The Origins The Eurocorps' creation can be considered as the result of the Elysée Treaty signed on January 22nd 1963 by the French President, Général de Gaulle and the German Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer. In this treaty aiming at strengthening the French German relationship both countries committed themselves to cooperate in the field of defence Apart from a closer political relationship, both countries planned personnel exchanges between their respective armed forces and cooperation in the field of defence industry. In 1987, President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl decided to intensify the military cooperation between France and Germany: they announced the setup of the French German Security and Defence Council that allowed the creation of the French-German Brigade, operational since 1991. On October 14th, 1991 both heads of state and government informed the chairman of the Council of Europe, in a common letter, of their intention to reinforce this military cooperation. Thus they laid the foundations of a European army corps in which the other WEU members could participate. On the occasion of the La Rochelle summit on May 22nd, 1992, François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl took the official decision of creating the Eurocorps, simultaneously with the adoption of the common report of the French and German Defence Ministers. A few weeks later, as early as July 1st, a temporary staff installed itself in Strasbourg in order to set up the Eurocorps staff. Missions and relationships The Petersberg Declaration dated June 19th, 1992 defines the WEU's role as a EU defence component (Petersberg missions). Based on this orientation, the Eurocorps Member States decided on May 19th, 1993 in Rome to put the Eurocorps at the WEU's disposal. On January 21st, 1993, the SACEUR Agreement defined the Eurocorps' conditions of employment in a NATO framework. This agreement points out: · the Eurocorps' missions in a NATO framework, · the competences for planning commitments, · the Eurocorps' assignment under a NATO command-in-chief, the responsibilities of and the relationship between the NATO Commander-in-Chief and the Eurocorps Commander in peacetime. A full success The French-German initiative rapidly interested other countries, notably Belgium. By integrating forces into an army corps, it participated in the construction of the European defence and security identity nevertheless keeping a role within NATO. Belgium's accession was approved on June 25th, 1993 by the Belgian government. The official creation of the Eurocorps took place on October 1st, 1993 as Lieutenant-General Helmut Willmann took up the position of first Commanding General. The official ceremony took place in Strasbourg on November 5th, 1995 in the presence of the ministers of defence of the three participating countries (Germany, France, Belgium). Spain officially joined the Eurocorps on July 1st, 1994. Eurocorps soldiers participated in the Bastille Day parade on the Champs Elysées on July 14th, 1994. This event was a symbol for the Eurocorps and Europe's history. (Link to video Early days of Eurocorps) Luxembourg officially joined the Eurocorps on May 7th, 1996. Exercises and operations Since 1993 the Eurocorps participated in numerous exercises with the aim of reinforcing its operational capability. The first real Eurocorps commitment started in 1998: approximately 470 servicemembers of the Eurocorps HQ left Strasbourg heading for Bosnia-Herzegovina in 4 successive contingents in order to reinforce the SFOR HQ. The Eurocorps soldiers represented approximately 37% of the Force's HQ. On January 28th, 2000, less than two years later, the NATO Council decided that the Eurocorps HQ should form the core of the KFOR HQ in Kosovo. From March to October 2000, approximately 350 Eurocorps soldiers formed the core of the KFOR III HQs in Pristina and Skopje. The end of the KFOR III mission was celebrated during an official ceremony in Strasbourg on October 17th, 2000. The ministers of defence of the Member States or their representatives, Dr. Kouchner - special representative of the UN Secretariat General in Kosovo - and the civil and military authorities of Strasbourg were present. A year later, the Eurocorps HQ tested its newly adopted structure during the exercise Cobra 01 in the South of Spain. Several political and military institutions followed the exercise with great interest. Restructuring of the Eurocorps Meanwhile, important decisions were taken about the European Security and Defence Policy. These decisions had several consequences concerning the Eurocorps' role and structure. On May 29th, 1999, during the French-German summit of Toulouse, France and Germany suggested to put the Eurocorps as an intervention force at the EU's disposal in case of crisis. This proposal was submitted to the other Member States that accepted it. It was then officially suggested to the EU at the Cologne summit, on June 3rd and 4th, 1999. During this summit Europe also decided to reinforce its intervention capabilities and to put reaction forces into place in case of crisis. The decision was confirmed and developed