EU Army?

[papabear]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/weu30.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/30/ixnewstop.html

[papabear]

"Quite naturally a multi-polar world is being created, whether one likes it or not. It's inevitable. For balance to exist, there will have to be a strong Europe. Relations between the European Union and the United States will have to be a partnership between equals," said M Chirac.
I hope not all European leaders are so deluded to agree with this statement. It's difficult to maintain equality when your country(-ies) is (are) in a steeper decline than your "partner."

The EU can be seen as an attempt to rise above the nationalism, which had been growing steady steady since 16th century until the 20th, and also as a desired outcome of the Enlightenment. Still, with declining populations and the continuing loss of traditional culture and mores, all this rhetoric of a strong Europe seems nothing more than that. United, perhaps, in a bankrupt ideology that provides no means for countering the moral and spiritual problems which beset the continent.

Perhaps a EU army will become necessary when the effects of increased immigration from non-European countries become apparent, and the Europeans have to take drastic action with respect to domestic security.

[raid]

From my french point of view, papabear, you are absolutely right.
The only trouble is that the few french people who dare to stand by this point of view are called right wing extremists. Is that that hard to see it coming? I mean, christianism here, as well as in many other european countries, is regarded as a nice thing from the past, while islamism has never been more growing than nowadays. And there's no one to find it strange... Our interior minister was decried 2 weeks ago by a muslim assembly when he dared to say that muslim women should not wear their veils on their ID photo.. And there's only small reaction to that in the media...
If this is the way this country is going, I'm out of here, hopefully to the US, where tradition and patriotism has a meaning...

[Orava]

will love to fight for a europen army...... A swedish ranger

[axl]

an european army would be just logical. at the moment we have too many small armies, all have staff and logistics and tanks and planes and and and. they are all used together, but they are still seperated. a combined european army would make life for the soldiers much easier and save lots of money. at the moment too many small generals and politicians fight against each other, one strong army would solve so many problems.

regards
axl

[hood]

You're never going to have a unified European army in the way you're talking about axl. The army of your country will act in a way that is in the interests of your country and nothing else. Look at France with NATO. They're part of it, but at the same time, they did everything they could to stop aid going to Turkey and possibly sending troops. Basically what they're saying here is, we don't agree with the other countries anymore, so we're going to go off and do our own thing. That's all well and good, but it's going to come right back up again when the rest of Europe wants to do something that France doesn't want to, and the whole arrangement will be off like a dress on prom night when it doesn't suit their needs of the moment.

[raid]

Hood has a valid point. To put it another way, I don't see how we could really create a EU army without a prior EU government. I'm not against a european army, but discussing this matter only between four countries was not a clever move, to say the least. They should at least have discussed it with northern countries like sweden, Denmark, the netherland or finland...

[papabear]

The only trouble is that the few french people who dare to stand by this point of view are called right wing extremists. Is that that hard to see it coming? I mean, christianism here, as well as in many other european countries, is regarded as a nice thing from the past, while islamism has never been more growing than nowadays. And there's no one to find it strange... Our interior minister was decried 2 weeks ago by a muslim assembly when he dared to say that muslim women should not wear their veils on their ID photo.. And there's only small reaction to that in the media...

If I may be so bold to comment on "right-wing" parties in Europe, even though I have not had a chance to look at any official publications or writings by the major players, it seems to me that some, not wrongfully, have been condemned or at least ignored because of associations with movements that were clearly wrong, e.g. Nazism or Facism, or the sort of positions that were adopted by those movements.

It is along similar lines that some defend or conserve traditional culture and mores merely for the sake of being different, or as a part of a nationalistic mentality. Or worse, even if they seek to foster tradition for the right reasons, many combine it with a pride that seeks to condemn or destroy anyone who might not see any value in it, to place themselves as being superior to others merely because they have the "right beliefs." Thus, they keep the "letter of the law" in order to condemn others, without acquiring the "spirit" which would enable them to see the good in such tradition and why those who would impoverish themselves should be pitied and taught the value of tradition, rather than attacked.

