O'Dea - Chad Force to Stay On- €77 million for first phase

(I've brought this post back from P.ie, where there is a discussion mainly on the cost of Ireland's part in the EUFOR operation in Chad)

As I've posted on other threads on Chad before and since the EUFOR force went in, the cost of the first phase of this operation is more than the entire year's income for the State of Chad.

I am opposed to the EUFOR force and Ireland's involvement in it and won't repeat what I've said in previous threads, except to say that the mission is widely perceived as supportive of the French-backed Déby Regime in Chad. Since last time of writing on this though, a French EUFOR officer was killed after getting "lost" having "wandered" across the eastern border and two weeks ago 4 EUFOR troops were arrested by the Chadian government-

NDJAMENA, 9 May 2008 (IRIN) - Four troops from EUFOR, the European Union force in Chad, were arrested on 7 May by local authorities near the southern town of Moundou. They have not yet been released.

“This is in blatant violation of the agreement we made with the government which established the current EUforce in Chad,” the spokesman for EUFOR in N’djamena Lieutenant Colonel Jean Axelos told IRIN on 9 May.

According to state-run radio, the four EUFOR troops were “disguised as tourists” and traveling in an unauthorized area. The radio said local police confiscated the soldiers’ weapons, communications equipment and vehicles.

Is the EUFOR force in Chad responsible for intelligence and surveillance, and how does this fit with “peace enforcement”? What is the agenda of these intelligence activities?

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=78134

Some posters may sincerely believe this is a well-meaning peace mission. Local reports though are saying that EUFOR is not doing a peace-keeping job, and others saying that the force's presence jeopardises their neutrality in a very sensitive situation with local militias.

Faced with frequent armed robberies, many aid groups in eastern Chad say the European Union Force (EUFOR), deployed there since February, is not doing its job of protecting them. At the same time, many of those same aid groups say they do not want to jeopardise their neutrality by being associated with the armed force.
AKAR, 16 May 2008 (IRIN)

The impact of having both the EUFOR forces and thousands of aid agency workers in this very fragile and impoverished environment is further impoverishing Chadians. It has driven food and rent prices up and is a burden on water supplies (Ireland has taken in some bottled water for troops).

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/irelan ... 31686.html

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=78251

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=77717

He said he used to be able to support himself, his wife and five children, but no longer. A sheep, which a couple of years ago cost 12,500 CFA francs (about twenty eight US $), now sells for 35,000 CFA francs (US$84). Family meals are smaller, Chigaf said, and he can no longer afford to buy his children new clothes.

Many goods are more expensive here than in those towns where there are no humanitarian workers. The price of rice in Abéché is double what it is 750km southwest in the town of Moundou, a man from there named Donatien Diomnba told IRIN, and his monthly rent in Abéché is almost four times what it was before he moved. He is so poor, he said, meat is no longer part of his diet.

At this stage there are a considerable number of Chadians dead as a result of this mission, which provoked an attempted coup against Deby, and also in the cross-border incursion in which the French officer was killed.

Yesterday WIllie O'Dea announced that this mission will now probably last more than a year. This is plainly a taste of what is to come in a "united EU". My own view is that we should get our troops out, and let the Chadians resolve their own business without any further protection of Déby.
cactus flower
Politico

Bit selective there in the culling of the different articles to suit your premise which basically is "up yours Darfur and Chad - we're out of here and to hell with UN resolution 1778" eh CF?

Africa and the UN have been begging for European and Western forces to get involved in the area for years - this is not an offensive mission - its restricted to purely the refugee camps and their protection and they wont be there a moment longer than they are required.

The missions in Sierra Leone and West Africa have been a tremendous success amid similar difficultlies - the various elements in the civil wars there only copped on to themselves when they became aware that the UN missions there werent going to roll over and cut and run - like you are advocating here.

Edo wrote:

Bit selective there in the culling of the different articles to suit your premise which basically is "up yours Darfur and Chad - we're out of here and to hell with UN resolution 1778" eh CF?

Africa and the UN have been begging for European and Western forces to get involved in the area for years - this is not an offensive mission - its restricted to purely the refugee camps and their protection and they wont be there a moment longer than they are required.

