The Strategic Planning of EU Military Operations - The Case of EUFOR TCHAD / RCA. IES WORKING PAPER 5/2008

On 28 January 2008 the European Union launched the military operation EUFOR in Chad and the Central African Republic. Its mandate was to contribute to the security of the civilian population, the numerous refugees from neighboring Darfur and the local presence of the United Nations. This paper describes and analyses the planning process of this operation at the political-strategic and military-strategic levels with the aim of understanding how the military instrument was intended to generate the desired political effects. The paper argues that, from a military perspective, the EUFOR operation is based on the concept of humanitarian deterrence: the threat of military force is used to discourage potential spoilers from targeting the civilian population. As with any military operation, the planning of EUFOR was plagued by various elements of friction. At least some of this friction seems to flow from the mismatch in expectations between the political-strategic and military-strategic levels. The various political and military-technical constraints within which the operation was planned resulted in an operational posture that is less decisive than what the political ambitions would have suggested.

The War republics in the Donbas one year after the outbreak of the conflict. OSW Commentary Number 174, 17 June 2015

More than one year since the first pro-Russian moves in the Donbas, separatists have taken control of parts of the Donbas and Luhansk oblasts but are still unable to form truly functioning administrative structures. The exercise of power by the central administration of the so-called ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ (DPR) and ‘Luhansk People’s Republic’ (LPR) is restricted to resolving problems as they arise, while administration proper is the prerogative of the local authorities reporting to them which had been performing this function before the conflict broke out. The way the situation is developing and the fact that access to information is restricted make it difficult to determine the structure of the separatist government in more detail, precisely how it is organised, and what the internal hierarchy is like. The overriding goal of the governments of the DPR and the LPR is to maintain and develop their military potential. In effect, the lives of the so-called republics are subordinate to military goals. The Donbas separatism is a conglomerate of different groups of interests, with Russia at the fulcrum. Its representatives set the main tactical and strategic goals and thus have a decisive influence on the development of the situation in the region. Individual separatist groupings come into conflict, and some oligarchs linked to the former Party of Regions circles have also been making attempts to maintain their influence. The struggle between individual groups of interest is intensifying as the situation on the war front becomes calmer. Since the situation has temporarily stabilised after the seizure of Debaltseve, the central governments of the DPR and the LPR have made attempts to expand their influence, combating armed criminals who are outside their control and that of Russia. The civilian population is taking the brunt of the devastation caused by the war and the increasing militarisation of the region. Despite the fact that the intensity of the fighting on the war front is falling, worsening humanitarian problems are causing refugees to continue their flight from the territories controlled by the separatists. 2 million people have fled the conflict zone since the beginning of the war: 1.3 million of them have found shelter in other regions of Ukraine, and more than 700,000 have left for Russia. The region has also sustained great economic losses – most mines have been either destroyed or closed, many industrial plants have restricted or completely discontinued their production, and many firms have been taken over by force. In effect, the region has seen an economic downturn.

spotlight europe #2015/02—July 2015: A Gulf CSC Could Bring Peace and Greater Security to the Middle East

Wars continue to ravage in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Refugees are wandering around aimlessly in the Middle East with many fleeing to Europe. Saudi Arabia and Iran are adding fuel to the flames. They are vying for supremacy while remaining highly suspicious of each other. A Conference for Security and Cooperation could help to ease existing tensions. Many years ago the CSCE was a resounding success. It could thus serve as a blueprint with the nuclear agreement with Iran as a starting point of such a venture.

Germany’s ‘refugee’ problem. The most important test for Chancellor Merkel and the grand coalition. OSW COMMENTARY NUMBER 182/11.09.2015 2015-09-11

The rapid increase in the number of immigrants from outside of the EU coming to Germany has become the paramount political issue. According to new estimates, the number of individuals expected arrive in Germany in 2015 and apply for asylum there is 800,000, which is nearly twice as many as estimated in earlier forecasts. Various administrative, financial and social problems related to the influx of migrants are becoming increasingly apparent. The problem of ‘refugees’ (in public debate, the terms ‘immigrants’, ‘refugees’, ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘economic immigrants’ have not been clearly defined and have often been used interchangeably) has been culminating for over a year. Despite this, it was being disregarded by Angela Merkel’s government which was preoccupied with debates on how to rescue Greece. It was only daily reports of cases of refugee centres being set on fire that convinced Chancellor Merkel to speak and to make immigration problem a priority issue (Chefsache). Neither the ruling coalition nor the opposition parties have a consistent idea of how Germany should react to the growing number of refugees. In this matter, divisions run across parties. Various solutions have been proposed, from liberalisation of laws on the right to stay in Germany to combating illegal immigration more effectively, which would be possible if asylum granting procedures were accelerated. The proposed solutions have not been properly thought through, instead they are reactive measures inspired by the results of opinion polls. This is why their assumptions are often contradictory. The situation is similar regarding the actions proposed by Chancellor Merkel which involve faster procedures to expel individuals with no right to stay in Germany and a plan to convince other EU states to accept ‘refugees’. None of these ideas is new – they were already present in the German internal debate.

