State slow to act on EU rapid reaction

THAT old game of will-we-won’t-we resumed in Brussels this week over EU battle groups.

Several EU countries formed multinational, rapid reaction battle groups on Monday as part of efforts to enable the EU by late 2007 to launch peacekeeping operations anywhere in the world within 10 days.

Battle groups worry the Government. They fear voters will think it is a type of back-door conscription of their children.

So rather than debate the issue, they are wrapping it up in expert committees and groups and will present a lot of waffle before the next referendum.

Former Defence Minister Michael Smith said he was happy to sign up Ireland's army to unit.

However, new Defence Minister Willie O'Dea questioned whether it was against the Constitution or just needed a change in legislation.

He is awaiting experts to report back "to find a way around the difficulties", and if they do, Ireland will join a battle group.

However, our troops may not be in demand if we wait too long. The Nordics earmarked as an ideal group to be part of, since Sweden and Finland are also neutral have gone ahead and formed their own.

On the day the Government was saying that no battle groups had been formed, Finland, Sweden and Estonia, along with Norway (not a member of the EU but a NATO ally), signed their memorandum of understanding for their first group.

They say they will consider Irish troops if they have a future vacancy. But basically the Irish are seen as messers on this issue.

And they know that even if the Irish were business- like in their approach to the battle groups, there are other problems down the line.

This is the triple lock that the Government introduced in lieu of having a discussion and making a decision about neutrality.

The Swedes and Finns understand the need for a UN mandate and have committed to seeking one for their missions. But they understand one reason for EU battle groups with the urging of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is to get around some of the difficulties at UN level.

Countries' interests can lead to them vetoing a UN force going into a country as when China vetoed putting peacekeepers in Macedonia because they recognised Taiwan.

The Swedes and Norwegians require a UN mandate, but say they will forgo it in certain circumstances provided the action complies with international law and the UN Charter.

No matter what battle group Ireland ends up in, they will have to be considered as surplus to requirements and something of a luxury since the triple lock may prevent them participating in crises that require rapid responses.

This is a pity because the Irish defence forces have a good reputation when it comes to peacekeeping.

They have earned a great name in setting up sophisticated communications systems essential when operating in many of the areas in which the battle groups are likely to eventually end up.

The Government has no problem being part of the European Defence Agency, designed to streamline Europe's defence industry for its own armies and for sales to others.

As the NATO general secretary recently pointed out, the EU has neutral states as members, but none claims to be pacifist.

Maybe it's time Ireland decided to work out what neutrality means.