european union counterplan

8/15/2019 European Union Counterplan

1/91

GDI 2004 1

Scholars European Union Counterplan

1NC Shell

Observation 1: Text- The European Union will

Observation 2: Competition- The CP Competes via the net benefits of politics, EUcredibility, and better solvency.

Observation 3: Solvency

The EU is a uniquely better actor than the US in that it understands the more basic

requirements of peacekeepingSchake, 2002 (Kori, senior research professor at the National Defense University, Post-9/11 U.S.Perceptions on ESDP, http://csis.org/europe/priv/esdp.htm, accessed July 8, 2004)

When gauged against the lack of any tangible progress during the three years since NATOs 1999

Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI) identified 58 areas for European improvement, the U.S.

reluctance to use European militaries appears understandable. However crucial they may be, such

capabilities have been lacking on the European side for the better part of the last 50 years.

Moreover, even as DCI remains a necessary objective, it is not sufficient for addressing the growing

strategy gap. (Making capabilities the key issue at NATOs Prague summit next November, as somehave suggested, would also not solve the lingering transatlantic tensions in the strategic and military

areas.) A Europe that tends to think about war in terms of its implications for the ensuing peace will

not only continue to dwarf a rising U.S. military colossus but will also insist on thinking differently

about the world at large. To some extent, the U.S. fascination with technology tends to ignore somelarger strategic questions. Fighting and winning the nations war is certainly a very compelling

motto, but absent serious thinking about how to fight and win the peace, the U.S. approach to

addressing the security threats of the future remains incomplete. A comprehensive strategy cannot

exclude, for example, ways of addressing low-intensity conflictsthat is, precisely what ESDP is

best equipped to confront. Dismissing more traditional civilian assets in favor of overwhelming

military capabilities risks encouraging a truncated strategy that does not effectively tackle the

numerous security challenges of our era.


2/91

GDI 2004 2


IndependentEU action is critical because if they work in conjunction with the US

the EU risks their credibility, which is key to the peace process.

LaFranchi 2004 (Howard, Staff Writer for the CSM, Christian Science Monitor April26th 2004, lexis)

The immediate result is a blow to Mideast reforms, both because would-be promoters from outside

are discredited, and because internal reforms, increasingly associated with the West, are suspect.

"Bush will probably never again be seen by the Arabs as a credible mediator of peace, having sofully identified with the Sharon position," says Edward Walker, a former State Department official

and now president of the Middle East Institute. "Countries in the region will be hard-pressed to

cooperate with the administration on questions like reform, Iraq, and even terrorism as theirpopulations react to their perception of this one-sided US position." At the same time, pro-

modernization Arabs are telling American contacts that domestic reform efforts are being hurt by anassociation with pressures from the US for change. Recent events have also cooled European

enthusiasm for working with the US on Mideast reform - just as the US is acknowledging it needs

more partners in Iraq and in the broader region. Even Bush's stalwart ally, British Prime Minister

Tony Blair, has expressed frustration at the US drawing closer to Israel, while Europeans worry that

the poor US image in the region could tarnish the work the EU has done in encouraging Arab

reforms. "The Europeans will have greater difficulty working with the Americans as they did before,

when they all wanted the Americans in the driver's seat because that was the way progress in the

region has been made," says the European official in Washington. "The problem is they [theAmericans] just drove off in a certain direction, and we were not cautious enough."

Peace process breakdown causes war

Jerome Slater, professor of political science at SUNY at Buffalo.Tikkun Mareh 1, 1999There has been a kind of conspiracy of silence over the potential consequences of a breakdown of

the peace process, perhaps because in the worst case they are nothing short of apocalyptic. But the

risks are real. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, Syria has nerve gas mounted on ballistic

missiles aimed at Israeli cities, and it is only a matter of time before other Arab states or - far worse

- fanatical terrorist groups obtain weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, chemical, orbiological. Here is the nightmare scenario: The intransigence of the Netanyahu government and its

clear intention to continue to dominate the West Bank and deny the Palestinians true national

citizenship and sovereignty lead to a resumption of sustained terrorism, this time with the tacit

acquiescence or open support of Arafat and the Palestinian Authority and with the general supportof the Palestinian population. Israel reacts with economic and military retaliation that creates

widespread desperation among the Palestinians, and this results in the eclipse of Arafat by Hamasand other Palestinian extremists. The intifada resumes, this time not with stones but with guns and

bombs. Israel responds with unprecedented repression, and the cycle of communal violence and

counterviolence continues to escalate until Israel decides to reoccupy the West Bank and perhaps

Gaza in order to crush the Palestinian movement - maybe even expelling large numbers of

Palestinians into neighboring Arab states. An inflamed Arab world greatly increases its support of

the new intifada or, worse, moderate governments that try to stand clear are overthrown andreplaced by extremists in Syria, Egypt, and Jordan. In these circumstances, even if a general war in

the Middle East could somehow be averted, there is likely to be escalating international terrorism

against Israel and its supporters - sooner or later including nuclear or other forms of mass terrorism.


3/91

GDI 2004 3


1NC Shell without Peace Process

Why on earth you wouldnt want the peace process advantage, I dont know

Observation 1: Text- The European Union will

Observation 2: Competition- The CP Competes via the net benefits of politics, andbetter solvency.

Observation 3: Solvency

The EU is a uniquely better actor than the US in that it understands the more basic

requirements of peacekeepingSchake, 2002 (Kori, senior research professor at the National Defense University, Post-9/11 U.S.

Perceptions on ESDP, http://csis.org/europe/priv/esdp.htm, accessed July 8, 2004)When gauged against the lack of any tangible progress during the three years since NATOs 1999

Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI) identified 58 areas for European improvement, the U.S.

reluctance to use European militaries appears understandable. However crucial they may be, such

capabilities have been lacking on the European side for the better part of the last 50 years.

Moreover, even as DCI remains a necessary objective, it is not sufficient for addressing the growing

strategy gap. (Making capabilities the key issue at NATOs Prague summit next November, as some

have suggested, would also not solve the lingering transatlantic tensions in the strategic and military

areas.) A Europe that tends to think about war in terms of its implications for the ensuing peace will

not only continue to dwarf a rising U.S. military colossus but will also insist on thinking differentlyabout the world at large. To some extent, the U.S. fascination with technology tends to ignore some

larger strategic questions. Fighting and winning the nations war is certainly a very compelling

motto, but absent serious thinking about how to fight and win the peace, the U.S. approach toaddressing the security threats of the future remains incomplete. A comprehensive strategy cannot

exclude, for example, ways of addressing low-intensity conflictsthat is, precisely what ESDP is

best equipped to confront. Dismissing more traditional civilian assets in favor of overwhelming

military capabilities risks encouraging a truncated strategy that does not effectively tackle the

numerous security challenges of our era.


4/91

GDI 2004 4


IndependentEU action is critical to ensure solvency

LaFranchi 2004 (Howard, Staff Writer for the CSM, Christian Science Monitor April26th 2004, lexis)

The immediate result is a blow to Mideast reforms, both because would-be promoters from outside

are discredited, and because internal reforms, increasingly associated with the West, are suspect.

"Bush will probably never again be seen by the Arabs as a credible mediator of peace, having so

fully identified with the Sharon position," says Edward Walker, a former State Department officialand now president of the Middle East Institute. "Countries in the region will be hard-pressed to

cooperate with the administration on questions like reform, Iraq, and even terrorism as their

populations react to their perception of this one-sided US position." At the same time, pro-

modernization Arabs are telling American contacts that domestic reform efforts are being hurt by an

association with pressures from the US for change. Recent events have also cooled Europeanenthusiasm for working with the US on Mideast reform - just as the US is acknowledging it needs

more partners in Iraq and in the broader region. Even Bush's stalwart ally, British Prime Minister

Tony Blair, has expressed frustration at the US drawing closer to Israel, while Europeans worry thatthe poor US image in the region could tarnish the work the EU has done in encouraging Arab

reforms. "The Europeans will have greater difficulty working with the Americans as they did before,

when they all wanted the Americans in the driver's seat because that was the way progress in the

region has been made," says the European official in Washington. "The problem is they [the

Americans] just drove off in a certain direction, and we were not cautious enough."


