NationStates Jolt Archive

From reading different threads there seems to be this notion of the EU palying a greater part in International affairs-Palestine, Iraq etc. While many meber states of the EU send troops to these places they do not join under a task force like the UN blue helmets.
So the question I raise is1) should the EU have a peace keeping force similar to that of the UN
or
2) based on Prodi's vision should the EU have an army, (In this case Prodi decided to call the army Mari ann and arm it with depleted Uranium-it's true. Said some time around 2000/2001). For a moment ignore NATO regulation which forbides members from entering to another military allaince of that magnitude

The EU would have to be a united force first. And thats never going to happen. Britain forever!

Damn Brits!!!

Holdin back the Euro! I do agree that a united EU would be needed it goes with out saying! But you have Blair for a while mwahaha.. so ya never know. Any way when each country joined they were made aware of the small fact that one of the primary goals of the Union is for complete unity of all its members. Undisputed fact, most choose to ignore, i've spent enough time at model eurpean parliament debating this issue. Surprisingly supported by a group of public school boys..and girl!!-(Is it possible that a government mislead its people)

I think America and Europe(including Russia) should join a union that is enforced by a united military.

I think America and Europe(including Russia) should join a union that is enforced by a united military.

I don't see a problem with this.

Also if the EU had a peacekeeping force maybe they'd stop trying to get the UN and US to supply the peackeepers.

I don't see a problem with this.

Also if the EU had a peacekeeping force maybe they'd stop trying to get the UN and US to supply the peackeepers.

I do see a problem with this. In theory it's great. A joint union of peace keepers. But as ususal it would rely to heavily on the US and we'd have a repeat of the UN disaster last March. I think if all nations had equal military power this may work.

I agree, the EU does need some form of military operation for peace keeping purposes only. Any thing stronger would cause a surge in violence and crime. It may also make the EU more susceptible to militant attacks. An issue the EU is not yet capable of dealing with.

Right...the EU relies on the US to supply peacekeepers... :rolleyes:

A quick check on the UN site shows EU countries give approx. (done quickly cos I've a lecture to go to but I believe it's accurate) 4647 peacekeepers to the UN for duties (haven't broken it done viz: troops, observers and police, just total number)
(Sourced the numbers from http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2004/September2004_1.pdf) and it's possible to go back 4 years, though I'll wager that several EU countries beat the US hands down on peacekeeper numbers every year. Even little Ireland with our 10,000 strong army gives the UN more peacekeepers than the US)

That being said, the UN replies heavily on Third World nations for it's peacekeepers with countries like Pakistan, Nigeria, India, Ghana, Bangladesh and Nepel contributing several thousand each.

The US on the other hand, gives 365 troops! So how exactly does anyone reply on the US for peacekeepers?

You seem to forget that the EU already has a peacekeeping force not related to NATO or the UN. I believe it's already active in Macedonia.

i don't like spending money to the military, but we may need a peacekeeping force. the problem is that we have sensible ideas on international politics, but no way to put any force behind them.
Though i still prefer a stronger UN, to prevent the world from falling apart in factions.

I think the EU should have a much stronger military. It would be good for Europe.

Right...the EU relies on the US to supply peacekeepers... :rolleyes:

A quick check on the UN site shows EU countries give approx. (done quickly cos I've a lecture to go to but I believe it's accurate) 4647 peacekeepers to the UN for duties (haven't broken it done viz: troops, observers and police, just total number)
(Sourced the numbers from http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2004/September2004_1.pdf) and it's possible to go back 4 years, though I'll wager that several EU countries beat the US hands down on peacekeeper numbers every year. Even little Ireland with our 10,000 strong army gives the UN more peacekeepers than the US)

That being said, the UN replies heavily on Third World nations for it's peacekeepers with countries like Pakistan, Nigeria, India, Ghana, Bangladesh and Nepel contributing several thousand each.

The US on the other hand, gives 365 troops! So how exactly does anyone reply on the US for peacekeepers?

Let's not forget the 54, 246 million Americans who died for a UN cause fighting North Korea and China. Supposedly, the Korean War was a UN ran war, but where are the French soldiers patroling the DMZ between North and South Korea?

I also believe that many UN countries took part in the first Gulf War. Over two million men and women were mobilized in that war, with 147 dying in it.

From my point of view, America has contributed many of her sons and daughters to a UN cause.

You seem to forget that the EU already has a peacekeeping force not related to NATO or the UN. I believe it's already active in Macedonia.
EU countries have peacekeeping forces, I'm not sure if EU has any (most of the countries have had them long before EU). But I think EU should have small rapid deployable forces. Finland and Sweden are already in.
"Sweden and Finland announce joint EU battle group"
http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=17443

I guess it depends on how interlinked the EU wants to become. It's a major step--and a major concession of individual national power--to join a united military force, because of issues like command and equipment manufacture and procurement. The EU would really become more like the US in terms of governmental structure if they did that--states with less power under a more powerful central federal government.

