Madam, - Daniel Keohane (February 5th) makes a useful contribution to the debate on Ireland's role in EU military policy, but leaves at least three issues in need of clarification.
First, it is true that each member-state has a power of veto over EU military operations. But the likelihood of that veto ever being exercised is slim.
Consider the position set out in the final report of the European Convention Working Group on defence (part of the drafting process for the new Constitution): "most members of the Group consider it more important than ever that the Member States should agree to move from unanimity to other decision-making procedures, relying more on consent and a culture of solidarity among Member States. The launching of an operation would be decided unanimously, but the rules on constructive abstention would apply... Member States not wishing to support an operation actively, in particular those not wishing to contribute militarily, would be encouraged not to oppose the operation, but to abstain".
How likely is it that the government of a small country, in particular, would be willing to resist this peer pressure?
Second, the EU's new "battle groups" are not solely intended to be made available by the EU for UN peacekeeping operations - they are to be at the disposal of the EU for whatever purposes it considers appropriate. No UN mandate is necessary for their deployment.
Third, Mr Keohane suggests that EU intervention in Macedonia was a success. This is debatable. It is important to point out that international (including EU) intervention in Macedonia might not have been necessary in the first place had it not been for the NATO attack (endorsed by the EU) on Serbia in 1999, which helped to spread violence from Kosovo into neighbouring regions, including Macedonia.
The EU's record in the Balkans in general is decidedly mixed, as documented in books such as David Chandler's Bosnia: Faking Democracy after Dayton and Marianne Osborn's International Intervention in Macedonia: Causing Problems, Claiming Solutions.
None of this is to suggest that the EU has always played, or will always play, a negative role in the world. But neither the past record nor the likely future can simply be assumed to be positive. - Yours, etc.,
ANDY STOREY,
UCD,
Dublin 4.