during the EU summit of Helsinki in December 1999. In November, in Luxembourg, the Eurocorps Member States defined the transformation modalities of this multinational unit into a rapid reaction corps at the disposal of the EU and NATO. The preparation of this transformation took a long time and started on June 5th, 2001. As early as April 2001, the member nations proposed the HQ as one of the "Deployable High Readiness Force Headquarters". In 2002, NATO evaluated the HQ's general capabilities and its operational capability in several steps. The exercise Common Effort was an important part of the process at the end of which the HQ obtained its certification as Rapid Reaction Force HQ. The Eurocorps opens its doors One of the criteria for the certification as a High Readiness Force (Land) Headquarters was that the headquarters should be open for all NATO member nations. Spain, at that time, had the presidency of the Common Committee and invited the NATO members as well as the member nations of the European Union to integrate personnel or to send a liaison officer to the HQ Eurocorps. This is why the Framework Nations signed a new technical agreement with SACEUR on September 3rd, 2002. The NATO member nations Greece (03/09/2002), Poland (07/01/2003) and Turkey (03/09/2002) integrated personnel into the HQ Eurocorps Staff. On February 25th, 2003, a technical agreement was signed with the European member nation Austria. Immediately afterwards an Austrian officer joined the Staff. Under NATO’s flag In the beginning of the year 2004 HQ Eurocorps was tasked by the North Atlantic Council to take the lead of the NATO mission ISAF in Afghanistan. From August 2004 to February 2005, approximately 450 Eurocorps soldiers formed the core of the ISAF HQ in Kabul, with a major responsibility within this integrating step of the reconstruction and development process of Afghanistan. The sixth ISAF mandate was given to a European staff, HQ Eurocorps, a prototype of a potential European defence. 8000 soldiers (as of 17-Jan-2005), sailors and airmen made up ISAF, with contributions from 36 nations. March 16th 2005 the end of the ISAF VI mission was celebrated during an official ceremony in Strasbourg. Meanwhile the North Atlantic Council earmarked HQ Eurocorps to lead the Land Component Command of the NATO Response Force 7 (NRF7) from July 1st 2006 to December 31st 2006. Intensive training and preparations took HQ Eurocorps to the training areas of Bitche (France) and Wildflecken (Germany). In June 2006 the successful operational capability test took place during the NATO exercise “ Steadfast Jaguar” on the Cape Verde Islands in the Atlantic Ocean, followed by a six month stand-by period.
Inteleg ca la momentul asta Eurocorpul a devenit o forta comuna de reactie rapida, la dispozitia U.E., capabila sa intervina oriunde pe glob sub mandat N.A.T.O. O "legiune" a Europei.. Am inteles ca participa si Romania. Adica in Afgh poti sa regasesti pe langa trupele noastre regulate si combatanti romani sub egida Eurocorp??
păi există, şi ar putea întruni aproape 60.000 de militari, dar cum Europa (UE) , nu are o politică coerentă, comună în exterior, am înţeles că s-au încurcat în proiecte şi în comisii şi comitete. Nu am înţeles dacă are un stat major, sau un fel de comandament unic, compus din militari. Prezenţa civilă este prea pregnantă, şi aşa cum îi ştim pe europeni, impotenţi în a lua decizii capitale. Exemplu: Nu am văzut o prezenţă a Eurocorpului în Mediterana, în apropierea apelor teritoriale libiene pentru a evacua numeroşii cetăţeni europeni. Dimpotrivă , fiecare stat european a desfăşurat acţiuni proprii. Ăsta e un exemplu de lipsă de coeziune şi unitate.
Iată cui se subordonează şi cum poate reacţiona acest Corp: „Eurocorps nu se subordonează nicunei alte organizaţii. Acesta este desfăşurat sub autoritatea statelor occidentale, membre ale Uniunii Europene ce sunt reprezentate, în cadrul unui Comitet comun, de către şefii Apărării fiecărui stat (miniştrii sau şefi de StMG) şi de coordonatori politici din cadrul ministerelor de Externe. La rândul lui , acest comitet reacţionează la cererilor de sprijin din partea organizaţiilor multinaţionale, cum ar fi ONU, NATO sau UE. Corpul poate fi, de asemenea, desfăşurat la iniţiativa statelor membre. În 2008, Parlamentul European a votat, printr-o rezoluţie, propunând ca Eurocorp să devină armată permanentă a UE, sub comanda UE”. Până ajunge Comitetul ăsta la o decizie, până este filtrată şi discutată orice iniţiativă, se duce naibii orice situaţie de criză şi statele membre mai degrabă acţionează pe cont propriu. Comanda politică civilă, stufoasă şi birocratică ucide din start orice putinţă de reacţie rapidă.
Ma indoiesc ca daca cei 60000 de insi se apuca sa innoate in Mediterana puhoiul de invadatori e oprit cumva.NATO are suficiente forte navale in zona pentru acele misiuni.Pe langa ce era au mai sosit in zona forte suplimentare,iar 3 portavioane sunt in rezerva. Ma lipsesc de politica comuna a UE in majoritatea cazurilor,multumesc frumos.Lasa asa ineficace,decat prea eficace.Altfel poate le vin idei iar eu unul tin la ideea de suveranitate nationala,indiferent despre ce natiune e vorba.
