(Another) Golden moment for the EU
On June 25, 1991, Croatia and Slovenia declared independence from Yugoslavia. The world watched in anticipation, knowing that war in the Balkans could easily spread across the region - as it had in the past. Only four days later, leaders from the European Community (soon to be called European Union) dispatched a "troika" of foreign ministers to sort out the situation. It was a golden moment: Europe was going to solve its own problem; no need for the United States, no need for the United Nations.
But the EU failed to secure a lasting truce.
As war began in Balkans, neither Europe alone nor the UN could bring about a cease-fire. It was Russia, Great Britain, Germany, France, and - of course - Uncle Sam that finally got a real treaty signed - in Dayton, Ohio.
Today, in Lebanon, the EU faces an opportunity similar to the one in 1991.
The United States, while it has Israel's ear, has had its welcome mat all but yanked out from under it in Lebanon. Furthermore, U.S. troops have never been an option as part of the possible peacekeeping force. Even a NATO force without U.S. soldiers wouldn't be permitted in Lebanon, because of America's leading role in the alliance.
The EU could seize this chance, and offer their own troops - perhaps the Rapid Reaction Force - as the force worthy of a UN mandate, and the only one willing and able to keep the peace. The the EU would then have a solid card to hold up as they work with Lebanese and Israeli governments to secure a cease-fire. Without the card of "this is the military might we wield," negotiators don't have much to offer.
If not the RRF, EU leadership - within the institutions of the EU, not through bilateral discussions - could work to delegate peacekeeping authority to several member states. This would be a great chance for Italy, Spain, Poland, and other states that sent troops to Iraq to stay relevant in security circles.
Of course, all of this depends on the willingness of Israel and Hezbollah to allow a peacekeeping force between them. But having a specific troops waiting on deck could greatly increase the propensity of the parties to discussions, and then accelerate those discussions.
Bosnia didn't see peace in the 1990s until negotiators realized U.S. and other troops would be willing to step in and maintain the peace after a treaty. Now, the U.S. might be the impotent negotiator, and the EU might be the third party with both the neutrality and the troops necessary to bring a halt to the violence.
Will this golden moment be wasted, as another was in 1991?
Update: Apparently the EU read my post. The foreign ministers for all 25 countries (as the Council of the European Union) put out a joint statement, demanding an "immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire." Common foreign policy can be quite difficult for EU states to achieve - see the Iraq war - so this is a feat. The EU made a sensible common foreign policy statement, one different than that of the United States.
One problem, though, is that 21 of the states wanted to call for an "immediate ceasefire," but diplomats from Britain, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland wouldn't stray so far from U.S policy, according to Reuters.
But the EU failed to secure a lasting truce.
As war began in Balkans, neither Europe alone nor the UN could bring about a cease-fire. It was Russia, Great Britain, Germany, France, and - of course - Uncle Sam that finally got a real treaty signed - in Dayton, Ohio.
Today, in Lebanon, the EU faces an opportunity similar to the one in 1991.
The United States, while it has Israel's ear, has had its welcome mat all but yanked out from under it in Lebanon. Furthermore, U.S. troops have never been an option as part of the possible peacekeeping force. Even a NATO force without U.S. soldiers wouldn't be permitted in Lebanon, because of America's leading role in the alliance.
The EU could seize this chance, and offer their own troops - perhaps the Rapid Reaction Force - as the force worthy of a UN mandate, and the only one willing and able to keep the peace. The the EU would then have a solid card to hold up as they work with Lebanese and Israeli governments to secure a cease-fire. Without the card of "this is the military might we wield," negotiators don't have much to offer.
If not the RRF, EU leadership - within the institutions of the EU, not through bilateral discussions - could work to delegate peacekeeping authority to several member states. This would be a great chance for Italy, Spain, Poland, and other states that sent troops to Iraq to stay relevant in security circles.
Of course, all of this depends on the willingness of Israel and Hezbollah to allow a peacekeeping force between them. But having a specific troops waiting on deck could greatly increase the propensity of the parties to discussions, and then accelerate those discussions.
Bosnia didn't see peace in the 1990s until negotiators realized U.S. and other troops would be willing to step in and maintain the peace after a treaty. Now, the U.S. might be the impotent negotiator, and the EU might be the third party with both the neutrality and the troops necessary to bring a halt to the violence.
Will this golden moment be wasted, as another was in 1991?
Update: Apparently the EU read my post. The foreign ministers for all 25 countries (as the Council of the European Union) put out a joint statement, demanding an "immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire." Common foreign policy can be quite difficult for EU states to achieve - see the Iraq war - so this is a feat. The EU made a sensible common foreign policy statement, one different than that of the United States.
One problem, though, is that 21 of the states wanted to call for an "immediate ceasefire," but diplomats from Britain, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland wouldn't stray so far from U.S policy, according to Reuters.
posted by bp at
5:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home