The missions in Sierra Leone and West Africa have been a tremendous success amid similar difficultlies - the various elements in the civil wars there only copped on to themselves when they became aware that the UN missions there werent going to roll over and cut and run - like you are advocating here.

Fair enough Edo, the links I post support the case that this mission is one to be avoided. I welcome any information you post to substantiate your view that it the EUFOR mission is a good thing, or to show that anything I've said is not correct. But I would question the assumption that states like Darfur and Chad, carved up by western colonial powers across the grain of communities and geography, are now going to be "fixed up" by our charitable missions.
The up yours remark leaves out of the picture the many people in Chad who don't want EUFOR there, and don't want Déby either.

Africa and the UN were begging for augmentation of genuine peace keeping troops who have been left hopelessly thin on the ground whilst this lot go mullarkeying around dressed up as tourists.

As an Aid worker quoted in one of the links said - if they wanted to protect us from the militias they needed small arms - why did they bring big guns instead ?

cactus flower wrote:

Edo wrote:

Bit selective there in the culling of the different articles to suit your premise which basically is "up yours Darfur and Chad - we're out of here and to hell with UN resolution 1778" eh CF?

Africa and the UN have been begging for European and Western forces to get involved in the area for years - this is not an offensive mission - its restricted to purely the refugee camps and their protection and they wont be there a moment longer than they are required.

The missions in Sierra Leone and West Africa have been a tremendous success amid similar difficultlies - the various elements in the civil wars there only copped on to themselves when they became aware that the UN missions there werent going to roll over and cut and run - like you are advocating here.

Fair enough Edo, the links I post support the case that this mission is one to be avoided. I welcome any information you post to substantiate your view that it the EUFOR mission is a good thing, or to show that anything I've said is not correct. But I would question the assumption that states like Darfur and Chad, carved up by western colonial powers across the grain of communities and geography, are now going to be "fixed up" by our charitable missions.
The up yours remark leaves out of the picture the many people in Chad who don't want EUFOR there, and don't want Déby either.

Africa and the UN were begging for augmentation of genuine peace keeping troops who have been left hopelessly thin on the ground whilst this lot go mullarkeying around dressed up as tourists.

As an Aid worker quoted in one of the links said - if they wanted to protect us from the militias they needed small arms - why did they bring big guns instead ?

CF - my time is short - gotta go in a minute -but I'll get back to you

one thing - the total number of European forces under the UN Mandate there will be roughly 3200 including logistics - for an area the size of france - doesn't sound like an army that can do much more than its mandate - if even that.

secondly - of course they are heavily armed - there will be no Somalia on this mission and rightly so - the UN and the EU have learned their lesson there - lightly armed peace-keepers are next to useless - Chad is just coming out of a civil war - all parties signed up to it - so I would be very wary of what I hear as first hand reports saying "the UN are too heavily armed" - there is a propoganda war going on here and NGO personnel are notorious for getting involved in this where they should be staying the hell out and concentrating on the mission in hand - also never forget that NGO's will always exaggerate the difficulties if they are not getting what they want and for their self preservation- here you fill find that the Military forces will be lot more effective in distributing Aid than NGOs

Finally - the UN-EU Force here is just life support and an effort to force all parties into a cooling off period - at the end of the day, as you quite rightly say - it will be the africans who will have to do this for themselves - but at the moment - until cooler heads rule - this mission is required to prevent even further bloodshed, further marthyrs that will make the situation even more intractable.

Minor point - there's always going to be people who don't want peacekeeping forces in their country.

For information:

UN RESOLUTION 1778 link

From Francediplomie website:

On 25 September 2007, the UN Security Council voted unanimously for resolution 1778, authorizing the deployment of a multidimensional presence in eastern Chad and the northeastern part of the Central African Republic. This presence has three components:

A multidisciplinary United Nations mission (MINURCAT - United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad), composed of police officers, military and civilian liaison officers, will be tasked with selecting and training Chadian police officers for humanitarian protection and monitoring and promotion of human rights;

Chadian Police for Humanitarian Protection (PTPH), responsible for maintaining order and law enforcement in refugee camps;

A European Union military presence supporting the UN’s actions

So should we abandon our tradition of peace-keeping under UN auspices or not?

no just not suggest they are beyond criticsm

ibis wrote:

So should we abandon our tradition of peace-keeping under UN auspices or not?