5/91

GDI 2004 5



6/91

GDI 2004 6


2NC Overview

The counterplan solves 100% of the case and more- the Lafranchi 2004 evidence

from the 1NC indicates the EU has unique credibility to deal with peacekeeping

because they are perceieved as a neutral party. The US doesnt have the soft power

to establish lasting peace because

A. They are seen as only preserving their own strategic interests and, thus,not the parties involved- the War on Iraq is a perfect example... and

B. The US has historically always taken sides in disputes which ultimatelyfurther exacerbates conflict in the future- for example, US unwavering

support of Israel has destroyed their legitimacy in the eyes of Arab

nations

C.

Next, only EU independent action can solve- as indicated by the LaFranci evidence.

The US and the EU acting together will tarnish the reputation of EU efforts in the

region, destroying hopes of credible peacekeeping. This turns case and any

permutation because the opportunity cost of US action in the region would be the

preclusion of credible EU peacekeeping- destroying the chances for long term peace.

And, the impact is to the internal net benefit is nuclear war- a tarnished EU reputation would destroytheir efforts to bolster the Arab-Israeli peace process. This would create instability throughout the

Middle East, ensuring an Arab attack on Israel- the Slater 99 evidence indicates that if war would

break out the world would witness an apocalyptic nuclear war.


7/91

GDI 2004 7


***Solvency


8/91

GDI 2004 8


EU Solves Sudan

The EU is ready and willing to start Peacekeeping in Sudan, and it is Key to the

EUs security force legitimacy

Financial Times, April 12 2004 (EU-led Forces 'Could Intervene' in Sudan Conflict, Judy Dempsey;

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2004/0412eu.htm)The European Union's top military official says EU-led forces could intervene in Sudan, where more

than 670,000 people have fled the western region of Dafur following weeks of killings, rape and

looting by Arab militias. Although the Sudanese government and two rebel groups from western

Dafur are negotiating a ceasefire, Kofi Annan, United Nations secretary-general, has said the

international community "must be prepared to take swift action, which may include military action."The surprise comments by Gustav Hgglund, who ends his three-year stint as the first chairman of

the EU's military committee this month, coincide with fresh efforts by Brussels to strengthen its

defence capabilities. In an interview with the Financial Times, General Hgglund said the possibility

of the EU sending a force to Sudan had been raised by Louise Frchette, the United Nations deputy

secretary-general. "Sudan is on the list of the UN [for some form of peacekeeping mission]," Gen

Hgglund added. The 65-year-old Finnish general was appointed Europe's top military chief threeyears ago, when the EU had a fledgling military staff, no idea which military missions it would

undertake and persistent ambiguities between Britain and France over the future role of Europeandefence. Since then, the EU has taken over a small Nato-led mission in Macedonia, quickly

deployed a 1,500-strong military force to Bunia, Democratic Republic of Congo, last summer and

will take over this year from Nato the large mission in Bosnia. The Congo mission last year was theEU's first military mission outside Europe. "There is no reason why the EU could not go to, for

instance, Sudan. I see it to be very possible. It would be mandated by the UN. It is part of the

battlegroup concept," said Gen Hgglund. Britain and France are spearheading ambitious defence

plans for the EU through their "battlegroups". The idea is that the EU should be able to deploy

within days up to 1,500 highly trained troops, with tasks ranging from peacekeeping to combat

missions operating under a UN mandate. Gen Hgglund said the battlegroups could allow the EU"to take on more and be able to sustain itself". The authors, who have met with key players in

Sudan's peace process, including government officials and rebels, say deployment of an

international quick response and peacekeeping force under authority of Chapter VII of the U.N.

Charter which mandates intervention only in the event of a threat to peace that includes massive

loss of life is a crucial element to avoid a reversion to war. Stephen Morrison, director of CSIS's

Africa Program, said the most worrying threats to security in post-conflict Sudan are transfer ofpower, militia groups not included in a power-sharing government, unstable hotspots around the

country and spillovers of rebel groups from other countries. He added that a quick reaction force

would include air support that could get around the country rapidly to any pockets of conflict. The

report suggests a force of about 600 soldiers. On Sunday, however, Sudanese State Foreign Minister

Najeeb al-Khair Abdel Wahab rejected the idea of international peacekeepers, telling Agence

France-Presse, "The government prefers that the responsibility for keeping the peace shall beconfined to the Sudanese." Last month, Abdel Wahab said, "We consider peacekeeping as mainly a

Sudanese responsibility while the role of the international community, including the European

Union, will be backing up the Sudanese capability in keeping peace."


9/91

GDI 2004 9


EU Can Solve The Conflict in the Darfur Region

European Commission , EC04-143EN, 10/6/2004, http://europa-eu-un.org/article.asp?id=3566

Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian aid Poul Nielson said: Resolving conflicts in

Africa and bringing peace to the continent will first of all require effective and responsible

leadership by the Africans. The African Union has shown just that in its response to the Darfurcrisis. This is greatly encouraging and raises prospects not only of a lasting end to the conflict inDarfur but for peace across the African continent. I also take great satisfaction in the swiftness[1]

with which the EU has dealt with the African Union request. The Peace Facility is a new instrument

that could become an important tool in the construction of the new peace and security agenda in

Africa. Member States have today shown that they are willing to allow this new instrument to play

just that role and that the EU will be a credible partner in the African Unions aspirations to assume

the necessary leadership of this peace and security agenda. The EU will provide 12 million in

support of the African Union observer mission to Darfur for a period of 12 months. The observermission will comprise up to 120 observers and a possible protection force of 270 military personnel.

The observers will support the implementation of the cease-fire agreement signed by the parties to

the Darfur conflict in Addis Ababa on 28 May 2004. In particular the Mission is expected to: (i)

ensure that the rules and provisions of the ceasefire are implemented; (ii) define routes for the

movement of forces to reduce the risks of incidents; (iii) assess requirements for de-miningoperations; and (iv) receive, verify and judge complaints related to possible violations of the

ceasefire. The observer mission is currently being deployed in Sudan. A successful implementation

of the ceasefire agreement is a precondition if vital humanitarian aid is to reach the millions of

Sudanese that have been affected by the conflict.

Empirically, the EU can solve crisis in the Darfur region

Washington Times, June 10th2004 (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040610-020334-3820r.htm, EU gives $14.5 mln for Sudan peacekeeping)

Brussels, DC, Jun. 10 (UPI) -- The European Union said Thursday it will provide $14.5 million (12

million euros) to support peacekeeping operations in Darfur, Sudan. The money will be used by theAfrica Union to monitor the implementation of the recent cease-fire agreement in Darfur over a 12-

month period. An observer mission of 120 members and a protection force of 270 military personnelis expected. "Resolving conflicts in Africa and bringing peace to the continent will first of all

require effective and responsible leadership by the Africans ... member States (of the EU) have

today shown that they are willing to allow this new instrument to play just that role and that the EU

will be a credible partner in the African Unions aspiration's to assume the necessary leadership of

this peace and security agenda," said Poul Nielson, EU commissioner for development and

humanitarian aid.


10/91

GDI 2004 10


The crisis in Sudan is a logical Stepping Stone for EU peacekeeping Forces

EU Observer, 2004 (http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=13&aid=15112 13.04.2004 By Andrew Beatty,EU could lead Sudan peacekeeping force, says top military official)

A peacekeeping mission to Sudan could be on the cards, according to the outgoing chairman of the

EU's military committee Gustav Hgglund. In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Hgglund,who is completing his three-year stint as the EU's top military chief, said that he sees an EUpeacekeeping role in Sudan as "very possible". His comments raise the prospect of the European

Union undertaking its second peacekeeping mission outside Europe, and second on the African

continent. Last year a French-led EU force intervened in the north-eastern Congolese town of Bunia

to quell an upsurge in violence. Although limited in scope, most see the intervention as a success

giving the EU the confidence and credibility to proceed. Half a century of war EU and UN

diplomats have been considering the possibility of a similar military intervention in Sudan for some

time. The UN and the international community are keen to stop the war within the war, which iscurrently taking place in the western Sudanese region of Dafur.


11/91

GDI 2004 11


The EU is ready and willing to start Peacekeeping in Sudan, and it is Key to the

EUs security force legitimacy

Financial Times, April 12 2004 (EU-led Forces 'Could Intervene' in Sudan Conflict, Judy Dempsey;http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2004/0412eu.htm)

The European Union's top military official says EU-led forces could intervene in Sudan, where morethan 670,000 people have fled the western region of Dafur following weeks of killings, rape and

looting by Arab militias. Although the Sudanese government and two rebel groups from western

Dafur are negotiating a ceasefire, Kofi Annan, United Nations secretary-general, has said the

international community "must be prepared to take swift action, which may include military action."

