Lisbon and Neutrality

After the feral cats are taken care off I would hope that The Irish army would not be used against anyone. They are obviously incapable of resisting any outside power so who is the Irish Army to be used against.

Helium Three wrote:

http://www.eda.europa.eu/genericitem.aspx?id=146

Open the link to their Long Term Vision near the foot of that page. Have a look at paragraph nine on page six of that Vision.

There is no paragraph 9 on page 6.

Or is it that they don't want me to believe there is a paragraph 9 on page 6?

youngdan wrote:

After the feral cats are taken care off I would hope that The Irish army would not be used against anyone. They are obviously incapable of resisting any outside power so who is the Irish Army to be used against.

Actually, I think the council workers do the feral cats. And why not? After all there's a lot more council workers, although admittedly the little old ladies tend to side with the cats, and they're pretty tough.

The Irish army currently does emergency work and overseas peace-keeping.

Helium Three wrote:

Open the link to their Long Term Vision near the foot of that page. Have a look at paragraph nine on page six of that Vision.

This one?

Quote :

Globalisation will produce winners and losers, as between countries and regions, and within societies (whilst universal communication will make these disparities ever more apparent). The regions neighbouring Europe will face particular challenges. High fertility should see Africa’s population growing faster than anywhere else – up by 48% to 1.3 billion by 2025 – despite AIDS. The average African’s age is projected to be 22. Desertification may increasingly concentrate this young population in urban centres (11 African mega-cities of 5 million plus by 2025) – many of them without hope of employment. The implications for despair, humanitarian disaster and migratory pressures are obvious.

OK - I'm interested. What exactly would you be implying there?

The EDA is the body doing the implying there and they do it in the last line.

The implication is that the EU army is needed to keep out the masses. If we are to believe in this Mediterranian Union and African Union does it not appear that Africa is to be joined to the EU. If this is the case then the Africans will be welcome. This could not be the reason for the EU army.

Helium Three wrote:

The EDA is the body doing the implying there and they do it in the last line.

They're implying that Europe may have to defend itself from Africa at some point in the future. In the next paragaph they imply something similar about the Middle East.

You don't see these as reasonable concerns?

seinfeld wrote:

Helium Three wrote:

The EDA is the body doing the implying there and they do it in the last line.

They're implying that Europe may have to defend itself from Africa at some point in the future. In the next paragaph they imply something similar about the Middle East.

You don't see these as reasonable concerns?

I appreciate this is completely off-the-wall, but the EU says it's committed to the following:

The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities
provided by the Member States.

The last line of paragraph 9 there is:

The implications for despair, humanitarian disaster and migratory pressures are obvious.

It seems to me that there is a clear logical route from the EU's commitments in respect of its "operational capacity", to the implications of the statement above. I'm sure that I will be called naive for even suggesting that the internal breakdown of Africa might be of concern to a body that is actively engaged in, and formally committed to, trying to make the world a little better.

I'm sure the alternative, which presumably involves the displaced hordes of Africa crossing the Sahara, and paddling for Europe with their machetes between their teeth, strikes at least some posters as more probable.

ibis wrote:

seinfeld wrote:

Helium Three wrote:

The EDA is the body doing the implying there and they do it in the last line.

They're implying that Europe may have to defend itself from Africa at some point in the future. In the next paragaph they imply something similar about the Middle East.

You don't see these as reasonable concerns?

I appreciate this is completely off-the-wall, but the EU says it's committed to the following:

The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities
provided by the Member States.

The last line of paragraph 9 there is:

The implications for despair, humanitarian disaster and migratory pressures are obvious.

It seems to me that there is a clear logical route from the EU's commitments in respect of its "operational capacity", to the implications of the statement above. I'm sure that I will be called naive for even suggesting that the internal breakdown of Africa might be of concern to a body that is actively engaged in, and formally committed to, trying to make the world a little better.

I'm sure the alternative, which presumably involves the displaced hordes of Africa crossing the Sahara, and paddling for Europe with their machetes between their teeth, strikes at least some posters as more probable.

Not so sure. Look at Point 11:

So the prognosis is for tensions and strong migratory pres-
sures in the regions around Europe, at a time when Europe is
becoming increasingly dependent on the rest of the world,


I do however agree that an EU Defence Force will be primarily focused on trying to prevent disintegration of Government and Society in other parts of the World, but Europe is already something of a fortress in terms of inward migration, and that pressure will undoubtedly increase.

While Europe should aim to relieve those pressures by promoting stability, it should also prepare for worst case scenarios. That is generally the role of a Defence Agency.

