Agenda
Formation of a European Union standing army
Drain the AccounT
Gargee Singh Bhadoria, reporter of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), conveys the views of the delegates on the question of feasibility of a European Union (EU) army.
After discussing at length about whether an EU army should be made or not, the discussion moved towards a more specific direction. The feasibility of an EU army depends upon the finance and resources available to the countries of Europe. The Delegate of Egypt believed that an EU army was not financially feasible as many countries could barely contribute their share of two percent Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of capital to the EU army. He also said creating an EU army would cause a conflict of interest amongst nations which are already at crossroads with each other at most points, as the EU army would be a multinational army. He went on to give an example of such a conflict, saying that a particular nation might not be willing to send its troops into a region because it neither deems it necessary nor wants to condemn its citizens of the violent confrontation.
The Delegates of Iceland and Ireland talked about how the formation and, moreover, the deployment of such an army would be in violation of some countries’ policies as they are neutral and cannot align themselves to a particular military force. The Delegate of Ireland highlighted that an EU army is not financially practicable, as the transportation of military, air force, naval troops, and their equipment will mount up a very high cost. He also mentioned how the formation of an army by and for the EU would undermine the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
On the other hand, the Delegate of Algeria said that the formation of an EU army and departure from NATO would be beneficial, in terms of capital. He quoted British defence economist Keith Hartley’s 17 percent and 10 percent figures. The 17 percent figure states that there will be 17 percent cost savings if EU has a common armament program, rather than an international one. On the other hand, the 10 percent figure signifies the percentage by which the cost of armaments increases each year. The Delegate of Andorra added to this, as she stated that a unified army would create more employment and generate revenue.
The Delegate of Germany said that the EU already had military troops existing – Eurocorps, and others in accordance with Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The Delegates of Lithuania and Turkey urged the EU to consider providing more funding to their existing battle groups, and upgrade them rather than focussing on creating a whole new army.
While most of the delegates were for the formation of an EU standing army and deemed it to be feasible even if the EU members provide finance for NATO, it seemed that they had forgotten about the Brexit campaign, which leaves them with less resources and capital. The reporter hopes that further discussion may bring to light issues that may arise due to this, and how they can be addressed.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
After discussing at length about whether an EU army should be made or not, the discussion moved towards a more specific direction. The feasibility of an EU army depends upon the finance and resources available to the countries of Europe. The Delegate of Egypt believed that an EU army was not financially feasible as many countries could barely contribute their share of two percent Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of capital to the EU army. He also said creating an EU army would cause a conflict of interest amongst nations which are already at crossroads with each other at most points, as the EU army would be a multinational army. He went on to give an example of such a conflict, saying that a particular nation might not be willing to send its troops into a region because it neither deems it necessary nor wants to condemn its citizens of the violent confrontation.
The Delegates of Iceland and Ireland talked about how the formation and, moreover, the deployment of such an army would be in violation of some countries’ policies as they are neutral and cannot align themselves to a particular military force. The Delegate of Ireland highlighted that an EU army is not financially practicable, as the transportation of military, air force, naval troops, and their equipment will mount up a very high cost. He also mentioned how the formation of an army by and for the EU would undermine the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
On the other hand, the Delegate of Algeria said that the formation of an EU army and departure from NATO would be beneficial, in terms of capital. He quoted British defence economist Keith Hartley’s 17 percent and 10 percent figures. The 17 percent figure states that there will be 17 percent cost savings if EU has a common armament program, rather than an international one. On the other hand, the 10 percent figure signifies the percentage by which the cost of armaments increases each year. The Delegate of Andorra added to this, as she stated that a unified army would create more employment and generate revenue.
The Delegate of Germany said that the EU already had military troops existing – Eurocorps, and others in accordance with Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The Delegates of Lithuania and Turkey urged the EU to consider providing more funding to their existing battle groups, and upgrade them rather than focussing on creating a whole new army.
While most of the delegates were for the formation of an EU standing army and deemed it to be feasible even if the EU members provide finance for NATO, it seemed that they had forgotten about the Brexit campaign, which leaves them with less resources and capital. The reporter hopes that further discussion may bring to light issues that may arise due to this, and how they can be addressed.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
The Guardian Angels
Rajnandini Singh, reporter, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), captures the concerns and opinions of the delegates on the requirement of a European Union (EU) army.
The very first session of the council saw the delegates moving into a moderated caucus concentrating on the requirement of an EU army. Many delegates were of the opinion that an EU army is indeed a necessity, keeping in mind the current geo-political status of the world.
The Delegate of Italy stated that Europe is currently is under the protection of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), which is largely supported by the United States of America (USA). He also believed that USA could use this fact as a bargaining chip for the European countries to do its bidding even when it does not benefit them. The Delegate of Hungary also believed that with USA’s policies being vague after the recent elections, the European Union could not rely on NATO for security, and that the need for an army was imminent.
The Delegate of France answered the questions of availability of funds for an EU army by suggesting that the current national armies could be pooled together to have a stronger front. The need for a unified front was felt by the Delegate of Greece, as well, who highlighted that NATO had not responded to the Ukrainian issues, as USA feared a war with the Russian Federation. The main concern for the delegates seemed to be the dependence of the European countries on NATO for their current safety, instead of a self sufficient force, whereas others deemed that any member nation would prefer defending its own nation before defending the entire European region during times of internal conflict.
The issues of terrorism and immigration of refugees was brought up by the Delegate of Estonia, questioning whether an army is, in fact, as necessary as the other issues at hand, when NATO is already at work. The Delegate of Lithuania also held the opinion that most multinational military forces are fragile, as the concerns of all the member nations might not always be the same, rendering a unified army in conflict with itself. The Delegate of USA supported this thought and added that if the EU has funds, they could be directed to the betterment of NATO itself.
In conclusion, although some of the delegates were strongly in favour of an EU army that would send a message of their unity and strength to the world along with protecting their interests without having to rely on external forces, some were concerned about the feasibility of such an army and whether it would result in a complete waste of funds that can, instead, be used to address the issues of refugees, unemployment, etc., in the member states. The majority of the council agreed that a unified military force for the entire European region is necessary in the near future, but the question still remained if the member states could actually contribute enough funds and resources to form a military force big enough to defend the whole continent and function parallel to the NATO. There is also concern about the fact that most of the current members states of NATO cannot even fulfil the requirement of contributing 2% of their Gross Domestic Profit (GDP), and, with Britain having left the Union, where would the required funds and resources come from?
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
The very first session of the council saw the delegates moving into a moderated caucus concentrating on the requirement of an EU army. Many delegates were of the opinion that an EU army is indeed a necessity, keeping in mind the current geo-political status of the world.
The Delegate of Italy stated that Europe is currently is under the protection of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), which is largely supported by the United States of America (USA). He also believed that USA could use this fact as a bargaining chip for the European countries to do its bidding even when it does not benefit them. The Delegate of Hungary also believed that with USA’s policies being vague after the recent elections, the European Union could not rely on NATO for security, and that the need for an army was imminent.
The Delegate of France answered the questions of availability of funds for an EU army by suggesting that the current national armies could be pooled together to have a stronger front. The need for a unified front was felt by the Delegate of Greece, as well, who highlighted that NATO had not responded to the Ukrainian issues, as USA feared a war with the Russian Federation. The main concern for the delegates seemed to be the dependence of the European countries on NATO for their current safety, instead of a self sufficient force, whereas others deemed that any member nation would prefer defending its own nation before defending the entire European region during times of internal conflict.
