A new era of crisis intervention well outside Europe's borders

Europe's decision to pledge about 100,000 troops, 400 aircraft and 100 ships to a new rapid reaction force opens the prospect of a new era of crisis intervention and peace-keeping well beyond the EU's borders.

Europe's decision to pledge about 100,000 troops, 400 aircraft and 100 ships to a new rapid reaction force opens the prospect of a new era of crisis intervention and peace-keeping well beyond the EU's borders.

Yesterday's conference of defence and foreign ministers committed an impressive catalogue of men and machinery to the European force, but acknowledged there were gaps that need to be filled in areas such as lifting, communications and intelligence.

The geographical areas of operation, however, remainvague. While the 19-nation Nato alliance is constrained to the "North Atlantic area", the EU has not prescribed such a limit.

Geoff Hoon, Britain's Secretary of State for Defence, said the force's activities would be confined to "Europe and its back yard" in its early stages, while noting that "there is no formal geographical limit".

His French counterpart, Alain Richard, argued earlier this month that the defence initiative "signifies that we are not limiting our zone of influence to our continent alone".

Mr Richard used East Timor as an example of a region in need of better crisis intervention from the EU. While many assumed the Balkans, the Caucuses and North Africa were the flash-points in which the force might be used, a British official said "Mozambique, Sierra Leone, even East Timor" would also have benefitted.

Does this represents a grand expansion of Europe's military muscle? Only up to a point. The rapid reaction force is designed to perform the so-called Petersberg tasks, which include humanitarian and evacuation missions, peace-keeping, and combat missions for crisis management including those to restore peace.

And despite the fanciful suggestions of the Tory Party, the force would not be a standing army: the scenarios in which it could be deployed do not include fighting a war. Nor will it be used for defending EU territory, a task for which Nato remains the prime mover. The EU's target is to be able to sustain 60,000 troops in the field for a year, which means about 120,000 may be needed to allow for them to be "rotated" and replaced by fresh soldiers.

This is hardly ambitious enough to guarantee European security. As one Nato diplomat said: "It's not that we are worried that Europe will try to defend itself, but we are worried that they won't."

However, this could grow into a formidable military capability, particularly if Turkey, with its huge armed forces, engages fully. But that is some way off. Today the Turks, along with six other nato non-EU countries, will be given the chance to contribute. Ankara, which is applying for membership of the EU, is expected to pledge 3,000 men - a fraction of its enormous military might.

Because this is primarily a peace-keeping venture, the EU's four neutral countries, Sweden, Austria, Ireland and Finland, have happily pledged troops. The only country not to have done so is Denmark, which has problems arising from its EU "defence opt-out".

One question is whether Europe is assembling the most sensible catalogue of forces. Daniel Plesch, the director of the British American Security Information Council, argued that Europe needed more police with monitoring and mediation functions. "There is nothing between diplomacy and military force," he said. A Nato diplomat agreed: "Last year we asked for 4,000 police for Kosovo, and we're still not there yet."

Interesting? Click here to explore further