That is fuzzy terminology Ibis, EUFOR is not a UN peacekeeping force. It is an EU peace enforcement force with UN approval.

This is the context for the intervention of the force.

Quote :

For decades France viewed post-colonial Africa as an exclusive sphere of influence, or pré carré. France still maintains military influence and stations thousands of its troops across the continent, from western Senegal to the Horn of Africa. But changes in its strategic priorities have this posture under review. France has folded many of its African missions into multinational operations since its unhappy experience in Rwanda in 1994, when French troops failed to intervene in the opening days of that nation's genocide. But recent, small-scale interventions in Chad indicate Paris continues to reserve the right to unilateral action.

What are France’s interests in Africa?
French businesses have longstanding operations in Africa. The continent accounts for 5 percent of France’s exports, and French statistics indicate some 240,000 of its nationals live throughout the region. Though France has diversified its sources of raw materials, Africa remains an important supplier of oil and metals.

Where are France’s main military engagements in Africa?
Chad. France fields some 1,200 troops in Chad to protect French nationals, support the government of President Idriss Deby Itno, and provide logistical and intelligence support to Chadian forces. Since President Nicholas Sarkozy took office in 2007, France has recommitted itself to this mission. It has also undertaken to organize a separate 3,700-strong EU peacekeeping force (EUFOR) expected to deploy in late 2007, but suffering repeated delays (Economist). In February 2008, an attempt by Sudanese-backed rebels to overthrow Deby was beaten back with French assistance, including Mirage warplanes and helicopters based at the airbase at Hadji Kossei near the capital, N’Djamena. Chadian troops have taken advantage of intelligence gathered by these fighters and intelligence leaked from the French embassy. France has publicly insisted its support is simply logistical, but Western reports from Chad indicate French special forces may have directly engaged rebel forces. That has raised concerns about the neutrality of the EU force, to which France is expected to contribute about 1,800 troops. “If the EU force deploys under these circumstances, with France as a belligerent, it can't seriously be considered neutral,” says Alex de Waal, an expert on Chad and Sudan at the New York-based Social Science Research Council.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12578/french_military_in_africa.html

.

Déby is generally acknowledged to be a military dictator who serves French interests.

The situation in Chad continues to intensify, with Chad oppositionists taking control of a number of towns in the East and shooting down a government helicopter. The oppositionists have said they don't any longer object to the EUFOR, so long as they stay neutral. Deby has criticised the EUFOR for not resisting the opposition forces.
In the previous uprising / opposition attack there were a large number of reports of the French intervening to defend Deby's regime.

This letter appeared in Saturday's Irish Times.

Quote :

NEUTRALITY AND THE CHAD MISSION

Madam, - Vincent Browne (Opinion, May 27th) is right to warn about the implications for Irish neutrality in the debate about the Lisbon Treaty ratification stemming from the US role in the so-called war on terror, in particular in Somalia. But a pity that he does not extend his warning to the State's role in Chad with its participation in EUFOR.

In his keynote speech about Sudan at the general meeting of the Royal African Society at the School for Oriental and African Studies in London on May 21st, the internationally respected Sudan specialist Alex de Waal warned that Irish participation in EUFOR was undermining Irish neutrality because "EUFOR is not a neutral force".

The reality is that EUFOR, the EU protection force in Chad and the Central African Republic to the south on the border with Sudan, has been set up through French manipulation as another armed shield to prop up the regime of Chadian president Idriss Deby Ito and as such it has become in effect a party in the conflict in Chad and Darfur.

President Deby's allies in the Darfur rebel Islamist Justice and Equality Movement (Jem), consisting mainly of Deby's Zaghawa kinsmen, came to his rescue when Chadian rebels threatened to run him out of the Chadian capital N'Djamena in February and took their revenge with their march on Khartoum resulting in the latest battle of Omdurman earlier in May.