The issues of terrorism and immigration of refugees was brought up by the Delegate of Estonia, questioning whether an army is, in fact, as necessary as the other issues at hand, when NATO is already at work. The Delegate of Lithuania also held the opinion that most multinational military forces are fragile, as the concerns of all the member nations might not always be the same, rendering a unified army in conflict with itself. The Delegate of USA supported this thought and added that if the EU has funds, they could be directed to the betterment of NATO itself.
In conclusion, although some of the delegates were strongly in favour of an EU army that would send a message of their unity and strength to the world along with protecting their interests without having to rely on external forces, some were concerned about the feasibility of such an army and whether it would result in a complete waste of funds that can, instead, be used to address the issues of refugees, unemployment, etc., in the member states. The majority of the council agreed that a unified military force for the entire European region is necessary in the near future, but the question still remained if the member states could actually contribute enough funds and resources to form a military force big enough to defend the whole continent and function parallel to the NATO. There is also concern about the fact that most of the current members states of NATO cannot even fulfil the requirement of contributing 2% of their Gross Domestic Profit (GDP), and, with Britain having left the Union, where would the required funds and resources come from?
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
DWINDLING STANCE
Gargee Singh Bhadoria, reporter, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), converses with the Delegate of United Kingdom (UK) about his statements and his country’s stance.
Question: The Delegate stated that the UK can fill the gap that NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) has left, and can act where NATO did not. So, why did UK not come to the aid of Ukraine in the events of the Ukraine War crisis?
Answer: The United Kingdom does have a military task force in place at Ukraine, which are our peacekeeping machines. We have helped the world around us, but we are tired of providing more than enough and aiding other countries constantly while they do not return the favour. The Delegate meant to say that if the NATO fails to fulfil its duties, the UK would be ready to help with suitable arrangements.
Question: While the whole world is discussing Brexit, your statements indicate that UK is in the support of the formation of an EU army. One of the reasons of UK leaving the European Union (EU) is that they do not want to have a unified army. Please explain.
Answer: The Delegate merely recommended that the European Union, as a whole, should come up with an army, so that they can put their own defensive strategies in place. The reason for Brexit was that the UK, alone, bore the burden of sustaining the whole EU, while the other countries acted greedily and selfishly by not providing the EU with any of their resources.
Question: Even though Britain has exited from the EU, the UK can still be pinned down to help fund and contribute to the EU army due to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. What measure is UK going to take to avoid that?
Answer: According to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, an EU member may completely leave the Union two years after announcing its intentions. Since the UK has not yet passed that period of time, it is officially still a part of the EU. If we are really persuaded to contribute in any manner, the UK would be able to provide some military personnel because most of the member countries lack in the department of having advanced, trained military. We would also be happy to provide the member states with military technologies that they do not possess, or are too expensive, for them to procure. But, no capital would be provided by the nation.
Question: Why has UK ignored the wishes of one-third of its country’s population, i.e. Scotland, to stay in the EU, even though its relations with Scotland are not at an all-time high?
Answer: Since Scotland only constitute one-third of the population, we were more concerned about the entire population of the country. To safeguard the future and for the welfare of the nation as a whole, we had to overlook Scotland’s wishes, and take such drastic measures. Scotland’s disagreement is not as important as seeing the decision of Brexit to the end, because the future of the entire country has to be thought about. We can resolve our internal conflicts at them any time. We are also currently working on coming up with a solution.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
Question: The Delegate stated that the UK can fill the gap that NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) has left, and can act where NATO did not. So, why did UK not come to the aid of Ukraine in the events of the Ukraine War crisis?
Answer: The United Kingdom does have a military task force in place at Ukraine, which are our peacekeeping machines. We have helped the world around us, but we are tired of providing more than enough and aiding other countries constantly while they do not return the favour. The Delegate meant to say that if the NATO fails to fulfil its duties, the UK would be ready to help with suitable arrangements.
Question: While the whole world is discussing Brexit, your statements indicate that UK is in the support of the formation of an EU army. One of the reasons of UK leaving the European Union (EU) is that they do not want to have a unified army. Please explain.
Answer: The Delegate merely recommended that the European Union, as a whole, should come up with an army, so that they can put their own defensive strategies in place. The reason for Brexit was that the UK, alone, bore the burden of sustaining the whole EU, while the other countries acted greedily and selfishly by not providing the EU with any of their resources.
Question: Even though Britain has exited from the EU, the UK can still be pinned down to help fund and contribute to the EU army due to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. What measure is UK going to take to avoid that?
Answer: According to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, an EU member may completely leave the Union two years after announcing its intentions. Since the UK has not yet passed that period of time, it is officially still a part of the EU. If we are really persuaded to contribute in any manner, the UK would be able to provide some military personnel because most of the member countries lack in the department of having advanced, trained military. We would also be happy to provide the member states with military technologies that they do not possess, or are too expensive, for them to procure. But, no capital would be provided by the nation.
Question: Why has UK ignored the wishes of one-third of its country’s population, i.e. Scotland, to stay in the EU, even though its relations with Scotland are not at an all-time high?
Answer: Since Scotland only constitute one-third of the population, we were more concerned about the entire population of the country. To safeguard the future and for the welfare of the nation as a whole, we had to overlook Scotland’s wishes, and take such drastic measures. Scotland’s disagreement is not as important as seeing the decision of Brexit to the end, because the future of the entire country has to be thought about. We can resolve our internal conflicts at them any time. We are also currently working on coming up with a solution.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
Mirror Image
Rajnandini Singh, reporter, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), reports on the deliberations on the co-existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and a European Union (EU) army.
The delegates debated on the possibility of co-existence of an EU army alongside NATO. The discussion entailed the areas of operation of both the armies, should they co-exist. The delegates had majorly established that an EU army, separate from the NATO, would be required in the near future, fearing a withdrawal in funding from the United States of America (USA) to NATO. The Delegate of Slovakia suggested that the EU army should not interfere with the working of the NATO, but should only take action in case NATO is unwilling or unable to provide assistance. The Delegate of Hungary further added that a representative from the EU could be appointed to the NATO, so as to avoid conflict of areas of operations.
The Delegate of Iceland proposed that the two armies could share the resources based on a definite plan, this sharing would include infrastructure and intelligence regarding the issues that come under both the forces’ areas of operation. The Delegate of Italy also felt that proper jurisdiction for both the forces would be required to avoid clashes, and that a structured plan should be discussed beforehand. The Delegate of USA opined that the current situation would be better handled with the joint cooperation of both the forces, such that there would be some relief to NATO in its operations. The Delegate of Belgium proposed that the headquarters of such a unified army should be placed in Brussels itself, where the EU headquarters already exist. She further added that the EU army could be extremely useful in cases where NATO could not control the situation due to diplomatic conflicts.
The majority of the delegates preferred the co-existence of an EU Army and NATO, so as to better handle the current crisis and ensure that all the member nations feel safe inside their national armies, although some of the delegates expressed their fears on the failure of co-existence of such an army alongside NATO. The Delegate of Lithuania pointed out that, in the situation of a crisis, the forces might not have the time to deliberate on the division of operations, and whether or not both the forces can work together at that point of time. She was also concerned that such a situation would essentially render the operations of both the forces useless, and worsen the situation.
The opinion of the delegates revolved around the fear of withdrawal of NATO funding by USA, leaving the European region vulnerable to the current threats. But, they also acknowledged the need for a proper structure to be framed for the EU standing army, before pondering over it working parallel to NATO.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
The delegates debated on the possibility of co-existence of an EU army alongside NATO. The discussion entailed the areas of operation of both the armies, should they co-exist. The delegates had majorly established that an EU army, separate from the NATO, would be required in the near future, fearing a withdrawal in funding from the United States of America (USA) to NATO. The Delegate of Slovakia suggested that the EU army should not interfere with the working of the NATO, but should only take action in case NATO is unwilling or unable to provide assistance. The Delegate of Hungary further added that a representative from the EU could be appointed to the NATO, so as to avoid conflict of areas of operations.
