Sir, - Roger Cole, Chair of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (November 6th) describes the EU Rapid Reaction Force as "the European Union's Army". He goes on to say that "the new European Army will be made up of between 200,000 and 250,000 soldiers and will be capable of placing 80,000 of them into an area of conflict within a radius of 2,500 miles from the borders of the European Union".
In each of these assertions, Mr Cole is factually incorrect.
The Rapid Reaction Force is intended to be composed of some 60,000 troops, capable of being mobilised within six months and of being maintained in the field for one year.
They would be used to carrying out the "Petersberg Tasks", which are essentially peace-keeping and peace-making, and humanitarian tasks.
It is reckoned that the armies providing contingents for the Rapid Reaction Force would have to train and prepare a pool of between 200,000 and 250,000 personnel to ensure that 60,000 would be operationally available at any given time. That is clearly not the same as saying that the "European Army" would consist of that large total number.
It is patently absurd of Mr Cole to state that Irish troops participating in this Rapid Reaction Force "will be no more than neutral that Irish Regiments were when they were part of the Army of the British Union". They would, in fact, be participating in missions with the agreement of the Irish Government, on terms agreed by the Irish Government with its partners in the European Union, on terms not dictated by any imperial power. The only purpose of that reference in Mr Cole's letter is clearly to make a jingoistic appeal to old emotions which have no relevance in today's world.
The facts of the situation give the lie to Mr Cole's contention that "this new Army of the European Union is to play the same role as that of the British Union and Empire". This is simply more jingoism on Mr Cole's part.
Mr Cole is quite entitled to point out, as he did, that "when the mostly European NATO states went to war against Yugoslavia they did so without a United Nations mandate". That statement, however, has no relevance in the context of his letter. The decision to go to war against Yugoslavia was not made by the European Union. The confusions and inconsistencies that characterised the planning and implementation of the military intervention of Yugoslavia are a fascinating study in themselves, but they have nothing whatever to do with the EU's Rapid Reaction Force.
Mr Cole and PANA have no monopoly on the wish that collective security be guaranteed through the UN. Curiously enough, he supports reforms in the UN of a kind which he opposes in the EU. Perhaps it is because he is convinced that there is very little possibility of securing these reforms in the UN, while those in the EU seem to be coming closer.
Finally, he should perhaps take account of the views of hundreds of thousands of Kosovar refugees, hundreds of thousands of Serbs who have finally succeeded in restoring democracy to their country, and hundreds of thousands of Montenegrins, all of whom are looking for guarantees for their security. Most of these people, and millions of others in Central and Eastern Europe, would like the EU to be able to guarantee their security. In default of that, they opt massively for NATO.
Mr Cole and his comrades in PANA seem to be quite happy to let the best be the enemy of the good and, in the meantime, to tell people who need security now that they must wait. I do not believe that Ireland, or the Irish people, are "neutral" on this issue. - Yours, etc.,
Alan M. Dukes TD, Dail Eireann, Dublin 2.