| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| German plans for Euro-army ’show Blair is deceiving Britain’ |
| 2003-10-24 |
| Hands up, who’s surprised. EFL 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 Germany army officials on the future of European defence proved that Tony Blair was deceiving the British people by claiming there were no plans to create a unified EU military force. The document reflects a common view at the highest levels of the Germany military that the only way to achieve efficient and effective defence in Europe, where spending on the military is far lower than in America, is the full pooling of national resources. We saw that coming. It says plans for an EU army should be based on the "democratic principles" defined by the Convention on the Future of Europe, which drew up the draft EU constitution. Oh! It’s just another "tidying up" exercise then. "Consequently, a European army legitimised and financed by the European Parliament is the visionary goal of Germany policy." It adds: "The European army should have joint structures that go beyond the ones already in place. Therefore there is a need for a joint defence system, common legislation and standardisation." Assuming that a fully fledged EU government would have been set up within about 10 years [this is just a "conspiracy theory" - see below], it adds: "The army would report to the EU government and to the EU Parliament. Through a deployment law Parliament should decide if deploying troops is an option or not." "...an option or not." That’s like France and Germany sending troops to help depose Saddam was an "option." Addressing the sensitive issue of nuclear capabilities, it says these should also be "integrated within the European defence system". Britain and France are the only EU countries with a nuclear deterrent. The memorandum acknowledges the need to define the future relationship with Nato. "A decision should be made about possible collaborations of the EU army with the UN, the Security Council or with Nato itself. Isn’t it about time NATO reconsiders the status of Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg as members? The document reflects the long-term thinking of many German politicians and military officials. Although Berlin’s official policy is far less ambitious than that outlined in the memorandum, the extent to which Gerhard Schroder’s government is pushing for closer integration is already causing serious concern in London. But not enough to make Blair do anything serious to stop it. At his monthly press conference yesterday, Tony Blair, who launched plans for more co-operation on European defence at St Malo in 1998, said the Government would not support German-led plans for an independent European defence headquarters. The ideas also have the backing of France and Belgium. Mr Blair would oppose any EU defence plans threatening the supremacy of Nato, which he described as the cornerstone of European security. "We don’t want duplication and we certainly don’t want competition with Nato." I’d like to believe you, Tony. Really. Mr Blair stressed that EU defence should develop in a way compatible with Nato. But Europe should have a proper defence capability where Nato or America did not wish to get involved. And that would happen when ... um ... ? As the Tories launched a national petition for a referendum on the EU constitution yesterday, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said those in favour of Europe were failing to make the case for British participation effectively enough Or maybe they know that keeping schtum is their best chance of success. But he gave warning of uncritical pro-EU sentiment from "starry-eyed integrationists whose ideological fervour gives ammunition to superstate conspiracy theorists". That theory has plenty of evidence to support it. Lying b******. Bush needs to kick Blair’s butt on this one. |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #14 Aris, To have a true EU Army is an all or nothing situation.If the EU military consists of national forces,it is an alliance,not a unified force.Any time a member nation disagrees with policy it would withhold it's forces-as France,Germany did in Iraq runup with Turkey.French defiance of basic EU economic policy indicates powerlessness of current EU.For there to be a viable integrated EU military,there can be no national components-no German panzer division assigned,no British submarines assigned,no Greek F-16 sq. assigned,etc.There would have to be a common EU military manned by individuals and financed by common tax on all EU members.Just as there are no Texas aircraft carriers,Alaskan ski battalions,Ohio airborne divisions paid for by those states assigned to US military.There are simply units with individuals from Texas,Ohio,Alaska,etc. paid for by taxes on everyone in US.What about State National Guards?First no state can afford to pay for its own active duty unit.Major equipment is given to state National Guard units by federal govt.No state could afford to buy its own F-16s for example.The US system means Massachussets cannot withhold its military if its' Governor doesn't approve of US policy,because it has no military to withhold. If the EU military is not to be just NATO LITE(no US),it will require a genuine EU,with EU foreign policy,EU common taxation,EU common weapons,training,doctrine.Of neccessity this will require vastly weakened national Governments. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2003-10-25 12:20:44 AM |