The Delegate of Iceland proposed that the two armies could share the resources based on a definite plan, this sharing would include infrastructure and intelligence regarding the issues that come under both the forces’ areas of operation. The Delegate of Italy also felt that proper jurisdiction for both the forces would be required to avoid clashes, and that a structured plan should be discussed beforehand. The Delegate of USA opined that the current situation would be better handled with the joint cooperation of both the forces, such that there would be some relief to NATO in its operations. The Delegate of Belgium proposed that the headquarters of such a unified army should be placed in Brussels itself, where the EU headquarters already exist. She further added that the EU army could be extremely useful in cases where NATO could not control the situation due to diplomatic conflicts.
The majority of the delegates preferred the co-existence of an EU Army and NATO, so as to better handle the current crisis and ensure that all the member nations feel safe inside their national armies, although some of the delegates expressed their fears on the failure of co-existence of such an army alongside NATO. The Delegate of Lithuania pointed out that, in the situation of a crisis, the forces might not have the time to deliberate on the division of operations, and whether or not both the forces can work together at that point of time. She was also concerned that such a situation would essentially render the operations of both the forces useless, and worsen the situation.
The opinion of the delegates revolved around the fear of withdrawal of NATO funding by USA, leaving the European region vulnerable to the current threats. But, they also acknowledged the need for a proper structure to be framed for the EU standing army, before pondering over it working parallel to NATO.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
Russian Roulette
Rajnandini Singh, reporter, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), talks and jots down the views of the Delegate of the Russian Federation.
The Delegate of the Russian Federation had voiced a lot of points that steered the discussion immensely.
Q. In your speech, you stated that Russia preaches peace and is not posing a threat to anyone, but at the same time, Russia has moved nuclear armed missiles closer to European borders to Kaliningrad. What inference is to be drawn from that?
A. There are two things to be addressed here. First of all, the Russian Federation has always been a preacher of peace since the Soviet times. Secondly, because of the militarisation by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries in the region of Baltic and Arctic, this is rightfully ours, under the United Nations Convention on Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). Kaliningrad is a territory of the Russian Federation situated right near the borders. Around this region, there have been NATO drills, and we felt that we needed to secure our borders at that point of time, should there be any attacks by the NATO. It is solely out of concern for our own security that the nuclear arms were moved to the region and we shall stand by the decision. Regarding the misconception of the Russian Federation being a threat to the Baltic nations, we are fully capable of annexing the region, but we are a responsible state and would never do such a thing.
Q. You said that Ukraine is like your ‘little brother’, then why are troops and equipment from Russia being moved frequently to separatist-controlled parts of Eastern Ukraine?
A. First, the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics (USSR) was a legacy, and we, as the Russian Federation, want to continue that legacy. We have been signing a lot of treaties giving Ukraine and other parts of the USSR their right to form a separate nation. The referendums that we conducted in the region of Ukraine - especially Crimea - had an overwhelming response on the citizens of Crimea wanting to join the Russian Federation. We consider that this is where the rights of people matter. People should have the basic human rights which were denied to the Crimean population. So, we felt it our duty to help the Crimean people. We do consider Ukraine as our little brother, and we are willing to help their people, as we did in this case as well. It is the choice of people that matters in the end.
Q. You also mentioned people having rights and how they should have rights. In 2015, the OSCE itself observed 21 vehicles marked with Russian military code for soldiers killed in action, passing the Russian-Ukraine border under the guise of humanitarian aid convoys. Russia also tried to silence and intimidate the human rights workers discussing Russian soldiers’ deaths in the conflict. What do you have to say about this?
A. A vehicle bearing the Russian insignia does not mean that the vehicle belongs to the Russian Federation. Considering that, we have always thought of the people’s best interests. We ensure to give them proper rights, and they do know who their leader is, what their constitution says, and are a part of a legacy. The Russian Federation is the most peaceful region on planet Earth. All these accusations against the Russian Federation are false.
Q. You are a member of the OSCE, yet OSCE’s observers were denied access to the areas in Ukraine that are controlled by the combination of Russian and separatist forces. Why?
A. Denial of observers in the region of Crimea was completely based on security of the officials. The region was under constant riots by the people of Ukraine, who did not let the people of Crimea move to Russia. They were being denied of their human rights and, at that point of time, although we understood that the observers did have a right to access the regions, we also felt that they would be exploited in the region. It was for their safety that they were not given access, as we did not want any more lives to be at stake. Thus, we requested them to stay away from the region.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
The Delegate of the Russian Federation had voiced a lot of points that steered the discussion immensely.
Q. In your speech, you stated that Russia preaches peace and is not posing a threat to anyone, but at the same time, Russia has moved nuclear armed missiles closer to European borders to Kaliningrad. What inference is to be drawn from that?
A. There are two things to be addressed here. First of all, the Russian Federation has always been a preacher of peace since the Soviet times. Secondly, because of the militarisation by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries in the region of Baltic and Arctic, this is rightfully ours, under the United Nations Convention on Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). Kaliningrad is a territory of the Russian Federation situated right near the borders. Around this region, there have been NATO drills, and we felt that we needed to secure our borders at that point of time, should there be any attacks by the NATO. It is solely out of concern for our own security that the nuclear arms were moved to the region and we shall stand by the decision. Regarding the misconception of the Russian Federation being a threat to the Baltic nations, we are fully capable of annexing the region, but we are a responsible state and would never do such a thing.
Q. You said that Ukraine is like your ‘little brother’, then why are troops and equipment from Russia being moved frequently to separatist-controlled parts of Eastern Ukraine?
A. First, the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics (USSR) was a legacy, and we, as the Russian Federation, want to continue that legacy. We have been signing a lot of treaties giving Ukraine and other parts of the USSR their right to form a separate nation. The referendums that we conducted in the region of Ukraine - especially Crimea - had an overwhelming response on the citizens of Crimea wanting to join the Russian Federation. We consider that this is where the rights of people matter. People should have the basic human rights which were denied to the Crimean population. So, we felt it our duty to help the Crimean people. We do consider Ukraine as our little brother, and we are willing to help their people, as we did in this case as well. It is the choice of people that matters in the end.
Q. You also mentioned people having rights and how they should have rights. In 2015, the OSCE itself observed 21 vehicles marked with Russian military code for soldiers killed in action, passing the Russian-Ukraine border under the guise of humanitarian aid convoys. Russia also tried to silence and intimidate the human rights workers discussing Russian soldiers’ deaths in the conflict. What do you have to say about this?
A. A vehicle bearing the Russian insignia does not mean that the vehicle belongs to the Russian Federation. Considering that, we have always thought of the people’s best interests. We ensure to give them proper rights, and they do know who their leader is, what their constitution says, and are a part of a legacy. The Russian Federation is the most peaceful region on planet Earth. All these accusations against the Russian Federation are false.
Q. You are a member of the OSCE, yet OSCE’s observers were denied access to the areas in Ukraine that are controlled by the combination of Russian and separatist forces. Why?
A. Denial of observers in the region of Crimea was completely based on security of the officials. The region was under constant riots by the people of Ukraine, who did not let the people of Crimea move to Russia. They were being denied of their human rights and, at that point of time, although we understood that the observers did have a right to access the regions, we also felt that they would be exploited in the region. It was for their safety that they were not given access, as we did not want any more lives to be at stake. Thus, we requested them to stay away from the region.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
Bullet in a Bible
Rajnandini Singh, reporter, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), highlights alternatives to a standing European Union (EU) Army.
