FOKUS | 7/2013 The EU‘s Battlegroup in perspective: addressing present challenges for future deployments Ana Isabel Xavier Origins and goals – Brief background the name “Battlegroups“ (British) or “Tacti- used anywhere and globally. After “notice perspective cal Groups“ (French), but the final “label” to move“, the BG has then 10 days to its was only approved on 10th February 2004 projection, guarantee its capability up to The European Union Battlegroup (EU BG) when France, Germany and the United 30 days, and if replenished, remain on the was designed as a military unit within the Kingdom released a document proposing field up to 120 days. framework of the Common Security and a number of autonomous groups based Defence Policy (CSDP) and reached Full on Artemis. The “Battlegroup concept” was On 1st January 2005, the BG reached its Operational Capability (FOC) on the 1st finally approved and then submitted to Initial Operational Capability (IOC) and January 2007 to perform mainly in North the Political and Security Committee (PSC) on 1st January 2007 has reached its FOC Africa, Middle East, Balkans and Caucasus. which, in turn, requested the advice of the with ability to «undertake if so decided It is composed of an infantry battalion- EU Military Committee (EUMC). The EU by the Council two concurrent single sized force (1500 troops) based on the BG started to gain force after the informal Battlegroup-sized rapid response opera- contributions from a coalition of member meeting that brought together ministers tions, including the ability to launch both states set under a “lead nation” on existing of defence and chiefs of staff on 5 and 6 such operations nearly simultaneously» ad hoc missions that the EU is undertaking April 2004, with higher expectations to be (European Union Council, 2007), «either as under the political control and strategic operational early in 2007. stand-alone actions or as part of a larger direction of the Council. operation» (Consilium, 2013). The EU Military Staff (EUMS) soon devel- The EU BG concept was officially created in oped the Battlegroup Concept which was The initial thirteen Battlegroups were pro- 2004 due to the success of the Operation finally agreed upon in June 2004. These posed on 22 November 2005, but further Artemis as requested by the United Na- groups would be at the disposal at short groups have joined them since then. In tions to intervene in the Democratic Repu- notice for any UN request and be rapidly order to assure full capability, the Battle- blic of Congo. At the time, the Secretary- tailored to specific missions including groups rotate every six months (EUMC, General Kofi Annan emphasised the value conflict prevention, evacuation, humani- 2006). The principles of multina tionality of the Battlegroups in helping the United tarian aid or initial stabilisation. Moreover, (European Parliament, 2007: 4) and inter- Nations to deal with instability crisis all the Battlegroups would have enough operability are of great importance to over the world. Indeed, Artemis showed range to deal with all those tasks, although ensure the effective use of military forces the ability of the EU to rapidly react and ought to be limited in “size and intensity“ on the field. deploy in a short time and distance scale due to the small nature of the groups. since, in just three weeks, the EU managed They were defined as combat-trained, so Challenges and prospects – to agree on the Crisis Management Con- their full potential would be best realised a critical insight cept (CMC) and launch the operation. In in tasks of combat forces in crisis manage- fact, in only 20 days the deployment took ment, bearing in mind their limited Though the BG concept is properly up- off. As a result, the success of the Artemis size. Battlegroups operations would be dated and appears to be conceptually mission gave the impression that all future conducted under a UN Security Council appropriate for the missions and tasks rapid response deployments would be Resolution (UNSCR), although operations that were designed to for the EU to rapidly easily putted in practice. could be drawn in situations with no need react in trouble spots, there are still some of such procedure, like the evacuation of major problems dealing with political In 24th November 2003, a Franco-British EU citizens. decision making and military force deploy- Summit concluded that the EU should be ment deadlines, as well as lack of additio- able to respond to all the requests made The BG succeeds in an area of employment nal resources for strategic force multiplier by the UN, both in Africa and anywhere at a distance up to 6000 km from Brussels assets (transports, satellites). else in the world. The proposal suggested as the centre of the range, but can be 1 FOKUS | 7/2013 Furthermore, to be consistent with a com- the substantial costs associated with the In addition, another future challenge refers prehensive approach, there is the