This raises two questions . Where does Jem, as a proxy of President Deby, propped up and armed by France and the US, get its weapons and resources? And why should other EU nations, including neutral Ireland, be involved in offering President Deby a military shield under the guise of humanitarian protection? - Yours, e tc,

PIETER TESCH,
Chief Executive, Sudan Cultural Society of Britain and Ireland,
Croydon,
England.

As part of the EUFOR it appears that Ireland's neutral status depends on France's will and ability to stay neutral in this ongoing war.

cactus flower wrote:

....In the previous uprising / opposition attack there were a large number of reports of the French intervening to defend Deby's regime.....

....As part of the EUFOR it appears that Ireland's neutral status depends on France's will and ability to stay neutral in this ongoing war.

There are (or should be) two French Forces in Chad. There has been for some time now a French Force supporting the regime of Idris Deby. In addition France has also provided the bulk of the forces making up EUFOR Chad/CAR. The former force is there under some bilateral agreement with the Chadian government while the latter is there under a UN mandate to protect IDPs and UN workers/NGOs. Problems will arise if the two French forces fail to stay within their own mandate, in which case the rebels will see EUFOR as propping up the Deby regime and treat it as just another enemy.

Lestat wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

....In the previous uprising / opposition attack there were a large number of reports of the French intervening to defend Deby's regime.....

....As part of the EUFOR it appears that Ireland's neutral status depends on France's will and ability to stay neutral in this ongoing war.

There are (or should be) two French Forces in Chad. There has been for some time now a French Force supporting the regime of Idris Deby. In addition France has also provided the bulk of the forces making up EUFOR Chad/CAR. The former force is there under some bilateral agreement with the Chadian government while the latter is there under a UN mandate to protect IDPs and UN workers/NGOs. Problems will arise if the two French forces fail to stay within their own mandate, in which case the rebels will see EUFOR as propping up the Deby regime and treat it as just another enemy.

Within a couple of weeks of arrival there were cross border plain-clothes forays by EUFOR troops resulting in shoot ups. Given the history, it is I suppose comparable to a UK army force being sent in to Ireland to keep the peace.

cactus flower wrote:

Within a couple of weeks of arrival there were cross border plain-clothes forays by EUFOR troops resulting in shoot ups.

There was one well publicised case of two French SF soldiers who allegedly wandered into Sudan and were killed. Can you post links to the accounts of the other incidents.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhgbsnojidau/

This from Breaking News.

Anyone know what this is about? Is O'Dea signalling a possible pull out ? Could it be to save a few bob ?

cactus flower wrote:

That is fuzzy terminology Ibis, EUFOR is not a UN peacekeeping force. It is an EU peace enforcement force with UN approval.

Missed that one - it's a UN force. the UN doesn't have any troops, so it's always a case of someone else providing the muscle. In this case, the UN requested the EU do so, which they have. On other occasions the AU has done so. Claiming that because the EU is providing the force it is an EU force, if followed to its logical conclusion, would mean that Irish neutrality went out the window when we invaded Lebanon and Cyprus all those years ago.

So what does EUFOR stand for then ?

cactus flower wrote:

So what does EUFOR stand for then ?

European Union Force. I assume we're now going to have a semantics-driven point about how that really means that it's an EU force not a UN one. It's a UN-mandated force, which is what UN forces are. It's not there with UN "permission", but at the request of the UN, just as the Irish were in Lebanon at the request of the UN. It is part of the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT). The guy in charge has been serving on UN missions since 1967.

I'm willing to discuss whether peace enforcement is something that should be done, and something that the UN should do, but I'm really not going to bother arguing about it with someone pretending the force is something it isn't.

I am not interested in semantic discussion.

I quoted this only three or four posts back on this thread Ibis: you are incorrect, the EUFOR is not part of MINURCAT, unless the websites are wrong.

Quote :

For information:
UN RESOLUTION 1778 link
From Francediplomie website:

On 25 September 2007, the UN Security Council voted unanimously for resolution 1778, authorizing the deployment of a multidimensional presence in eastern Chad and the northeastern part of the Central African Republic. This presence has three components:

A multidisciplinary United Nations mission (MINURCAT - United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad), composed of police officers, military and civilian liaison officers, will be tasked with selecting and training Chadian police officers for humanitarian protection and monitoring and promotion of human rights;

Chadian Police for Humanitarian Protection (PTPH), responsible for maintaining order and law enforcement in refugee camps;

A European Union military presence supporting the UN’s actions.