“The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.” – Omar Bradley
War is what we know, and war is what we preach. The world agenda boils down to this. The human race today loves war so much that it proposes attaining peace through an army. A unified body of men and women clad in arms with a fleet of weapons of mass destruction is what it feels is the symbol of unity among nations.
The European Union member nations believe that a message of their unity would be sent to the world through a unified EU army. The only way they can help each other out and show their unity is by fighting each other’s battles. What about helping their fellow nations strengthen their economy? Or open their doors to those who seek refuge? Acts that would actually make the world a better place. Even when the idea of an EU army is being deliberated upon, there isn’t even a shadow of doubt that the capital required to form such an army could be used to tend to any other crisis. Almost as if no other crisis existed.
While the European countries struggle with their economies, it is completely feasible to fund another army. While their educated youth goes unemployed, they can discuss the structure of this army. While millions of lives ask for asylum within their borders, and they refuse to help, they can discuss the administration of this army: because a unified army will solve all their current crises. Deliberation on a dream while sitting in a sinking ship is a fool’s job; this needs to be realised.
The entire EU combined does not have the funds to support an army that might even fathom to parallel the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in its current state of operation. The argument put forward is that a parallel army is needed and that it could be achieved over time, when the whole reason of discussing such an army is because the European nations do not feel safe within their borders. The army is proposed to compliment NATO in its functions. So, if the funds are not enough to form a parallel army, what could be done? That is what banks are for: because the countries already drowning in debts aren’t quite drowned enough.
Or, maybe, the diplomats could come up with another way of depicting their unity; maybe the funds could be pooled and used for the betterment of the less fortunate parts of the region. These funds could be utilised to curb human trafficking or ensure every citizen’s human rights; or, this capital could go into the education sector, providing cheaper, higher education to the future of the nations so they produce better diplomats. The countries need to consider every aspect of the issue before discussing the possibility of an EU army. They need to realise that there might be more pressing matters at hand which might get ignored in the light of the bright, shiny armour they dream to build. The need for human rights protection, food security, and job security to every citizen throughout the Union might just be the more practical of paths to tread.
Even before the formation of the army is discussed, it should be the point to define the need of the army. So, unless the diplomats who hold the fate of such armies in their hands do not inspect every nook and cranny of the issue, reaching a consensus would only be a hurried response to a typical modern era human being who loves wars. Bullets in Bibles never lead to peace and harmony. No matter how far we come, the pages of history would never speak of an army that could ever achieve to establish peace and unity. The implications of an ill-formed army that would serve at the discretion of a bunch of bureaucrats could be catastrophic triggering confusion and chaos instead of unity and prosperity.
“Together, they would watch everything that was so carefully planned collapse, and they would smile at the beauty of destruction.” ― Markus Zusak, The Book Thief
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
“The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.” – Omar Bradley
War is what we know, and war is what we preach. The world agenda boils down to this. The human race today loves war so much that it proposes attaining peace through an army. A unified body of men and women clad in arms with a fleet of weapons of mass destruction is what it feels is the symbol of unity among nations.
The European Union member nations believe that a message of their unity would be sent to the world through a unified EU army. The only way they can help each other out and show their unity is by fighting each other’s battles. What about helping their fellow nations strengthen their economy? Or open their doors to those who seek refuge? Acts that would actually make the world a better place. Even when the idea of an EU army is being deliberated upon, there isn’t even a shadow of doubt that the capital required to form such an army could be used to tend to any other crisis. Almost as if no other crisis existed.
While the European countries struggle with their economies, it is completely feasible to fund another army. While their educated youth goes unemployed, they can discuss the structure of this army. While millions of lives ask for asylum within their borders, and they refuse to help, they can discuss the administration of this army: because a unified army will solve all their current crises. Deliberation on a dream while sitting in a sinking ship is a fool’s job; this needs to be realised.
The entire EU combined does not have the funds to support an army that might even fathom to parallel the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in its current state of operation. The argument put forward is that a parallel army is needed and that it could be achieved over time, when the whole reason of discussing such an army is because the European nations do not feel safe within their borders. The army is proposed to compliment NATO in its functions. So, if the funds are not enough to form a parallel army, what could be done? That is what banks are for: because the countries already drowning in debts aren’t quite drowned enough.
Or, maybe, the diplomats could come up with another way of depicting their unity; maybe the funds could be pooled and used for the betterment of the less fortunate parts of the region. These funds could be utilised to curb human trafficking or ensure every citizen’s human rights; or, this capital could go into the education sector, providing cheaper, higher education to the future of the nations so they produce better diplomats. The countries need to consider every aspect of the issue before discussing the possibility of an EU army. They need to realise that there might be more pressing matters at hand which might get ignored in the light of the bright, shiny armour they dream to build. The need for human rights protection, food security, and job security to every citizen throughout the Union might just be the more practical of paths to tread.
Even before the formation of the army is discussed, it should be the point to define the need of the army. So, unless the diplomats who hold the fate of such armies in their hands do not inspect every nook and cranny of the issue, reaching a consensus would only be a hurried response to a typical modern era human being who loves wars. Bullets in Bibles never lead to peace and harmony. No matter how far we come, the pages of history would never speak of an army that could ever achieve to establish peace and unity. The implications of an ill-formed army that would serve at the discretion of a bunch of bureaucrats could be catastrophic triggering confusion and chaos instead of unity and prosperity.
“Together, they would watch everything that was so carefully planned collapse, and they would smile at the beauty of destruction.” ― Markus Zusak, The Book Thief
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
The Myth of Neutrality
Gargee Singh Bhadoria, reporter for Organisation and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), opines on the neutrality of the European Union (EU) member states.
The concept of not picking a side has always struck the writer as something very odd. How is it possible that one cannot have an opinion about what’s right or wrong? That opinion may differ vastly from others, but the human mind always decides. The line drawn between is always crossed. Nobody stands precisely on the line, but the length covered after crossing the line may differ. We might just slightly agree or disagree with something, and take a few steps, or maybe just one step away from the line. Or we might have a more whole-hearted approach and be a thousand steps away. But the point remains, we always pick a side.
In the past, many nations chose not to pick a side and fight wars happening around the world. Filled with pride on their decision, it became their legacy and tradition to remain neutral. The EU has six member nations who are neutral – Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden. Being a neutral state implies that the country is not to support any other nation or nations while they court war. Now that the EU is coming with another army structure in the world, the neutrality of these states is under question. The EU had formed battle groups which were never deployed because one nation or the other shot it down. Due to the EU’s Treaty of Lisbon, none of the member states of EU can escape taking responsibility for the army, as the Treaty states that the member states make unanimous decisions on security and defence. The EU’s 2016 ‘Global Strategy’ paid special attention to cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The European leaders have also insisted that the EU military force should complement NATO, rather than be against it or compete with it. This poses a problem because, if the EU army is to go to war, it would require the unanimous vote of EU to do so; and, in such a case, the neutral states of the EU will have to give up their neutral status, or watch the EU army be another pointless military team that is not ever put to use, just like the European battle groups.
What’s the point of an army if it cannot fight wars? The EU army is supposed to be a defensive force, made in the name of strengthening Europe and defending itself in the case of Russian invasion. An army controlled by an organisation that consists of neutral states creates the ultimate paradox - an army that cannot wage war. The EU’s neutral states have clung to their neutrality for decades, and have assured the world and their citizens of it from time to time. Ireland is one such nation, and its neutrality is believed to be a myth now, more than reality. Ireland has supported the formation of an EU army stating that it supports the “development of a strong and competitive defence, technological and industrial base, The European Defence Technology & Industrial Base (EDTIB).” Adding to this, Ireland is reported to have increased its military spending. The citizens of Ireland fear that the EU army and Ireland’s support of it will bring inflation in taxes as their government would need capital to assist such an army.
