Brussels, 22/01/2002 (Agence Europe) - In view of the current military capabilities, it would be "difficult to conduct military-type operations" in the framework of the "Petersberg tasks" defining European peacekeeping and conflict management operations, the President of the EU's Military Committee, General Gustav Haaglund, confirmed when speaking, on Tuesday, for the first time since his appointment, before the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee. The EU currently has 90% of the capabilities defined in the capabilities catalogue, the "Headline Goals" of 1999, which enabled the Laeken Summit to declare the European intervention force "operational", even though "We do not have the possibility to conduct all operations as defined in Petersberg", he stipulated. Decisions to act will anyhow be taken on a "case by case basis", he added, stressing that the Headline Goal was not a "bible" that needed following to the letter. The general remarked in passing the interventions would occur on the basis of "political decisions" and that these decisions may even "not be taken", in the sense that in his country, Finland, for example, emphasis is placed on decisions for intervention to be taken on the basis of a UN mandate.
While stressing progress made in the integration of the military aspects of CFSP in 2001, the President of the Military Committee refused to show any optimism. Thus, in answer to MEP concerns, the general acknowledged that it would indeed "take ten years to fill meet certain shortcomings", like troop transport, as Airbus 400 for example will not be available until 2008 and 2011. He also agreed with Ms. Nicholson (ELDR) that intelligence and information, especially via the satellite system, remains the "most important deficit, as soldiers must be sent to a hostile environment, information is needed urgently". General Hagglund also went along the lines of Parliament Vice-President, French Socialist Catherine Lalumiere, recognising that "for him too, who is new to the system", the distribution of tasks between the Military Committee, Political Committee and Council General Secretariat, etc. "seems confused". "There is no clear chain of command and the organisation seems to be floating", he acknowledged, adding "I fear that there are intestine battles for power to know who does what".
The President of the Military Committee did, however, refuse to comment on the ongoing discussion concerning the funding of the common foreign and defence policy, a "politically sensitive" issue, that needs deciding by the Committee of Permanent Representatives. Asked, notably by General Philippe Morillon on the state of negotiations with Turkey, which was blocking the agreement with NATO on the use of its capabilities and command, General Haaglund recalled that "all currently depends on the EU", without stipulating Greece's current position which opposed the agreement reached end-2001, through the United States and Britain. ESDP could follow its course on the basis of "constructive abstention", the General put forward, calling that he hoped that "it will be easier to adopt decisions in case of crisis than in case of peace". The General also said that intervention by the European action force in Afghanistan was not being envisaged for now, but that "co-ordination of efforts by Member states is essential to avoid any overlap".