Europe Looks to a Fighting Force of Its Own

Italian army Capt. Roberto Punzo, a helicopter pilot, is the very model of the new European soldier. He speaks fluent English. He serves under a French general and eats in a French mess. He took part in a four-nation effort to build a European military helicopter.

Outside Mostar, scene of prolonged fighting that destroyed the town’s celebrated stone bridge during the Bosnian war, the 37-year-old Naples native is part of a multinational European detachment assigned to ensure compliance with the 1995 accords that ended the 3 1/2-year conflict.

“I think the main thing is that we set the example here,” Punzo said. “An Italian isn’t a German, and people can see the difference. But they also see that we can work together, cooperate.”

For the 15 nations of the European Union, the 6,700-strong Salamander Division--composed of French, Italian, German and Spanish battle groups and in which Punzo has served since September--is the way of the future. Making use of disparate militaries that were frequent foes throughout history, the world’s biggest trade bloc is embarked on a venture to forge a unified, modern force to give itself the ability to act alone, if need be, in regional conflicts or humanitarian crises.

Last month, EU members and other European nations offered to contribute more than 100,000 troops, 400 aircraft and 100 ships for a rapid-reaction corps that could be deployed on 60 days’ notice and kept in the field for up to a year.

If and when such a force is put to the test may depend on who is declared the winner of the U.S. presidential election. During the campaign, aides to Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, said all peacekeeping duties in the Balkans should eventually fall to Europeans, following consultations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The Clinton administration has endorsed the European plan but is watching closely to make sure it does not duplicate or undermine NATO, to which 11 EU members belong. Defense Secretary William S. Cohen warned Monday that attempts to set up a separate European “operational planning capability” could weaken U.S. ties to NATO and the alliance’s ties to the European Union.

American diplomats have also voiced worries that U.S. leadership could be weakened and that GIs might ultimately be dispatched to finish a job the Europeans took on but couldn’t complete.

U.S. Has Long Called for Burden-Sharing

The counterargument from this side of the Atlantic is that the European allies are finally doing what many U.S. politicians, from President Kennedy onward, have wanted.

“The Americans have been calling for better burden-sharing over the years, and this is going to give that to them,” argued NATO Secretary-General George Robertson, a Briton. “I think they recognize that as a bonus.”

“If I were an American, I’d be happy,” said Gen. Jean-Pierre Kelche, the French chief of staff, who flew into this city in southwestern Bosnia-Herzegovina last week to inspect the multinational European contingent. The EU’s planned rapid-reaction capability “increases the Americans’ liberty of action.”

“Until now, the Europeans always have had to tug at the Americans’ sleeve to get them involved,” the five-star general said. “In the future, the Americans would be free to say no. Second, if we Europeans are stronger, the alliance is stronger. The dialogue, however, will have to be balanced anew. In a crisis, the United States must accept that it [has to] function as a coalition partner, that is, that it share information, decision-making and risk.”

Ministers of the EU countries have stressed that their intent is not the establishment of a European army and that the intervention force would be assembled only in case of need. But some Europeans object to grafting military muscle onto what has largely been an economic grouping. Denmark, a NATO member, has not pledged troops.

Trying to offset criticism, British Defense Secretary Geoffrey Hoon said, “I want to spell it out so there can be no doubt: no European army, no European cap badges, no European flags; a British contribution to European cooperation firmly under British control and deployed at the behest of a British prime minister.”

How the EU’s fledgling defense establishment will mesh with NATO, its cross-town neighbor in Brussels, is on the agenda of a European Union summit starting Thursday in Nice, France.

Some details are already known. The EU’s new military committee will have a German chairman with a British deputy. Overall command of operations that used NATO assets would be in the hands of the alliance’s deputy supreme commander for Europe, currently British Gen. Rupert Smith.

There are still unresolved issues besides the interconnection with NATO, including capabilities and what to do with the six European nations that are in the alliance but not the EU. One British think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, has pointed out that ambitious plans are fine but that Europe must spend more on defense if it wants a modern, mobile peacemaking and peacekeeping capacity of its own.

“Europeans have the ability to fight World War II, to stop the Russians and to flatten cities with dumb bombs,” NATO’s Robertson said in a BBC interview, pointing out how EU members’ militaries are out of sync with challenges of the post-Cold War age. “Europe has 2 million troops under arms--but to do what?”

Though the Europeans spend an estimated $190 billion annually on defense, their shortcomings became obvious during last year’s U.S.-led bombing campaign against Yugoslavia and the formation of a force to occupy the province of Kosovo.

The consensus calls for rapid improvement in certain areas: satellite intelligence-gathering; unmanned drone aircraft like those used for reconnaissance last year over Yugoslavia; long-range air transport; airborne tankers for in-flight refueling; and planes and ships with roll-on, roll-off capabilities for quick cargo handling.

Britain has offered to make 72 combat aircraft available to the EU force for six months but warned that after that the number would fall.

As far as human resources go, some specialists are in short supply at a time of generalized defense downsizing, including battlefield surgeons and anesthesiologists.

“We have a lot of military hospitals in Germany, but they always seem to send the same people,” said German army Col. Volker Specht, commander of the Salamander Division’s Rajlovac base outside Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital. “Two months here, they go home, then they’re back.”

One future diplomatic dispute will involve whether the Europeans create their own military planning office, to perform the same tasks as NATO specialists based at Mons in southern Belgium. Some countries consider this wasteful duplication, but France champions it as a political imperative.

“We can have dialogue and exchanges” with NATO, said Kelche. “But you can’t ask 15 European Union decision-makers to engage themselves and risk the lives of their troops if their military leaders can’t guarantee them what will happen.”

The exact status of the non-EU members in the Atlantic alliance also needs to be thrashed out. Ties between the organizations cannot be formalized until their concerns are met. Turkey, which does not belong to the European Union, continues to have major reservations.

“The EU is going to fish from the same pool as NATO, so whatever they do could affect NATO operations,” a Turkish diplomat at alliance headquarters in Brussels said Thursday. “Therefore NATO members should have a say in their decision-making process.”

Bosnia Could Provide First Test of Role

The first test of the European Union’s military role could come here in Bosnia, where 20,000 troops from 33 countries serve in the international Stabilization Force, or SFOR. The Salamander Division, led by French army Gen. Robert Meille, is in charge of the country’s southwest; the other two sectors are under the command of the U.S., which has 4,300 troops in Bosnia, and Canada, with 1,200.

In the opinion of Kelche, the EU’s force should be sufficiently operational to be able by next summer to handle situations requiring up to 20,000 peacekeepers.

“European capacity for action exists,” France’s highest-ranking soldier told reporters after returning to Paris. “Nothing would prevent us tomorrow from saying, if Europe were to judge it useful, ‘Starting now, I’m taking charge in Bosnia.’ This is a technical possibility. I’m not saying it’s a political proposal.”

A U.S. Army officer stationed in Bosnia agreed with the general’s assessment. “The only thing the Europeans need us Americans for is the leadership,” he said, speaking on condition he not be identified by name. And leadership is what the heads of state and government of the EU are attempting to provide.

“Europe’s wanting to do something on its own doesn’t contradict the common interest of the NATO alliance. It just shows the interest of Europe to engage,” said Specht, the German colonel in charge at Rajlovac. “Given our long partnership with the United States, I can’t imagine that being any different.”