Ireland proposes greater EU military action under the UN

Ireland has circulated proposals for greater EU military involvement under the UN in peacekeeping missions. Greater EU involvement in peacekeeping missions would lead to a higher level of co-ordination and coherence in national planning, and make the process cheaper.

“It would increase the standing, influence and visibility of the union as a whole within the UN, particularly in relation to peace-keeping/peace-building operations, as EU member states would not alone be promoters and financiers of missions, but also major mission contributors,” it says.

This would fit in neatly with plans to increase the EU's visibility and role in the General Assembly of the UN, can would add substance to the EU's drive for an international role. In some ways it might be surprising that Ireland is eager to start a debate on military co-operation; after all, Ireland is fiercely attached to its neutrality (and there is strong domestic support for neutrality). It may be an attempt to frame the debate on military co-operation before the Polish presidency of the Council in 2011 (defence co-operation is high on the Polish agenda). Military co-operation with the UN combines the efficiency and cost-saving of military integration with the multilateral, UN-centred foreign policy worldview of the Irish State. If the EU does start participating more in UN missions, Ireland won't be as isolated in the EU when it comes to military matters, while being able to stay outside any more conventional alliances and integration and being able to sell the missions to the domestic audience as being in keeping with Irish foreign policy tradition.

I think that these proposals sound good (it'll be a long time before we'll see how far they'll go). The EU and its member states have supported the ideals of a mutlilateral world which is largely based on law, and with a stronger role for the UN. Being more active in peacekeeping would be a good way to add substance to that - putting our money where our mouth is. It would also add relevance to the EU role on the world stage. Though not as glamorous as the more traditional diplomacy we usually think of, it is an area that the EU can add value to, and would be complementary to its other roles in development, etc.

There's an opinion piece in The Irish Times that gives a taste of how important UN peace-keeping and the developing world are to the Irish idea of foreign policy.

Does Europe have any Common Foreign Policy interests?

In my post on Neutrality and Europe, which was focused mainly on Ireland's policy of neutrality and its compatibility with EU membership, I hinted at what I thought was a basis of a possible section of common European foreign policy interests: the single market. On Grahnlaw's Blog (the post on Sweden's neutrality/non-alignment), in the discussion, Grahnlaw remarked on the tendency of European foreign policies to speak in more pacifist terms when discussing foreign policy, perhaps just to placate a more pacifist public. I think that Europe is probably home to some of the most pacifist populations and perhaps that translates into (truly) more cautious governments (I suppose that depends on both the country you're talking about, and who you're talking too), i.e. governments are actually affected deeply by the public consensus because they are part of that society, though the calculations would end up playing out a bit more differently when cold policy choices need to be made (and these can be between 2 evils).

These attitudes have both historical and contemporary reasons - and these are well known: WWII/history of destructive war, and the contemporary experience of successful multilateralism. However, I think that these attitudes and the policies that come with them are suited to the problems we face in our region (and perhaps even a mature reaction to these problems, though that would be very contentious to argue). While I've said that Europe has probably the most pacifist populations of any region of the world, I think that most people here fall into the multilateralist band - in other words strong diplomacy, and any use of force to be based on some form of the "just war" doctrine.

So what could be the common foreign policy problems that Europe faces? Sadly, this part isn't too radical, as much as I'd like to say something completely original here. It's mostly stability - stability of:

- Eastern Europe (defined here as countries east of the current member states)
- the non-EU former Yugoslav states
- North Africa
- the Middle East, especially Israel, Palestine and Iran
- energy security
- trade security (e.g. security of trade routes such as those passing by the Horn of Africa)

These would be issues for the member states with or without the EU, in a sense, because of geography. But the internal market means that we are a lot closer and our interests are less bound by coincidence: the free movements mean that we've a highly integrated economy which is adversely affected by stability on our frontiers. All member states are more equally exposed and exposed in more similar ways; northwestern member states are no longer quite so insulated. Failed states also mean more and less controlled immigration, more criminality, increased drug trade, etc. The impact of this on a free single market and our societies can be very damaging. The problemd with a lack of energy security can be seen by events over the last few winters in Ukraine and Russia. The Middle East Peace process is an issue for both these reasons and for moral reasons.

The solutions to these problems are mostly the ones which the European publics and the European states have been talking about for so long, albeit backed up with a more robust diplomacy and more willingness to take the initiative. A prime example is the Middle East Process, and indeed the Middle East in general. Due to our close proximity to the region, we suffer more than the US when things go wrong (though obviously we're not the ones that suffer the most) - it's hard to see why Europe isn't more assertive here; sure we have our differences, but we're all agreed on the goal. Even the US agrees with the European position. So why can't we be more robust in promoting the peace process? There needs to be tough love with both sides (a basic outline of some of my thoughts on what could be done here), and Europe has the resources to act effectively here. The US may handle Israel with kid gloves, but we don't have to, and we don't have to wait until the US catches up in foreign policy again.

The basic formulation of multilateralism, robust diplomacy and engagement tailored to each area is a winning formula, if done properly. Inherent in this is the recognition that foreign policy is, in a way, just like domestic policy: force of arms generally is a bad idea, and should only be used in extreme cases - and even in extreme cases, they only provide the breathing space needed for a proper political settlement. A good foreign policy is based on a drive for a legitimate international structure, based on balancing needs and interests encompassing economics, stability, participation and political recognition. In many ways a good foreign policy shapes and sustains a successful region in a way that mirrors that of domestic policy. Obviously there are some extreme cases which don't fall into this theoretical musing of mine: not all interests can be balanced or satisfied. However, I believe that such an approach is the best approach for the problems we currently commonly face.

While the US has been portrayed as a global policeman, I think that Europe is the one with the more policeman-like tendencies. The US is more like a superman, racing off to fix certain problems in special circumstances, while Europe works away in the manner of a policeman (though, still in a limited way and in a limit sphere): policing communities, building nations, acting as an administrator, a trader, etc, etc. The US has elements of this too in its policy, but these aspects are the core of how foreign policy is perceived here, if not consciously (or so it seems to me).

Gaza Conflict

Both sides have rejected the UN ceasefire resolution, it seems.

There has been some criticism in the media over the responses of the US, EU and the international community in general, but I think (though I'm not anywhere near an expert in this area), that there is very little that the international community can do in this instance and in the Israeli-Palastinian situation in general. Both sides need couragous people to take the necessary steps for peace.

There seems to be two options:

1. Gaza and the West Bank become part of Israel with the Palatinians as full citizens with full human rights, etc. (Which is not really an option).

2. The two state solution is implemented. This means that issues of borders and Jerusalem, etc. will need to be dealt with seriously and with a willingness to make talks work. Such a solution cannot be imposed from the outside but can only be brought about by the two sides engaging and compromising with each other.

All of this is hardly a great insight, but the international community can only encourage, not impose a solution.

With respect to the EU and the difficultly of taking a strong common position in the crisis, I'm not sure it really makes too much difference. The EU states agree that the two state solution is the one that's needed. There would be little the EU, or the international community, can actually do in the current crisis other than try and repair the damage later; sending peace monitors, etc. Does anyone seriously expect - or even advocate - that the EU or the UN should send in troops now to forcefully end the fighting?

What has happened - whatever the rights, wrongs, reasons or excuses behind the actions of either side - will have inflamed passions further and made renewed peace efforts improbable, if not impossible for the time being. All the international community can do is to reduce the suffering as much as it can, and encourage and call for new peace efforts. It cannot make such efforts for them.