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

cactus flower wrote:

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

It's the MINURCAT site, click on mandate on the menu

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/minurcat/mandate.html

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm

ibis wrote:

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, .

The EU Battlegroups haven't been deployed to Chad.

ibis wrote:

Whether 'preace enforcement' itself is legitimate is another, separate question, and not one we'll ever get to at this rate.

Peace enforcement is legitimate under the UN charter. The Korean War, Gulf War 1 and the current Stabilisation Force in Afghanistan were all UN approved. You can't get any more legitimate than UN approval.

Lestat wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

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

It's the MINURCAT site, click on mandate on the menu

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/minurcat/mandate.html

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm

ibis wrote:

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, .

The EU Battlegroups haven't been deployed to Chad.

As you can see from my last post, I'm no longer sure what the argument is even about. My comment is in response to CF:

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.

That EU battlegroups aren't even in Chad is part of the confusion I'm trying to unravel to get at what I presume the substantive question to be. It's always possible, of course, that there is no substantive question.

Lestat wrote:

ibis wrote:

Whether 'preace enforcement' itself is legitimate is another, separate question, and not one we'll ever get to at this rate.

Peace enforcement is legitimate under the UN charter. The Korean War, Gulf War 1 and the current Stabilisation Force in Afghanistan were all UN approved. You can't get any more legitimate than UN approval.

Well, I agree. I can see that people would consider it morally dubious, though - I'm just trying to get to the point of discussing that, as opposed to going round in confused circles over cactus flower's contention that it's really an EU force...

Circular all right Ibis. That was already settled several posts ago. The links that Lestat has provided coincide with my understanding of the situation, my previous posts and with the links I posted previously ( with the exception of battlegroup involvement - I take your word for that Lestat - I'd be interested if you had time to post on the history and role of the EU battlegroups).

I started this thread to express my opposition to the EUFOR Ibis and to listen to alternative viewpoints There is no mystery except in so far as you are endeavouring to create one. In my opinion your posts so far amount to a heckle, not a debate. Do you have a view on the aims and function of the EUFOR and whether they are likely to be achieved?

cactus flower wrote:

Circular all right Ibis. That was already settled several posts ago. The links that Lestat has provided coincide with my understanding of the situation, my previous posts and with the links I posted previously ( with the exception of battlegroup involvement - I take your word for that Lestat - I'd be interested if you had time to post on the history and role of the EU battlegroups).

I started this thread to express my opposition to the EUFOR Ibis and to listen to alternative viewpoints There is no mystery except in so far as you are endeavouring to create one. In my opinion your posts so far amount to a heckle, not a debate. Do you have a view on the aims and function of the EUFOR and whether they are likely to be achieved?

I honestly hadn't got there yet - I thought I was still arguing with you on whether the EUFOR was legally a UN force, which appeared to be a large part of your argument against EUFOR, and against Irish involvement in EUFOR. I'll take your word for it that we're not arguing about that any more (or, if you prefer, I'm not heckling you about it any more), and I'm very happy to do so...

The aims of the EUFOR would seem to me to be realisable, as long as the political will is there to ensure sufficient commitment. It also seems to me that stabilising areas of the country is both desirable and necessary, and I cannot see how that can be achieved without the availability of military force.

The main query would seem to me over the French involvement in EUFOR, which can lead to the perception in Chad (and outside) that EUFOR is not neutral in the conflict, but presumably on the same side as the existing French forces - indeed, presents the danger that EUFOR can be drawn into the conflict by virtue of the two French presences.

Essentially, EUFOR has a mandate. If it sticks within the mandate, then the mission's objectives appear realisable and worthwhile. If it allows itself to be drawn outside its mandate - by virtue of the French presence in EUFOR, or for whatever other reason - then it will probably be a failure.

Anyone who reads the thread will know that that is a misrepresentation of what I said. If we are going to discuss Chad in the context of evolving EU military policy and action, we need to distinguish properly between different forms of involvement. As I've said before I think we should support the UN -AU peacekeeping forces, that are very short of resources, and should withdraw from the EUFOR peace enforcement force.

Quote :

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

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.

.

Lestat, do you know if the EUFORCE battle orders/tasks include Intelligence?

cactus flower wrote:

Anyone who reads the thread will know that that is a misrepresentation of what I said.