What I think is semantic is using words to mask over the difference between a peace keeping and peace enforcement mission. It would be perfectly possible to make a case (although I don't agree with what I have heard so far) for a peace enforcement mission without saying it is something it isn't.

cactus flower wrote:

I quoted this only three or four posts back on this thread Ibis: you are incorrect, the EUFOR is not part of MINURCAT, unless the websites are wrong..

You're right, EUFOR Chad/CAR isn't part of MINURCAT although it operates under MINURCAT auspices and under the same mandate.

Quote :

The Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, also:

(a) Authorizes the European Union to deploy, for a period of one year from the date that its initial operating capability is declared by the European Union in consultation with the Secretary-General, an operation (hereinafter referred to as “the European Union operation”) aimed at supporting the elements referred to in RES 1778 (2007) paragraphs 2 to 4, and decides that this operation shall be authorized to take all necessary measures, within its capabilities and its area of operation in eastern Chad and the north-eastern Central African Republic, to fulfil the following functions, in accordance with the arrangement to be concluded between the European Union and the United Nations, in liaison with the Governments of Chad and the Central African Republic:

• (i) To contribute to protecting civilians in danger, particularly refugees and displaced persons;
  
• (ii) To facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid and the free movement of humanitarian personnel by helping to improve security in the area of operations;
  
• (iii) To contribute to protecting United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment and to ensuring the security and freedom of movement of its staff and United Nations and associated personnel.
  

(b) Authorizes the European Union operation, at the close of the period referred to in subparagraph a, to take all appropriate measures to achieve an orderly disengagement, by means including fulfilment of the functions indicated in subparagraph a, and within the limits of its residual capacity.”
The Council also, among other things, invited the European Union operation to immediately take all appropriate measures to prepare its full operational capability and requested the Secretary-General to coordinate closely with the European Union particularly with regard to those arrangements required to ensure appropriate protection for United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment and ensure freedom of movement of United Nations staff.

cactus flower wrote:

What I think is semantic is using words to mask over the difference between a peace keeping and peace enforcement mission. It would be perfectly possible to make a case (although I don't agree with what I have heard so far) for a peace enforcement mission without saying it is something it isn't.

EUFOR Chad/CAR is authorised under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter so...

Quote :

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Thanks Lestat. Do you have the links for that handy?

cactus flower wrote:

I am not interested in semantic discussion.

I quoted this only three or four posts back on this thread Ibis: you are incorrect, the EUFOR is not part of MINURCAT, unless the websites are wrong.

Quote :

For information:
UN RESOLUTION 1778 link
From Francediplomie website:

On 25 September 2007, the UN Security Council voted unanimously for resolution 1778, authorizing the deployment of a multidimensional presence in eastern Chad and the northeastern part of the Central African Republic. This presence has three components:

A multidisciplinary United Nations mission (MINURCAT - United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad), composed of police officers, military and civilian liaison officers, will be tasked with selecting and training Chadian police officers for humanitarian protection and monitoring and promotion of human rights;

Chadian Police for Humanitarian Protection (PTPH), responsible for maintaining order and law enforcement in refugee camps;

A European Union military presence supporting the UN’s actions.

What I think is semantic is using words to mask over the difference between a peace keeping and peace enforcement mission. It would be perfectly possible to make a case (although I don't agree with what I have heard so far) for a peace enforcement mission without saying it is something it isn't.

Well, then, why not discuss the difference between a peace enforcement mission and a peace keeping one? You're right that EUFOR isn't part of MINURCAT (as I put it) - it is 'under its auspices and operates within its framework' - but that seems to be irrelevant to what you want to discuss.

EUFOR/Tchad is a UN mission whatever way you push and pull the semantics. Do you want to discuss its role in Chad, and whether the UN should engage in 'peace enforcement', or do you want to keep going on with this C/T argument about it really being an EU/French invasion force? I can't see the point of arguing the latter if you want to discuss the former.