Unfinished business: the governance of the Economic and Monetary Union. Compendium of EPC publications on the future of the Euro

Europe is once again engulfed in crisis. The sheer scale of refugees coming daily is not only a major challenge for the transit and destination countries, it is also exposing distrust between member states (and vis-à-vis the EU institutions). It has also shown that there is an unwillingness to cooperate and compromise within the EU system, in part a collateral damage of the eurocrisis. With a continuing sluggish economy and high unemployment, external challenges such as the conflict in Ukraine and internal ones like the referendum on EU membership in the UK, the EMU crisis looks less urgent at this point, with an agreement with Greece preventing the disastrous consequences of a Grexit, at least for now.

To adopt refugee quotas or not: Is that the question? CEPS Commentary, 2 October 2015

One of the most controversial initiatives taken by the EU in response to the recent influx of refugees has been a provisional relocation system, aimed at the distribution of 120,000 asylum-seekers from Greece and Italy to other EU member states. This commentary explores the flaws in the current Dublin system and evaluates whether the new approach will prove more effective and humane.

Europe’s reactive and protective muddling through: the results of a summit in fire fighting mode. EPC Post-Summit Analysis, 19 October 2015

The EU’s October summit was dominated by one issue; the migration and refugee crisis, with EU leaders intent on putting on a public display of unity after weeks of bitter arguments, and concentrating on fire-fighting and immediate measures to tackle the most pressing reasons for, and impacts of, the crisis. Longer-term measures to address some of the root causes of increased migratory flows, support for the integration of newly arrived refugees or the introduction of new channels of legal migration, were not discussed. The Summit also spent little time on two issues that had originally been expected to be a key part of the agenda: the forthcoming British referendum on EU membership, where irritation with the slow pace of talks and British vagueness about its demands were in evidence; and the governance of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), where EU leaders missed another opportunity for a thorough debate about future perspectives on the basis of the ‘Five Presidents’ Report’.

What is happening to the Schengen borders? CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 86, December 2015

What is happening to the Schengen borders? Is Schengen in ‘crisis’? This paper examines the state of play in the Schengen system in light of the developments during 2015. It critically examines the assertion that Schengen is ‘in crisis’ and seeks to set the record straight on what has been happening to the intra-Schengen border-free and common external borders system. The paper argues that Schengen is here to stay and that reports about the reintroduction of internal border checks are exaggerated as they are in full compliance with the EU rule of law model laid down in the Schengen Borders Code and subject to scrutiny by the European Commission. It also examines the legal challenges inherent to police checks within the internal border areas as having an equivalent effect to border checks as well as the newly adopted proposal for a European Border and Coast Guard system. The analysis shows that the most far-reaching challenge to the current and future configurations of EU border policies relates to ensuring that they are in full compliance with fundamental human rights obligations to refugees, effective accountability and independent monitoring of the implementation of EU legal standards. This should be accompanied by a transparent and informed discussion on which ‘Schengen’ and which 'common European Border and Coast Guard Agency' we exactly want within current democratic rule of law and fundamental rights remits.

The Basque Diaspora in Latin America: Euskal Etxeak, Integration, and Tensions. EDAP 1/2016

The establishment of the Basque diaspora in Latin America can be divided in several different periods. First, from the 16th to 18th century, the so-called original diaspora of Basques who were part of the Spanish colonial regime. The second can be traced to the 19th century, consisting of a mixture of impoverished Basque migrants seeking jobs, especially in Uruguay and Argentina, and of refugees fleeing from the Spanish War of Independence and the Carlist wars. The third wave is identified by, but not only through, the considerable amount of refugees from the Spanish Civil War on the 1930's. The fourth wave came during the 1970s, with refugees from the Franco Dictatorship, ETA members and sympathisers. In this paper I will argue that each new wave of migrants brought tension to the diaspora, with the Euskal Etxeak, or ‘Basque houses’, as a focus point. The main idea is to analyse the different tensions and political discussions of this set of diasporic waves in Latin America.