See below - you are claiming exactly what I say you're claiming - that EUFOR is not really a UN force.

cactus flower wrote:

If we are going to discuss Chad in the context of evolving EU military policy and action, we need to distinguish properly between different forms of involvement. As I've said before I think we should support the UN -AU peacekeeping forces, that are very short of resources, and should withdraw from the EUFOR peace enforcement force.

We're not members of the AU, and haven't been asked to contribute to any AU force that I'm aware of.

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

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

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.

Riiight - and so, here we are again, back at the beginning of the circle, with
you claiming that I have misrepresented your position, when what I
claim you say is exactly what you have just requoted yourself as saying. You're claiming that EUFOR isn't really a 'proper' UN force.

Sure - EUFOR isn't a "UN peace-keeping force". It's a "UN peace-enforcement force". It is not an "EU force with UN approval", unless that means the same thing as "UN peace-enforcement force". If you intend to imply something else by it, which you obviously mean to, you're wrong - you are attempting to draw a specious distinction in support of your claim that the EU is pursuing a neo-colonial agenda - and twisting the facts to suit your argument.

So, to reiterate, EUFOR is in Chad at UN behest, under UN auspices, with a UN-delimited mission. If it is there pursuing a neo-colonial agenda, then the body that has been persuaded to sanction that agenda is the UN.

I am drawing a line here - readers of the thread can make up their own minds.

cactus flower wrote:

...with the exception of battlegroup involvement - I take your word for that Lestat - I'd be interested if you had time to post on the history and role of the EU battlegroups

If I do it in this thread it will only cause more confusion. Might be wortha thread on it's own.

cactus flower wrote:

Do you have a view on the aims and function of the EUFOR and whether they are likely to be achieved?

The aims of EUFOR Chad/CAR are quite clear and set out in the UN mandate. By the way there's another EUFOR in Bosnia which has Irish troops in it as well.

EUFOR Chad/CAR tasks.

Quote :

(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.

These tasks are simply expressed and clear-cut. EUFOR troops may only intervene to protect the specified categories of people. For instance they may attack Chadian rebels who are attacking UN personnel but they may not attack Chadian rebels who are attacking Chadian army troops. If EUFOR stays within it's mandate it's mission is realisable and it cannot be accused of neo-colonialism.

The problem as Ibis said is the French. French troops operating as part of EUFOR are indistinguishable from those operating in support of Chadian forces. It's unlikely in any case that Chadian rebels would make such a distinction and quite possible that the French don't either.

cactus flower wrote:

we need to distinguish properly between different forms of involvement. As I've said before I think we should support the UN -AU peacekeeping forces, that are very short of resources, and should withdraw from the EUFOR peace enforcement force.

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.

EUFOR is supporting MINURCAT. It could not be there otherwise. Think of EUFOR as a sub contractor for the UN. EUFORs and AUFORs are the way forward. The traditional approach to UN forces was for the UN to canvass member states for troops, pass a resolution, raise a force of semi-autonomous units and then cross their fingers and hope for the best. The present EUFOR Chad/CAR was actually organised similarly, with EU states offering what they were willing to contribute and leaving Gen Nash wandering the HQs of Europe begging for helicopters and hospitals. In a few years the EU Battlegroups will have standing forces available with equipment in centralised locations ready for deployment where needed. Everybody wins.

cactus flower wrote:

Lestat, do you know if the EUFORCE battle orders/tasks include Intelligence?

Gathering intelligence isn't specified in the mandate but it's a given that all military forces need to gather intelligence. The Irish battalion has it's own generic intelligence section because all Irish battalions have one. They aren't MI5 agents, they're just soldiers who read reports, assimilate information from them and pass it on to the people who need to know.

