Never let a crisis go to waste

The BBC reports that "European Union ministers approve plans to establish naval force to combat people-smugglers operating from Libya". Never let a crisis go to waste though approving a naval force and creating one, let alone making it operational are very different things.

Furthermore, as I recall, Libya rejected the proffered assistance by the EU, calling the intention "unclear and very worrying".

Mutiny in the ranks?

It seems that some EU members are making their own peacekeeping arrangements though there is no mention on whether our and their masters in Brussels have been consulted.

Kyiv Post reports that Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania are definitely going to create that joint peacekeeping team that they promised to put together last year. That's all very well but are we not all supposed to be working towards the creation of a single (repeat single) EU peacekeeping or whatever keeping force? Do the Lithuanians and the Poles not want to be haring all over Africa making sure that French nuclear companies have enough uranium?

NZWeek adds:

The team will support peacekeeping and humanitarian operations under the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Union, or multinational coalitions in accordance with the U.N. Charter and the principles of international law.

In fact, almost anything that might involve them in a scrap.

How sad!

Apparently, the common defence policy is once again mourned by diplomats. It has a habit of going AWOL whenever there is a real crisis abroad. The reason is simple: defence can exist on the basis of foreign policy. Unlike our own government the colleagues have always understood this and have laboured mightily to create a common foreign and security policy, first written into the Maastricht Treaty. Alas, there are no common interests and the usual Monnet method of creating institutions that will, eventually, ensure the content does not seem to work. Real events interfere. Not that our peculiar rush to support a French initiative over Libya can be said to be in our interest or, if it is, it is being kept very quiet.

They are right

It will not surprise readers of this blog to find out that I tend to agree more with the other side than with the rather wishy-washy, supposed allies such as the so-called Conservative eurosceptics. The Centre for European Reform, an organization that used to be a kind Gorbachev type reformers of the European Union are people who speak the same language as the real eurosceptics. In fact, they have long ago abandoned their perestroika credentials, leaving them to Open Europe and New Direction.

CER has a blog of varying interest but it is always useful to read their postings to find out what the europhiliac agenda is or to have it confirmed. Here is the entry on the Strategic Defence and Security Review. No messing around here. Clara Marina O'Donnell goes straight for the important question: is this good for European defence integration?

After the usual blah about pragmatism being europhiliac whereas euroscepticism that points to the various problems in the whole concept of European defence integration being sectarian, extremist and generally reprehensible, we get to the meat.

The coalition government's plan to work more closely with its allies is both positive and long overdue. For decades, Britain and other European countries have wasted a lot of money by duplicating the development of military equipment. Depending on the outcome of the Franco-British summit, the new UK government might go further in promoting the cause of European defence co-operation than any of its predecessors.

But London must invest the same political energy it has devoted to France towards exploring additional savings with other European countries. In the SDSR, the government opens the possibility of closer defence co-operation with Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. But other countries could also offer niche savings, including Poland and Sweden which have shown a keen interest in improving their military capabilities in recent years. The UK should also actively encourage its European allies to strengthen co-operation amongst themselves. As Britain's own military preparedness diminishes, it has a greater interest in other European countries taking up the slack.

The second piece of good news in the SDSR is the rather constructive attitude of the UK towards EU defence co-operation. Before the general election last spring, key members of the Conservative party – in particular William Hague, now the Foreign Secretary, and Liam Fox, now in charge of defence – voiced serious reservations about EU efforts in defence. Liam Fox worried that federalists within the EU were trying to develop a European army. He openly opposed some of the steps towards a stronger EU foreign policy foreseen in the Lisbon treaty. And he was keen to withdraw the UK from the European Defence Agency, a body which encourages common efforts amongst EU countries in developing defence capabilities.

Just one problem with the whole notion and Ms O'Donnell does not deal with it: exactly what will be the purpose of a not very advanced integrated European defence force?

Nothing new under the sun

Well, not as far as the EU is concerned. Whatever the latest news that sends the media, various bloggers and other so-called commentators and eurosceptics into a spin is usually the next stage of a long process. So it is with the news or rumours that one of the aircraft carriers will be shared with the French. Yes, folks, we have been here a very long time though I recall being shocked how few people recognized the importance of the St Malo meeting between Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac.

Anyway, the Boss sums up the whole grisly tale on EUReferendum, which means that I do not have to. Heh!