A Crisis for the Ages: The European Union and the migration Crisis. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 15 Special, October 2015

Five months ago most European citizens were unaware of the number of refugees seeking to reach the richest EU Member States like Germany, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The first wake up call for Europe was after the Lampedusa tragedy costing the lives of more than 300 refugees on October 3rd, 2013.1 Europeans were shocked, as the world was, to wake up to hear about such tragedy taking place at their doorstep. From 2013 to 2015, the issue of mass-migration from Syria, Eritrea, Somalia and other countries in the region left the front pages of newspapers and the minds of Europeans, but had remained extremely present in the world of experts and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) was calling for actions. The second wake-up call, which marked the beginning of the seriousness of the crisis, was the shipwreck where an estimated 900 migrants died on April 19th, 2015 off the coast of Italy.

The Migration Crisis: A Stress Test for European Values. European Policy Brief No. 38, September 2015

Confronted by the current refugee crisis, most Member States are turning inwards. But migration will continue to rise in the future. Given that migration is an unstoppable trend, the EU has everything to win from turning this crisis into an opportunity for its own citizens and economy, for the refugees and migrants it hosts and for their countries of origin. The manner in which the EU addresses this challenge will truly prove if it can live up to its founding principles of human dignity, solidarity, freedom, democracy and equality. This policy brief summarises European measures taken in the last few months and proposes four key actions to create a well-framed European migration policy: effectively implementing the principle of solidarity and fair-sharing of responsibility between Member States; creating more legal entry and integration channels; addressing the root causes of migration; and broadcasting a constructive and positive narrative on migration.

EU Budgetary Responses to the ‘Refugee Crisis’: Reconfiguring the Funding Landscape. CEPS Paper Liberty and Security in Europe No. 93/May 2016

This paper analyses the EU budgetary responses to the ‘refugee crisis’ in Europe. The European Commission has proposed several changes to the EU budget as well as the establishment of new funding instruments. The paper explores what the announced funding consists of, what role it plays in policy-making and what issues it generates. Throughout these budgetary responses the search for flexibility has been dominant, motivated by the need to respond more swiftly to humanitarian and operational needs. In addition, the paper argues that beyond implementation or management, the role of funding is also symbolic and communicative. In light of limited competences that are difficult to exercise, funding represents a powerful tool enabling the Commission to shape policy-making in times of crisis. At the same time, the dominant search for flexibility also challenges established funding rules and procedures. It has furthermore led to reduced space for democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament. More profoundly, EU funding for cooperation with third countries to prevent the inflow of refugees and asylum seekers has monetised questions over the responsibility for these individuals. As the EU–Turkey agreement shows, this has created a self-imposed dependence on third countries, with the risk of potentially insatiable demands for EU funding. This paper questions the proportionality and rule of law compliance of allocating funding for the implementation of this agreement. Moreover, it proposes that the Commission take steps to practically safeguard the humanitarian aid principles in the management structures of the new funding instruments, and it stresses the need for more scrutiny of the reconfigured funding landscape by the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors.

Brexit will deepen the fault lines within the EU over mobility. CEPS Commentary, 12 July 2016

Much has been made of the divide that opened up in 2015 between eastern and western member states as a result of acrimonious discussions on how to handle the refugee crisis and distribute asylum applicants across the EU. Against the prevailing political sentiment in certain member state capitals, Germany and France pushed through a plan devised by the European Commission to relocate 120,000 refugees, by a qualified majority vote in the Council. Rather than creating an east/west divide, however, the vote split the group of (relatively) new Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) of the EU into two factions: Romania, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary voted against the plan, whereas several other CEECs, namely Poland, Bulgaria and the Baltic states, joined the controversial motion on the side of the other (northern, southern and western) member states. Finland abstained. Few member states have shifted their positions in the meantime. If anything, in fact, they have coalesced among the Visegrad 4, following a change of government in Poland; and they have hardened, as a result of new proposals by the Commission to fine member states that refuse to accept refugees. With Hungary’s referendum on the Commission’s relocation scheme scheduled for October 2nd, tensions are set to intensify even further.

U.S. immigration policy and the national interest : the final report and recommendations of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy with supplemental views by commissioners.

"Submitted to the Congress and the President of the United States pursuant to Public Law 95-412."

Asylum : approval rates for selected applicants : fact sheet for the honorable Arlen Specter, United States Senate /

GAO/GGD-87-82FS