The surprise comments by Gustav Hgglund, who ends his three-year stint as the first chairman ofthe EU's military committee this month, coincide with fresh efforts by Brussels to strengthen its

defence capabilities. In an interview with the Financial Times, General Hgglund said the possibility

of the EU sending a force to Sudan had been raised by Louise Frchette, the United Nations deputysecretary-general. "Sudan is on the list of the UN [for some form of peacekeeping mission]," Gen

Hgglund added. The 65-year-old Finnish general was appointed Europe's top military chief three

years ago, when the EU had a fledgling military staff, no idea which military missions it would

undertake and persistent ambiguities between Britain and France over the future role of European

defence. Since then, the EU has taken over a small Nato-led mission in Macedonia, quicklydeployed a 1,500-strong military force to Bunia, Democratic Republic of Congo, last summer and

will take over this year from Nato the large mission in Bosnia. The Congo mission last year was the

EU's first military mission outside Europe. "There is no reason why the EU could not go to, for

instance, Sudan. I see it to be very possible. It would be mandated by the UN. It is part of thebattlegroup concept," said Gen Hgglund. Britain and France are spearheading ambitious defence

plans for the EU through their "battlegroups". The idea is that the EU should be able to deploywithin days up to 1,500 highly trained troops, with tasks ranging from peacekeeping to combat

missions operating under a UN mandate. Gen Hgglund said the battlegroups could allow the EU

"to take on more and be able to sustain itself". The authors, who have met with key players in

Sudan's peace process, including government officials and rebels, say deployment of an

international quick response and peacekeeping force under authority of Chapter VII of the U.N.

Charter which mandates intervention only in the event of a threat to peace that includes massive

loss of life is a crucial element to avoid a reversion to war. Stephen Morrison, director of CSIS's

Africa Program, said the most worrying threats to security in post-conflict Sudan are transfer of

power, militia groups not included in a power-sharing government, unstable hotspots around the

country and spillovers of rebel groups from other countries. He added that a quick reaction forcewould include air support that could get around the country rapidly to any pockets of conflict. The

report suggests a force of about 600 soldiers. On Sunday, however, Sudanese State Foreign MinisterNajeeb al-Khair Abdel Wahab rejected the idea of international peacekeepers, telling Agence

France-Presse, "The government prefers that the responsibility for keeping the peace shall be

confined to the Sudanese." Last month, Abdel Wahab said, "We consider peacekeeping as mainly a

Sudanese responsibility while the role of the international community, including the European

Union, will be backing up the Sudanese capability in keeping peace."


12/91

GDI 2004 12


EU Solves Ivory Coast

.

EU Has resources to solve the Ivory Coast

European Commission, EC04-143EN, http://europa-eu-un.org/article.asp?id=3310, 19/3/2004

The European Commission has adopted a second emergency rehabilitation programme providing a

further25 million to consolidate the current peace process in Ivory Coast. The objective of this, thesecond emergency package, is to support the reunification of the country by restoring effective civiladministration across the territory, improving civilians security, and boosting the provision of

social services including health and education. Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian

Aid Poul Nielson said: I recently met with Prime Minister Diarra in Brussels. I was then

encouraged by the news of the considerable progress that has been achieved in the Ivorian peace

process and encouraged Prime Minister Diarra to persevere and pursue the process. With this

decision we are clearly demonstrating our intentions to fully support the Ivorians in their efforts to

promote reconciliation and create the basis for a renewed peaceful development of thecountry.Following the attempted coup of 19 September 2002, the Ivory Coast was thrown into a

major crisis which lasted for more than a year. The crisis caused an effective partition of the country

in two zones (North and South). The resulting economic, social and political consequences were

without precedent in the countrys history, with an estimated 3,000 deaths and over 900,000 people

fleeing the combat zones. As a result, the level of people living in poverty has now reached 43 %and life expectancy has fallen dramatically from 55 years at the end of the 1980s to approximately

45 years today.

The EU is capable of peacekeeping in he Ivory Coast while the US has done nothing

Integrated Regional Information Networks, 22 Feb 2004, Cte d'Ivoire: Disarmament to starton 8 March - Prime Minister

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/4ed2f4ba6ca3eb4b85256e430069c902?OpenDocument

The United States, which pays for 27 percent of the cost of all UN peacekeeping forces, had been

the only permanent member of the Security Council to oppose the sending of blue helmets to Cote

d'Ivoire. Annan has recommended that 1,400 West African peacekeeping troops already stationed in

Cote d'Ivoire should be incorporated into the UN force, but diplomats do not expect additional

troops to arrive until April, with full deployment unlikely until June. The French government has

said that a 4,000-strong French peacekeeping force which has born the brunt of peacekeeping dutiesin Cote d'Ivoire over the past year and a half, would remain in the country, independent of UN

control, to provide a rapid reaction force that could act in support of the blue helmets if necessary.The DDR programme, which was originally due to have started in August last year, has been

modelled on plans drawn up by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and will be

implemented with financial support from the World Bank and European Union


13/91

GDI 2004 13


The EU has an integral stake in the future of Cote dIvoire, and is able mediate and

enforce Peacekeeping there

Maintained by the Peace and Security Sectionof the Department of Public Information in

cooperation with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. United Nations 2004http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/minuci/background.html, from the first Report of the Secretary-

General on Cte d'Ivoire, S/2003/374)

The peace Agreement provided for the establishment of a committee to follow up on the

implementation of the Agreement (the Follow-Up Committee). The Committee will be based in

Abidjan. It is composed of representatives of the United Nations, the African Union, ECOWAS, theEuropean Commission, the International Organization of la Francophonie, the Bretton Woods

institutions, the Group of Eight countries, the European Union, a military representative of thetroop-contributing countries and France. A meeting of the heads of State of concerned African

countries and France, which was held in Paris on 25 and 26 January 2003, endorsed the Linas-

Marcoussis Agreement. During that meeting, President Gbagbo, in consultation with other Ivorian

parties, appointed the former Prime Minister, Seydou Diarra, to head the new government of

national reconciliation. In addition, during consultations conducted on the sidelines of the meeting,

an understanding was reached on an arrangement for the distribution of cabinet posts among the

Ivorian parties, under which the key portfolios of defence and the interior were allocated to the rebel

movements. Both the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement and the conclusions adopted by the heads ofState in Paris on 26 January 2003 (S/2003/99, annex II) envisaged a United Nations role in theimplementation of the Agreement, including participating in and chairing the Follow-Up

Committee. The Agreement stipulated that the new Ivorian government of national reconciliationwould seek assistance from ECOWAS, France and the United Nations in guaranteeing the reform

and restructuring of the defence and security forces; international development partners are

requested to cooperate with the new government in putting in place a programme for the

reintegration of all armed elements. In their communiqu, the heads of State proposed the

strengthening of the presence of the United Nations system in Cte d'Ivoire, in particular in the areas

of security, humanitarian assistance and human rights, as well as the deployment of civilian and

military observers, who would help to supervise the implementation of the Linas-Marcoussis

Agreement. They also expressed the wish that the Security Council would endorse the peacekeeping

operation launched by ECOWAS and France, and authorize that operation to take the necessary

measures to ensure the freedom of movement and security of its personnel, and to guarantee theprotection of civilians facing the imminent threat of violence.


14/91

GDI 2004 14


EU Solves Liberia

The EU is the largest Donor to Liberia, and is invaluable to their peace process

European Commission of Development 21 January, 2004 Liberia Country Overviewhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/country/country_home_en.cfm?cid=lr&lng=en&status=new

The European Union is the largest international aid donor in Liberia. The European Commissionappointed a Permanent Advisor for Liberia in December 1998, which meant the formal re-opening

of the Commission office in Monrovia. This is the only diplomatic representation of the European

Union in the country. Political situation Liberia is severely affected by the protracted internal

conflict that erupted in the late eighties. Charles Taylor came to power by force in 1990 and waselected President in 1997. Rebel groups have been fighting to overthrow Taylor between 1990 and

1997 and again from 1999. Respect for the rule of law, democracy and human rights has been

minimal on all sides. There have been reports of resources plundering (diamonds, timber), endemic

corruption and ethnic problems. Following the rebels advance in 2003 and under pressure from theinternational community the Government of Liberia agreed to come to the negotiation table. Peace

talks held under the auspices of ECOWAS and financed by the European Union have been under

way since 4 June 2003. In the framework of these peace talks a cease-fire agreement was signed

between the belligerent parties on 17 June 2003. Mandated by UN Security Council n 1497 of 1

August 2003, ECOWAS started with the deployment of a peacekeeping force on 4 August to help

enforce the cease-fire. Under pressure from the international community and in accordance with the

agreements reached in Accra, Charles Taylor stepped down as President and handed over power toVice-President Moses Blah on 11 August. The peace talks are still ongoing in order to draw up a

comprehensive peace agreement that should include the creation of a transitional government.

