Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US puts brakes on EU plans for Bosnia (Clash of Empires?) ^ | June 3 2003 16:44 | Judy Dempsey

Posted on 06/03/2003 6:06:57 PM PDT by Destro

US puts brakes on EU plans for Bosnia

By Judy Dempsey in Madrid

Published: June 3 2003 16:44 | Last Updated: June 3 2003 16:44

The US on Tuesday put the brakes on European Union plans to take over the large Nato-led mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina by the middle of next year, citing security reasons and continuing problems with war criminals.

US officials attending a meeting of Nato foreign ministers, said "it was premature" to talk about the EU replacing the Nato-led Sfor mission that has currently 12,000 troops in Bosnia, reduced from 40,000 seven years ago.

Senior EU diplomats said they were surprised by the US decision. "Bosnia is a much bigger challenge for the Europeans. But why the US should be so against the idea is strange. The US should be delighted we are prepared to take over the military responsibilities in Bosnia," said a European foreign minister.

But a US official brushed aside any suggestion this was yet another transatlantic dispute. "Anyone who says it is a dispute is trying to cause trouble," he said. Lord Robertson, Nato secretary general, said Nato had "not yet the time" to deal with Bosnia. The EU plan, he added, was under consideration.

At its summit last December in Copenhagen, EU leaders said they saw no reason why an EU-led force could not take over the Sfor operation by the middle of 2004.

Sfor, which operates under a United Nations mandate, was set up in Bosnia in 1996 following the Dayton accords that ended the civil war in the republic. It has a mandate to provide security and stability as well capture alleged war criminals and send them to special court set up in The Hague.

Britain staunchly supported the EU plan for Bosnia believing it would be an incentive for the Europeans to improve military capabilities, take on more of the burden sharing in the Balkans and allow the US to redeploy its forces elsewhere.

That support was beefed up further in February during the Anglo-French summit at Le Touquet where both sides backed an EU-led mission in Bosnia.

Over the past seven years, the EU has increasingly taken the responsibility for the political, economic and civilian aspects of the Balkans. In Bosnia alone, Europeans have contributed the majority of the troops, with the US providing 1,500.

Last January, the EU for the first time launched a police operation in Bosnia last January as part of its European Security Defence Policy. In March, it took over the small Nato-led force in Macedonia.

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: balkans; bosnia; campaignfinance
What is going on? If I may ... The USA used to think of the EU's emerging military as an adjunct support force for NATO. Since Iraq the view has changed to one where they fear a rising competitor to NATO (NATO is another way of saying USA for all intents and purposes). Read Bush's crash course in nationalism for some nice background on the emergence of the EU competitor.

When it was a case of giving the dirty work over to our trusted underlings so much the better but now things have changed and the Bosnian protectorate with its vital link to control of the east-west routes will not be so easily be handed over to a potential competitor. Bosnia is a hard won "imperial" outpost. It took a lot of effort to organize the jihadi groups, import them into the Balkans, get the jihadis allied to the MPRI officered Croatians so as to clean out those defiant minded Serbs.

By default if not design Bush continues the policies set up by Clinton (or rather by the think tanks that advised Clinton and are still in business - in the corridors of power).

1 posted on 06/03/2003 6:06:57 PM PDT by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *balkans
2 posted on 06/03/2003 6:07:14 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Your article predicts President Bush will be nasty at the G-8 meeting, yet he was perfectly mannered and friendly.

As a student of history, Bush may have a wider view of the situation than this article believes.

3 posted on 06/03/2003 6:44:40 PM PDT by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Clarification: I am referring to your linked article on Crash Course in Nationalism.
4 posted on 06/03/2003 6:45:48 PM PDT by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Destro
I believe you are totally misreading the situation.

The truth is that, under the current circumstances, the United States is not going to turn over so much as a smidgen to any organization that is heavily influenced by the French.

The EU fits that definition, NATO doesn't.

It's all about the French...

5 posted on 06/03/2003 6:52:17 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Not popular to say, but painfully true quote from your link:

"Washington has effectively if uncomprehendingly been trying to turn the trans-Atlantic alliance from consent and consensus into a system of intimidation and pressure."
6 posted on 06/03/2003 8:02:15 PM PDT by bob808
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Scottish terrorist eh?

Well if it's not Scottish, it's CRAP!!

7 posted on 06/03/2003 8:11:12 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
If you consider the Bosnian mission a burden, then keeping on a burdensome task to spite the French is the stratergy of imbeciles. Since I do not consider the Bush White House a collection of fools I discount your theory.
8 posted on 06/03/2003 9:40:30 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: okie01
It is not all about spiting the French. Why are most Americans so fixated on hating the French?

People in Norway were burning American flags during the Iraqi war and why arent they boycotting Norwegian oil and Jarlsberg cheeze?

9 posted on 06/03/2003 11:29:19 PM PDT by oilfieldtrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: oilfieldtrash
During the run-up to the Iraq War some countries were neutral, some supported us, and some would not support us (i.e. Norway). Americans understand that. However, France openly tried to stop the USA to include doing its best to round up opposing votes at the UN and to organize diplomatic opposition. Further, their cynical and smarmy attempts to pretend their opposition was based on either moral reasons or international law while they were busy writing oil contracts with Hussein, making money off the "oil for palaces" program, and feeding intelligence to the Iraqi regime were so transparent that most Americans (to include some who were against the war) were incensed.

As for the Norwegians, here is a recent WSJ story:

...the BBC puts it, Norway's prime minister "reportedly said he hoped some politicians could be more flexible in dealing with Sri Lanka's Tamil Tiger rebels." That prompted this retort from Samaraweera, a uninominal aide to President Chandrika Kumaratunga: "Of course we can't expect anything better from a nation of salmon-eaters who turned into international busybodies."
10 posted on 06/04/2003 12:04:25 PM PDT by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson