The EU's military mission to ensure free and fair elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has shown what the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) can achieve in Africa.
A contingent of roughly 2,500 troops from 22 countries went to the DRC in mid-2003 to support UN troops, and provided a rapid reaction force that snuffed out disorder in Kinshasa before it could erupt into full-blown may-hem. Three years later, Operation Artemis, a comparable EU mission in the eastern province of Ituri, again has demonstrated Europe's resolve to use military capability to underpin a long-term peace process.
For some people, raw military might is the only true measure of power. But the 16 EU military missions that have now been carried out in support of the ESDP have much more to commend them. Large parts of Africa need support, and Europe can and must lend a hand. Nor is the EU's new style of political-military engagement in Africa a throwback to colonialism.
True, many African countries currently suffer from instability, state failure, regional strife, violent internal political competition and other assorted ills, including, massacres and large-scale brutality, civil war, massive movements of refugees, economic disruption and environmental damage. Yet the big picture in Africa is not uniformly bleak. Some African countries are comparatively stable and prosperous, and the continent possesses a youthful population that will soon top one billion people, abundant mineral reserves, and an inherent dynamism.
At the same time, we in Europe cannot afford to dismiss Africa's troubles as if they had no impact on our own societies. The European project has been built on values that we deem to be universal, and we must make a very real effort to uphold them, not only as a moral imperative, but also because it is in our strategic interest. The EU is by far the largest export market for African goods, and it also offers a home to large communities from almost every African country. Likewise, a large number of European citizens and dependents are scattered throughout Africa.
In the early stages of a crisis, European intervention -- through political and financial assistance, diplomatic intervention, and even military action -- can prevent it from erupting into violence.
Moreover, when a crisis is winding down and there are openings for moderating influences, outside intervention can prove instrumental in enforcing peace and bringing warring factions to the negotiating table.
In countries that have experienced the horrors of civil war, the arrival of an effective military force from outside is generally welcomed, as was the case in both Congo operations. Just by virtue of being there, the force shows the goodwill and commitment of the nations that sent it, and, by projecting a sense of law and order, it provides valuable leverage for honest brokers trying to mediate a peace deal.
Europe's policy toward Africa may suffer shortcomings, but at least there is a policy, which is based on supporting African states and regional organizations like the African Union whenever practicable, necessary and, above all, requested. The ESDP takes into account the larger European policy, and aims to provide assistance in planning, training, and logistical support to missions and forces created by African states or groups of states. For example, the recent concept of "European reinforcement of African capabilities in prevention, crisis response and conflict resolution" (which is known as "Recamp") openly calls for African ownership of this process.
Europe has never claimed to have the means of redressing all the strategic imbalances that exist in Africa -- nor does it have any intention of doing so. Yet, taken together, the EU countries possess a considerable array of assets, including the military capability needed to conduct decisive operations. Yet their most valuable asset is cultural: soldiers who are willing and able to interact with the local population, who are cautious in their use of lethal force, and who are ready to accept the many shades of gray that exist between conflicting parties.
Nevertheless, European military capabilities are limited, requiring that European planners look for "minimal" options, with the drawback that smaller commitments generally require a long-term perspective.
The ESDP has not functioned long enough to establish a clear track record. Yet our modest ongoing endeavors in Congo -- a police advisory mission known as EUPOL and a defense reform mission called EUSEC -- and in Sudan, where 60 Europeans are providing staff support to the African Union's AMIS II mission in Darfur, offer grounds for hope.
The EU's members must above all recognize that Africa's ills have to be dealt with by Africans. This is as much a matter of principle as of cold, strategic calculation, and it is here where the ESDP has much to offer: a long-term view, supported by a powerful economy with the assets needed to carry out humanitarian operations, conflict prevention, crisis management, and security support.
Foremost among the ESDP's advantages is Europe's cultural knowledge and understanding of Africa.
Today, former colonial powers have evolved significantly, just as have their former colonies. On both shores of the Mediterranean, generations have passed and new connections have been formed. It is the knowledge, understanding and mutual respect that remain, and that are the cornerstones on which Europe's policy for Africa must be built.
Michele Alliot-Marie is the French minister for the interior. She was French minister of defense from 2002 to this year.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Europe's World
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS