Talk:Common Security and Defence Policy

European Union Start‑class High‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Additional information:
/
	This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Merge: European Security and Defence Identity

Merge -I agree with merge of European Security and Defence Identity into European Security and Defence Policy proposed two months ago (feb) by User:Paul111 -JLogan 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - the article is by far long enough with enough references to exist a stand-alone page.--Kudpung (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maastricht treaty

This argument with the Maastricht Treaty is not true. This citation does not occur in the treaty. I only found it in a strategic industry report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.156.129 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Eufor handover.jpg

Image:Eufor handover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg

Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite needed

Could someone who knows more about this topic please update it in the light of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty? --Red King (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know more, but unfortunately, although specific titles and identities have been designated (such as the EU President and Foreign Policy Chief), what role these positions will actually play will be determined over the course of the next year or two. The EU president may try to make certain moves which could be blocked by the EU heads of state, for example - effectively closing that door to him (or her in the future).Airborne84 (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Military of the European Union

I have proposed that we merge the Military of the European Union with this article. Reason - There is no current Military of the EU, only a Common Security and Defence Policy also out-lined in the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore any article suggesting there is an actual military of the EU is simply wrong and misleading. It is also highly political as many nations oppose an EU military. Wikipedia should try and stick to actual truth and not include articles on a EU military that don’t even exist. As the Military of the European Union doesn’t exist I would propose much of the information is moved to its relevant places in the Common Security and Defence Policy. This way the useful information is kept and Wikipedia remains politically correct. After all even suggesting that an EU military exists is going against the Lisbon Treaty and may insult people. It may also suggest EU nations have lost sovereignty over their armed forces, which is not the case. Recon.Army (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel stongly about it, and no response has neen made since your various suggestions on this and on Talk:Military of the European Union there is no reason why you should not WP:BOLD and do it.

I agree completely. But there was a proposal delete the MoEU article and the conclusion was KEEP, but only for want of a consensus that it should be deleted. Most of those in favour of keeping seemed to want to see some reflection of CSDP forces: it seems to me that your proposal does that. I suggest the best way forward is to create a draft version of the combined article - call it CSDP (draft) or similar - then invite comments before making it live. --Red King (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this. There are many forces that revolve around the defence of the EU, but aren't part of the CSDP. Drafting a nameless article will probably lead nowhere. The CSDP should have its own article. The MoEU article discusses all aspects of EU defence integration. - SSJ ^t 13:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon HQ, EU HQ and NATO HQ

The article mentions the American viewpoint known as the three D's "[...]American expectations towards ESDP to this day: no duplication of what was done effectively under NATO, no decoupling from the US and NATO, and no discrimination against non-EU members such as Turkey[...]"

Since this American viewpoint has been one principal obstacle for European military integration since 1954 when the Brussel Treaty on the West European Union (WEU) were changed due to the emerging NATO (check the original WEU Treaties at http://www.weu.int), it needs in this article context be clarified that the Americans themselves have "a duplication of what is effectively done under NATO".

In other words, the inconsistency of this American negative viewpoint "the three D's" on a fully-fledged EU Operational Headquarters needs to be mentioned.

The US Military have two levels, the Union (USA) level, and the Alliance (NATO) level. Whilst Europe have three military levels: State level, Union level (EU), and Alliance level (NATO).

The point being that within the American counterpart of the EU, the political union called USA, the fifty American Member States themselves have a duplicate Operational Headquarter (OHQ) for planning, command, control and conduct of the armed forces of those fifty states. This OHQ is known to the world as Pentagon - the United States Military Headquarters.

Therefore, the union of the fifty American states have dual OHQs, one at the Union level (USA) and one at the Atlantic Alliance level (NATO).

But at the same time the Americans interfere with European internal Policy (ESDI/ESDP/CSDP) when, as in the qoute above, demanding no duplication (the three D's) on the Union level in Europe (EU), pointing at there already being a wellfunctioning OHQ in place on the alliance (NATO) level, as if that would interfere with the Union level in Europe, but not in America.

