some random Hypothesising

RDM_83

edit decided to start this after reading a post by Nothung (sorry forgot to add that)
I was thinking of a similar situation last night, and wondered if this (hopefully our leaders would be clever enough to recognise the dangers of the situation before it occured ) chains of events could occur and would they have been affected by the Lisbon treaty (had it passed)

1- A eastern europe/Balkan state elects a strongly pro-western government

2-This government brings the coutry into the EU (I understand that this would be extremely unlikely if the country had an ongoing "frozen conflict"

3-A region of the country rejects this and invites a neighbouring states troops in as peacekeepers e.g something like South Ossetia

4- The government demands EU (military) backing under pertinent EU agreements (calling the movement of neighbouring state troops into region an act of agression against the EU)

5-Become EU involved in hostilities in seperatist region (and with the troops the non EU state sent to back the secessionist region)

I understand that this chain of events is unlikely and that it would be more likely that NATO would be heavily involved but I'm wondering about the technical possibility of this occuring within an EU framework (either now or in a post Lisbon environment).

cabinteelytom

I don't think your scenario is unlikely. I think it , or something close to it , is very likely when the EU invites (I expect with no further referenda) Turkey to join the circle of 'mutual defence' (whatever that may in future be deemed to mean).
I have no hostility to Greek Cypriots, Syrians, Kurds, Iraqis or Armenians, but may shortly find myself or my Euros 'defending' Turkey (a large and ambitious middle eastern country) against some of these peoples.
This is the uncomfortable contradiction at the heart of the Lisbon Treaty, deepening the cooperation within the Union (so that it resembles a centralised supra-state), while expanding it's territory outwards.
At present the plan seems to be to expand eastwards towards increasingly fraught frontiers.
Just a thought.

PHB

Any serious military action would be handled by NATO. At best, the EU will work together in peacekeeping and such. Also military force will allow us to have a bit more umph behind our soft power.

If Turkey gets invaded, NATO will bomb the **** out of whoever does it. The EU will be an afterthought, just like the UN is.

RDM_83

Understand that NATO would be deeply involved especially as many of the Eastern Europe countries are aspiring NATO members (and there's the NATO presence in Balkans).
My question is technically would all the countries in the EU be involved (and be required to give aid) if the chain of events outlined occured.
Also not really talking about an invasion as such more a non-EU power becoming involved in the secession attempt of an area of a EU member (sort of like a kosovo situation in reverse)

Moriarty

I don't see the EU ever admitting a new member who'd have such internal strife that there'd be a breakaway mini-state due to EU succession. It would be a pre-condition of membership that disputes like that would be solved to all parties satisfaction before entry was granted.

I think it would be equally valid to posit that the German Democratic Republic would make a call for international assistance against an occupying force some time in the near future.

It's not going to happen.

RDM_83

RDM_83 wrote: »

2-This government brings the coutry into the EU (I understand that this would be extremely unlikely if the country had an ongoing "frozen conflict"

I'm more interested in the hypothetical question than the practicality.

and on a note about it being unlikely to admit a country with regions in severe civil conflict the UK was admitted in 1973, in 1972 479 people had been killed in the Troubles in NI (though there was the abortive sunningdale agreement in 73)

Moriarty

RDM_83 wrote: »

I'm more interested in the hypothetical question than the practicality.

Fair enough. I'm not sure that there's a whole lot to talk about though If they were a member state and were attacked/invaded they could request help from all other EU states. From our perspective, that would be non-military assistance unless/until there was a UNSC authorisation for action and the Dail/Government consented to sending army personel.

RDM_83 wrote: »

and on a note about it being unlikely to admit a country with regions in severe civil conflict the UK was admitted in 1973, in 1972 479 people had been killed in the Troubles in NI (though there was the abortive sunningdale agreement in 73)

Well, Ireland joined on the same day that the UK joined. EC admission wasn't an issue for either side in the conflict. It was also the policy of the other european states at the time that the NI problems were recognised as an internal matter for the UK.

RDM_83

So Ireland would have no onus to aid an EU country that was "invaded" by troops of a non EU country (apart from humanitarian aid).
And on the Northern Irish note the join date of both countries is only 4 years after Ireland was moving troops to the border while seeking a UN intervention into the North (and the EU had no way of knowing that the situation would not deteriorate again)

ixtlan

RDM_83 wrote: »

So Ireland would have no onus to aid an EU country that was "invaded" by troops of a non EU country (apart from humanitarian aid).

Indeed. Ignoring NATO for the moment.... Under Lisbon the matter would come to a council meeting. All 27 countries would have to agree to any military intervention. In fact they would have to all agree to a common policy position. If any state including Ireland disagreed they could veto any operation or even any statement on the situation. If your scenario happened one could easily imagine the politics to be very complex and it would be likely that someone (not Ireland) would veto involvement, either because they were afraid of the repercussions or because they supported the "aggressors".

If all 27 states agreed to a military operation, even if only peacekeeping, Ireland would be unable to participate unless the UN authorised it. Continuing with the hypothesising, it would seem likely that Russia would be involved somewhere and would probably veto in the UN security council.

Therefore Ireland's involvement would be limited by law to humanitarian aid, and Lisbon is vague as to what it means. A few blankets might suffice.

It's worth mentioning again the insane position that our obsession with neutrality has put us into. We are probably the only country in the world which is unable to deploy troops outside our borders unless authorised by the UN security council. This gives us the least military sovereignty of any country. I shake my head when I think of this...

Ix.