Another problem with having an EU peacekeeping force would be who decided when and where it is deployed? Unilateral agreement would probably mean it was never deployed anywhere, while majority agreement would leave countries feeling that they were ricking their soldiers lives against their will. What about vetos? We know how much fun the EU is having with those at the moment trying to sort out it's new constitution, and if you have an opt-in or opt-out system it wouldn't really be an EU force. Then there's Britain, which will always expect to be a bit special and pick and choose what it wants to do anyway! (I think it's cos we're an island, we feel politically as well as gepgraphically separated, though I personally would be in favour of more integration with mainland Europe) I don't think any EU peacekeeping force would work beause I don't think you'd ever get all the EU countries to agree on how it should run.

Another problem with having an EU peacekeeping force would be who decided when and where it is deployed?

Could it be it would be decided like it is done now? The country in need asks the UN to deploy adequate number of troops, and the UN member countries then offer their services.

I don't quite see why you (in this thread) are talking about EU peace keeping forces. The UN can't handle it? I thought the rapid deployment troops were the issue in the EU lately. I trust you all know the difference between peace keeping and peace enforcement? The UN does the first... these planned RD Troops would do the latter.

The EU is trying to create one.. but really there's no progress and it consistes of a couple of thousand german and french troops..

The EU DOES NEED a peace keeping force!! remeber BOSNIA? a pathetic post-soviet dictator of an incredibly weak nation was causing trouble and racial war in the area basically... and what did the EU do to remove this minute problem? thats right called in the Amercans to deal with the situation!! the only ones that could! it's really shamful considering the EU at the time conisted of western world "powers" *shakes head*

Could it be it would be decided like it is done now? The country in need asks the UN to deploy adequate number of troops, and the UN member countries then offer their services.
And if no one offers? Or if not enough are offered? Whose job is it then to say you, you and you MUST provide this many troops?

From reading different threads there seems to be this notion of the EU palying a greater part in International affairs-Palestine, Iraq etc. While many meber states of the EU send troops to these places they do not join under a task force like the UN blue helmets.
So the question I raise is1) should the EU have a peace keeping force similar to that of the UN
or
2) based on Prodi's vision should the EU have an army, (In this case Prodi decided to call the army Mari ann and arm it with depleted Uranium-it's true. Said some time around 2000/2001). For a moment ignore NATO regulation which forbides members from entering to another military allaince of that magnitude

No. We should stick with NATO.

The EU DOES NEED a peace keeping force!! remeber BOSNIA? a pathetic post-soviet dictator of an incredibly weak nation was causing trouble and racial war in the area basically... and what did the EU do to remove this minute problem? thats right called in the Amercans to deal with the situation!! the only ones that could! it's really shamful considering the EU at the time conisted of western world "powers" *shakes head*

Fair enough. You would have used peace keeping force to pacify Bosnia? Wouldn't it have to have been pacified first? I agree Rapid Deployment Troops (or some such) is needed in the EU.

And if no one offers? Or if not enough are offered? Whose job is it then to say you, you and you MUST provide this many troops? Thus far it hasn't been a problem. Peace keepers been a-plenty.


Did I really think the difference between peace keeping and peace enforcing was clear... my bad.

No. We should stick with NATO.
And the countries which are not part of it?

I agree Rapid Deployment Troops (or some such) is needed in the EU.


We get bored of waiting already, check the link on previous page. (Sweden and Finland announced joint EU battle group)

And the countries which are not part of it?

Well that's just bad luck.

You seem to forget that the EU already has a peacekeeping force not related to NATO or the UN. I believe it's already active in Macedonia.


You sure bout this. Under regulations something or other the EU can't have a peaceforce with out total consent from all members. It may well be that a group of peacekeepers form EU countries know as the European Peacekeepers have joined together in Macedonia.

Fair enough. You would have used peace keeping force to pacify Bosnia? Wouldn't it have to have been pacified first? I agree Rapid Deployment Troops (or some such) is needed in the EU.


certainly some sort of military force is necesarry.. i didn't specify sorry..
though it was a poor proformance

We get bored of waiting already, check the link on previous page. (Sweden and Finland announced joint EU battle group)

bah germany and france already created some sort of force.. really they have done nothing...

when was the case where the british and other european soldiers forces needed to borrow some old ukranian transport planes because they didnt have any of their own? :confused:

We get bored of waiting already, check the link on previous page. (Sweden and Finland announced joint EU battle group)
Well, being a Finn... I kinda know it. The Norwegians didn't join...or weren't let in? It would have been so cool... helmets with horns and some such...maybe deployed in longboats...

yes, they need a peacekeeping force.

all the EU population can tell each other to be peaceful.

that should do it
:fluffle:

Let's not forget the 54, 246 million Americans who died for a UN cause fighting North Korea and China. Supposedly, the Korean War was a UN ran war, but where are the French soldiers patroling the DMZ between North and South Korea?

I also believe that many UN countries took part in the first Gulf War. Over two million men and women were mobilized in that war, with 147 dying in it.

From my point of view, America has contributed many of her sons and daughters to a UN cause.

Firstly, the US suffered 44,000 casualties in the war.(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War) and the

Secondly, the Korean war was really a proxy war between the US and the Soviets/Chinese rather than a UN war (I know about the SC resolution etc. etc. but lets face it, it really was a proxy war) and even so, those "UN" troops weren't exactly peacekeepers now were they?

The US very rarely deploys troops to places unless it is in their national interest. I mean, those few hundred troops they gave to the UN is hardly worth it and in reality, very few US troops have died for true UN causes rather than interventions in the US' national interest (under the guise of the UN)