Which is not to say that valid critiques of the current situation should not be made; rather, and part of the problem is due to the fact that Christianity is slowly being lost, these critiques must be done either in charity (possible only if one is a practicing Christian) or at least in the spirit of friendship/benevolence. So much of European culture and heritage is rooted in Christianity that to seek to preserve tradition without seeing how it is dependent upon Christianity, is to maintain a dead museum piece, or a tourist attraction, like Epcot at Disneyworld, instead of a living culture that it should be.

[ivandebono]

Let's not rush. A European Army is still some way off, at least until all EU countries decide to put their differences aside and act together.

I don't think France is a problem for the formation of an EU Army, or for European unity for that matter. The real problem is British scepticism about anything "European". And an EU Army without British participation is unthinkable.

But there is hope yet. No matter what the political differences may be, on the practical military front Franco-British cooperation has never been stronger, especially after the 1998 St. Malo summit. There are even plans for the formation of a joint Franco-British carrier force. (At the moment the only true aircaft carrier in the whole of the EU is the Charles de Gaulle.)

I don't think we should misread French intentions. France has always sought to develop an independent European military capability not because of any diabolical plans at world domination, or to undermine NATO. What the EU needs is a coherent, united foreign policy.

And foreign policy cannot exist without a defence policy.

Just as an aside, on 1st April the EU inititated its first military mission, 'Concordia', in the FYR of Macedonia. France is contributing 180 troops. The UK, with the most powerful army in Europe, is contributing 3.

[Chris1]

You can't just pair up a german tank with a British Infantry section, for a very simple reason when 'meecrofilm' is involved :D
How are they supposed to work together?
Sign language?
Morse?
Signal flags?

Currently under NATO nations can work together in a conflict contributing their own little unique abilities.
forming an EU Army, political problems aside would throw together soldiers with different equipment, level of training, dedication and doctrine for no reason other than to have a funny new flag.
The same problems would exsist (UK wants to go to War, France doesn't)
except they would be debated in a different arena.

[Desert-Fox]

EU Military is probably the best idea i´ve heard in a while!

Ingi Thor - Iceland

(There is no icelandic army so having an army to join that was in part
supported by my country would be bloody Brilliant!)

[Desert-Fox]

if the European nations would unite on this matter it could be
accomplished in a few years.

Most of the problems mentioned in this thread are really
not that hard to solve!

[Seiyuuki]

NATO and EU Army...something wrong is bound to happen...

Since the Secretary of Defense already spoke of a major shift in the deployment of U.S. troops abroad, how 'bout we just slowly minimize our involvement with NATO, allowing NATO to be slowly absorb by the EU into the EU Army...wouldn't that be a bit more plausible?

[FallenAngel]

Boy...Britian would have a tough go of it....choosing between long-time ally USA and a newly established yet promising EU Army....tough calls.

[Knave]

This has been a long time coming; it was already passed into treaty a while ago that Europe would create a 45-60,000 strong joint "Rapid Reaction Force," for missions like the one now in FYROM.

I'm not sure how this fits in with the European Security and Defense Identity, which was also put together a while ago. Creating a seperate European Joint command to complement NATO is a good move. Since the UN seems to be becoming more and more irrelevant, one can hope that the Alliance can come into a more prominant role in international affairs.

And I don't think the goal is or should be for the EU to become a political, economic and military "counterweight" to the US; "counterpart" might be a better and more attainable goal. Of course, due to the economic, technological and military might of the US, being an equal is impossible; especially since the EU is not a country in the sense that the United States is. The EU is more of a patchwork of cooperating states than a united country like the US.... and that's probably going to remain. The barriers of culture, language and opinion across Europe are simply too great to create one single united voice in politics and a single sense of national patriotism, like Americans have - and that unity is one of the United States' biggest advantages.

