Intervention in the Central African Republic and failure of a common European defense policy

[Adar]

The French intervention in the Central African Republic may be the final nail in the coffin for the common European defense policy and Battle Group concept that was initiated by British, German and French politicians in 2003.

So far the total cost of the Battlegroups have cost several billion Euros but no Battlegroup has ever been committed to a foreign intervention. In 2008 the Swedish government wanted to send the Nordic Battlegroup on a mission to Chad within the EUFOR force but where prevented by EU members who did not wish to pay for the costs associated with sending a Battlegroup. Instead France had to take the lead with 2500 soldiers while Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Poland and Romania also sent significant forces. In the case for Sweden the most suitable units were already committed to the Battlegroup which resulted in this video to commemorate the event:


Likewise in 2011 Sweden struggled as EU bureaucracy almost prevented the expeditionary air wing from being detached and sent to Libya for Operation Unified Protector where the Gripen fighters contributed significantly to reconnaissance efforts with over 150 000 photos. But now France is facing the same bureaucratic hurdles as British and German politicians for internal reasons have prohibited the French military to commit it's Battlegroup and instead must send other units to stabilize the conflict.

As a Swede I have been feeling this issue for a long time but the issue is escalating as Britain is now also becoming increasingly unwilling to support EU forces which effectively puts an end to any hope of creating an interventionist coalition within the EU. Instead it looks like Coalitions of the willing followed by bilateral agreements are still going to be a necessity for any European intervention.

http://www.carnegieeurope.eu/strateg...en#wholeanswer
Nothing illustrates the reasons for that huge discrepancy better than the depressing saga of the EU battle groups, a small, collective rapid reaction force that was supposed to give Europe the means to quickly intervene in any developing crisis.
It was London and Paris that had come up with this idea in 2004. The battle groups were to be the answer to Europe’s notoriously slow response to crises and conflicts. The aim was to have these forces on standby for six months. They were supposed to be deployable within days and could be sustainable for thirty days.
Of course, this concept was already the result of a radical downsizing of the initial Franco-British defense plans for Europe. Remember the St-Malo summit in 1998. It was there that former British prime minister Tony Blair and then French president Jacques Chirac announced the “headline goals” for European defense. They wanted Europe to have no less than sixty thousand soldiers at its disposal for peacekeeping and other missions.
Nothing came of the headline goals except the much more modest idea of battle groups. And now, it would seem that nothing will come of the battle groups, either.
Just weeks before today’s long-awaited EU summit on defense, European military and security experts drew up plans to finally send an EU battle group into its first mission ever. They wanted it to go into the Central African Republic to help France’s mission there.
But it is Britain that is currently leading the battle group. London’s reaction to a possible EU mission in the Central African Republic was so hostile that Paris officially never even raised the issue of calling in the battle group.
The reason is the UK referendum on British EU membership planned for 2017: Britain’s Conservatives, already under huge pressure, do not want to give the country’s Eurosceptics any additional leverage. They were scared, too, by an article published this week in Britain’s Daily Telegraph that suggested the Commission wanted to set up a European army.
The result was that France – which is now Europe’s unquestioned leader of defense – dispatched twelve hundred of its own troops to the Central African Republic in order to prevent the ethnic and religious conflict from plunging this former French colony into a full-scale civil war.
Paris then began to request bilateral aid from its EU partners – who, it should be said, had all endorsed this military intervention. France did receive some support for air transport, but no other country has so far been willing to send troops.
Nor have France’s call for financial support been successful. President François Hollande, having been forced into sharply cutting the defense budget, has asked for a permanent EU fund, to be run by the Commission, to finance armed operations. Britain strongly opposes this.
Germany could help. But that would require an enormous change for Chancellor Angela Merkel who has stifled any debate over her country’s security and defense strategy.
As it is, the idea of German troops on standby for a battle group mission is anathema to the way Berlin makes decisions. Any mission requires a mandate from the parliament. One wonders why Berlin ever signed up to the battle groups in the first place.
So where does that leave Europe? Despite the instability of its neighborhoods, most European leaders have no political ambition to think and act strategically. That myopia will be very costly.
As it stands, the close military alliance forged since 1998 between Britain and France seems to be over. And without British and French cooperation over defense and security issues, there is little hope for Europe building a credible security strategy in the foreseeable future.

