This week European Union defence ministers agreed to set up 13 rapid reaction "battle groups" of 1,500 troops apiece by 2007.
The decision puts flesh on a commitment entered into five years ago to create a force of 60,000 troops capable of intervening in crisis-management, peace-making, peace-keeping, and humanitarian and rescue tasks beyond the EU's borders and within the framework of United Nations mandates.
It represents a major development of the EU's security policies, in recognition of its distinct interests and values in a rapidly changing and more unstable world. The member-states have agreed they need such a capacity, which cannot be guaranteed by existing alliances such as NATO. Neutral and non-aligned states like Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Malta will be involved as well as NATO members.
The force needs a much larger backup capacity of troops and equipment to sustain such numbers in the field. There is a critical lack of transport to bring troops rapidly into areas where they are required, and also of intelligence capacity. There is a substantial shortfall in co-ordination between the participating armed forces. There are also many operational problems to be overcome if all EU member-states are to be involved.
Nevertheless this decision is rightly recognised to be a milestone in the EU's development. The battle groups are intended to be mobilised at very short notice, capable of being in the field within 15 days and able to stay there for up to four months. They will combine highly-trained troops from several different states and will normally be used to intervene in crisis situations in order to prepare the way for larger peacekeeping forces. The best example of how they might work was in the Artemis operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo last year. Under a UN mandate it prepared the way for a larger UN peacekeeping force. The UN Secretary General, Mr Kofi Annan, and his senior officials are enthusiastic about how this new facility could be used for UN mandates.
The Minister for Defence, Mr O'Dea, says Irish troops will be involved in the battle groups - a military term which, understandably, he would prefer to be called peace groups, for that is their intended function. This would be subject to Government decision, Dáil approval and a UN mandate. An intriguing and tricky question arises now concerning states that Ireland should co-operate with. Finland and Sweden may already have found a partnership with Norway. Working with British troops may be a step too far. This deserves a thorough and sensible public debate.