It is not widely known, but Ireland has signed a NATO: Partnership for Peace Agreement (PfP), which implies that Ireland is willing to go to war to maintain peace. Ireland signed up to this agreement alone, thereby involving itself in a joint venture to what’s known as interoperability. NATO describes interoperability as “the ability for allies to act together coherently, effectively, and efficiently to achieve tactical, operational, and strategic objectives.” This means that, at a time of war, individual nations fight for the member country of PfP as they best can.
Ireland has been told by the EU to spend money on buying military equipments, including seafaring articles of war. EU also delayed revealing the £1 trillion budget for its army, so as not to help along the ‘Eurosceptic’ arguments of the Brexit referendum, but this attempt failed as the news leaked out and Brexit happened.
In the craze of being NATO-independent, the EU is planning on destroying neutral countries’ foreign policies. To them, NATO is a relic of the Cold War era, and is considered not quick enough to come to aid when needed. The reason why NATO is like the dust in their eye is because 75 percent of it is funded by the United States of America (USA) alone. It is considered by many that Germany is the driving force of the EU army. The other nations of EU are joining up with Germany, giving up control over their military, while Germany’s constitution ensures that the German parliament remains in ultimate control of its own army.
In the modern world, the traditional neutrality of Ireland has already disappeared into ashes and smoke. The formation of an EU army will bring - along with it - many more such fires, till the smoke stings our eyes and the ashes fill our throats.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
The concept of not picking a side has always struck the writer as something very odd. How is it possible that one cannot have an opinion about what’s right or wrong? That opinion may differ vastly from others, but the human mind always decides. The line drawn between is always crossed. Nobody stands precisely on the line, but the length covered after crossing the line may differ. We might just slightly agree or disagree with something, and take a few steps, or maybe just one step away from the line. Or we might have a more whole-hearted approach and be a thousand steps away. But the point remains, we always pick a side.
In the past, many nations chose not to pick a side and fight wars happening around the world. Filled with pride on their decision, it became their legacy and tradition to remain neutral. The EU has six member nations who are neutral – Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden. Being a neutral state implies that the country is not to support any other nation or nations while they court war. Now that the EU is coming with another army structure in the world, the neutrality of these states is under question. The EU had formed battle groups which were never deployed because one nation or the other shot it down. Due to the EU’s Treaty of Lisbon, none of the member states of EU can escape taking responsibility for the army, as the Treaty states that the member states make unanimous decisions on security and defence. The EU’s 2016 ‘Global Strategy’ paid special attention to cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The European leaders have also insisted that the EU military force should complement NATO, rather than be against it or compete with it. This poses a problem because, if the EU army is to go to war, it would require the unanimous vote of EU to do so; and, in such a case, the neutral states of the EU will have to give up their neutral status, or watch the EU army be another pointless military team that is not ever put to use, just like the European battle groups.
What’s the point of an army if it cannot fight wars? The EU army is supposed to be a defensive force, made in the name of strengthening Europe and defending itself in the case of Russian invasion. An army controlled by an organisation that consists of neutral states creates the ultimate paradox - an army that cannot wage war. The EU’s neutral states have clung to their neutrality for decades, and have assured the world and their citizens of it from time to time. Ireland is one such nation, and its neutrality is believed to be a myth now, more than reality. Ireland has supported the formation of an EU army stating that it supports the “development of a strong and competitive defence, technological and industrial base, The European Defence Technology & Industrial Base (EDTIB).” Adding to this, Ireland is reported to have increased its military spending. The citizens of Ireland fear that the EU army and Ireland’s support of it will bring inflation in taxes as their government would need capital to assist such an army.
It is not widely known, but Ireland has signed a NATO: Partnership for Peace Agreement (PfP), which implies that Ireland is willing to go to war to maintain peace. Ireland signed up to this agreement alone, thereby involving itself in a joint venture to what’s known as interoperability. NATO describes interoperability as “the ability for allies to act together coherently, effectively, and efficiently to achieve tactical, operational, and strategic objectives.” This means that, at a time of war, individual nations fight for the member country of PfP as they best can.
Ireland has been told by the EU to spend money on buying military equipments, including seafaring articles of war. EU also delayed revealing the £1 trillion budget for its army, so as not to help along the ‘Eurosceptic’ arguments of the Brexit referendum, but this attempt failed as the news leaked out and Brexit happened.
In the craze of being NATO-independent, the EU is planning on destroying neutral countries’ foreign policies. To them, NATO is a relic of the Cold War era, and is considered not quick enough to come to aid when needed. The reason why NATO is like the dust in their eye is because 75 percent of it is funded by the United States of America (USA) alone. It is considered by many that Germany is the driving force of the EU army. The other nations of EU are joining up with Germany, giving up control over their military, while Germany’s constitution ensures that the German parliament remains in ultimate control of its own army.
In the modern world, the traditional neutrality of Ireland has already disappeared into ashes and smoke. The formation of an EU army will bring - along with it - many more such fires, till the smoke stings our eyes and the ashes fill our throats.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
M.I.A
Rajnandini Singh, reporter, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), recalls Brexit - its causes, and implications on a European Union Army.
The United Kingdom (UK) held a referendum within its borders to leave the European Union (EU), and the population overwhelmingly voted to leave: a fair, democratic decision by the nation. But, then, everything looks smooth and pretty when you look at it from afar. The scars come into the picture only upon closer inspections. So was the case with Brexit.
But, why did UK leave a Union of most of the European countries that brought them close together? Because they felt they had gotten too close? From the vaguest of reasons like EU holding them back to specific ones like bringing down the immigration rates, UK brims with reasons to leave EU. Right after such a drastic decision by one of the major nations of the Union, the EU has started to discuss the prospects of a new, unified army. UK had been known to veto previous decisions to deliberate on the prospects of an army for a long time, as a member of the EU. Of the numerous reasons why the UK left, one was that it felt it needed more control over its borders - which is not an extreme desire; each nation should feel that it governs its borders the way it wants. Germany’s inclinations say it could be leaning towards a ‘Grexit’ as well; that is, two of the founder nations of the EU losing their belief and faith in the Union. How many more to come? Is it, in fact, even feasible to be pondering on an army when the founder nations lose their trust?
The breakdown of the ‘Leave’ votes across the UK shows a clash of interests of the citizens. When England and Wales voted to leave, Scotland and Northern Island largely voted to stay. So, of the four member states, only 50% voted to leave. Does that seem fair? In the light that Scotland has been trying to leave the UK for a long time now, only to have the ‘Leave’ bill discarded, this seems like the UK takes every chance it gets to undermine the Scottish rights. The UK is a union of four nations, not quite unlike the EU; so, we could brood over a time after the formation of an EU standing army, when the member nations’ voices would be disregarded much like Scotland’s. Who would the army serve then - the most powerful of the member nations? The one who pooled in more troops? Or the one who provided the most missiles? Not to mention these troops and missiles might never be used because another force for ‘peacekeeping’ already exists in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
If not following the example of Brexit, but at least learning from it, the Union needs to set its priorities straight. UK had provided a large part of the resources for the Union’s discretion and, with the exit, comes a negotiation which would leave the Union with lesser resources and capital. Is consideration of an army, at this point of time, indeed the right decision? A huge gap gapes at the EU with the exit of UK, in case of capital and resources. The primary agenda should be to fill up that gap, partially, if not completely, and ensure that other member states still have faith in the Union and then, maybe, in the future, discuss an army, when there is a population to protect.
