with the US (NATO was only rejected because it would mean allying with a UK that retained possession of NI). Very little of the debate seemed to discuss or analyse the changes in security considerations since WWII and the cold war, as well as the continuing rules and logic behind security, diplomacy and hard power.

It’s irritating to have attempts at a proper debate hijacked by conscription and other political tailsmen dating from a 1916 Sinn Féin – surely we can move on and update our political vocabulary?

We should be asking ourselves: what is our security based on? Is it the Atlanic Alliance or Europe? Should it be?

If so, then surely we should contribute (it seems morally negligent not to contribute to security structures that benefit us)? And if so, how should we contribute in a way that’s consistent with our needs and views/foreign policy?

Dara O’Briein once said if China invaded Europe, would we really stand aside? It’s an extreme idea, but if the security of Europe affects our own, then surely we should ask ourselves how best to secure a safe Europe in the long term. It may not mean a full-fledged European army, but military co-operation is a good idea. (It’s important to note that the Lisbon Treaty and EDA haven’t brought any of this about!)
.-= Eurocentric´s last blog ..A Week as a Romanian S&D MEP =-.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 24 May 2010 21:18:56 +0000

again you are completely right Mario! It won’t happen here though due to the reaction it would receive.

By: Mario

Mario — Mon, 24 May 2010 21:17:06 +0000

I agree! I think it’s actually a general problem that people tend to make up an opinion from some half-truths and half-facts and then there’s nothing you can say to make them reconsider.
However, what I find also is that the academia are sometimes very slow to try and stir up a discussion on a topic. I think they should get a bit more involved as they are, after all, the intelligentsia which are kinda meant to guide us(in a way, not suggesting elitism or anything like that here). Simply highlighting some issues would be more than enough, I think.
.-= Mario´s last blog ..Good Neighbors =-.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 24 May 2010 20:30:21 +0000

Mario, you are very correct!!! Its why we need to start discussing it before there are moves towards one so that we as a country know where we stand and what we want (or don’t) want from it!

I hate having to explain the triple lock to people!

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 24 May 2010 20:29:00 +0000

Bryan, I used Russia as an example as it has been a historical “other” in European Defence history. You could replace it with China, USA, Madeupland etc.

As for the hole in European Defence Structures. No European Army is currently able to deploy itself outside of the continent without US help. Even within the continent we have problems. It was due to this that it was left to the US to take the lead in Yugoslavia and Kosovo. It is well documented that European Defence spending is not up to par. That for example no European air force has air refuellers, and other items of equipment that is needed to allow forces to operate outside a home nation. This is why the EDA was created and why there is a possible argument for a European Army.

While I would agree with you that EU Militarianism would be against the whole point of the European Project in the first place, but it is now enshrined it in its treaties (EDA and CFSP).

By: Mario

Mario — Mon, 24 May 2010 20:20:58 +0000

I think an EU army is needed, and I would agree with Quinten’s points. However, I do realise that it can create quite a hysteria(like in Lisbon) and so calling for a discussion is a good idea. I mean take neutrality for example. Many people think its enshrined in Irish law or the constitution itself, never realising it is only a government policy from the late 1930s. These myths would need to be rebuked and a discussion would be the best way for it.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Mon, 24 May 2010 19:52:18 +0000

NATO is very much a product of the the Cold War and I do believe it is unneeded in today’s world. I also fervently believe that the EU should distance itself militarily from the US, so much so that I would love to see a complete US military withdrawal from Europe. Now Steve you have said that this would result in “a big hole in European defence structures.” Now I have to ask; from what does Europe need defending against? You speak of potential Russian belligerence, why? Russia is a major power with its own interests which may at times run contrary to those of the EU, but it is by no means the type of country to start a war over trivial diplomatic quibbles.
Peace on the European continent cannot be secured by US militarism or by increased EU militarism. That said, I do believe that the EU needs some kind of unified command structure and flexible, organic and highly mobile armed forces which are specifically designed to deal with the challenges of the 21st century.
What we do not need is the kind of EU army designed to repel a full scale Russian invasion; a a scenario which only belongs in the past and the deranged minds of Cold War fantasists.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 24 May 2010 19:30:45 +0000

Thanks for the comment Ralf, you are close on the numbers its 5: Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Austria and Malta.

We will see if the EDA and practice gained from the Partnership for Peace, EUFOR, Bosnia and Rapid Reaction Force lead to anything!

By: Ralf Grahn

Ralf Grahn — Mon, 24 May 2010 19:17:58 +0000

Stephen,

The majority of EU member states are NATO members as well. Only six, if I remember correctly, are not; most of them on the periphery.

In my view, a common EU defence is a natural development, but old habits die hard, so the first step would be permanent structured cooperation between willing and able member states.
.-= Ralf Grahn´s last blog ..EU and eurozone membership paradoxes =-.