EU force starts Bosnian mission

Winner · Dec 2, 2004

Replacing NATO seen as key test for Union

SARAJEVO, Bosnia and Herzegovina In a move seen as a significant step toward building a common European defense policy, the European Union assumes control of peacekeeping in Bosnia on Thursday, taking over from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The military operation, the largest by the EU to date, is seen as a crucial test of the military capabilities of Union nations, as well as their ability to act in unison, as the EU seeks to develop its own coherent military force independent of NATO.

Senior Western officials here and in Brussels say the deployment is essential to ensure that Bosnia remains peaceful as NATO turns over responsibilities nine years after it first deployed troops to help end the country's civil war.

NATO leaves with one key task unfulfilled: the arrest of the two top Bosnian Serb leaders during the war, Radovan Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic, who have been wanted since first being indicted in 1995 for alleged war crimes. NATO has mounted a number of high-profile raids in recent months with the avowed aim of capturing either man. Now the European Union is charged with that mission.

But even as European delegates gathered in Sarajevo to welcome the handover, many here expressed ambivalence about the deployment. Bosnian Muslims in particular remember Europe's reluctance to intervene during the conflict, which lasted from 1992 to 1995. Some critics have questioned the need for the mission, and say the creation of the new European force has less to do with Bosnia's needs than the EU's ambitions as a military power.

The Bosnia mission follows two similar EU peacekeeping operations last year: in Macedonia, where about 1,000 EU troops were involved, and a short-term operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which involved more than 1,500 EU troops.

"This is a large step for the EU," General John Reith of Britain, who will be the EU force's Belgium-based operational commander, said this week, adding that the Bosnia operation was "much more complex" than those last year.

Another British officer, Major General David Leakey, who will be the EU commander in Bosnia, takes over an operation that has changed substantially since NATO first sent troops to the country in 1995. At that time, 60,000 troops were deployed to help enforce the Dayton peace accords, the agreement that brought an end to fighting between Serbian, Croatian and Muslim forces in Bosnia in a conflict that claimed more than 200,000 lives.

Now the force comprises about 7,000 troops. Most are European, acting under the NATO banner. About 1,000 U.S. troops will be replaced, mainly by Finnish troops. NATO will keep about 300 soldiers in Sarajevo.

Reith said the operation would bring a greater focus on tackling organized crime and corruption, which he said were a bigger threat to Bosnia's security than any risk of fighting between Serbs, Croats and Muslims. The force is expected to remain for around three years, he said.

Some officials in Brussels hope that the EU deployment in Bosnia may herald the development of a significant, cohesive military and diplomatic force that other powers in the world - namely Washington - should take seriously.

This latest step follows a new EU initiative to develop so-called battlegroups, forces of about 1,500 troops that can be deployed quickly. The groups are made up of troops from a single country or from a combination of countries. This is important politically because it shows EU governments willing to act together, as well as increasing participation by countries like the Scandinavian nations that have not traditionally contributed militarily.

John Palmer, director of the European Policy Center in Brussels, said of the Bosnia operation: "It's a small military force, but it's important politically: It's about the EU acting together."

NATO's presence in Bosnia is credited with stabilizing the country. Nevertheless, some local commentators are less than enthusiastic about the arrival of the EU force.

"It looks like Bosnia is being used as a testing ground for the European Union's army" said Antonia Prlenda, the defense correspondent for the Bosnian daily Oslobodjenje. "It is of benefit for the EU, but not so much for Bosnia."

Sources and informations:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/01/news/nato.html

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=6973188

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4060739.stm#

AVN · Dec 2, 2004

ATM 100% of the voters thinks "Yes, EU needs its own independent armed forces to be more important in international system."

I can only agree with them

Winner · Dec 2, 2004

AVN said:
ATM 100% of the voters thinks "Yes, EU needs its own independent armed forces to be more important in international system."

I can only agree with them

There is always SeleucusNicator

kryszcztov · Dec 2, 2004

Many claim that the UN is obsolete, which isn't true and to which we can find a fix. NATO really is the obsolete organization, since the USSR is no more, and since the USA have gone completely crazy, and since the EU is becoming a real economical force. Therefore I'm glad we Europeans start to take care of our own scars.

I was really pissed off to see NATO destroying everything in Serbia in 1999. From what I see, the whole area is far from being stable, but we need a strong positive support from Europe to solve the issues.

In hindsight, one of the greatest achievements made by de Gaulle was to not let France carry on drinking Mother America's milk. I think the guy was a few decades ahead of his time, even back in 1944. If it was of me, I'd remove France from NATO completely, and take the troops to the UN and the EU forces. NATO is just a club for rich western countries anyway (plus some new eastern countries which still aren't that poor).

stormbind · Dec 2, 2004

I support NATO.

Hakim · Dec 2, 2004

I think Europe should have some military forces to do stuff it usually throws into the US lap. However, Nato and European forces has different purposes and are not alternatives to each other.

kronic · Dec 2, 2004

I'm missing the "Yes, EU needs its own independent armed forces but not to be more important in international system/for other reasons" option.

So I chose the last option.

Bronx Warlord · Dec 2, 2004

In hindsight, one of the greatest achievements made by de Gaulle was to not let France carry on drinking Mother America's milk.

To bad we had to liberate your nation for you, nevermind that fact that a good sized chunk of the French sided with the Nazi's in the form of Vichy. Figures, I'll take a rifle never fired, droped once. :rolleyes:

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

It's just to bad that you can't say " One of the greatest achievements made by de Gaulle was holding back and defeating the Nazi's with Frances larger army and superior tanks "

I can see how you don't think the UN is worthless, after all your goverment was making millions apon millions from oil-for-food and dosen't pay much of the bill for the UN itself. Please take the French troops that still, after fifty years, have a tendancy to run, and take the UN while your at it.