I can see them now. African Panzer divisions and stealth bombers. The reason why that document was difficult to read is because if they spoke in clear English it would be laughed at. If Africans are a threat why are they drawing dole. What a disastor is being brought to a boil.

Peace keeping came to mind first too ibis but it is true that sub-saharan Africans are arriving on coasts around europe virtually every day on pateras or flimsy rafts... Many are coming legally and peacefully but is it a matter of time or a possibility that there could be armed invasions given enough desperation and enough hunger to drive people? It's hard to see it happening but there are landings regularly on the coasts of Spain and there have been violent attempts made on Melilla (and Ceuta?) so wouldn't a defence institution not have played with scenarios like a mass armed invasion from Africa? How would it be dealt with? By Nato?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Peace keeping came to mind first too ibis but it is true that sub-saharan Africans are arriving on coasts around europe virtually every day on pateras or flimsy rafts... Many are coming legally and peacefully but is it a matter of time or a possibility that there could be armed invasions given enough desperation and enough hunger to drive people? It's hard to see it happening but there are landings regularly on the coasts of Spain and there have been violent attempts made on Melilla (and Ceuta?) so wouldn't a defence institution not have played with scenarios like a mass armed invasion from Africa? How would it be dealt with? By Nato?

A film was made in the last 10 years or so about dramatised invasion of Europe by an organised African people's army. Can't remember the name.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Peace keeping came to mind first too ibis but it is true that sub-saharan Africans are arriving on coasts around europe virtually every day on pateras or flimsy rafts... Many are coming legally and peacefully but is it a matter of time or a possibility that there could be armed invasions given enough desperation and enough hunger to drive people? It's hard to see it happening but there are landings regularly on the coasts of Spain and there have been violent attempts made on Melilla (and Ceuta?) so wouldn't a defence institution not have played with scenarios like a mass armed invasion from Africa? How would it be dealt with? By Nato?

Well, no. You'd let it fall to bits itself. Small groups of people coming on home-made rafts does not easily multiply up to an invading force - well, not since the Roman Empire.

While I can't seriously believe it's worth discussing, why not think for a moment about what a sub-Saharan military force would have to achieve to reach Europe? First, you have to cross the Sahara. Then, you have to fight your way through the Libyans, or some other much-more-heavily-armed-than-you country, plus their allies. The you have to build an invasion fleet. Then you have to get it across the Mediterranean, in the teeth of the combined navies and air forces of the most heavily armed powers on Earth. Then you only need to establish a bridgehead, successfully get a staging area established, fight your way out of the bridgehead, again, against some of the most heavily armed powers on Earth. And so on.

Of course, they could simply drop a single nuke on you in the Sahara.

Alternatively, you could try fighting your way up through Egypt, round by Israel, and up through Turkey...

As far as military plans go, these scenarios would undoubtedly do a lot to relieve population pressure in Africa.

ibis wrote:

Well, no. You'd let it fall to bits itself. Small groups of people coming on home-made rafts does not easily multiply up to an invading force - well, not since the Roman Empire.

I don't think the planning concerns the movement of refugees.

There are numerous African nations that have military capabilities, including air forces, that could be deployed against Europe.

It obviously sounds preposterous, but we don't know what sort of economic pressures will arise in Africa in the next 50 years, or into whose hands power will fall.

The Israelis never thought they'd be attacked by Eypyt and Syria, but they were, and the prospect of future attacks features large in their defence planning. If Egypt went to war over a few thousand miles of worthless desert, presumbaly other nations would consider military options if faced with mass starvation.

I don't see how any of this is controversial. The quotation isn't taken from a statement of an EU leader or a treaty; its taken from a Defence Agency policy document. Defence Agencies exist to plan for the unthinkable, not the probable.

It sounds prepostrous because it is prepostrous. Africa is starving as we speak. This army is not for fighting Russians, Americans Africans or Chinese. Nor do I see a Muslim army. So who is the enemy that a EU army is needed against.

seinfeld wrote:

ibis wrote:

Well, no. You'd let it fall to bits itself. Small groups of people coming on home-made rafts does not easily multiply up to an invading force - well, not since the Roman Empire.

I don't think the planning concerns the movement of refugees.

There are numerous African nations that have military capabilities, including air forces, that could be deployed against Europe.

It obviously sounds preposterous, but we don't know what sort of economic pressures will arise in Africa in the next 50 years, or into whose hands power will fall.