It is clear that an army would be a dream come true. Many nations have dreamt of a unified force that it could reckon with, but now is not the time to dream; now is not the time to be blind to the hard facts that Brexit has left the Union with. Instead of chasing hollow desires, the Union needs to lay down concrete commitments to do away with any other exits, protect the citizens’ rights, and provide them with employment.
EU cannot be expected to take over the works of the governments of the member nations; first, the setting up of norms for trade and travel, then on environment and, eventually, an army. One has to ponder if EU would emerge as a nation itself, governing the member-states like a governing body of any other country. The European continent is bringing life to the words of Winston Churchill, “The United States of Europe”, and quite literally so?
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
The United Kingdom (UK) held a referendum within its borders to leave the European Union (EU), and the population overwhelmingly voted to leave: a fair, democratic decision by the nation. But, then, everything looks smooth and pretty when you look at it from afar. The scars come into the picture only upon closer inspections. So was the case with Brexit.
But, why did UK leave a Union of most of the European countries that brought them close together? Because they felt they had gotten too close? From the vaguest of reasons like EU holding them back to specific ones like bringing down the immigration rates, UK brims with reasons to leave EU. Right after such a drastic decision by one of the major nations of the Union, the EU has started to discuss the prospects of a new, unified army. UK had been known to veto previous decisions to deliberate on the prospects of an army for a long time, as a member of the EU. Of the numerous reasons why the UK left, one was that it felt it needed more control over its borders - which is not an extreme desire; each nation should feel that it governs its borders the way it wants. Germany’s inclinations say it could be leaning towards a ‘Grexit’ as well; that is, two of the founder nations of the EU losing their belief and faith in the Union. How many more to come? Is it, in fact, even feasible to be pondering on an army when the founder nations lose their trust?
The breakdown of the ‘Leave’ votes across the UK shows a clash of interests of the citizens. When England and Wales voted to leave, Scotland and Northern Island largely voted to stay. So, of the four member states, only 50% voted to leave. Does that seem fair? In the light that Scotland has been trying to leave the UK for a long time now, only to have the ‘Leave’ bill discarded, this seems like the UK takes every chance it gets to undermine the Scottish rights. The UK is a union of four nations, not quite unlike the EU; so, we could brood over a time after the formation of an EU standing army, when the member nations’ voices would be disregarded much like Scotland’s. Who would the army serve then - the most powerful of the member nations? The one who pooled in more troops? Or the one who provided the most missiles? Not to mention these troops and missiles might never be used because another force for ‘peacekeeping’ already exists in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
If not following the example of Brexit, but at least learning from it, the Union needs to set its priorities straight. UK had provided a large part of the resources for the Union’s discretion and, with the exit, comes a negotiation which would leave the Union with lesser resources and capital. Is consideration of an army, at this point of time, indeed the right decision? A huge gap gapes at the EU with the exit of UK, in case of capital and resources. The primary agenda should be to fill up that gap, partially, if not completely, and ensure that other member states still have faith in the Union and then, maybe, in the future, discuss an army, when there is a population to protect.
It is clear that an army would be a dream come true. Many nations have dreamt of a unified force that it could reckon with, but now is not the time to dream; now is not the time to be blind to the hard facts that Brexit has left the Union with. Instead of chasing hollow desires, the Union needs to lay down concrete commitments to do away with any other exits, protect the citizens’ rights, and provide them with employment.
EU cannot be expected to take over the works of the governments of the member nations; first, the setting up of norms for trade and travel, then on environment and, eventually, an army. One has to ponder if EU would emerge as a nation itself, governing the member-states like a governing body of any other country. The European continent is bringing life to the words of Winston Churchill, “The United States of Europe”, and quite literally so?
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
CONFLICT AND ECONOMY INTERTWINED
Gargee Singh Bhadoria, reporter for Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), discusses the sanction put on the Russian Federation by the European Union (EU).
The day that Russian troops crossed borders in Ukraine to aid the separatists, it drew a huge jagged line between the European Union and the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation stated that, since the people of Crimea wanted to be a part of Russia, it is their right to be granted that wish. Before the wrongful invasion of Ukraine by the Russian military, Russia also started a trade war with Ukraine. In July 2013, Russian customs officers began unreasonable total inspection of all vehicles that transported Ukrainian goods. This forced the Ukrainian cargo to be idle at the borders. They, then, proceeded to put forty Ukrainian companies of the ‘list of risk’. This was retaliation to Ukraine’s inclination to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union. In August 2013, it was negotiated and decided that the additional customs control for Ukrainian goods will not be applied any more. Hence, the Ministry of Income and Charges, Ukraine, and the Federal Customs Service of Russia announced the end of a trade war. But, this was only a bluff by the Russian Federation, because, while shaking hands and procuring peace with the Ukrainians, the Russian Federation was planning on launching new measures for the "enforcement of customs regulations for goods imported into the territory of the Customs Union." Ukraine returned the favour by barring entry of Russian goods into Ukraine.
One of the main reasons given by the EU for the formation of a unified army is that European countries fear invasion from the great military state of Russia, as they rightly should. Russian troops and equipment are frequently moved to the separatist-controlled regions of Ukraine. The Russians are helping begin a civil war in the state of Ukraine by annexing Crimea. This move of the Russians put the European Union into actions, and they replied as any organisation with a neighbourhood policy with a state under attack should have - by putting sanctions on Russia. The sanctions were triggered by the shooting down of Malaysian Airline flight MH17, allegedly by the pro-Moscow rebels in eastern Ukraine. The measure targeted the oil, financial, and defence sectors of the Russian economy.
The sanctions applied on Russia are – Arms embargo, Asset freeze, and Visa or travel ban. Arms embargo covers sale, supply, and transport of the goods included in the EU common military list; related technical and financial assistance is also included in the ban. In addition, the export of equipment used for internal repression, i.e. police equipment, not covered by the EU common military list, is prohibited. An asset freeze concerns funds and economic resources owned or controlled by targeted individuals or entities. It means that funds, such as cash, cheques, bank deposits, stocks, shares etc., may not be accessed, moved, or sold. All other tangible or intangible assets, including real estate, cannot be sold or rented either. An asset freeze also includes a ban on providing resources to the targeted entities and persons. This means that EU citizens and companies must not make payments or supply goods and other assets to them. In effect, business transactions with designated companies and persons cannot legally be carried out. The EU travel ban states that “persons targeted by a travel ban will be denied entry to the EU at the external borders. If visas are required for entering the EU, they will not be granted to persons subject to such restrictions on admissions.” EU sanctions never oblige a member state to refuse entry to its own nationals. If an EU citizen is subject to a travel ban, his home country must, subject to national legal provisions, admit that person. After the imposition of all these bans, the EU is still hopeful and remains ready to reverse its decisions and re-engage with Russia, when it starts contributing actively and without ambiguities to finding a solution to the Ukrainian crisis.
In the first half of 2016, the Cyprus parliament asked the EU to lift the sanctions placed on the Russian Federation. They felt that EU sanctions on Russia had proved to be “counterproductive and, in no way, helped resolve the crisis in Ukraine.” They called for the implementation of the peace deal that was reached in the previous year between Moscow and Kyiv, under which Russia is to drop support for separatist rebels and observe ceasefire in exchange for Ukrainian political reform and regional autonomy. Russia supported the Cyprus government’s statements and said that “the will of a sweeping majority of the people of Cyprus to restore mutually beneficial commercial and economic ties with Russia”.
The sanctions put on Russia have not brought any ill to them, but have certainly tanked the economy of European nations. Many believe that the sanctions were not a good enough effort against the military decisions that Russia had taken, and should be replied to with equal military measures. The Bulgarian parliament had almost rejected the sanctions against Russia. The call for removing the sanctions on Russia is coming from all over Europe, but the EU has not yet removed the sanctions.
