Strasbourg, 27/09/2007 (Agence Europe) - In a resolution adopted on Thursday 27 September by 453 votes to 104, with 15 abstentions, the European Parliament approved the sending of a peace-keeping mission to the eastern part of Chad and northern part of the Central African Republic, but it set a number of conditions. The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) mission to increase safety in the region and the refugee camps will be deployed for one year, in parallel with the deployment of the African Union-UN hybrid force in Darfur (UNAMID).
No peace-keeping mission can be successful without a genuine reconciliation process, say MEPs, calling on the Commission, Council and United Nations to put in place the conditions necessary for a political solution for the region. The European force (EUFOR) will endeavour to create a safe environment, conducive to the accomplishment of the tasks of the 300-strong UN police force, the return of internally displaced persons, free movement of humanitarian workers and the pursuit of dialogue between the political forces in the region. MEPs stress that EUFOR must be seen to be impartial, and they call on member states to contribute the necessary troops as soon as possible. EUFOR must not become involved or interfere with the tasks performed by the NGOs in order not to endanger them. It should establish effective coordination with UNAMID. It must have a robust mandate under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to be able to work as a “deterrent”, and have clear rules of engagement allowing the use of force when necessary, especially to prevent attacks on civilians, camps and villages, humanitarian workers or UN police officers, and also in self-defence. EUFOR is a bridging force, and must, therefore, before being deployed, have a clear exit strategy which provides for its replacement by a successor operation (the African Union, UN or a hybrid force), the resolution adds.
On Wednesday 26 September, during the debate before the vote on the resolution, MEPs made clear what was needed for success in this mission: a sufficient number of troops, appropriate equipment and a robust mandate so that troops were able to do more than defend themselves. Many called on member states actively to contribute to the force and warned against the force's not showing itself to be impartial.
With the UN Security Council adoption on Tuesday 25 September of a resolution authorising the deployment of a military force for one year, “the way is now clear for approval of an ESDP mission by the EU Council in the coming days,” said Development Commissioner Louis Michel. Hitherto, however, there has not been much movement from member states to contribute troops. Only Sweden (around 200 troops), Poland (150), Belgium (150) and Ireland have indicated their firm intention to contribute to the force, the largest contingent of which is expected to be French (1,500-2,000 troops).
A robust mandate, sufficient numbers of troops and the appropriate equipment to improve safety on the ground were needed, said Karl von Wogau (EPP-ED, Germany). Highlighting MEPs' growing concern, Ana Maria Gomes (PES, Portugal) regretted the “lack of enthusiasm” from member states to provide EUFOR with troops and equipment. The European troops must be proactive in protecting civilians and humanitarian workers, she also said, unhappy that France “is seen as a not very neutral player in the region”. The time had come “for the talking to stop and action to begin with soldiers and equipment,” repeated Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck (ALDE, Belgium), before Girts Valdis Kristovskis (UEN, Latvia) also highlighted the constraints in terms of equipment. Angelika Beer (Greens/EFA, Germany) opined that “it would be a catastrophe if the mission did not go to work where aid was most needed, that is, on the border”. The only dissenting voice was that of Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL, Germany) who said that his group was against the EP's draft joint resolution, believing that such an intervention could only worsen the situation. The operation was no more than “putting an EU label on French troops” when they were “not neutral,” he added. The mission had to be “a European peace operation and not a French operation,” noted Michel Rocard (PES, France). He hoped that many EU member states would send troops, but warned that, if this were to prove not to be so, “the lack of other countries must not be turned into some kind of post-colonial suspicion of France”. (ab)