Relations between the EU and NATO have shot to the top of the press agenda at the Nice Summit. The issue centres on the force planning arrangements for the EU's embryo Rapid Reaction Force. The European governments agreed a year ago at their summit in Helsinki to generate a capability to put together a force of up to 60,000 troops with air and sea support. This force should be deployable at two month's notice and sustainable for up to one year. At a meeting in Brussels last month, the EU member states pledged their contributions to this force which is to be operational by 2003. The force is designed to be useful for the so called Petersberg Tasks. These do not include the defence of European territory: that remains the task of NATO. The new force would be for humanitarian tasks internationally, the rescue of European citizens and peacekeeping.
Three possible arrangements are envisaged. The first would be to use the force as part of a NATO led operation. The second type would be an operation where NATO would contribute to the force, but the EU would run the operation. The third would be a purely EU operation, which did not involve NATO. In the early days of discussion, this last requirement was described as an ability to conduct autonomous operations. The word "autonomous" caused surprise in some circles, and this was a word which the UK government appeared to be happy with. The US welcomed the moves by Europe to get serious over defence, but warned against the dangers of duplication with NATO.
The issue that has blown up now is whether the EU should establish its own planning arrangements in addition to the NATO system. In this debate, Jacques Chirac is characterised in the UK and the US as seeking to undermine NATO. This seems a little unfair. For NATO led operations, NATO planning will be the norm. For EU autonomous operations, it would seem entirely reasonable that the EU does the planning. The United States may not enjoy the prospect of being left out, but if they are not contributing to a particular operation, they would have no right to be involved. This does not presage the break up of NATO, it is just a sensible military arrangement. Whatever reassurances Tony Blair may be giving to the US and to Eurosceptics at home, the reality is that a European planning organisation of some sort will have to develop over time.