The economy of EU member states is suffering, and continues to decline. On top of this, providing funding for an EU army might drain their economy completely; and then, what would they be left with? The namesake of an army and the detestation of its citizens? The relations between Russia and EU are already strained, and the formation of EU army will complicate them further. While all these organisations and governments fight each other, the citizens have to go through a crumbling economy and the burden of increasing taxes. The Union and the individual governments assure their citizens that all this is for a better and protected future, but the glow of the future is simmering and will soon be dust in the wind.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
The day that Russian troops crossed borders in Ukraine to aid the separatists, it drew a huge jagged line between the European Union and the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation stated that, since the people of Crimea wanted to be a part of Russia, it is their right to be granted that wish. Before the wrongful invasion of Ukraine by the Russian military, Russia also started a trade war with Ukraine. In July 2013, Russian customs officers began unreasonable total inspection of all vehicles that transported Ukrainian goods. This forced the Ukrainian cargo to be idle at the borders. They, then, proceeded to put forty Ukrainian companies of the ‘list of risk’. This was retaliation to Ukraine’s inclination to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union. In August 2013, it was negotiated and decided that the additional customs control for Ukrainian goods will not be applied any more. Hence, the Ministry of Income and Charges, Ukraine, and the Federal Customs Service of Russia announced the end of a trade war. But, this was only a bluff by the Russian Federation, because, while shaking hands and procuring peace with the Ukrainians, the Russian Federation was planning on launching new measures for the "enforcement of customs regulations for goods imported into the territory of the Customs Union." Ukraine returned the favour by barring entry of Russian goods into Ukraine.
One of the main reasons given by the EU for the formation of a unified army is that European countries fear invasion from the great military state of Russia, as they rightly should. Russian troops and equipment are frequently moved to the separatist-controlled regions of Ukraine. The Russians are helping begin a civil war in the state of Ukraine by annexing Crimea. This move of the Russians put the European Union into actions, and they replied as any organisation with a neighbourhood policy with a state under attack should have - by putting sanctions on Russia. The sanctions were triggered by the shooting down of Malaysian Airline flight MH17, allegedly by the pro-Moscow rebels in eastern Ukraine. The measure targeted the oil, financial, and defence sectors of the Russian economy.
The sanctions applied on Russia are – Arms embargo, Asset freeze, and Visa or travel ban. Arms embargo covers sale, supply, and transport of the goods included in the EU common military list; related technical and financial assistance is also included in the ban. In addition, the export of equipment used for internal repression, i.e. police equipment, not covered by the EU common military list, is prohibited. An asset freeze concerns funds and economic resources owned or controlled by targeted individuals or entities. It means that funds, such as cash, cheques, bank deposits, stocks, shares etc., may not be accessed, moved, or sold. All other tangible or intangible assets, including real estate, cannot be sold or rented either. An asset freeze also includes a ban on providing resources to the targeted entities and persons. This means that EU citizens and companies must not make payments or supply goods and other assets to them. In effect, business transactions with designated companies and persons cannot legally be carried out. The EU travel ban states that “persons targeted by a travel ban will be denied entry to the EU at the external borders. If visas are required for entering the EU, they will not be granted to persons subject to such restrictions on admissions.” EU sanctions never oblige a member state to refuse entry to its own nationals. If an EU citizen is subject to a travel ban, his home country must, subject to national legal provisions, admit that person. After the imposition of all these bans, the EU is still hopeful and remains ready to reverse its decisions and re-engage with Russia, when it starts contributing actively and without ambiguities to finding a solution to the Ukrainian crisis.
In the first half of 2016, the Cyprus parliament asked the EU to lift the sanctions placed on the Russian Federation. They felt that EU sanctions on Russia had proved to be “counterproductive and, in no way, helped resolve the crisis in Ukraine.” They called for the implementation of the peace deal that was reached in the previous year between Moscow and Kyiv, under which Russia is to drop support for separatist rebels and observe ceasefire in exchange for Ukrainian political reform and regional autonomy. Russia supported the Cyprus government’s statements and said that “the will of a sweeping majority of the people of Cyprus to restore mutually beneficial commercial and economic ties with Russia”.
The sanctions put on Russia have not brought any ill to them, but have certainly tanked the economy of European nations. Many believe that the sanctions were not a good enough effort against the military decisions that Russia had taken, and should be replied to with equal military measures. The Bulgarian parliament had almost rejected the sanctions against Russia. The call for removing the sanctions on Russia is coming from all over Europe, but the EU has not yet removed the sanctions.
The economy of EU member states is suffering, and continues to decline. On top of this, providing funding for an EU army might drain their economy completely; and then, what would they be left with? The namesake of an army and the detestation of its citizens? The relations between Russia and EU are already strained, and the formation of EU army will complicate them further. While all these organisations and governments fight each other, the citizens have to go through a crumbling economy and the burden of increasing taxes. The Union and the individual governments assure their citizens that all this is for a better and protected future, but the glow of the future is simmering and will soon be dust in the wind.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
BROKEN LEGOS
Gargee Singh Bhadoria, reporting from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), summarises the discussion held on proposing a structure for a European Union (EU) army.
The long-awaited topic of what should be the structure of an EU army, should such an army be formed, was raised by the Delegate of Andorra. She said that the structure should be divided into two: policy making and command. The policy making should be done, as is mentioned in the European Defence Committee (EDC) treaty. The command would be headed by the European Defence Council by the Defence Ministers of member countries. They should then appoint a Supreme Commander who will serve as link between the policy making organ and the commanding organ. On the lower level, there would exist the Field Commanders who would be appointed on geographical basis and the intensity of the troops deployed in a particular region. Field Commanders would be followed by the already existing Chief of Staff.
The Delegate of Algeria said that the EU army should be a cumulative organisation of defence that has representation from each member state. The decision making structure should be separate from EU and also that of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), but should be compatible with them and not cause any conflict of interest. He also said that the army should follow the structure recommended by the EDC.
The Delegate of United Kingdom (UK) said that the army should necessarily be one that complies with peacemaking and peacekeeping measures. It should be more humanitarian oriented rather than intervention and aggression oriented. He also said that the jurisdiction of the army should be clearly defined. The delegate went ahead to mention that the defensive force – aerial, naval and land based – should be given the latest technology possible to ensure their smooth working.
The Delegate of Hungary proposed that the army be governed by a council which is made up of the members of the EU. This council should be so that it gives equal weight to every member’s opinion. The Delegate of Bulgaria - on a similar note - suggested that a separate institution should be formed to govern and direct the army, and that the institution should answer to the EU.
The Delegate of Holy See stated that the structure should be created in such a manner that the power to deploy one’s troops still lies in the hands of the member states, which is in complement to the EU.
While the topic was raised at a reasonable point of time, most of the delegates present were unable to address it properly. The Delegate of Andorra lit the lamp and passed it on, but it was handled poorly, and the light inside died. The delegates were vague in defining what kind of structure they would like to see implemented in the EU army, and frequently revisited their views on EU and NATO, rather than complying with the current matter under consideration. The reporter wishes that the discussion held would have been devoid of ambiguity and had resulted in healthier inputs to the proceedings.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
The long-awaited topic of what should be the structure of an EU army, should such an army be formed, was raised by the Delegate of Andorra. She said that the structure should be divided into two: policy making and command. The policy making should be done, as is mentioned in the European Defence Committee (EDC) treaty. The command would be headed by the European Defence Council by the Defence Ministers of member countries. They should then appoint a Supreme Commander who will serve as link between the policy making organ and the commanding organ. On the lower level, there would exist the Field Commanders who would be appointed on geographical basis and the intensity of the troops deployed in a particular region. Field Commanders would be followed by the already existing Chief of Staff.