The European Union is a political Union of 27 states with 500 million citizens, wheareas the USA is a political union of 50 states with 300 million citizens. Both sets of Member States, the EU27 and the US50, have both a Union level and an Alliance level, where the Alliance level shares resources between the component states of the two allied political unions of America and Europe. The main difference between the two allied entities is that the USA have declared its independence whilst the EU has not. Yet. Now, the lack of a fully fledged European "Pentagon" is one of the last hurdles which obviously is being blocked by such American viewpoints as the three D's. These viewpoints not only influences NATO (Alliance level), but it influences American friendly European states, such as Britain (State level), within the alliance and the European political union, in essence interfering with internal European policies.

From that background such US expressions can only be interpreted as interference, hostile or not, with European domestic affairs.

As a matter of fact, the Americans are with this position confusing the Union level (EU) with the Alliance level (NATO). On the other hand, the Europeans do not interfere with the way the 50 States of the American union (USA) choose to organize their military forces on the union level (Pentagon).

It needs to be emphasized to the world that the European member state of the United Kingdom is the State in Europe who employs such from America unindepedent viewpoints in Europe as have been expressed by the American three D standpoint above. This British official reluctance have been mapped in a scientific report at http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Planning_for_EU_military_operations.pdf

There should of course be an EU operational HQ in Europe (Belgium) independent of NATO, just as Pentagon in America (Virginia) operates independent of NATO. Those two sovereign entities, America and Europe, would then constitute the major powers, one seat each, within the old Alliance (NATO). 83.177.143.51 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it is our job (as Wikipedia editors) to evaluate the consistency of American policy or judge whether it constitutes interference. The same applies to the motivation behind the policy of EU members and the political expediency of an EU operational HQ in Europe with regard to establishing a notional "sovereign" Europe. If the EUISS adopts an official position on the matter, that might be notable. --Boson (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EU OHQ

The article mentions the small operations centre.

"From 1 January 2007, the EU Operations Centre began work in Brussels. It can command a limited size force of about 2000 troops (e.g. a battlegroup).

In addition to the EU centre, 5 national operational headquarters have been made available for use by the Union; Mont Valérien in Paris, Northwood in London, Potsdam, Centocelle in Rome and Larissa. For example, Operation Artemis used Mont Valérien as its OHQ and EUFOR's DR Congo operation uses Potsdam. The EU can also use NATO capabilities.[8]"

The mentioned EU operations centre is far from a real functioning Operational Headquarters at the union level. Indeed, it has shown itself to be insufficient, even with the Berlin Plus agreement. There is a command gap in the current military organization. There exists a politico-strategic command, but not the lower next step, the military-strategic command for planning and C2 (command and control). Borrowing NATO's military-strategic command is simply not sufficient. This all according to the following research from the ISS:

http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Planning_for_EU_military_operations.pdf

In another report from the European Parliament the civ-mil relations is pointed out, alongside the need for a real EU Operational HQ (military-strategic command) due to the actual flaws of the current "no duplication" state proposed by Britain and the US, and the lack of civ-mil competencies in the framework nations, and other flaws which only can be solutioned with a proper EU military-strategic command, i.e an EU military headquarter (EU OHQ). The current operations centre is not an EU OHQ, but merely a possibillity to ad hoc set up an OHQ by borrowing NATO's or member states' OHQs, whilst the Union needs a permanent HQ structure:

http://tepsa.be/Hynek%20Consolidating%20the%20EUs%20Crisis%20Management%20Structures.pdf

The next link is an actual political motion to the EU Parliament, discussing these topics. This is real contemporary politics to be discussed on october 26th, 2010:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afet/pr/829/829289/829289en.pdf

83.177.143.51 (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a more permanent OHQ with more staff and money is actually set up, that might merit a mention, if it is widely recognized as a change in policy, but I'm not sure this motion by the EP is particularly noteworthy (for an encyclopedia), even if the motion is passed. --Boson (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Common Security and Defence Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Common Security and Defence Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]