The EU Battlegroups (EU BGs) were conceived in the St. Malo Declaration of December 1998 which said that the European Union ought to have the capability for autonomous action backed up by credible military forces as part of a common defence policy. The declaration launched the European Security And Defence Policy. The following year, at an EU summit in Helsinki, the member states formulated a plan named Headline Goal 2003 which proposed that the EU develop the capability to deploy up to 60,000 troops at short notice to engage in tasks ranging from humanitarian and rescue operations up to peacemaking (the Petersburg Tasks). The aim was to make these forces self-reliant, deployable within 60 days to a distance over 4,000 km, and sustainable in the field for a year. Since 1999 the Headline Goal tasks have been expanded to include joint disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks, and post-conflict stabilisation. It is further stated that all these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories. In June 2004 the European Council came up with Headline Goal 2010 which aims to address the shortfalls in airlift and sealift capability.

The Battlegroup formula was tried out in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2003 when the UN requested the deployment of an interim force to Ituri province. With France as lead nation, 1800 troops were deployed within 3 weeks for 4 months. Some troops came from outside the EU, namely Canada, Brazil and South Africa. The operation was named Artemis and was the first deployment of an EU military mission outside Europe.

In 2004 France, Germany and the United Kingdom released a paper outlining the Battlegroup Concept based on the Artemis operation. The BGs would be autonomous, consist of 1500 personnel and be deployable within 15 days. These would be principally in response to UN requests at short notice and be capable of being rapidly tailored to specific missions. They would concentrate on bridging operations, preparing the ground for a larger force to relieve them i.e. a UN peacekeeping force. In November 2004 the first 13 battlegroups were pledged.

The current BG setup is as follows;

French Battlegroup- France
Italian Battlegroup- Italy
Spanish Battlegroup- Spain
British Battlegroup- Great Britain
Swedish Battlegroup- Sweden
Franco-German Battlegroup- France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain
Franco- Belgian Battlegroup- France, Belgium
Battlegroup 107- Germany, Netherlands, Finland
German/Czech/Austrian Battlegroup- Germany, Czech Republic, Austria
Italian/Hungarian/Slovenian Battlegroup- Italy, Hungary, Slovenia
Spanish/Italian Amphibious Battlegroup- Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal
Polish led Battlegroup- Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia
UK/Dutch Battlegroup- Great Britain, Netherlands
Balkan Battlegroup- Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania
Czech/Slovak Battlegroup- Czech Republic, Slovakia
Spanish Led Battlegroup- Spain, Germany, France, Portugal
Italian/Romanian/Turkish Battlegroup- Italy, Romania, Turkey
Nordic Battlegroup- Sweden, Finland, Norway, Estonia, Ireland

As can be seen, non-EU countries can participate (Norway and Turkey) while Denmark and Malta do not.

Two BGs are on stand-by for deployment at any given time. At the moment (July- Dec 2008) the two BGs on stand-by are the Franco-German BG with Germany as the lead nation and its operational HQ in Paris and the British BG with its operational HQ in London. The Nordic BG including 80 Irish troops was on stand-by from January to June this year, in Sweden. It’s next standby is yet to be determined. So far there has been no operational deployment of an EU BG.

The EU Battlegroups shouldn’t be confused with EUFORs (EU Forces) of which 3 have been created on an ad hoc basis. They are the one mentioned above in the DRC, EUFOR Bosnia/Herzogovina and EUFOR Chad/CAR.

Thanks for that Lestat. Can we really just knock together the odd EUFOR on an adhoc basis? Surely there must be a legal framework that allows us to do it and an agreed decision-making process to decide when?


http://www.euractiv.com/en/security/eu-security-defence-policy-archived/article-117486

This is a handy site with loads of interesting links on EU policy. There are some interesting papers on the tension between NATO and the ESDP.

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks for that Lestat. Can we really just knock together the odd EUFOR on an adhoc basis? Surely there must be a legal framework that allows us to do it and an agreed decision-making process to decide when?.

We have been knocking together EUFORs on an ad hoc basis. The Council of Ministers do it by implementing the ESDP. The BGs will streamline the process. It will be interesting to see when and how they are used.

France's record in Africa under question again: the Rwandan government is calling for the arrest of Dominique de Villepin and Francois Mitterand.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/08/200885164222947236.html

Rwanda has accused senior French politicians of involvement in its 1994 genocide and called for them to be put on trial.

Dominique de Villepin, former French prime minister, and Francois Mitterrand, France's former president are named.
The report is by an independent Rwandan commission set up to investigate France's role and says
"The French support was of a political, military, diplomatic and logistic nature..."Considering the gravity of the alleged facts, the Rwandan government asks competent authorities to undertake all necessary actions to bring the accused French political and military leaders to answer for their acts before justice."