The European Union has Just as much at stake in Liberia as the US

China Daily July 9, 2004 UN meeting seeks $488 million to rebuild Liberia,http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-02/06/content_303919.htm

Andrew Natsios, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said Liberia's

years of turmoil had killed as many as 250,000 people, most of them civilians, but had touched all

its 3 million people "in profound ways." "More than 1.3 million are displaced or refugees.Abductions, tortures, rape and other human rights atrocities have taken place on a massive scale," he

said. An estimated one in 10 children may have been recruited by militias as fighters and a similar

percentage "has been traumatized by seeing their families and friends murdered or raped," Natsiossaid. Washington has already earmarked $200 million in new money for Liberia, and the European

Union and its 15 member-nations are expected to nearly match that figure, U.N. officials said. Onemajor challenge on the agenda is how to rehabilitate the thousands of armed youth without educationor jobs who roam the countryside and neighboring nations, raping and looting.


15/91

GDI 2004 15


EU Solves Burundi

The EU is capable and willing to assist In Burundi peacekeeping

Statement to the Security Council of the United Nations by Ms Philomena Murnaghan, DeputyPermanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations, on behalf of the European Union. Progress

report of the Secretary-General on the recommendations of the Security Council mission to Central Africa(New York) February 17, 2004:

The European Union is greatly encouraged by recent progress in Burundi. Since we last had the

opportunity in this chamber to discuss the state of the peace process there, a significant milestone

has passed with the convening of talks between President Domitien Ndayizeye and a delegation

from the National Liberation Forces, the FNL. The European Union is pleased that these talks tookplace in a constructive and cordial atmosphere. We also welcome the parties recognition of the

need to end violence in Burundi and their willingness to continue the dialogue. The European Union

hopes the proposed follow-up meeting between President Ndayizeye and the FNL takes place at the

earliest opportunity. The EU calls for the cessation of all hostilities in Burundi, and for the

conclusion of an agreement for the inclusion of the FNL in Burundian state institutions. The

European Union remains willing to assist the parties in their quest for a peaceful solution and wereconfirm our readiness to support Burundi in its reconstruction efforts, which remain severely

hampered by the ongoing violence in the absence of an all-inclusive peace agreement. Mr.President,The European Union is committed to working closely with our African partners to

strengthen African capacities in the area of conflict resolution and peace-keeping. In this regard the

EU commends the African Union in its establishing the African Mission in Burundi, AMIBthefirst force of its kind in the history of the AU. The European Union fully supports this initiative and

is contributing 25 million to AMIB. In addition, a number of the EUs member states have also

made significant national contributions both in advance of and in response to the Secretary-

Generals recent appeal for support. Notwithstanding the success and importance of AMIB, the

European Union believes, as stated last November in this chamber, that the option of a UN

operation in Burundi authorised by this Council will have to be considered in due course. In thisregard, the EU welcomes the Secretary Generals sending of an assessment mission to Burundi later

this month and we look forward to its reporting in due course.

The EU is one of the Key backing members for Burundi PeacekeepingEuropean Commission, EC03-310EN http://europa-eu-un.org/article.asp?id=3068 December 4,

2003The European Commission today welcomed approval by EU Member states of a 25 million grant

from the European Development Fund to support current peacekeeping operations in Burundi under

the authority of the African Union (AU). The objective of the support is: (i) to offer urgentassistance to the implementation of a fragile peace process that has recently shown signs of positive

development; and (ii) to promote a return to stability and national reconciliation to the benefit of theBurundian people, who have suffered tremendously from 10 years of civil war. Poul Nielson,

Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian aid, said: I see the instrumental role of leaders

from South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia and Mozambique in brokering peace in Burundi as a

confirmation of the determination with which African leaders are currently addressing conflict

resolution on their continent. I believe that it is our firm obligation to lend our full support to these

efforts. While the Burundian peace process remains fragile, it is offering encouragement on theprospects of a final peace settlement in Burundi. Not only to the benefit of the Burundian people but

as an important contribution to the stabilisation of the Great Lakes region that has suffered

tremendously from decades of war and conflict.


16/91

GDI 2004 16


The EU is responsible for all status quo operations, meaning it is the logical actor

for the plan

Human Rights Watch Transition in Burundi: Time to Deliver April 30, 2003http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/burundi/burundi043003-bck.htm

The Special Representative of the UN Secretary General and regional leaders preside over a numberof diplomatic initiatives to end the war, but the actual work of peace-keeping is to be handled by a

mission of the African Union, a first for the newly-constituted organization (formerly the

Organization of African Unity). Forty-three observers attached to the mission have arrived from

Tunisia, Burkina Faso, Gabon and Togo and are deployed in several towns, although they are not

traveling to combat zones for security reasons. More than one hundred South African troops arrivedin Bujumbura on April 27, part of a larger peacekeeping force of three thousand and five hundred

soldiers that will include soldiers from Mozambique and Ethiopia. The mandate of the force is only

to monitor the cease-fire, leaving it unlikely that its soldiers will even endeavor to protect civilians.As yet, the force has no unit specially tasked with monitoring the human rights situation. The

European Union recently pledged 1.23 million euros ($1,100,000) and Belgium promised another

million euros ($900,000) to pay for the African mission. The United States will provide some

equipment and training. The amounts pledged until now are far short of what will be needed to

deploy a force throughout Burundi. Quick to join in diplomacy to help end the war in Burundi,international donors now need to provide the funds needed to help implement the accords on the

ground.


17/91

GDI 2004 17


EU Solves Ethiopia/Eritrea

The EU has negotiated between Ethiopia and Eritrea in the past successfully

Emira Woods, Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) FPIF Commentary from Foreign Policy In Focus

Eritrea/Ethiopia War Looms as Washington Watches January 21, 2004http://www.grassrootsonline.org/gol_0204_eritrea.html

On December 12, 2000 , Eritrea and Ethiopia signed a Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Algiers ,assisted by mediators from the U.S. , the European Union, and the Organization of African Unity.

Under its terms, a 25-kilometer-wide Temporary Security Zone was established within Eritrea to be

patrolled by UN peacekeeping forces, while an international Boundary Commission, whose

members were approved in advance by both sides, delimited the contested border. The UN force hasbeen there ever since. The Boundary Commission issued its findings in April 2002, giving a little to

each side but confirming that Badme was in Eritrea . Both parties initially accepted the outcome,

though Ethiopia voiced objections over Badme, which had become the symbolic rationale for the

war itself. As a result of this and other reasons (de-mining delays, among them), the actual

demarcation never took place.

Because of the EUs financial Contributions, it is in a unique place to negotiate

between Ethiopia and Eritria

Africa News January 19, 2004 Monday Copyright 2004 AllAfrica, Inc. PanAfrica;Seek Peace And Prosperity - German Chancellor Schroeder Lexis search: Ethiopia w/40 EU w/40

peacekeepingThe EU has pledged -225 million (about US $275) to help peace initiatives on the continent, and

Germany has backed peacekeeping-training centres in Africa. Earlier, Schroeder had praised

Ethiopia for its support in the fight against global terrorism and welcomed the country's contribution

towards resolving regional conflicts, noting in this context that Ethiopian peacekeepers had been

deployed in strife-ridden Liberia and in Burundi, currently emerging from a decade of civil war.

During a private meeting, he and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi discussed the stalled three-year-old

peace process between Ethiopia and neighbouring Eritrea. Fears have been growing that without a

breakthrough, tensions between the two countries could once again flare up into hostilities. Ethiopiaand Eritrea fought a bloody two-year border war that ended in a peace deal in December 2000.