need to preparation and the possible deployment to ongoing initiatives encouraged by include a robust civilian component and of Battlegroups, combined with cur- groups of “small” states that seem to have review the Athena mechanism (Paccaud, rent financial crisis and austerity, pose, less money available but more interest 2012) in order to address and mitigate however, challenges to fill the Battle- in gathering interests and capabilities for the current impact of the financial crisis group Roster. This situation has triggered defence. No wonder that «in consequence, on the European defence capabilities, inten sive work and initiatives to mitigate their added-value [BG] has been more namely following the pooling and sharing existing shortfalls» (Consilium, 2013). significant for individual member states milestones. than for the Union as a whole, and for its One of the reasons that may explain the role as a global actor» (Hatzigeorgopoulos, In fact, Europe surely wants to take care of difficulties to pursue its mission is the lack 2012). One of the best examples is Sweden its backyard, but without supporting an of political will of the EU member states and Finland that recently announced the expensive model or duplicating its efforts to send troops abroad (frequently the “re- creation of a joint Nordic Battlegroup in similar structures such as the NATO mote” abroad off to the neighbourhood), and urged a Non EU country (Norway) to Response Force (NRF). In fact, EU and NATO as well as (or specially) the already menti- gather in order to make up the required members need proper planning, coordina- oned economic constraints. In fact, the EU 1500 elements. tion and cooperation in order to assure the BG formations are based on contributions different commitments towards collec- from the member states and the troops Nonetheless, this kind of initiatives may tive security, both in terms of troops and and equipment are drawn from the EU also warn us on a “two speed” EU BG, since specially the financial resources. In addition, member states under a “lead nation“. the larger member states will generally a unit cannot be on stand-by for the EU contribute with their own Battlegroups, Battlegroup and the NRF at the same time. Along with the lack of political will two while smaller members are expected to Therefore, though it is a project running other “classic” obstacles still remain: first, create common groups. In fact, each group within the European framework, a perma- the huge differences on the national must have a ‘lead nation‘ or ‘framework na- nent tactical group clearly presents relevant perceptions of security and safety; and tion‘ which will take operational command implications for both EU and NATO. If the EU second, the time-consuming discussion, and will also be associated with a deploy- Battlegroups were available for future NATO approval and launching process of ex- able headquarters in order to assure that operations or used as a contribution to the tremely short-notice combat missions. In at least one Battlegroup is on standby NATO Response Force, European security fact, many of the nations that supply the every six months. However, although the and defence could also highly benefit in troops need a parliamentary approval for Battlegroup concept is open to non EU terms of lessons learned (always useful for such assignments and the very short time- countries (Norway and Turkey, participate building the alliance’s security and defence line between the approval of the CMC, the in a group each) other EU member states framework) as well as certification process political decision to launch the operation already stressed its opting out clauses and (NATO’s pre-planned trainings and exercises and the troops to be projected on the “a la carte” solutions. Those are the cases could be plugged into the Battlegroup ground frequently doesn’t converge on. of Denmark that is not obliged to partici- certification process and vice-versa). pate in the common defence and security To overcome these problems, Gros-Ver- policy according to its accession treaty, Another feature that deserves to be heyde (2012a) present us some solutions, as well as Malta that doesn´t participate highlighted is that the EU Battlegroups are including: the gathering of the member in any Battlegroup. Other Member States not permanent, but created on an ad hoc States and the formation of each lead decided to focus in specific capabilities in basis to fill the roster and always based on nation (in turn, the smaller States should support of the EU Battlegroups: Cyprus voluntary offers. For that particular reason, crowd and organize themselves into (medical group), Lithuania (a water purifi- Gros-Verheyde (2012a, 2012b) warns us regional partnerships to build leading cation unit), Greece (the Athens Sealift Co- about some “holes” on the Battlegroup nations); the inclusion of a civilian compo- ordination Centre) and France (structure calendar.