The Israelis never thought they'd be attacked by Eypyt and Syria, but they were, and the prospect of future attacks features large in their defence planning. If Egypt went to war over a few thousand miles of worthless desert, presumbaly other nations would consider military options if faced with mass starvation.

I don't see how any of this is controversial. The quotation isn't taken from a statement of an EU leader or a treaty; its taken from a Defence Agency policy document. Defence Agencies exist to plan for the unthinkable, not the probable.

True. Wasn't there something of a pseudo-furore when the US plans for invading Canada were published? I can certainly accept that somewhere there are contingency plans for African invasions. However, to step from the kind of contingency plans all defence agencies make to the idea that a major part of the EDA's tasks would be to defend the EU against the African hordes...well, even youngdan doesn't buy that.

As to who it is intended "against" - why does it have to be intended "against" anybody? Who is the Irish Army "against"?

Nobody can be convinced that an EU army can be against anyone because they would be able to tackle none of the 3 possible foes. Unless they are going to upgrade there can be only 2 possible reasons. It is for use against small countries like Serbia or it is for internal dissent.
The Irish Army is against nobody because it could not beat anbody within reach. In the case of the Irish Army it is clear to everybody that it is to protect the State from internal dangers.

well recently irish troops threatened their own population by massives shows of strength and threat at shannon to protect bush, so you know they always have to shoot people to be effective.

I mean it so hard to tell the difference from humanitarian intervention and an oil grab these days, don't you see.

that col that wrote that article about being honest about military aspects of the eu treaty (so as not let the no side dominate that angle) said we shouldn't just be coy and talk about peacekeeping and defense and then all he talked about in the articel was peacekeeping and defense.

ibis wrote:

seinfeld wrote:

Helium Three wrote:

The EDA is the body doing the implying there and they do it in the last line.

They're implying that Europe may have to defend itself from Africa at some point in the future. In the next paragaph they imply something similar about the Middle East.

You don't see these as reasonable concerns?

I appreciate this is completely off-the-wall, but the EU says it's committed to the following:

The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities
provided by the Member States.

The last line of paragraph 9 there is:

The implications for despair, humanitarian disaster and migratory pressures are obvious.

It seems to me that there is a clear logical route from the EU's commitments in respect of its "operational capacity", to the implications of the statement above. I'm sure that I will be called naive for even suggesting that the internal breakdown of Africa might be of concern to a body that is actively engaged in, and formally committed to, trying to make the world a little better.

I'm sure the alternative, which presumably involves the displaced hordes of Africa crossing the Sahara, and paddling for Europe with their machetes between their teeth, strikes at least some posters as more probable.

Ibis, you clearly haven't spent much time on the northern shores of the Med in recent years. No machetes, as they would sink, but young African guys are turning up in droves on rafts and car tyres in Spain and Italy. Its only a hop across. It is just my view that the EU would be better off taking a constructive approach to African self-development than the fortress Europe project that is clearly hopeless; about as sensible as the Maginot line. What are your thoughts about Sarkhozy's Med project?

In answer to youngdan's question, it is far from impossible that the force might be used internally in the event of 'instability', but at the moment we are already part of a joint EUFOR force in Chad with the French who are the historical colonial power there. Whilst the EU militarily is only a toy compared with the US there is a certain extent to which the US has historically backed off and allowed the EU its spheres of interest. This might diminish as pressures for resources intensify.

The EDA as quoted would allow for the invasion of Iraq or any similar adventurist policy.

youngdan wrote:

So who is the enemy that a EU army is needed against.

No one in particular, like 95% of armies that have been created down through history.

Why do you keep asking this question?

Twice at Lisbon gigs I've heard Enda Kenny talk about what we'd be faced with if one million African men decided to come to Europe - how we'd cope from an immigration perspective, not how we'd defend ourselves against them.

All armies down through history had an enemy that was easily seen. There was an obvious threat. Now there is no credible threat and they are grasping at straws of African panzars and obscure forces. Nobody wants to face facts. It is either a gigantic waste of money or it is to be used on European people.

youngdan wrote:

All armies down through history had an enemy that was easily seen. There was an obvious threat.

Portugal has an army. What is the obvious threat to Portugal?

Kate P wrote:

Twice at Lisbon gigs I've heard Enda Kenny talk about what we'd be faced with if one million African men decided to come to Europe - how we'd cope from an immigration perspective, not how we'd defend ourselves against them.

I would imagine the army in Portugal is for the same reason as Ireland. It is for the protection of the state. The Irish Army is to protect the Irish State from internal forces that would try to overthrow it. What do you think it is for. Why would anybody want not to recognise this fact.