Under the agreement an independent boundary commission was set up to resolve their border

dispute and defuse the tensions between them. But Ethiopia is contesting elements of the

commission's ruling, one of which placed Badme, the town where the war first flared up, in Eritrea,and another that Ethiopia hand over parts of Irob. Ethiopia says the ruling could serve to ignite

renewed conflict, and has called for a "broad-based dialogue" with Eritrea, which, for its part, has

rejected such talks until the physical demarcation of the border begins.


18/91

GDI 2004 18


EU Solves Congo

The EU has done Peacekeeping in the Congo with great success

Tom Kabs September 2003 http://iss.krakow.pl/Thomas%20Kabs.doc, EUROPEAN UNIONs CONGO MISSION, Lieutenant Colonel NATO School.

Of course EUs Congo mission was a small one, a timely limited one; but no doubt about that itwas a successful one. Solana said, that the French-led force had . given a positive boost to the

peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo.. European Unions very first autonomous

military mission, the very first military mission without any NATO support was a political sign. I

think we have to see this mission as a far bigger test of European Unions effort to develop amilitary wing independent of NATO, but not in competition to NATO. Therefore it was the right

decision from several EU NATO countries to run this mission alone without NATO (US) influence

and to remove Berlin Plus rules, which would allow special NATO countries certain control over

any EU-led peacekeeping in return for NATO planning and assets. Anyway European Union isbecoming more and more active, showing more and more confidence to extend its peacekeeping

responsibilities. As you all know EU is sill running its peacekeeping mission in the Former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but using NATO capabilities, and is increasing its engagement in

the Balkans ( at the moment 80 % of the 25.000 NATO led forces in the Kosovo and of the 12.000

troops in Bosnia where the EU set up a civilian/policing mission last January). Sooner or later

European Union may have another operations on its agenda, may be in Moldova (Trans Dnestr

conflict) may be somewhere else.

The EU has done a significant amount of work in the DRC

Statement to the Security Council of the United Nations by Ms Philomena Murnaghan, DeputyPermanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations, on behalf of the European Union. Progress

report of the Secretary-General on the recommendations of the Security Council mission to Central Africa

(New York) February 17, 2004:In the DRC, the European Union is encouraged by the significant improvements achieved. These

include, inter alia, the improved security situation; the signs of national reunification, such asincreased transport links and improving commerce; the better relations between the DRC and its

neighbours; and the progress in Security Sector Reform. The EU commends the TransitionalGovernment in its implementation of the Sun City and Pretoria agreements. Difficult decisions have

been taken and the commitment of the parties is encouraging. Nevertheless, the situation remains

fragile and the European Union urges President Kabila and his Government to continue their work

and put in place the legislative framework and establish the national institutions required for the

holding of free and transparent elections at all levels, the formation of restructured and integrated

military and police forces, and for the implementation of a national DDR programme. Mr. President,

The European Union is committed to underpinning peace, security and democracy in the DRC.

Operation Artemis and the Unions support for the Integrated Police Unit are clear demonstrationsof that commitment. The EU stands ready to support concrete initiatives for the rebuilding of astable Congolese State able to guarantee the safety of the Congolese people, national reconciliationand stability in the region. In this regard, the European Union commends the Secretary-General for

his initiative in calling last week a high-level meeting to consider a strategy for the international

communitys support of the Security Sector Reform effort.


19/91

GDI 2004 19


The EU has experience in the Congo, and troops on the ground

CNN June 4, 2003, EU backs force for Congo,http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/06/04/congo.eu/

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- The European Union has agreed to send a 1,400-strong French-led

peacekeeping force to the Democratic Republic of Congo in what will be the body's first militaryoperation in Africa. The decision was made by EU ambassadors meeting in Brussels Wednesday,and is expected to be formally ratified Thursday. The force, to be dubbed Artemis, hopes to secure

a cease-fire deal in the Bunia region in the northeast of the country, which has seen hundreds of

civilians killed in ethnic fighting during the past month. The decision follows the U.N. Security

Council's sanctioning of the French-led operation last Friday, but it does not have NATO logistical

support. The joint operation is only the second the EU has embarked on. The first involved about

400 troops being sent to the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia last March. The EU plans to

establish a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force to handle future trouble spots. Wednesday's decisionresolved thorny issues such as financing. France is to contribute 700 troops with the others possibly

coming from Britain, Belgium, Sweden and the Republic of Ireland. Non-EU countries such as

South Africa, Brazil, Canada and Ethiopia could also take part, European diplomats said. France

will hold a conference Tuesday in Paris for countries wanting to contribute troops. The troops are

likely to act as a "bridging force" between the departure of the 750 U.N. Uruguay soldiers and thearrival of the U.N. Bangladesh mission. Diplomats said the EU force would be well armed, backed

by mechanized units and would operate under robust rules of engagement to allow it to defend itself

and civilians. Its main tasks will be to secure Bunia and its airport and protect aid agencies and tens

of thousands of refugees around the city.


20/91

GDI 2004 20


The EU is very effective in the Congo

United Nations 2004 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q10.htm, FAQ; How is the UNcooperating with other peace and security organizations?)

More recently, other peacekeeping partners have stepped in to assist UN peacekeeping at criticalmoments to bridge gaps in deployment and strength and to further develop rapid response

capabilities. In July 2003 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Operation Artemis, a French-led

European Union force, stabilized the situation in Bunia, Ituri province, where civilians were beingtargeted by warring factions. Authorized by the Security Council for 90 days, the force stanched theviolence, got weapons off the streets and saved thousands of civilians. It also prepared the way for

the Ituri Brigade, deployed by MONUC, the UN peacekeeping operation in the Congo, before the

EU force withdrew. In October 2003, in Liberia and more recently in Cte dIvoire,ECOWAS

forces paved the way for the deployment of United Nations troops. In addition, regional brigades are

being formed in Africa as part of the African Standby Forcean initiative of the African Union

welcomed and supported by the United Nations.

Artemis proves that the EU is capable of peacekeeping around the globe and in the

Congo

Kristin Archick, Paul Gallis April 6, 2004 http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32342.pdf Analyst inEuropean Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division CRS report for congress

Additionally, from June to September 2003, the EU led an international peacekeeping force of 1,400

in the Congo that sought to stop rebel fighting and protect aid workers. The Congo mission was

requested by the United Nations and headed by France in a lead nation capacity. This mission

came as a surprise to many EU observers, NATO officials, and U.S. policymakers because it was

geographically farther afield than they had thought the EU would venture, and because it was

conducted without recourse to NATO assets. The Congo operation was planned by French military

planners in national headquarters. Some NATO and U.S. officials were annoyed, asserting that the

EU should have first formally asked NATO whether it wished to undertake the Congo operation.EU officials did consult with NATO about the mission, but maintain they were not obliged to ask

NATO for its permission given that the EU was not requesting to use NATO assets.34


21/91

GDI 2004 21


EU Solves Sierra Leone

The EU has the primary lead in the Sierra Leone, and is running and efficient cost

effective operationJOHNNIE CARSON PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AFRICAN AFFAIRS,

Testimony to congress, JUNE 11, 1998While ECOWAS has the leading diplomatic role and ECOMOG is the peacekeeping/security force

in Sierra Leone, the region cannot establish peace alone. The international community must be

prepared to help. In this regard, the United Kingdom has offered to take the primary lead in

generating additional donor support, especially among European Union and Commonwealthcountries. A major issue is providing additional support for ECOMOG. ECOMOG has

approximately 10,000 troops in Sierra Leone. It estimates another 6-8,000 peacekeepers are needed

to have sufficient strength and territorial coverage to provide security and implement disarmament.

At the May ECOWAS Chiefs of Defense Staff meeting in Accra, several ECOWAS member-states

pledged additional troops, conditioned on receiving donor support to deploy and sustain these

contingents. We will be teaming with the British to garner other donor support for these potential

troop contributing countries. The British have also pledged 2 million to support ECOMOG. As inLiberia, support for ECOMOG in Sierra Leone promises to be an efficient, cost-effective

peacekeeping operation.