[Treize]

Can't say this is a bad thing.

We have better things to do than interfere in barbaric tribal wars.

[AqD]

Can't say this is a bad thing.

We have better things to do than interfere in barbaric tribal wars.

Tribal or not, you can't even figure out who's the good guys or bad guys in Africa, since most of governments there are awfully corrupt, unpopular and incompetent. It's like helping South Vietnam against North Vietnam.

[Vanoi]

Of course we have better things to do Trieze, but sticking out heads in the sand like the conflicts don't exist isn't a better option.

[Knight of Heaven]

Of course we have better things to do Trieze, but sticking out heads in the sand like the conflicts don't exist isn't a better option.

Escalating the conflict, as shown by various cases arround the world doesnt help the issue. it seldom does, armed conflicts, should be avoidable, and avoiding them doesnt equate as putting the heads in the sand.
However bothom line Most EU countries, and more importantly their electorate, dont want any armed conflict of anykind. Moreover at this time, that the EU is in a fragile economic and social situation. Hard to understand billions being wasted in military for conflicts that arent our own, or more importantly that would get us nowhere, while the rate of poverty, is rising, and expected to rise greatly in the EU for the next 10 to 20 years.
I understand where Adar comes from though, and has alot to do with EU not being made from the start with that kind of concerns in specific. Never realy had too, since NATO already exists. Maybe not a good fit anymore for the EU, i remember some time ago, there was talks about the creation of a European army. But that was about it.
Honestly, i think most europeans are increasing sceptical of EU and the Euro zone as it is, much less about the creation of a comon european army. Specialy when the EU parlament, isnt sufragated by its "citizens" ( a thing i dont belive will happen anytime soon, if ever, as there is no such things as european citizens, in concrete terms anyway).

Adar you totally fail to even acknowledge the fact that your view is not universal. Many states don't want to outsource their defence or foreign policy.

Indeed, nor are able to. Wars are actualy very expensive things.

I don't think the colonial powers understood the social dynamics at all. They studied and treated the natives as subhuman animals; nothing more. As the history books tell us, the lines were drawn primarily upon resource interests. I think the coincidence of the fallout makes perfect sense.

Having said that, the fallout certainly has helped to extend the exploitation of the continent into the 21st century; however, it's quite apparent the West is struggling to maintain its resource interests under the guise of humanitarian militancy. I get a laugh out of the people who actually believe the West is there to save the natives from themselves.

And there is that of course.

[Stavroforos]

The EU is not at a level where a common European "defense" force or action can realistically happen, which is evidenced by the fact that one hasn't happened yet. I can't say I mind, since I'm not really a fan of EU money going towards wars when that is not at all the point of the EU. Leave it up to the member-states and existing alliances to take care of policing their former colonies.

[Treize]

Call me racist if you wish but I truely believe most of the common people in these kind of countries are underdevelopped. Their culture has progressed very little since the dawn of humanity. They skipped from being hunter-gatherers and small time farmers straight to western stuff being brought to them. They are still tribal people who will kill eachother with machetes over trivial issues.

One look at the IQ charts proves my point.

These people really need to become civilised through trail and error like we did.

[Ciciro]

Call me racist if you wish but I truely believe most of the common people in these kind of countries are underdevelopped. Their culture has progressed very little since the dawn of humanity. They skipped from being hunter-gatherers and small time farmers straight to western stuff being brought to them. They are still tribal people who will kill eachother with machetes over trivial issues.

One look at the IQ charts proves my point.

These people really need to become civilised through trail and error like we did.

