|
The sphere of the defense is the most meaningful point and, in a certain sense, also the more critic, of the whole picture delineated by Maastricht, from Amsterdam and from Nice, for the politics of defense and safety commune, and it is enough. Let's intend us, we don't have now the dramatic problems of the opposition among two blocks, the western block and the Soviet block. We have however today of the most insidious situations of crisis as those in the western Balkans, but also as those verified in other parts of the world, more or less in all the continents. Well, the article 17 of the Treaty, that exactly concerns the assignments of the European union in the sector of the defense, speaks of the progressive definition of a politics of common defense that could bring even to integrated forms of common defense. But what is the circle of this politics of common defense? Meanwhile the circle is characterized by a specific ray of action the famous "missions of Petersberg": always in the famous article 17, the second paragraph says: "The matters which refers the present article include the humanitarian matters and help, the activities of maintenance of the peace and the missions of unity of fight in the management of crisis", included the missions for the reestablishment of the peace. They are called "missions of Petersberg" because they were defined by the ministerial Council of the UEO in 1992 in a reunion that is developed in the hotel Petersberg, next to Bonn. These are the missions that have characterized, we think, the orchestrated military interventions, also at international level, the level of the United Nations in the western Balkans and elsewhere in the world. But the organization, what is the organization which European union benefits to develop these missions of Petersberg? Very simple, it was the old organization of the UEO, that in base to the Treaty of Amsterdam, and with very rapid decision, has been incorporated inside the European union. So the UEO has a really instrumental function, both to the beginning, from 1948 up to 10 years later about, then a long period of attended, but again now an utility, because it has lent its centers, the satellite center, the center of High strategic studies and so on, to the European union. But here I would like to underline a capital point in subject of military organization, the relationship with the Nato. The Treaty is absolutely clear and it says that the politics of the union in safety subject and of defense is compatible with the safety politics and of common defense adopted within the organization of the Treaty of the North Atlantic, within the Nato. This is fundamental, because since this moment is unimaginable a European politica of safety and defense, a PESD, without a connection with the Nato, even with the use of the structures of the Nato and with the full integration. The UEO after all has a long tradition of collaboration with the Nato. But do we want to see which structures and military competences are in disposition for the European union? Today we start with the structures, there is a real apparatus for the management of the military situation and the actions of Petersberg. There is a political and safety committee, that also has the most greater responsibilities of political character; there is a military committee of the European union, that elaborates the military strategies and follows the situations on the field, there is currently an Italian general, the general Rolando MoscaMoschini to the head of the military committee. There is then a Stato maggiore of the European union. But the military abilities? First of all, there are the military abilities that were defined in Helsinki, even in 1989: There is a force of 60.000 men, lined up in 60 days for at least one year; There are 400 airplanes and 100 ships, there is a catalog of the forces that has been already predisposed; there are groups of rapid intervention, currently 13, of 1.500 men each, national o
|
