'Question: what is the main challenge facing the EU member- states? Answer: The main challenge for the member-states is to develop military capabilities, which can be put at the disposal of the EU for crisis management purposes." Breda O'Brien writes.
Typical Eurosceptic propaganda, you might assume, determined to present the EU as some power-hungry, war-mongering entity. But it isn't.
It is the view of the General Secretariate of the Council of the European Union as expressed on its the official website on May 31st 2002 . That page has since been removed. Not that unusual, because frequently asked questions (FAQ) are regularly updated. Odd, though, that this frank statement of priorities mysteriously disappeared off the new FAQ page. If it was the "main challenge" on May 31st, can we take it that it has now been met?
One might have thought that the main challenge for the member-states was to tackle unemployment, or rampant inflation caused by the euro, or fair and just integration of the applicant countries, but no. In the midst of innocuous questions like "Where can I find general information about the EU" and "where can I get information about the euro", lies this surprise. The main challenge for the EU is to develop military capabilities. And ahem, remember that stuff about Partnership for Peace having nothing to do with NATO? The next question helpfully asks: "What is the role of the (sic) NATO? Do we duplicate it? Answer: NATO remains the basis of the collective defence of its members and will continue to play an important role in crisis management. The development will also lead to a genuine strategic partnership between EU and NATO in the management of crises with due regard to the two organisations' decision-making autonomy. EU military structures will be separable but not separate from the (sic) NATO. The aim is that there should be no unnecessary duplication."
Well, God forbid that there should be any unnecessary duplication. That would be terrible. But could anyone decipher what "being separable from but not separate from the NATO" means? Could it be that we don't have to worry about membership, because members or not, we are not separate from them anyway? And don't you just love "crisis-management"? As a euphemism it is up there with "collateral damage" and "friendly fire".
Whatever happened to war, and killing people? Of course, there are those who would probably have no problems with the idea that the main challenge for the member-states is to develop military capabilities. To give just one example, Dr Bill McSweeney, writing in the summer issue of Studies, states that Ireland's neutrality was never taken seriously internationally, and was relegated to the occasional "droll footnote" by academics. He goes on to claim that Ireland's policy, held since Lemass, of "provisional neutrality", is untenable and the best description we can hope to qualify for is "unaligned". This, he helpfully points out, means that we have joined the ranks of the "great and the shabby who happen to be non-aligned" such as China, Albania and Lithuania.
He suggests we abandon all notion of neutrality, because the form of it which we practice is meaningless in international law, and get on with the process we have already started, which is closer and closer co-operation with Europe in its attempt to develop military capabilities. He adds that it is a far better option than reliance on the United States which, since September 11th, "is more militarised than ever and less amenable to negotiation with institutional partners".
Far better in any future "crisis" that the EU, and Ireland along with it, be able to bring "its particular values to bear on the conflict". Dr McSweeney's argument is undermined by his call that the EU bring its "particular values" to bear. Just what are those values? Who determines them? If Ireland is to be scolded, whipped into line and told to behave on the Nice Treaty, what hope is there of having any positive influence on future military policy?
Andy Storey of Afri, in a reply to Dr McSweeney in the forthcoming autumn issue of Studies, points out that it may be naïve indeed to assume that these values are ones with which we would automatically be in sympathy. For example, in Rwanda, France supported the forces responsible for genocide. Britain sold arms to the oppressors in East Timor. This is not to pre-suppose that all actions taken on behalf of the EU would be wrong or motivated by commercial interest, but it does at least cause one to pause.
Andy Storey advocates a positive and creative reading of neutrality, which may not as yet be supported in law, but which might be, if sufficient effort were made to promote it.
This kind of neutrality, which involves constructive criticism, suggestion of alternatives to war, mediation and bridge-building holds tremendous emotional appeal in Ireland. The idea of eventually being fully compliant members of a nuclear-armed power bloc, that is the EU, holds no attraction at all. A declaration on neutrality has very little power to reassure. This is particularly true when we see our politicians falling over themselves to prove to our masters in Brussels that a democratic referendum result was just a little mistake.
We should be grateful to Gunther Verhaugen, the European Commissioner for Enlargement, for stating our alternatives so baldly.
In his mind, we don't have any. If Nice is not ratified, he declared that there was "no Plan B" and that it was "forbidden to put forward such thoughts".
Even allowing for translation from another language, forbidding people to have thoughts is at best an unfortunate turn of phrase. He explains Irish people might ask "What is this alternative like? We would like to know it, and then we won't have to ratify Nice." In other words, we don't want you to know there is an alternative, because of the appalling vista that we might have to give it to you. The patronising attitude of the Commissioner illustrates perfectly why so many worry that ceding even more sovereignty to the EU is foolish, and particularly so in matters of life and death, even when they are termed crisis management.
bobrien@irish-times.ie