Dacă e să mai divagăm pe marginea acestui subiect, o unitate europeană puternică stabilă, şi comună nu se va putea face decât sub tutela unui anumit stat european (cel mai puternic în prezent şi în viitor). A existat un stat de anvergura europeană pe timpul lui Carol cel Mare. A mai fost unul, sub tutela lui Napoleon, creatorul primului Imperiu francez. Apoi a mai fost sub tutela Germaniei între 1940-1945. Aşa că pe viitor, dacă povestea asta cu Europa unită va mai continua, va devia sub coordonarea definitivă a unui singur stat, sub forme, poate mascate sau poate făţiş. Atunci se va putea vorbi de o armată europeană, croită după modelul armatei statului-lider. Să fie vorba de X sau de Y, pt că Z iese clar din discuţie preferând o distanţare de afacerile continentale.
Fireste.Nu e prea PC sa glumesc cu lucruri sfinte,cum e datoria fata de patrie si Semper,dar vazand discutia cu Y>X nu m-am putut abtine. Legat de ce spuneati despre o armata europeana croita pe model german,e complicat.Nemtii mai intai trebuie sa termine cu prostiile cu care au fost indoctrinati din 45 incoace si abia dupa aia sa se gandeasca la armata.O buna parte a opiniei publice la nemti considera ca onorarea actiunilor militare in A-stan duce la renasterea militarismului(ce o fi rau in asta nu pricep),iar politicienii s-au intrecut in a impune ROE unele mai stupide ca celelalte. Chiar nu-i vad pe ei a fi marii cavaleri in armura ai Europei.
A propos de asta, postez aici o stire mai veche despre o misiune KSK in Afganistan. Nu comentez aici calitatea lor de luptatori; am inteles ca sunt exceptional de bine pregatiti. Vreau sa atrag atentia asupra principiilor de comanda ale superiorilor lor.
German Special Forces in Afghanistan Let Taliban Commander Escape By Susanne Koelbl and Alexander Szandar German special forces had an important Taliban commander in their sights in Afghanistan. But he escaped -- because the Germans were not authorized to use lethal force. The German government's hands-tied approach to the war is causing friction with its NATO allies. The Germans have considerable misgivings about such an approach. They have secretly given "clarification notes" to NATO with far-ranging instructions for their soldiers which expressly contradict the usual procedures: "The use of lethal force is prohibited unless an attack is taking place or is imminent." Sources in NATO circles regard the confidential document as a "national exception," a caveat which places restrictions on operational capability. The Germans, for their part, always avoid using the word caveat, out of diplomatic considerations vis-à-vis their allies. The most remarkable thing about the secret document is its stated justification. The German government considers its allies' approach as "not being in conformity with international law." Little wonder that NATO's mission in Afghanistan is marked by tension and friction. Critics accuse the Germans of achieving precisely the opposite effect of what they claim to be aiming for. "The Krauts are allowing the most dangerous people to get away and are in the process increasing the danger for the Afghans and for all foreign forces here," says an incredulous British officer at ISAF headquarters on Great Massoud Road in Kabul. The case of the Baghlan bomber is not the end of the story. More trouble has been brewing for the Germans in Afghanistan. They are actually supposed to be currently participating in Operation Karez in northern Afghanistan in conjunction with the Afghan army and the Norwegian Quick Reaction Force. The operation, like a mission in autumn 2007, is aimed at fighting Taliban who have a stronghold in the northwestern province of Badghis. The Taliban forces there currently include about 150 hardliners and some 500 irregular fighters.