Ask a Frenchman if he's a Frenchman or a European first.... expect him to say the former. Ask someone from California or Montana if they're American first or have allegiance to their State first..... the answer is predetermined; that's where the difference lies between the two.

But having the Europeans take care of more of their military needs would take some strain off US deployment in Europe....

Oh.... and, the CDG is the only real aircraft carrier in Europe... hrm, that's true, if you compare it to US Nimitz-class carriers. Britain does have the three Invincible Class carriers.... and plans to build two large carriers on a scale comparable to the CDG.

[cut]

In a meeting with European leaders a few days ago Tony Blair put forward the idea for one european president, probably a former head of state from one of the european countries (i think he had himself in mind). the presidents role would be to represent the european union abroad. Which would make more of an impact than the rotating presidency.
Greece barely managed anything during the war in iraq.
The analogy 10 downing street made was that the president would be someone the whitehouse can call.

With a high enough persona (like most former state leaders) the president would be able to bring more unity to the eu.
Then a European army would be a much more realistic prospect. The european RRF is only likely to do dull peace keeping jobs if the US still has the upper hand through nato.

Also recently I read an article saying that the British government planned to downsize the army and make it more high tech. In the article the author argued that this meant the government was planning to become this high tech to be able to fight more side by side with the US army, aking the British army just another division to US defence.

But having a high tech army would also mean that in a european army there would be the same technology as in the american counterpart and there would be enough regular army in the other european countries to make up a effective competitor to the US.

With the countries joining next year the EU already has twice the population of the US. And larger joint armed forces. And if turkey, the second largest armed forces in NATO, joins as they intend to the EU army would easily be big enough to carry out "policing" activities along with the united states.

[budanski]

With the U.S. being the sole superpower, trying to build a counterweight will bankrupt the E.U. economy to an already small defense budget. There is a role for an E.U. force. One of a civil force. This force can work complimentary with the U.S. The U.S. fights the wars, the E.U. comes in afterwards for peacekeeping and social order after the war. The only problem to this is to get the E.U. to accept this smaller role.

my two cents.

[papabear]

Ask someone from California or Montana if they're American first or have allegiance to their State first..... the answer is predetermined; that's where the difference lies between the two.

Unfortunately this has been true since the American Civil War (aka the War of Northern Aggression). States' rights politicking is no longer a viable option for most states.l

[papabear]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-626184,00.html


Europe shrinking as birthrates decline
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent



EUROPE’S population will continue to decline for decades even if birthrates improve significantly, researchers have calculated.
Trends towards smaller families and later motherhood mean that there are too few women of childbearing age to reverse the decline in the near future, according to an Austrian study. The year 2000 marked a turning point, with the population’s “momentum” becoming negative; there will be fewer parents in the next generation than in this one.

At present 1.5 babies are born for every European Union woman, when two births are required for the population “replacement rate” to be maintained. Even if women started to have more children again, at younger ages, the tendency to population decline would continue for decades, as there would be too few potential mothers to make a difference.

The findings come from a study by Wolfgang Lutz, of the Austrian Academy of Science in Vienna, and Brian O’Neill, of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria, using data from the European Demographic Observatory.

They show that Europe’s population could decline by as much as 88 million people if present trends continue for another 15 years. The population of the European Union was about 375 million in 2000.

The decline made Europe the scene of a significant social experiment, Dr Lutz said. “Negative momentum has not been experienced on a large scale in world history so far,” he added.

The model, details of which are published today in the journal Science, does not take into account immigration, which will be required if the population is not to slip dramatically. “We expect continued immigration into Europe, but we wanted to identify these two mechanisms which we think are new and important insights into the nature of population dynamics,” Dr Lutz said.

The authors said that the changing role of women was a significant factor in the projected population decline. Many were putting off having their first child to concentrate on their education or career.