Hotpoint · Dec 2, 2004

Bronx Warlord said:
Too bad we had to liberate your nation for you

And they helped create your nation so aren't you even?

Without French arms and Troops Britain would have beaten the Rebel Colonies... damn Frenchies

-0blivion- · Dec 2, 2004

Bronx Warlord said:
Please take the French troops that still, after fifty years, have a tendancy to run, and take the UN while your at it.

Bit disrespectful to the 250,000 French soldiers that died in WWII.

Winner · Dec 3, 2004

kronic said:
I'm missing the "Yes, EU needs its own independent armed forces but not to be more important in international system/for other reasons" option.

So I chose the last option.

What are the "other reasons"?

AVN · Dec 3, 2004

Good to see that so many people think that we should have an independant EU army. I wonder how many of them think we should leave the NATO.
Personally I would support such a move once we have a strong EU army.

Winner · Dec 3, 2004

EUFOR is just the beginning (i hope). EU must develope true, combat-capable military units. Current initiative, so-called "battlegroups" (strange name for peacekeeping forces), is step in right direction, but i am talking here about REAL force.

Example: in some country on the periphery of "eurosphere" civil war break out. Than EU sends about 50,000 troops with air and naval support, equiped with modern APC's, tanks, helicopters, to enforce peace. This is what i imagine when someone says "peace enforcing mission".

EU currently don't have capabilites for such operation and in consequence is dependant on USA.

(BTW, one my friend said, that if we fire USA from NATO, everything will be fine

I don't share this opinion, but it is quite good reflexion of current problems in EU-USA relations

)

Gladi · Dec 3, 2004

Bronx Warlord said:
Please take the French troops that still, after fifty years, have a tendancy to run, and take the UN while your at it.

'Day
What the heck are you talking about? Most troops retreat if they are losing, and most men run if they are losing badly. But most French troops fought until government surrender nad quite a lot fought still. And where have they run from since?

Steph · Dec 3, 2004

It's funny how people always say the French just runaway in 1940, an never say the British just struggle to board ships at Dunkerque and flee to the homeland, while the French army tried to delay the German long enough for the Brits to save their ass...

And that many French wanted to go to England to continue the fight, but were abandonned at Dunkerque by the Brits...

Note that I don't want to say here the British are less brave than the French. But all the western powers were beaten by the German Blitzkrieg. All the allies were not ready for that. And if the US had had an army in Belgium in 1940, it would probably had suffered the same fate.

What is the difference? The British had the channel to save them, and give them time to adapt and build new equipment, and design new tactics, with a good support from their colonies. The US had even a bigger body of water to protect them, and build an even bigger war machine.

But France hadn't such protection, and was beaten and occupied. Were the French bad at war? Not anymore than all the other countries in 1940-42. The only thing we can say for sure is the Germans were better.

However, some French didn't accept the defeat. They resisted in France, and were a good help to disrupt the ennemy lines of supply. What would have been the result of DDay if the German were free to move their forces and supply in France with no hindrance from resistance, and no fear of revolt?
Some parts of France liberated themselves after DDay. Haute-Savoie (my home place :goodjob:

) Interior French Force (FFI = French troop in France, FFL = free French) push the occupants out with no help of allied troops in august 1944 (first French occupied area to do so).
Outside, Free French troops rallied what they could from the troops in the colonies, and continue the fight.

kronic · Dec 3, 2004

Winner said:
What are the "other reasons"?

In my case it would have been more independence. While this of course strengthens the EU's importance in the world, I interprete your "importance" as both, the capability and the will to meddle in world affairs. This is not, what I mean with independence.

h4ppy · Dec 3, 2004

Gladi said:
And where have they run from since?

Vietnam and other excolonies?

Gladi · Dec 3, 2004

h4ppy said:
Vietnam and other excolonies?

Bright day
I do not know much about Indochina war of independance, but I believe French retreated from there, and not simply ran away. And had much less trauma about it than Americans.
As far as I know, the only truly serious war was in Algiers, where they had to invade it once again to put down their own rebelious troops.

Oh and let us not forget all other surrender-monkeys nations then! Portuguese, Dutch, British (for Suez canal crisis), Russians, Americans, Greeks and Argentinians?

PantheraTigris2 · Dec 3, 2004

Hotpoint said:
And they helped create your nation so aren't you even?

Without French arms and Troops Britain would have beaten the Rebel Colonies... damn Frenchies

You are over-rating the vitalness of France's influence on U.S. independence. Their role was not as decisive as you seem to suggest.

As far as the EU military force goes... sounds fine. Good to see them doing something. They should at least be able to take care of their own backyard, so U.S. troops can finally leave Bosnia, for example. Though, I wouldn't get too carried away with this thing, since the EU's long-term future is uncertain. But meantime, something like this is overdue, IMO.

WickedSmurf · Dec 3, 2004

Yes, EU needs its own independent armed forces to be more important in international system.

I think that is pretty obvious.

EU force starts Bosnian mission

Do you support EU's effort to create its own military capabilites?

Yes, EU needs its own independent armed forces to be more important in international system.

Yes, but only as addition of NATO, which must remain the priority.

No, EU military is needless.

I don't care about EU and its military.

Diverse in Unity

Deity

Diverse in Unity

Deity

Retenta personam!

Parasocial

Deity

Squad Leader

Rome Treaty Legions

Musically inclined

Diverse in Unity

Deity

Diverse in Unity

The ignored thread killer

Multi Many Tasks man

Deity

You sir, pineapple?

The ignored thread killer

Deity

pr0

Similar threads