Blog

EUROSTRATOS – DEVELOPMENTS – PROSPECTS

By Lieutenant General G. KORAKIS

What will finally happen to the "Eurostros"? This was the question that dominated Greek public opinion for a period of time, when it was discovered that we had underestimated as a country the momentum created by the Istanbul text prepared by the Americans, the British and the Turks. Experts and non-experts alike wondered at the time why as a country we did not move to prevent the unpleasant consequences of the meetings between the other countries that were known to be intended since August 2001. The answer is not particularly important. After all, better late than never.

            Our country did not accept the arrangement provided for in the three-party agreement, resulting in a round of consultations beginning in the first half of 2002. At the Barcelona Summit (March 15, 2002), diplomatic maneuvers were used to avoid the "introduction" of the Euroarmy issue to the European Council's agenda, which would have led our country to exercise a veto. Diplomatic ferments continued, resulting in the addition to the text of the conclusions of the EU Presidency at the Seville Summit (June 22, 2002) of the phrase "Consultation with NATO member countries that are not members of the European Union is of an advisory nature and in no case do these states have the right to veto European Union missions…".

            It also states that any operation undertaken in the national territory of a member state must take into account the national interests of the member state concerned. With the content of the "declaration" of the heads of state and government of the 15 at the Seville Summit, Turkey's right to be involved in decision-making mechanisms was "neutralized", which contradicts the basic principle of autonomy in the action of the Euroarmy and the preferential treatment of Turkey in operations against Greece and Cyprus.

            Turkey, for its part, disputes that a "decision was made" by the EU Council in Seville, considers that an "in principle understanding among the 15" has been reached in Seville on the issue of the Euroarmy, but does not accept that the so-called "Istanbul text" has been annulled and has not committed to not exercising its right of veto in NATO for any case in which NATO infrastructure is used.

            This reflects the current development of the Euroarmy issue from the perspective of decision-making in the EU institutions.

            It is an undeniable fact that in our country we have given the Euroarmy operational capabilities that it does not have. At the Nice Summit last year, the leaders of the EU accepted that the main reason for European defense will continue to be NATO, through its infrastructure, and this in order to avoid the creation of parallel infrastructures that entail a financial price. The Euroarmy will intervene in regional crises where the US does not want to get involved through NATO. In other words, it will undertake search and rescue (SAR), humanitarian, conservation and enforcement missions in Europe. The first mission has been decided to be the replacement of the UN international police force in Skopje and Bosnia. The 14 EU member states will contribute forces to this force. (15 except Denmark) and the accession countries. The aim is to avoid a force of 1 people from 1-2003-60.000. The contributions of the states reached 100.000 people, 400 aircraft and 100 ships. Of course, to date no final decision has been taken regarding its administrative structure, decision-making process and geographical competence.

            During the Cold War, Washington was distrustful and suspicious of European efforts to promote a common defense policy. The first war waged by NATO since its founding (the war against Kosovo) was highly revealing in a different sense. Some US allies discovered that NATO was a US-dominated mechanism. The war exposed and perhaps intensified the divisions between Americans and Europeans.

            The EU moves between the challenges of American hegemony, intra-European contradictions and globalization, with the result that Europe's defense emancipation presents all of these side effects that we observed in the effort to create the Euroarmy.

            In Euro-Atlantic relations, there have been particularities throughout NATO's 53-year history. Since 11^η September 2001 has created a different framework for them, with the US moving towards an even more absolute logical imposition of its positions while the reactions in Europe have subsided except for some isolated cases. The confrontation between the "Atlanticists" (US, England, Norway) and the "Europeanists" (Germany, France, Italy) in the EU has been softened as the fight against terrorism, which is undoubtedly a priority, has created the conditions for the special problems faced by countries such as Greece since the establishment of NATO and European Rapid Reaction Force cooperation relations to have lost their institutional European "cloak" and to try to present them as insignificant particularities and concerns that must be overcome by the method of "finding them among themselves". If we also take into account the upgraded geostrategic role assigned to Turkey by the American counter-terrorism plan and the fact that traditional “Europeanists” such as the French have lowered their voices and aligned themselves with transatlantic policy. We are obliged as a country to remain integrated into strong security systems (existing and possible new ones) working competitively towards “enemies”, competitively towards “enemies of our enemies”. Our national interests are best served when we confirm our “leading presence” in the Balkans and in the European Union’s operations there. I believe that any final arrangement on the issue of the relations of the European Defense and Security Policy with NATO will reflect the superiority and not the equality of NATO vis-à-vis the EU. and will therefore take into account Turkey's interests and in this context we are obliged as a country to coordinate all our forces to ensure our central goal, which is the guarantee of our security (survival, territorial sovereignty, independence) in an anarchic political international arena that is not based on the principles of law and morality but on the power and might of arms.