| #13 Stephen> You want to make it sound an all-or-nothing situation but that's not the case. E.g. there's the example of simply having a defense "solidarity" clause in the new constitution, in which participating member states pledge assistance in case of an enemy attack. Britain wants to veto this. Pledging to defend each other is *bad* for some reason it seems, even if UK itself is allowed to opt-out. There's the idea, also expressed in the draft constitution, of the EU possibly asking member states which have the capabilities *and* the willingness to undertake missions. (no integrated army, just utilisation of national ones). Nah, Britain ofcourse doesn't want that either. Why? It supposedly also undermines NATO or something, somehow. rkb> I know what "giving the finger" means, I just didn't know if "hiding behind one's finger" existed as a phrase in English. I have the distinct impression that others have repeated the same xenophobic song in a neighbouring thread. How nice to condemn entire nations for things that happened 60 years ago. Yes *of course* Germany can turn evil again. America can also turn evil and so can the UK. Can you prove it won't happen? No, I guess you can't. Nobody can claim to know what the future will bring. Sharing one's nuclear capability shouldn't be done lightly. But frankly I doubt *anyone* outside of Britain (a Britain filled with xenophobic tabloids) is very much scared of Germany anymore. Perhaps Poland has a different attitude, I wouldn't know, but you'd have to ask a Pole for that. And even Poland would be *lots* more scared of Russia (which already has lots of nukes) than of Germany. Besides... we already know that UK itself would never partake in such a defense alliance, therefore it wouldn't be *UK* that would be sharing its capabilities, it would be France. And I don't believe other countries have any moral right to stop her from so sharing them with Germany (or with the EU as a whole) if she so wants to. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-10-24 9:27:30 PM |
| #12 The unwillingness of European leadership to speak plainly on EU/NATO issue is not a good sign for future.Let's face it,for anyone to speak of seperate EU and NATO forces is either lying or is an idiot.For example,Germany is not going to have an EU panzer division and a different NATO panzer division.She will have 2 divisions to be used as German govt. decides.For now all anyone is really talking about are 2 planning staffs-one w/Americans,one w/out.There cannot be a true EU army until national governments have been rendered powerless.If there are national components in EU army,the national govt. can withhold them from use if doesn't approve of action.There cannot be an EU ARMY until there are no national components,just a homogenous military. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2003-10-24 8:48:13 PM |
| #11 Aris, in case this is a phrase you're not familiar with, to "give the finger" means in English to give a rude gesture that says f*ck you to the recipient. Apologies if you already knew that ... didn't want to assume. |
| Posted by: rkb 2003-10-24 7:40:28 PM |
| #10 apart from France and Belgium (and Greece?), which may have found German rule agreeable in WWII, who in Europe is going to be comfortable with the idea of German command without the mediating effect of American power? Yes. This question has not yet been put to rest in Europe. Nor is this the first time that the German military has sought use/control/influence over nuclear arms developed by allied nations. During the Cold War, when NATO was discussing whether and how US & British nuclear arms might come under the command of NATO commanders from other countries, Tom Lehrer wrote a satirical song called the MLF Lullaby. Some of the lyrics (from memory): Sleep baby, sleep - in peace may you slumber, No danger lurks, your peace to encumber. We've got the missiles the peace to determine And one of the fingers on the button will be German. Why shouldn't they have nuclear warheads? England says No, but they are just soreheads. I say a bygone should be a bygone - Let's make peace the way we did in Stanleyville and Saigon. Once all the Germans were warlike and mean but That couldn't happen again. We taught them a lesson in 1918 and They've scarcely bothered us since then .... So sleep baby, sleep, the Sandman will linger, We hope our buddies won't give us the finger. MLF will scare Brezhnev - I hope he is half as scared as I! Sharing the ability to deploy nuclear weapons will not be done lightly and -- fairly or not -- memories of World War I and World War II will play a role in public opinion on the matter. One reason Blair would like to gloss over the whole issue of an EU defence force. |
| Posted by: rkb 2003-10-24 7:37:12 PM |
| #9 And yes, I did write "traitorous politicians like Tony Blair". His determination to betray British sovereignty is nothing short of treachery. I think an important issue is - apart from France and Belgium (and Greece?), which may have found German rule agreeable in WWII, who in Europe is going to be comfortable with the idea of German command without the mediating effect of American power? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-10-24 4:05:05 PM |