Cant really become civilized when you're fighting civil wars half the time, most of the population is in crippling debt, and no one seems to care about what happens to them.

[Vanoi]

Call me racist if you wish but I truely believe most of the common people in these kind of countries are underdevelopped. Their culture has progressed very little since the dawn of humanity. They skipped from being hunter-gatherers and small time farmers straight to western stuff being brought to them. They are still tribal people who will kill eachother with machetes over trivial issues.

One look at the IQ charts proves my point.

These people really need to become civilised through trail and error like we did.

Well no. I wouldn't call this tribal conflicts as tribal identify has little to do with it. Culture too. Religion and power has more to do with war in Africa right now than culture and tribal identify. You can thank Europeans for drawing the lines too straight. We basically bunched up a ton of people who often didn't get along with each other. Their low IQ comes form their lack of education and lack of food. Many Africans are mal-nourished and that affects your intelligence and how well it develops. A lot.

Remember Trieze is wasn't even 100 years ago that we were calling ourselves civilized yet we plunged the world into two gigantic World Wars and numerous smaller ones often over very trivial issues.

[Stavroforos]

Well no. I wouldn't call this tribal conflicts as tribal identify has little to do with it. Culture too. Religion and power has more to do with war in Africa right now than culture and tribal identify. You can thank Europeans for drawing the lines too straight. We basically bunched up a ton of people who often didn't get along with each other. Their low IQ comes form their lack of education and lack of food. Many Africans are mal-nourished and that affects your intelligence and how well it develops. A lot.

Remember Trieze is wasn't even 100 years ago that we were calling ourselves civilized yet we plunged the world into two gigantic World Wars and numerous smaller ones often over very trivial issues.

"We"

Don't talk like that, Vanoi.

[Vanoi]

"We"

Don't talk like that, Vanoi.

America had its own African colony, but i may not sure how Liberia worked out post-colonial independence.

[Ciciro]

America had its own African colony, but i may not sure how Liberia worked out post-colonial independence.

Less African colony, more colony for Africans.

What we really need to do is redraw the map so it isn't as ed up.

[Manco]

Call me racist if you wish but I truely believe most of the common people in these kind of countries are underdevelopped. Their culture has progressed very little since the dawn of humanity. They skipped from being hunter-gatherers and small time farmers straight to western stuff being brought to them. They are still tribal people who will kill eachother with machetes over trivial issues.

Ignorance is not an excuse when you've got ing wikipedia at your disposal. Even one of the worst hellholes now, Congo, was once a prosperous kingdom and had probably been better off politically if they had never been subjected to Portuguese and Belgian 'influence'.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

The French intervention in the Central African Republic may be the final nail in the coffin for the common European defense policy and Battle Group concept that was initiated by British, German and French politicians in 2003.

So far the total cost of the Battlegroups have cost several billion Euros but no Battlegroup has ever been committed to a foreign intervention. In 2008 the Swedish government wanted to send the Nordic Battlegroup on a mission to Chad within the EUFOR force but where prevented by EU members who did not wish to pay for the costs associated with sending a Battlegroup. Instead France had to take the lead with 2500 soldiers while Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Poland and Romania also sent significant forces. In the case for Sweden the most suitable units were already committed to the Battlegroup which resulted in this video to commemorate the event:

I think the idea of the EU battle-group was one that was implemented far too soon, too far ahead of any possible common direction being established between the EU member states. Maybe in the future it might have worked, providing the EU went down the path of Federalization, but currently they are rather a waste of money of military personnel, who as you've pointed out would be better deployed in bi-lateral agreements, indeed NATO and the current bilateral alliances are all most EU states really need currently. The EU currently still is in effect a trading block. It has no real need of it's own armed forces yet.

As a Swede I have been feeling this issue for a long time but the issue is escalating as Britain is now also becoming increasingly unwilling to support EU forces which effectively puts an end to any hope of creating an interventionist coalition within the EU. Instead it looks like Coalitions of the willing followed by bilateral agreements are still going to be a necessity for any European intervention.