[papabear]

Charles Krauthammer on Nato:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2097-2002May23&notFound=true


NATO may still have a role in peacekeeping but not in war-making. As a serious military alliance it is finished. But there is no need for a funeral. NATO can be usefully re-imagined. Its new role should be to serve as incubator for Russia's integration into Europe and the West.

It is precisely because NATO has turned from a military alliance into a transatlantic club of advanced democracies that it can now safely invite Russia in -- and why Russia has so reconciled itself to NATO. Russia recognizes NATO's shift from a military to a political organization. That is why it has muted its objection to NATO's expansion into the former Soviet republics of the Baltic states.

[Kitsune]

@Papabear:

Well,
demographic predictions have a strong tendency of being wrong. Remember that only 15 years ago experts predicted a huge world population explosion? Demographics "showed" that in 2100 around 20 billion people would live on this planet...and so on.

Now (15 years later) these predictions have been reduced to 10 to 11 billion people. The great catastrophe that seemed unavoidable back then may never happen (but who knows what they will say in another 15 years?).

Another point: This shows only that Europe is in fact AHEAD of the USA in many social developements. In fact, looking at Europe with its educated women and non-religious tendencies you (as an american) may see your on future (like it or not). The "vitality" of the US is more the result of the black and hispanic population groups, who are quite backward (as a feminist would call it) and therefore fertile, (Hispanic women are expected to take on a mother and housewife role) not the "whites". So the US of A may become more black and especially more hispanic in flavor (so perhaps you should look to mexico to see your future). But the time will come when even black or hispanic women will want to have a career! And then american birthrates will drop, too.

But does this mean: the end? Before anyone discounts Europe as some region without any future...(even if demographic experts are right) let us not forget: there are a lot of variables in this game. Immmigration for example. Or technical developement! Genetics, biotechnology, gerontological treatments...this all will quite probably exist in a few decades. Perhaps people will live 20 to 30 years longer than now, with decades more of youthful vitality. Or in vitro fertilisation and "exowombs" allows for having children without the need of a women (so one can combine career and children, even giving birth to two at a time). Who knows? The low birthrate may raise again...or even turn out to be an advantage!

So think twice before writing off Europe.
And if you want to worry about something, look to the US of A. Take your state budget deficit. Growing fast. Your debts to foreign countries (e.g. Europe)...also growing fast. The industrial base (part of the GDP the manufacturing industry has) of the USA are now only 17% compared to 31% in Germany or 30% in Japan (Meaning that the manufacturing industry of Germany is 35%, the japanese industry 70% of the of US- one. Meaning also, that the EU has already a larger industry than America...and the difference is growing. Of course the american GDP is gigantic and going up...the financial sector for example is booming. Around double as large as the industrial part of your economy nowadays. Worry about that!
The US trading deficit...sky-high (approaching 450 billion a year, thats what is said)...and still growing. Why has a nation, which is supposed to be so superior, such an deficit? With nearly every other nation on this planet? Could it be that something is seriously wrong? A "bubble economy" which is in fact mainly world-leader in consumption? No, can't be? Because the experts would have prevented this developement from happening in the first place? Well, remember Japan. Economy high as a kite during the eighties...taking a steep dive during the early nineties. No one prevented it. Only a few predicted it. But it happened (and then everyone had said so all the time, of course). Perhaps you should not look to Europe or Mexico to see your future, but to Japan?

Just a thought...


p-)

[yellowking]

at the moment too many small generals and politicians fight against each other, one strong army would solve so many problems.
Axl's right! Just look at the strongest military in the history of the world, the U.S.'s!! There is no political infighting and backstabbing, only the submission of individual desires to the greater good of our nation.
rofl rofl rofl
Still, have to say we get the job done, maybe he does have a point...

[papabear]

:Well, demographic predictions have a strong tendency of being wrong. Remember that only 15 years ago experts predicted a huge world population explosion? Demographics "showed" that in 2100 around 20 billion people would live on this planet...and so on.