Ireland is a signatory to treaties outlawing genocide. An unusual feature of these treaties is that a person wanted in connection with an alleged offence of genocide committed anywhere in the world may be arrested in Ireland.

What do you reckon the chances are that if say de Villepin passes through Ireland he would be detained by the Irish authorities and handed over to Rwanda?

Helium Three wrote:

Ireland is a signatory to treaties outlawing genocide. An unusual feature of these treaties is that a person wanted in connection with an alleged offence of genocide committed anywhere in the world may be arrested in Ireland.

What do you reckon the chances are that if say de Villepin passes through Ireland he would be detained by the Irish authorities and handed over to Rwanda?

Could we undertake a citizens' arrest ?

Well - this is a bit of a diplomatic tit for tat - while not excusing the french from meddling in the region - it is a bit unusual for the tutsis - the minority whom the french had traditionally supported - to turn around and accuse the french of secretly arming and training the hutus - the majority tribe in the country - something smells here and its more of the traditional "lets the blame the foreigners" stuff which is totally a la mode in Africa thesedays - at the end of the day it was the two tribes who went mental and proceeded to slaughter each other in a month long orgy - fuck all the West could do about that.

This "independent" Report is all about trying to find closure on the massacre - in a way that is satisfactory to all in Rwanda - since neither tribe particularly wants to point the finger at the other and provoke a another round of bloodletting - it is more than convenient to point the finger at the colonial power - given that I've more chance of flying to the moon in my birthday suit than any of the allegations have of holding water.

Edo wrote:

Well - this is a bit of a diplomatic tit for tat - while not excusing the french from meddling in the region - it is a bit unusual for the tutsis - the minority whom the french had traditionally supported - to turn around and accuse the french of secretly arming and training the hutus - the majority tribe in the country - something smells here and its more of the traditional "lets the blame the foreigners" stuff which is totally a la mode in Africa thesedays - at the end of the day it was the two tribes who went mental and proceeded to slaughter each other in a month long orgy - fuck all the West could do about that.

Oh, I'm sure we should blame whoever is politically or emotionally convenient for us.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2506150/France-accused-of-complicity-in-Rwanda-genocide.html

Yes indeed. A report from today's Telegraph, for anyone who would like to attempt to go beyond subjective reflex reactions.

http://www.france24.com/en/20080805-Rwanda-accuses-France-involvement-genocide-Villepin-Mitterrand&navi=FRANCE

France 24 Report on the Commission, including video.

cactus flower wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2506150/France-accused-of-complicity-in-Rwanda-genocide.html

Yes indeed. A report from today's Telegraph, for anyone who would like to attempt to go beyond subjective reflex reactions.

There's a contradiction in that statement...

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2506150/France-accused-of-complicity-in-Rwanda-genocide.html

Yes indeed. A report from today's Telegraph, for anyone who would like to attempt to go beyond subjective reflex reactions.

There's a contradiction in that statement...

Had to get the dinner out of the oven mid post. Posted France 24 to redress the balance.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2506150/France-accused-of-complicity-in-Rwanda-genocide.html

Yes indeed. A report from today's Telegraph, for anyone who would like to attempt to go beyond subjective reflex reactions.

There's a contradiction in that statement...

Had to get the dinner out of the oven mid post. Posted France 24 to redress the balance.

Damn those intrusions from reality!

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2506150/France-accused-of-complicity-in-Rwanda-genocide.html

Yes indeed. A report from today's Telegraph, for anyone who would like to attempt to go beyond subjective reflex reactions.

There's a contradiction in that statement...

Had to get the dinner out of the oven mid post. Posted France 24 to redress the balance.

Damn those intrusions from reality!

http://www.oxfam.org/files/bp119-chad-mission-incomplete-0809.pdf

Oxfam has just issued this report on the UN anf EU forces at Chad. They are critical that Minurcat, and in particular its police training activities, have not happened as promised. So far no Chadian police have been trained and gone into service.

The main EUFOR force they say is not able to deal with banditry.

There are also problems of the requirement for water from the troops in a country in which water is scarce and highly valued.