A DECISION by Ireland to opt out of EU security and defence policy in the event of a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would be an "important loss" for Europe, the chair of the EU's military committee has said on a visit to Dublin.
French general Henri Bentégeat, while stressing that he did not want to interfere with national debate on the issue, referred to the experience of Denmark since its decision in 1992 to completely opt out of EU defence.
"I think that many people today in Denmark regret this opting-out solution . . . Denmark is a very active participant in Nato missions but cannot influence the choices and decisions we make in European security and defence policy. It is extremely frustrating for them," Gen Bentégeat said.
"When it comes to a country like Ireland (that) shares all the objectives and goals of our EU operations; (that) always (made) very important contributions to all our work in Brussels and in the field, it would certainly be an important loss for the EU but probably, I think, also for Ireland."
Gen Bentégeat said he was not surprised that issues relating to defence played a role in the June referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
"Everybody knows in Brussels that neutrality as it is conceived here is extremely important but what surprised me is that people feel that there is some kind of incompatibility between neutrality and European security and defence policy."
He said the EU must "explain, and explain more, and be extremely precise and clear in answers" to concerns relating to defence policy. The general drew as an example the notion of a European army which featured in several campaigns against the treaty.
"There is a frequent understanding, not only in Ireland but other European countries, that what we are trying to do in the EU now is to build up a European army but this is nonsense . . . What we are trying to do is to enable our national forces to take part together, on behalf of the EU, in prevention and crisis management issues. And that's it. We do not create permanent structures . . . and . . . for every operation we are considering, we only ask if (member states) want to contribute, and what they want to provide . . . there is absolutely no hint of any evolution towards a European armed forces."
Gen Bentégeat acknowledged force generation is a challenge for the EU, as the much-delayed deployment of the EU mission to Chad earlier this year demonstrated. Rallying public support for costly overseas operations is a problem because "most people don't see the link between operations and our domestic security," he said.
Asked how the Chad mission is connected to security in Europe, Gen Bentégeat replied: "If we don't do anything to stop violence in Africa it will provoke human catastrophes there first, and second, probably a lot more trafficking and illegal immigration that will affect in one way or another our security in Europe.
The general said the EU must choose very carefully where it intervenes.
"For example in Congo recently the EU decided not to intervene because the United Nations could improve its own deployment there . . . it was a choice driven by practical concerns and not by political ideas."
The EU must also try to ensure its operations are "less costly, better organised, and (its) capabilities more usable than they are today." Gen Bentégeat praised the EU force in Chad, saying acts of violence in its area of operations had dropped by more than one third in the last four months. Several EU member states were currently considering taking part in the proposed follow-on UN force, he said, and France was "ready to maintain its logistics support" for at least six months after EUfor's mandate expires.