Two points to be made with respect to using statistics to make predictions about changes in population:
(1) Making predictions about what will happen 3 or 4 decades down the road (equivalent to 1 or 2 generations) is inherently more accurate than making predictions about what will happen 100 years in the future.

(2) Making predictions about how a population will decrease is safer than making a prediction about how much a population will increase, provided that the reasoning is good, based on assumptions derived from a good analysis of causes. It's not certain how many children a fertile couple will bring into the world. However, it is clear that if people engaging in *** are deliberately not having children, either through birth control or abortion, then guess what, they will have no children so long as they maintain these practices. And if enough people have this contraceptive mentality and practice, and the average number of children falls below the replacement rate, then the overall native population will drop.

Thus, it is written in the article: "Even if women started to have more children again, at younger ages, the tendency to population decline would continue for decades, as there would be too few potential mothers to make a difference."


:Another point: This shows only that Europe is in fact AHEAD of the USA in many social developements. In fact, looking at Europe with its educated women and non-religious tendencies you (as an american) may see your on future (like it or not). The "vitality" of the US is more the result of the black and hispanic population groups, who are quite backward (as a feminist would call it) and therefore fertile, (Hispanic women are expected to take on a mother and housewife role) not the "whites". So the US of A may become more black and especially more hispanic in flavor (so perhaps you should look to mexico to see your future). But the time will come when even black or hispanic women will want to have a career! And then american birthrates will drop, too.

If I recall correctly, the birthrates of African-Americans has also dropped below the replacement rate, despite the growing number of single-parent children. The continuing increases in U.S. population are due mostly to immigration. Whether Hispanics will be assimilated or not into mainstream American culture remains to be seen.

What you call a social development I call a decline. On that score, Europe is ahead of America, and that is the point I was making in the first post.


Before anyone discounts Europe as some region without any future...(even if demographic experts are right) let us not forget: there are a lot of variables in this game. Immmigration for example.

Immigration from where, though? Not from other European countries. Despite dreams of a "diverse" society, not all are willing to embrace the Western liberal model and its way of life. Perhaps you hope Muslims moving into Europe are moderate, willing to compromise their religion in favor of Western culture, and willing to serve the idols of Western society rather than Allah.


Or technical developement! Genetics, biotechnology, gerontological treatments...this all will quite probably exist in a few decades. Perhaps people will live 20 to 30 years longer than now, with decades more of youthful vitality. Or in vitro fertilisation and "exowombs" allows for having children without the need of a women (so one can combine career and children, even giving birth to two at a time). Who knows? The low birthrate may raise again...or even turn out to be an advantage!
"Science is our new Savior, and It will save us from the bad choices we make." Such technology will never be available on a wide scale, only to those who have the $$$ to pay for it. Besides, any future use of such reproductive technologies will be just another sign of the fact that we've already become a degenerate people.


And if you want to worry about something, look to the US of A.
I do worry about the U.S., and I also find economic indicators to be meaningless in giving a picture of the health of a society. Why don't we look at abortion statistics instead? Let's see, about 1.3 million abortions per year for the U.S. (www.abortionno.org), versus about 4.3 million per year for Europe, which is perhaps slightly more than twice the size of the US in population. Hmmm...
http://www.prolifecampaign.ie/pdf/Statistics.pdf [Statistics for the various countries are given for differing years--I have made the assumption that the numbers have been relatively stable in calculating the total.]

In the end it matters not if a country has an abundance of external wealth (usually concentrated in the hands of the few) if the citizens' way of life is morally impoverished. Rome fell. And soon, if things continue, what might be called Western Liberal civilization will also fall.

Perhaps you might think that the Western way of life is healthy, and that "choice," which we supposedly have an abundance of, is the most important criterion for making this judgment. If that is the case, then we have different understandings of what the "good life" is.