While the US has turned its back on Sierra Leone, while the European nations have

solved

By Norman Kempster and Marjorie MillerLOS ANGELES TIMES, 2000http://www.ihwc.spb.ru/a_013/13_us.htm U.S. Keeps Out of Sierra Leone

WASHINGTON - The administration of U.S. President Clinton on Monday rebuffed UN Secretary

General Kofi Annan's plea for a "rapid reaction force" from the industrialized West to rescue

beleaguered UN peacekeepers in Sierra Leone, although Washington pledged air transport and other

logistical support to reinforce the UN troops. Meanwhile, in Freetown, capital of the war-torn West

African country, British paratroopers began arriving to evacuate British and European Unioncitizens. The United States, the United Nations and international relief organizations withdrew most

employees as the situation became increasingly dangerous.


22/91

GDI 2004 22


EU Solves Western Sahara

The EU pressure is critical to achieve lasting peace in the western Sahara

Nizkor International Human Rights Team Derechos Human Rights Serpaj Europe

04 Jan 1999 http://www.zmag.org/Bulletins/psahara.htmWe do consider, given the continuous functioning of the different restrictive appliances, that the

guarantee for a free referendum does also imply the withdrawal of the services and bodies of theMoroccan State responsible for serious human rights violations in Western Sahara, particularly, the

Moroccan Army, the Territory Security Directorate (D.S.T.), the Judicial Police (P.J.), the RoyalGendarmerie and the Mobile Intervention Companies (C.M.I.). These bodies would have been

responsible for more than 90% of the detentions carried out in Western Sahara. 6) We also consider

as reprehensible the passive attitude of the international community and especially of Spain given its

historical responsibility toward the Saharawi People; we would like to underline that the onlypossible way for the achivement of peace and safety in Western Sahara consists of the prompt

celebration of the Referendum on self-determination. From this point of view, Spain should actively

promote such celebration; even if this former colonizing country takes into account the active

opposition of Morocco -until the moment neither MINURSO counts with any Spanish component

nor the Spanish government has shown any resolute interest in the sending of qualified observers to

the area- respecting and supporting at all times the right of the Saharawi People to free

determination 7) During his last visit to the region, between November 30, 1998 and December 2,1998, the UN Secretary-General could confirm that the Polisario clearly accepts the Peace Plan -

Secretary-General report S/1998/1160 of 11Dec98- , which signifies that the only obstacle

preventing the Saharawi People from fully enjoy its right to self-determination, according to

International Law, comes from the Kingdom of Morocco, who persists in blocking the efforts of theInternational Community to arrive to a peaceful and lasting solution. The signing organizations call

upon the Internationl Community, in particular the European Union, to direct the necessary

pressures towards the Kingdom of Morocco in order to decisively contribute to the fulfillment of the

accords.


23/91

GDI 2004 23


EU Solves the Golan Heights

EU Has experience and credibility for mediating the Israeli-Syrian Tensions

Paul Taylor , http://www.metimes.com/2K/issue2000-14/reg/eus_turn_to.htm EU's turn to break the

Mideast deadlock? 7 APRIL 2000 INTERNATIONAL EDITIONThe European Union's (EU) Middle East envoy appealed on April 2 for urgent international efforts

to break the deadlock in Israeli-Syrian peacemaking, saying the next month would be crucial.Miguel Angel Moratinos said the 15-nation EU was in close contact with the United States, Israel

and Syria to try to facilitate a resumption of talks following the failure of the summit between US

President Bill Clinton and Syrian President Hafez Al Assad in Geneva. "We believe a dialogue

between the parties must be restored within this month. We will use all our diplomatic and politicalweight to try to convince the parties that the only way to solve the issue is through diplomatic

negotiation," he told Reuters in an interview. "We still consider the number one priority is to make

the Syrian-Israeli track move ahead, and all efforts have to be concentrated in this direction for a

comprehensive peace. The next three or four weeks will be crucial," Moratinos said.

EU is the perfect choice for solving the Golan heights

Christian Action for Israel http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/idf-leb.html 2000Annan's public commitment of UN cooperation boosts Barak's efforts to garner broad international

support for the withdrawal. Prior to leaving for Switzerland, Levy met on Monday with the US and

French ambassadors to Israel to discuss the options of a beefed-up UNIFIL or a whole new

peacekeeping force under European Union command. Currently, UNIFIL is an ineffective force of

4,500 soldiers from nine UN member states (France, Fiji, Finland, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy,

Nepal and Poland), several of which want to withdraw their participation. It has budget shortagesand has been used by Hizb'Allah as a shield against Israeli retaliatory strikes. A new force could

possibly be controlled by the EU, with heavy French involvement, in accord with President JacquesChirac's recent offer to increase France's role in new security arrangements in Lebanon. ICEJ

NEWS has learned that French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin opposes Chirac's proposal to send

troops, which prompted Jospin to describe Hizb'Allah as "terrorists" during a recent visit to Israel. A

UNIFIL officer from Ireland today estimated the force would need an additional 2,500 personnel to

successfully expand its presence into the security zone.


24/91

GDI 2004 24


The EU should be the major mediator in the Golan to avoid US disentanglement,

and possible high costs for the US.

Leon T. Hadar is a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. , Time for "Constructive

Disengagement" from the Middle East February 7, 2000, http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-07-00.htmlThe dominant U.S. role in the talks between Israel and Syria creates the mistaken impression that

core American interests are at stake. The United States may be asked to pledge more than $50

billion to cover the costs of Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights, including the relocation ofthe some 15,000 Israelis who have settled in the area since 1967. And there are indications that a

peace agreement between Jerusalem and Damascus may require a U.S. military presence on the

Golan, perhaps as part of an international monitoring team. Most of the debate in Washington overU.S. involvement in the Israeli-Syrian negotiations has focused on the potential costs to American

taxpayers and the risks to U.S. soldiers that could result from new financial and militarycommitments by the Clinton administration. It will be difficult to sell to the American people the

proposal that Israel, the largest beneficiary of U.S. military and economic aid, should be further

compensated for agreeing to dismantle the settlements on the Golan that U.S. administrations have

described for years as "illegal." And at a time when Congress and the public seem weary of U.S.

military interventions overseas, especially in the Balkans, the Clinton administration may find little

support for placing U.S. troops in yet another province of the former Ottoman Empire, where ethnic

and religious rivalries are bound to entangle the United States. Yet even Americans who contend

that new U.S. commitments to support a peace accord would not be cost-effective rarely questionthe underlying assumption that the United States should continue playing a dominant role in theMiddle East. That Israel and Syria have decided that it is in their national interest to settle the

dispute between them should not be used as an excuse to deepen U.S. military and diplomaticinvolvement in the region. Instead, Washington now has an opportunity to reassess its entire Middle

East policy and start a process of "constructive disengagement." All three major factors that have

drawn the United States into the region since the 1950s -- the superpower rivalry, Western access to

oil resources and the security of Israel -- have changed beyond recognition. The Soviet Union no

longer exists, and Russia plays a marginal role in the Middle East. The collapse of the oil cartel in

the 1980s, the transformation in the global energy markets and the political disunity in the Arab

world have made the notion of the "Arab oil weapon" a distant memory. Finally, Israel, with its

advanced economic and technological infrastructure, including a nuclear capability, is the

undisputed military power in the region. Those dramatic strategic changes suggest that the Arab-

Israeli peace process has been "de-internationalized." The region has lost its geostrategicimportance, and that provides incentives for the local players, including Syria and Israel, to end their

conflict. America's national interests are affected only marginally by the status of the negotiations.In contrast to 1956, 1967 and 1973, any Israeli-Arab crisis can now be "localized." It would not lead

to a superpower confrontation, ignite an oil embargo against the United States or threaten the

existence of Israel. If crises in the region have any wider impact, they affect the nearby countries of

the European Union far more than they do the United States. If Israel and Syria insist on the

presence of foreign troops to monitor their agreement, the EU, which is developing its own EU

Corps for peacekeeping missions, not the United States, should be ready to provide that type of

assistance. Hence, while the United States should be ready to play the role of honest mediator in the

talks, it should not provide pay-offs to the two sides, in the form of either financial aid or military

commitments. Nor should Washington try to encourage Syria to become more "democratic" inexchange for American economic or military aid. The only "reward" Syria should expect is peace

with Israel and normal diplomatic and trade relationships with the United States.