| #8 ...And yes, I did write "traitorous politicians like Tony Blair". His determination to betray British sovereignty is nothing short of treachery. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-10-24 11:51:07 AM |
| #7 Aris, You're right. I wouldn't go so far as to call Tony Blair a worm, but he's certainly trying to worm his way through avoiding having to be honest with any of the interested parties (the general UK population, true NATO allies and the EU federalists). Despite what you say, I don't think you'd find many European nations prepared to join the Franco-German axis in a military alliance, for the simple reason that it would be ineffectual. It wouldn't work independently of NATO, unless its members are prepared to spend one hell of a lot more on defence than they currently do (and do you think France and Germany will do that?) and remaining as part of NATO it would have to toe the NATO line; being under UN/UNSC command it would be barracked in perpetuity or limited to overseeing atrocities in third world countries, so what's the point? For other nations, joining such a body would be like entrusting your home's security to the grey-haired Professors of the Department of Pacifist Studies in the local university. Eastern Europe won't be interested, and neither will any other members of "New Europe", unless traitorous politicians like Blair put starry-eyed integrationism ahead of hard-nosed practicality. Wait and see. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-10-24 11:47:39 AM |
| #6 Bulldog> He could have been an actual leader and said "Yes, the other European countries plan to form a common army -- it's possibly a useful idea for many of the continental nations, but UK shall *not* join in such a venture in the predictable future as we feel it goes against our own priorities of retaining full responsibility for our own defense and foreign policy". See? Neither hiding it from the public, nor sabotaging the rest of the Union, neither forcing his country to do anything its public isn't willing to do. In short, being an actual leader rather than a worm. The "hiding behind his finger" thing is a Greek expression - I typed it out and then paused and wondered if it's actually used in English or not. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-10-24 11:05:56 AM |
| #5 Secondly because by pretending to hide it, he makes people assume it's a bad thing. Close, Aris. He is hiding it, and that's because he knows people will regard it as a bad thing, if they know what it is he's actually up to. It's called conning. ...trying to hide behind his finger (does this expression exist in English btw?) You can say "hide behind his hat." Never heard of "finger" before. Where has TGA got to?! |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-10-24 10:28:09 AM |
| #4 bienvenue translates as draft treaty? Geez, my French is rusty. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-10-24 10:20:01 AM |
| #3 "Alternatively, is there a copy of the proposed EU constitution available?" This is the draft: http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN Or more specifically here: http://european-convention.eu.int/DraftTreaty.asp?lang=EN Pick your language. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-10-24 9:54:02 AM |
| #2 note bulldog's and aris's comments, it does seem Tony will have a hard time maintaining the middle way - a britain that is part of the european socio-economic community, yet remains fully sovereign,not part of a federal superstate. From the comments here it seems that Tony cant thread the needle (I sympathize with his attempts to try) but then im not sure that Aris's eurofederalism really represents the state of things in europe - I note that both he AND bulldog have reasons to emphasize it. A comment from TGA might help. Alternatively, is there a copy of the proposed EU constitution available? Or is it not done yet? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-10-24 9:05:22 AM |
| #1 Blair needs his butt kicked for two reasons. First for trying to hide behind his finger (does this expression exist in English btw?) on the fact that European federalists do want (by definition) a federal state, which would include a defense alliance or preferably an integrated army. Secondly because by pretending to hide it, he makes people assume it's a bad thing. "Mr Blair would oppose any EU defence plans threatening the supremacy of NATO" Who is Blair to force NATO membership to the whole of Europe? Is this bastard forgetting yet again that there exist EU member-states that aren't part of NATO? Forgive me but I don't remember the EU or France or Germany or whatever trying to stop any Eastern European countries from becoming NATO member states. It's the vile Blair that wants to restrict the free options of these nations. It's Blair that wants to stop countries from forming any alliances that don't obey Big Brother NATO. What a democratic institution NATO is, btw, right? Go on opposing these plans for your own country, as long as you let other countries do as they will, rather than trying to bind them to your plans of unopposed "NATO Supremacy", Mr Blair. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-10-24 8:47:34 AM |