Indeed you highlight the point very well here. In the UK we're pretty much war weary. The UK has been one of the largest contributors to the United States war on terror, for seemingly very little gain. Their is no will in the population (rightly or wrongly) to get involved, or put our finances on the line for another far flung country (Though i would say that actually this is a bit hypocritical, as the British armed forces have been providing logistics support to the French in Mali). This of course has defeated the entire idea behind the combined EU forces, as their is no one leadership or common direction currently. If one state refuses to participate for whatever reason rightly or wrong, the whole thing collapses, so i realistically can't see how they thought the Battle-groups beyond defense of the EU itself would have been a good idea.

[Treize]

I agree with you but I fail to see how this is somehow our responsibility to solve.
The people themselves need to get their act together. Every time foreigners come and bring stability just continues a few years later.

Might be better if the damn EU just lifted those import barriers against African goods (vegetables and such), would help the continent more in the long term.

[Adar]

I agree with you but I fail to see how this is somehow our responsibility to solve.
The people themselves need to get their act together. Every time foreigners come and bring stability just continues a few years later.

Might be better if the damn EU just lifted those import barriers against African goods (vegetables and such), would help the continent more in the long term.

To a large degree I agree with you but you come off as a terrible bigot when you put it the way you do.

I work with a lot of Africans and the issue with Western Intervention is not that there is a lack of intelligent people to make use of it.

The problem is rather that most African nations lack a solid process on how to make sure that the right people are the ones who build infrastructure. All nations are filled with a lot of people who lack the intelligence, integrity or initative to great great things and so far natural selection seem to have been the only way to put the ahead.

And when "bringing stability" it essentially mean that the people who are politically intelligent but otherwise limited people get a significant advantage that they then use to maintain their own relative advantage.

This tend lead to ridiculous power games that is the mess that give many Africans a very bad reputation for business.

Therefore I refuse to work with aid but I do look for collaborators willing to do serious research which may in some cases be taking place in Africa.

[Stavroforos]

It is a great coincidence that somehow every border created by parting colonial powers around the world served the purpose to divide and cause strife. Definitely couldn't have been planned.

[YukonTrooper]

It is a great coincidence that somehow every border created by parting colonial powers around the world served the purpose to divide and cause strife. Definitely couldn't have been planned.

I don't think the colonial powers understood the social dynamics at all. They studied and treated the natives as subhuman animals; nothing more. As the history books tell us, the lines were drawn primarily upon resource interests. I think the coincidence of the fallout makes perfect sense.

Having said that, the fallout certainly has helped to extend the exploitation of the continent into the 21st century; however, it's quite apparent the West is struggling to maintain its resource interests under the guise of humanitarian militancy. I get a laugh out of the people who actually believe the West is there to save the natives from themselves.

[Caelifer_1991]

Have many of you thought to consider that there's no good reason why Mali and it's northern territories should remain together? I'm sure those citizens of the Mali and Songhai empires would be rolling in their graves at the idea of their descendants sharing the same country with each other. Indeed if there's a single example of an African country that's supposed to split into two separate States since Sudan, its Mali. The French involvement will do nothing more than to extend any tensions there into the indefinite future. On that note, the sooner the Congo breaks apart into States that make sense the better as well.

[Mangalore]

Have many of you thought to consider that there's no good reason why Mali and it's northern territories should remain together? I'm sure those citizens of the Mali and Songhai empires would be rolling in their graves at the idea of their descendants sharing the same country with each other. Indeed if there's a single example of an African country that's supposed to split into two separate States since Sudan, its Mali. The French involvement will do nothing more than to extend any tensions there into the indefinite future. On that note, the sooner the Congo breaks apart into States that make sense the better as well.

The problem is in all those cases the secessionist forces do not really have a great vision of their country in mind and setting up failed states run by warlords murdering and raping themselves through the populace is even worse than the current status quo.