25/91

GDI 2004 25


EU Solves Kosovo

The EU has experience in Kosovo

European Commission, December 15, 2003 http://europa-eu-un.org/article.asp?id=3113On 15 December 2003, the EU launches a new police mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia (FYROM). EUPOL Proxima will succeed the EUs Concordia peacekeepingmilitary mission, which expires that same day. It is the second EU police mission following the

EUPM that was launched in Bosnia and Herzegovina on 15 January 2003. Proxima

demonstrates the EUs continued commitment to the consolidation of stability and the rule of law in

the Balkans, within the objectives of the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAp). Thepromotion of European standards of policing in FYROM is part of the EUs wider strategy of

supporting the process of reform, including institution building, administrative and judicial reforms

and fight against organised crime and corruption, all of which are essential for the development of a

stable and democratic state. The EU, the leading donor, will spend a total of 54 million during2000 2004 to support reforms in these areas. Proxima is the third EUs European Security and

Defence Policy operation in the Balkans and the fourth globally when including the ARTEMIS

peacekeeping military mission successfully carried out in Bunia (Congo) over the Summer of 2003

Proxima aims to help the FYROM authorities develop their police forces to the highest European

and international standards through monitoring, mentoring and inspecting the management and

operations of the police. In particular, it will focus on supporting the governments efforts to fight

organised crime and to uphold the rule of law in the whole territory, with emphasis on the formercrisis areas. The total costs of the mission amount to 15 million for the first year, including set-up

costs of7.3 million, all funded through the Community budget. The EUs Member States will

contribute in kind through the secondment of staff. EU police officers will wear their national police

uniforms and an EU badge. They will not be armed and local police will remain responsible forexecutive tasks.

The EU is already focusing its efforts on the Balkansits only feasible that it could

control peacekeeping in the region

Keohane, 2003 (Daniel, Research Fellow for Security & Defence Policy at the Centre for EuropeanReform, EU defence policy: Beyond the Balkans, beyond peacekeeping?

http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/keohane_weltpolitik_jul03.html, accessed July 8, 2004)Since the birth of the EUs defence policy, out of Franco-British parentage at St. Malo in 1998, the

general assumption amongst many especially British and American defence analysts has been

that NATO would have the right of first refusal over prospective missions, leaving the EU to pick-

up NATOs leftovers. As Javier Solana, the EUs foreign policy chief, put it in 2000: The EU only

envisages applying a military response to a crisis if the NATO alliance as a whole is not

engagedBut if the US does not engagesomeone else may need to, and it is better for our overall

security if we can do so effectively.[1] And most observers have expected the EU to depend on

NATO assets such as the expertise of its military planners to run its missions. For example, EUpeacekeepers in Macedonia depend on NATOs help to conduct their operation there. EU militarymissions in the Balkans are possible because of the Berlin plus agreement signed at theCopenhagen summit in December 2002. This long-awaited EU-NATO agreement, which came after

months of political wrangling, allows the EU to use NATO resources to overcome its own capability

shortfalls. In addition, the overwhelming geographical focus of EU military efforts thus far has

been on the Balkan region. The Bush administration has already indicated that it would probably

pull its forces out of Bosnia sometime in 2004, leaving the way open for the EU to take over that

mission. If the US for its own strategic reasons eventually pulled out of Kosovo as well, the EU

would probably have to fill that vacuum, putting it in charge of all Balkan military missions. But

should the EU act beyond the Balkans?


26/91

GDI 2004 26


EU peacekeeping would provide effective peacekeeping in the Balkans in addition to

a foundation for stability in Europe

Bereuter and Lis 2003 (Doug and John, Chairman of Subcomittee of foreign relations, Sr. policyadvisor for transatlantic relations, TWQ winter, projectMUSE)

The EU would do better to focus its efforts on creating its Rapid Reaction Force (RRF) of up to 60,000

troops with complementary air and naval assets that could be rapidly deployed and sustained for one

year for crisis management, peacekeeping, rescue, or humanitarian operations. If the RRF becomesfully operational, the EU will be the logical institution to assume peacekeeping in the Balkans from

NATO, as some EU countries have proposed. An effective peacekeeping capability will complement

other EU competencies, such as the EUs work to build civil institutions, its economic and

infrastructure assistance, and its deployable pool of civilian police officers. In that fashion, the ESDP

can be an important part of a comprehensive spectrum of capabilities for crisis management in Europe.An important step toward a peaceful Europe came in June 2003 when the European Council declared

that the EU is open to membership by the countries of the western Balkans, including Albania, Bosnia

and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro.Ultimately, the incorporation of this region into the EU will assist its people in building peaceful,

prosperous lives. Already, the EU in March 2003 assumed the NATO peacekeeping mission in

Macedonia, with generally good results to date. Although that mission is small, with less than 350

troops, this is a positive indication that the ESDP can play a role in crisis management in Europe. In the

future, the EU should assume the peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and in Kosovo, but we must becareful not to risk the stability that NATO has brought to the region during the past eight years by

having the EU assume these missions before it is ready to meet their challenges.


27/91

GDI 2004 27


EU Solves Afghanistan

The EU is has been responsible for many of the improvements in Afghanistan

European Commission, 30/3/2004, http://europa-eu-un.org/article.asp?id=1910&lg=5, EC03-001EN

The European Union (EU) has been and continues to be one of the major donors backing the

reconstruction of Afghanistan. Taking together contributions from the Community Budget andMember States, the EU provided over850 million in 2002 and 835 million in assistance toAfghanistan in 2003 to help in its reconstruction efforts. At the Tokyo donors' conference in 2002, theEuropean Commission (EC) played a leading part in this EU performance. The Commission promised 1

billion over 5 years. In both 2002 and 2003, the actual amount committed to Afghanistan has been higher, andassistance has been delivered swiftly. At the 31 March 1 April Berlin International Conference on Afghanistan,

Europe will again be a significant participant. This reconstruction support is only part of the story. Europe is

also playing a lead role in providing troops for the International Security Assistance Force and the

growing number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams which aim to improve the security and

stability for Afghanistan. Contributions from the Community Budget have outstripped the Tokyo pledge. InTokyo, the Commission effectively pledged 200 million per year for Afghanistan. In 2002, the Commissiondelivered over280 million (including 72 million from ECHO). In 2003, the Commission delivered over300million (including extra 50 million to promote security by supporting police salaries and training, and 55million from ECHO). In 2004, the EC expects to commit around 245 million for reconstruction and

humanitarian support.The European Commission is delivering fast. In both 2002 and 2003, over 70percent of funds were actually contracted within one year. This is an impressive performance for the

EC and indeed for any agency. Delivery is accelerating. Between July 2003 and April 2004, the EC expectsto commit a total of337 in development assistance alone. By August 2004, the EC expects that, at least 80

percent of this will be contracted. European Commission, 30/3/2004, http://europa-eu-un.org/article.asp?id=1910&lg=5, EC03-001EN Just under100 million is being devoted to the strengtheningof the government in Kabul, through reform of the public sector, capacity building within key governmentinstitutions, and continued financial support for the government's recurrent budget. This helps the Afghan

government deliver services, which are urgently required by the population. The EC is channelling over100 million to rural development to underpin the rapid growth that will provide legitimate long termemployment for rural communities. Almost three-quarters of the Afghan population depend on agriculture fortheir livelihood. In addition, 9 million will be targeted explicitly on providing alternative livelihoods in the

Eastern region for those who might otherwise depend on illicit poppy cultivation. The EC is supplying 65million to help the Afghan police impose law and order, another key component in Afghanistan's

fight against drugs. Lastly, Afghanistan must be better able to stop smugglers on its borders if thedrugs trade is to be controlled. To this end, the EC is financing a project to strengthen border control on theAfghan-Iran border so the authorities are better able to interdict and stop drug smugglers. Beyond drugs and

security, Afghanistan faces the challenge of preparing for elections this year, a key milestone in the BonnProcess to stabilisation and democratisation. By early 2003, the European Union has financed 30 million forvoter registration, nearly half of the original budget for this exercise. Within this, the Commission contributed15 million. In addition the EC is making an important contribution to the regeneration of the nationaleconomy by helping to repair the roads network (90 million), boost public health (25 million) and remove

mines and unexploded ordinance. Examples of EC Achievements The Commission's assistance

programmes are making a real difference to Afghans' lives: Emergency work on the Kabul-Jalalabad road

has already cut travel times by up to half. Work to fully reconstruct the road is now underway; Healthservices are being delivered in six provinces, covering 20 percent of the population; Key public sector workers

including doctors, teachers and nurses and the police are back at work; A kick-start for the rural economy

by providing 57,000 metric tons of improved seed, vaccinating 200,000 animals and rehabilitating