Unlike their Delta Force colleagues, Germany's KSK special forces are not authorized to use lethal force in Afghanistan except in the event of an attack. The wheat is lush and green in the fields of northern Afghanistan this spring. A river winding its way through the broad valley dotted with walled houses completes the picturesque scene. Behind one of these walls, not far from the town of Pol-e-Khomri, sits a man whose enemies, having named him a "target," would like to see dead. He is the Baghlan bomber. The Taliban commander is regarded as a brutal extremist with excellent connections to terror cells across the border in Pakistan. Security officials consider him to be one of the most dangerous players in the region, which is under German command as part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in Afghanistan. The military accuses him of laying roadside bombs and of sheltering suicide attackers prior to their bloody missions. He is also thought to be behind one of the deadliest attacks in Afghanistan's history, the Nov. 6, 2007 attack on a sugar factory in the northwest province of Baghlan. The attack killed 79 people, including dozens of children and many parliamentarians and other politicians, as they celebrated the factory's reopening. Germany's KSK special forces have been charged with capturing the terrorist, in cooperation with the Afghan secret service organization NDS and the Afghan army. The German elite soldiers were able to uncover the Taliban commander's location. They spent weeks studying his behavior and habits: when he left his house and with whom, how many men he had around him and what weapons they carried, the color of his turban and what vehicles he drove. At the end of March, they decided to act to seize the commander. Under the protection of darkness, the KSK, together with Afghan forces, advanced toward their target. Wearing black and equipped with night-vision goggles, the team came within just a few hundred meters of their target before they were discovered by Taliban forces. The dangerous terrorist escaped. It would, however, have been possible for the Germans to kill him -- but the KSK were not authorized to do so. The threat to the international relief workers and the ISAF soldiers stationed in the north may now be even greater than it was before. Warned of ISAF's activities and intent on taking revenge, the man and his network are active once again. Over 2,500 Germans are stationed between Faryab and Badakhshan, along with Hungarian, Norwegian and Swedish troops. The case has caused disquiet at the headquarters of the ISAF peacekeeping force in Kabul. The current strategy for fighting the enemy is to buy as many Taliban sympathizers as possible, to at least win them over for a while -- and to "eliminate" the hardliners through targeted assassinations. From a military point of view, the so-called targeting has been a success. Close to one-third of the Taliban leaders, about 150 commanders, have since been "neutralized," meaning they are either dead or captured. Most of the capture-or-kill missions, as the operations are called in military jargon, are undertaken by British or American special forces. But so far the Germans haven't wanted to take part. And that causes problems, because the insurgents are increasingly gaining influence (more...) in the nine provinces under German command. And the extremists appear to be confident of victory. Maulawi Bashir Haqqani, 40, the Taliban's military commander in Kunduz, told SPIEGEL: "The Germans are the most important enemy in the north. If they leave their base, they will find booby traps and bombs waiting for them on every road. They will have to carry many more bodies in coffins on their shoulders if they don't come to the realistic conclusion that their forces must withdraw from our country." Nonetheless, even in a time of growing threats in Afghanistan, Berlin is sticking to its "principle of proportionality," stressed one high-ranking official in the Defense Ministry. A fugitive like the Baghlan bomber is not an aggressor and should not be shot unless necessary, the official explains. Soldiers from Britain's British Special Air Service or the US's Delta Force are less bothered about such hair-splitting. For them, this is a war in which it comes down to "kill or be killed," say sources in military circles in Kabul. The "targets" are identified, tracked down and -- often with the help of laser-guided weapons systems -- "eliminated." The Germans have considerable misgivings about such an approach. They have secretly given "clarification notes" to NATO with far-ranging instructions for their soldiers which expressly contradict the usual procedures: "The use of lethal force is prohibited unless an attack is taking place or is imminent." Sources in NATO circles regard the confidential document as a "national exception," a caveat which places restrictions on operational capability. The Germans, for their part, always avoid using the word caveat, out of diplomatic considerations vis-à-vis their allies. The most remarkable thing about the secret document is its stated justification. The German government considers its allies' approach as "not being in conformity with international law." Little wonder that NATO's mission in Afghanistan is marked by tension and friction. Critics accuse the Germans of achieving precisely the opposite effect of what they claim to be aiming for. "The Krauts are allowing the most dangerous people to get away and are in the process increasing the danger for the Afghans and for all foreign forces here," says an incredulous British officer at ISAF headquarters on Great Massoud Road in Kabul. The case of the Baghlan bomber is not the end of the story. More trouble has been brewing for the Germans in Afghanistan. They are actually supposed to be currently participating in Operation Karez in northern Afghanistan in conjunction with the Afghan army and the Norwegian Quick Reaction Force. The operation, like a mission in autumn 2007, is aimed at fighting Taliban who have a stronghold in the northwestern province of Badghis. The Taliban forces there currently include about 150 hardliners and some 500 irregular fighters. But because the area of operation, which is in Ghormach district, lies exactly on the border with the area under Italian command, the German government hesitated to deploy the reconnaissance, logistics and KSK forces which were originally promised by the German regional commander. It was only at the end of last week that German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung decided to approve the mission after all. At that point, Germany's allies had already been taking part in bloody fighting for a week. Last Friday, an armored infantry battalion from Augustdorf in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia put on an impressive military display on a training ground for the benefit of the German Chief of Army Staff Hans-Otto Budde -- demonstrating, ironically, an operation to seize enemy combatants. The battalion will be relieving the Norwegian Quick Reaction Force in northern Afghanistan as of July 1. Then, at the latest, the Germans will be on the frontline.
Stiu incidentul la care face referire articolul si poate ar fi mai bine sa-l repostezi pe topicul cu Afganistan ori pe vreunul cu forte speciale straine.Mi se pare ca avem cateva cu germani. Amu,nu ma pune sa caut referinta intrucat sunt ani buni.Dar neoficial si in mare taina,baietii din KSK cat si cei din forte mai conventionale se bagau deliberat intre 2 tabere care schimbau focuri.In felul acesta erau sub atac si puteau sa-si faca de cap linistiti,scapand de grija idiotilor din Berlin.
Forums
. 
Interesanta chestie. Nu stiam ca militarii germani mai au chef de lupta. 