Ibis, if you want to put words into my mouth, why not quote me

Quote :

You're right that EUFOR isn't part of MINURCAT (as I put it) - it is 'under its auspices and operates within its framework' - but that seems to be irrelevant to what you want to discuss.

What is that a quote from?

I seem to remember you posting previously on Politics.ie about the difference between peace enforcement and peace keeping, two very different and hard- debated models. I don't understand why you are now putting it forward that they are the same and that the difference is semantic.

I am also of the view, as you know, that the EU battlegroups are in this instance engaging in a 'legacy' post colonial conflict in which the French, who are leading the force, have a most discreditable past and present. I think this gives us an indication of the likely evolution of Sarkozy's project for a militarised EU, if it is allowed to go ahead.

You are in favour of it and I am not. I think by this stage I've made my reasons clear on this thread and on the linked thread on Politics.ie.

The idea that because a military engagement is "approved" by the UN that it is in some way not a military engagement is not one I subscribe to. However I am not personally a pacificist. I trust that Deby will be overthrown at the earliest feasible by a less corrupt and self-serving opposition.

cactus flower wrote:

Ibis, if you want to put words into my mouth, why not quote me

Quote :

You're right that EUFOR isn't part of MINURCAT (as I put it) - it is 'under its auspices and operates within its framework' - but that seems to be irrelevant to what you want to discuss.

What is that a quote from?

I seem to remember you posting previously on Politics.ie about the difference between peace enforcement and peace keeping, two very different and hard- debated models. I don't understand why you are now putting it forward that they are the same and that the difference is semantic.

I haven't. I've said that the argument that EUFOR/Tchad is "really an EU mission" is a semantic argument. I haven't at any point said that there is no difference between peace-keeping and peace enforcement.

So, as you say, why not debate what I'm actually saying?

cactus flower wrote:

I am also of the view, as you know, that the EU battlegroups are in this instance engaging in a 'legacy' post colonial conflict in which the French, who are leading the force, have a most discreditable past and present. I think this gives us an indication of the likely evolution of Sarkozy's project for a militarised EU, if it is allowed to go ahead.

I am aware you think that, yes.

cactus flower wrote:

You are in favour of it and I am not. I think by this stage I've made my reasons clear on this thread and on the linked thread on Politics.ie.

I'm not sure I've ever expressed much of an opinion on it. I've mostly expressed my opinion on your belief that the EU battlegroups are being used in a neo-colonialist way in Chad, for which I think you have offered no proof but your own prejudices.

cactus flower wrote:

The idea that because a military engagement is "approved" by the UN that it is in some way not a military engagement is not one I subscribe to. However I am not personally a pacificist. I trust that Deby will be overthrown at the earliest feasible by a less corrupt and self-serving opposition.

"Mandated by the UN" and "approved by the UN" are two legally distinct conditions, which you conflate either knowingly or ignorantly. EUFOR is mandated by the UN - the EU is doing the UN's work in Chad, just as the AU have done on other occasions. This is the core of our current disagreement - you seem to want to claim that matters are otherwise.

EUFOR is a fully legitimate force according to all the rules that Ireland set itself for engaging in UN tasks. Whether 'preace enforcement' itself is legitimate is another, separate question, and not one we'll ever get to at this rate.

That is all twaddle and fustion Ibis (every line of it). You are not substantiating a single thing that you've claimed, either in terms of what you purport to be fact, or that you purport that I am saying. I have stood up everything I have said with sources as has Lestat. It's your turn now.

cactus flower wrote:

That is all twaddle and fustion Ibis (every line of it). You are not substantiating a single thing that you've claimed, either in terms of what you purport to be fact, or that you purport that I am saying. I have stood up everything I have said with sources as has Lestat. It's your turn now.

Hmm. Possibly we have our wires crossed, since I don't think I'm saying what I think you think I'm saying. My arguments are the following:

1. EUFOR is a UN-mandated mission. It has a 'proper' legal framework, and Irish participation in it is not different from any other UN mission - legally.

Actually, that's it so far. I'm making no claims about the content of the mission, only the legal framework it's happening under. Are we disagreeing on that, or not?