633 irrigation structures. This contributed to the remarkable economic take-off of the rural economy in 2003;The creation of 1.4 million days of employment - in 2002 alone - to promote rural livelihoods; The

clearance of 8 million square metres from land mines, allowing families to return to their homes to

restart their lives; The rehabilitation of the women's park in Kabul, plus hammans across many urban centres.For the first time women can gather together in public without being accompanied by male family members


28/91

GDI 2004 28


EU Solves Cyprus

EU action is crtiical to preserving stability countries in the Mediterranean because

they have inextricable economic, military and political ties

Dillery 2004 (Edward, retired foreign service officer, Mediterranean Quart. V15 n2 spring,projectMUSE)

Europe and the twelve countries of the littoral are inextricably tied to each other by economic,humanitarian, and security interests. The partnership has been notable in that it includes countries that

normally do not have relations with each otherfor example, Israel and the Arab nations, the parties on

Cyprus, and Greece and Turkey. Remarkably, it has been possible to assemble all the participants at

several meetings. Economic relations are important. North Africas natural gas is vital to the economy

of the EU, and the trade of each party is heavily oriented toward the other. Europe needs a stable

Mediterranean in order to further this relationship, as do the countries of the littoral. Biscop points out

the mechanisms the EU established to pursue the relationship, one of which is the European Security

and Defense Policy, the purpose of which is to create an EU military capability.

The EU is vital to achieving peace over CyprusDillery 2004 (Edward, retired foreign service officer, Mediterranean Quart. V15 n2 spring,projectMUSE)

The second recommendation is that the EU should assume responsibility and should actively work

towards a settlement between Greece, Turkey, and the two Cypriot communities, using as theprincipal tool the accession process. He feels that a breakthrough might have been achieved in these

issues if the EU had been more active and sees progress here as a vital step in achieving real

partnership.


29/91

GDI 2004 29


EU Solves Kashmir

The EU is the only actor capable of resolving the Kashmir dispute- the USs

historical partiality to Pakistan destroys their ability to resolve the dispute credibly

The Independent 8-12-1999But it may yet be worth a try. In both countries nationalists are in the ascendant, and India's

belligerence this week may not be unconnected with this autumn's election. Afterwards, however, Delhimight just be ready to listen to an outsider. And who might that be? Obviously not Britain, the former

colonial power. Nor Russia, traditionally a friend of India. The US, historically sympathetic to Pakistan

but now mending its ties with Delhi, is one candidate. But another is the European Union, an important

economic partner of both countries, but one which carries little historical baggage in the subcontinent.

The chances of success are slim - but, equally, there is little to lose. And if the EU is serious aboutraising its foreign affairs profile, the face-off between India and Pakistan is as good a place to start as

any.

More EU involvement in the Kashmir dispute is key to a lasting settlement- US

policies are too piecemeal to have any lasting effect

International Crisis Group 2004 (June 24th, Asia Report, online:http://www.crisisweb.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=2825, accessed: 7-10-04)

Everything from governance to education and healthcare needs funding and inventive policymaking.

Almost all the burden of ending confli also required. Direct mediation or a major UN role have been

rejected by New Delhi but the Indian government should recognise that some post-conflict assistance

would be useful. The U.S. has played a key role in defusing conflicts but needs to develop a longer-term

policy perspective to prevent crises from blowing up. The European Union (EU) should make South

Asia a greater priority and be more willing to take an active part there by promoting economic andsocial integration ct in South Asia lies with the Indian and Pakistani governments but supportive,

sustained and sensitive international assistance is and doing more to promote democracy in Pakistan.

The EUs economic ties with both India and Pakistan give the EU valuable political

clout for mediating disputes between the two countriesInternational Crisis Group 2004 (June 24th, Asia Report, online:http://www.crisisweb.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=2825, accessed: 7-10-04)

Both India and Pakistan are keen to improve their relations with the EU, a major trading partner and

investor for both. Indian trade with the Union is as great as it is with the U.S. and is expected to grow

significantly. In Pakistan, too, trade ties with and economic assistance from Europe could translate intoleverage for the EU. Yet Brussels is hesitant to exercise its potential influence. The EU has traditionally

been reluctant to get closely involved in the Pakistan-India conflict, which is seen as too far away, lowon its list of priorities and difficult. There should be greater recognition of the real urgency and dangers

of the situation.1


30/91

GDI 2004 30


EU Solves Demining

The EU has an Active and Effective Demining program

Russell Gasser, Project Officer, Humanitarian Demining RTD Landmines in Africa issue 6, August

2002 http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/6.2/features/russellgasser/russellgasser.htmLegislative policy on landmines is determined by the European Council and European Parliament,which have strongly supported the Ottawa Process and the elimination of all AP landmines within

ten years of ratification of the treaty; this includes the political decision to fund mine action. The EUResearch and Technological Development (RTD) for Humanitarian Demining (HD) is administered

by the European Commission (EC). In 2000, the European Union (EU) contributed $125 million to

the fight against AP landmines through both member states donations and funding administered

through the EC (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/mine/publication/index.htm).In July2001, the Council and the European Parliament adopted two Regulations on the Reinforcement of

the EU response against AP landmines: the first one covering developing countries and the second

one covering other countries; the regulations lay the foundations for a European integrated and

focused policy. The majority of the RTD spending was delivered in support of the Information

Society Technologies (IST) programme administered through the Directorate General Information

Society (DG-INFSO) (http://www.cordis.lu/ist/ka1/environment/projects/clustering.htm#cluster3).

Other Directorates General also played important roles in humanitarian mine action RTD, notablythe Joint Research Centre. The EU contribution to research and development (R&D), through the

IST programme, is generally in the form of a maximum of 50 percent matching funds for

developing demining technologies. The remainder of the funding comes from participating

industrial partners. The programme is therefore oriented towards the development of prototypes,which can be turned into commercially successful outcomes so that the participating businesses can

recover their R&D costs from future sales of demining equipment, or other equipment in the case of

dual-use technologies. This is a very different R&D environment from many military programmes

which are 100 percent funded and thus do not have the same commercial drive and commercial

constraints. The EC is also seeking results in the short to mid term in order to aid compliance with

the goal of APL clearance by 2010. Academic partners and Support Measures aimed at providing a

service to demining RTD can be funded at up to 100 percent of additional costs.


31/91

GDI 2004 31


EU Solves Middle East

EUs aide in the Israel-Palestine disputes prove their credibility in the Middle East

Bereuter and Lis 2003 (Doug and John, Chairman of Subcomittee of foreign relations, Sr. policyadvisor for transatlantic relations, TWQ winter, projectMUSE)

In the field of foreign policy, the EU is a participant along with the United States, the UN, and Russia inthe Quartet, working to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is an excellent example of the EU

using its Common Foreign and Security Policy to play a constructiverole in resolving a conflict outside

of Europe that creates great instability in the Middle East as well as the broader Islamic world and that

threatens the security of Europe and North America. The June 2003 visit to the House by Javier Solana,

the EU high representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, to discuss the road map forMiddle East peace was marked by a lively debate with members of Congress who questioned aspects of

EU policy, including the damaging effect of the EU foreign ministers meeting with Palestinian leader

Yasser Arafat, which undermined the authority of then-Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, and the EUs

reluctance to brand the civilian wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Nevertheless, few in

Congress fundamentally challenged the legitimacy of the EUs role in the Middle East peace process.

disturbed by the EUs extreme trade distorting policies.

EU mediation is critical to bolstering Israeli peace talks- the US has no credibility

because of their unwavering support of Israel

Jerusalem Post 7-30-1998Fatah officials called on the Palestinian Authority yesterday to withdraw from negotiations with Israel

due to a lack of progress in the talks. The talks were expected to resume again today after a day's recess.

Saeb Erekat, the PA Minister of Local Authorities, said that little progress has been achieved at thetalks. Marwan Barghouti, the Secretary General of Fatah in the West Bank, told The Jerusalem Post that

the negotiations have reached a deadlock. He urged the PA to declare that the talks have failed becauseof Israeli intransigence and that there is a real crisis. "Without the feeling of a real crisis in the

negotiations, the world will not move to rescue the peace process," said Barghouti.

He has called on the EU and the UN to become involved in the process, saying the US "has no

credibility" and is biased in favor of Israel. who's asked EU, and UN to join in the peace process

efficiency.


32/91

GDI 2004 32


european union counterplan

Documents