The Delegate of Algeria said that the EU army should be a cumulative organisation of defence that has representation from each member state. The decision making structure should be separate from EU and also that of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), but should be compatible with them and not cause any conflict of interest. He also said that the army should follow the structure recommended by the EDC.
The Delegate of United Kingdom (UK) said that the army should necessarily be one that complies with peacemaking and peacekeeping measures. It should be more humanitarian oriented rather than intervention and aggression oriented. He also said that the jurisdiction of the army should be clearly defined. The delegate went ahead to mention that the defensive force – aerial, naval and land based – should be given the latest technology possible to ensure their smooth working.
The Delegate of Hungary proposed that the army be governed by a council which is made up of the members of the EU. This council should be so that it gives equal weight to every member’s opinion. The Delegate of Bulgaria - on a similar note - suggested that a separate institution should be formed to govern and direct the army, and that the institution should answer to the EU.
The Delegate of Holy See stated that the structure should be created in such a manner that the power to deploy one’s troops still lies in the hands of the member states, which is in complement to the EU.
While the topic was raised at a reasonable point of time, most of the delegates present were unable to address it properly. The Delegate of Andorra lit the lamp and passed it on, but it was handled poorly, and the light inside died. The delegates were vague in defining what kind of structure they would like to see implemented in the EU army, and frequently revisited their views on EU and NATO, rather than complying with the current matter under consideration. The reporter wishes that the discussion held would have been devoid of ambiguity and had resulted in healthier inputs to the proceedings.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
POLL BELLS
Gargee Singh Bhadoria, reporter, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) reviews the results of the poll conducted about the reasons given by United Kingdom (UK) for exiting the European Union (EU).
The UK’s campaign for leaving from EU garnered the whole world’s attention and was given the catchy title of ‘Brexit’. The reasons given by the UK were simple. It did not believe that a unified Europe is a good idea, and saw it as leaning in the territory of forming a “United States of Europe”, and was gravely opposed to that. The country of UK enjoys and prizes its sovereignty, and regards its independence from the other European nations as valuable. The policies of EU that allow “free movement” were like a thorn in its boots. Free movement implies that the citizens of EU member countries can go live in, or be employed, in other member countries without requiring a visa. The UK no longer wants people crossing its borders without any notification. It wants complete control of its borders, and withdrew itself from the EU.
The UK, being the most powerful of the European Union, making a decision to leave, baffled the entire globe and raised questions about other countries doing the same. A poll was conducted by the reporter about if the representatives of the various states present thought the reasons given by the UK were viable.
While most countries which were very enthusiastic about the formation of an EU army, such as Germany, Italy, Japan, etc., voted ‘No’, most countries abstained. The mentioned countries have been extremely vocal about their desire for an EU army. They believe in the vision of unification of armies and free movement amongst the borders of European nations.
The majority abstained and this raises a thought about their stance on the current direction of the EU. Are they not fully supportive of EU’s proposal for an army, and are they just going with the flow that has set been set by the strongest nations of EU? If so, then these countries may later create conflicts in the working of that army.
Only time will determine what the formation of an EU army can lead to, but a conflict of interest on the horizon even before the formation of an army will render it useless. Whether the boat will sink or float, a divergence of views will certainly be observed.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
The UK’s campaign for leaving from EU garnered the whole world’s attention and was given the catchy title of ‘Brexit’. The reasons given by the UK were simple. It did not believe that a unified Europe is a good idea, and saw it as leaning in the territory of forming a “United States of Europe”, and was gravely opposed to that. The country of UK enjoys and prizes its sovereignty, and regards its independence from the other European nations as valuable. The policies of EU that allow “free movement” were like a thorn in its boots. Free movement implies that the citizens of EU member countries can go live in, or be employed, in other member countries without requiring a visa. The UK no longer wants people crossing its borders without any notification. It wants complete control of its borders, and withdrew itself from the EU.
The UK, being the most powerful of the European Union, making a decision to leave, baffled the entire globe and raised questions about other countries doing the same. A poll was conducted by the reporter about if the representatives of the various states present thought the reasons given by the UK were viable.
While most countries which were very enthusiastic about the formation of an EU army, such as Germany, Italy, Japan, etc., voted ‘No’, most countries abstained. The mentioned countries have been extremely vocal about their desire for an EU army. They believe in the vision of unification of armies and free movement amongst the borders of European nations.
The majority abstained and this raises a thought about their stance on the current direction of the EU. Are they not fully supportive of EU’s proposal for an army, and are they just going with the flow that has set been set by the strongest nations of EU? If so, then these countries may later create conflicts in the working of that army.
Only time will determine what the formation of an EU army can lead to, but a conflict of interest on the horizon even before the formation of an army will render it useless. Whether the boat will sink or float, a divergence of views will certainly be observed.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
Conflict and Consensus
Rajnandini Singh, reporter, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), captures the opinions of the delegates through a poll.
The poll was conducted on the issue of clashes between the national and the European Union (EU) army administrative bodies. The question that the delegates were urged to ponder on was:
“The European Union has its own parliament and set of rules for the European nations in a wide range of areas - including on environment, transport, consumer rights, and even things such as mobile phone charges. So, would a unified EU army, at the EU’s disposal, undercut member nations’ authority and power to control their own troops?”
The majority of the delegates had a concrete opinion on the matter, and the response to the poll was overwhelming.
Amongst the ones who felt that the authority of the national governing body would be undermined were the nations of Australia, Belarus, Czech Republic, Ireland, Russian Federation, and South Korea. This was hugely due to the opinion that, if an army does come into existence with its own administrative body - which is the most practical way of governing a unified army - the member states would have to hand over at least a part of the troops to this body and have no authority over them whatsoever. This directly undermines the nation’s authority on its resources.
The countries that held the opinion that this would not affect the member nation’s authority included Algeria, Andorra, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, among others. These states had the opinion that any such army would be formed with the consent of the member nations, so they would already know the implications of handing over a part of their troops to the governing body of an EU army. The nations would have a say in how and where the troops are being deployed though this body.
There was a small ratio of delegates who abstained from taking a stance on the poll, but the majority indicated that such a conflict would not pose much threat to the working of the army, should it come into existence.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
The poll was conducted on the issue of clashes between the national and the European Union (EU) army administrative bodies. The question that the delegates were urged to ponder on was:
“The European Union has its own parliament and set of rules for the European nations in a wide range of areas - including on environment, transport, consumer rights, and even things such as mobile phone charges. So, would a unified EU army, at the EU’s disposal, undercut member nations’ authority and power to control their own troops?”
The majority of the delegates had a concrete opinion on the matter, and the response to the poll was overwhelming.
Amongst the ones who felt that the authority of the national governing body would be undermined were the nations of Australia, Belarus, Czech Republic, Ireland, Russian Federation, and South Korea. This was hugely due to the opinion that, if an army does come into existence with its own administrative body - which is the most practical way of governing a unified army - the member states would have to hand over at least a part of the troops to this body and have no authority over them whatsoever. This directly undermines the nation’s authority on its resources.
The countries that held the opinion that this would not affect the member nation’s authority included Algeria, Andorra, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, among others. These states had the opinion that any such army would be formed with the consent of the member nations, so they would already know the implications of handing over a part of their troops to the governing body of an EU army. The nations would have a say in how and where the troops are being deployed though this body.
There was a small ratio of delegates who abstained from taking a stance on the poll, but the majority indicated that such a conflict would not pose much threat to the working of the army, should it come into existence.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)