EUobserver.com

EUOBSERVER / DEBATE - Given the conflict-ridden history of the European continent one would have thought that peace-making and peace-keeping, together with the control of arms, would be activities strongly identified in the mind of the world with the European 'brand.' But are they? This week the European Parliament took a small step in this direction.

It used to be said that 'America fights while Europe feeds.' This is still true, up to a point, though the US is no mean feeder in its own right. Europe, in the guise of the European Union, certainly doesn't fight though it does now have a species of European army, strictly controlled and limited though this is.

No one is advocating that the European army should become an aggressive, or even for that matter, a defensive force, but the few small-scale EU interventions in the world's trouble spots remain almost embarrassing in their feebleness and invisibility.

In Africa especially, with its long European colonial legacy, EU forces might surely be doing more to assist the African Union in Darfur and the UN in the Democratic Republic of Congo and maybe on the Eritrean-Ethiopian border.

Maybe we should be doing more now
It is true there is an intervention in the Congo to support elections. Yet considering the mayhem there over recent years with the numbers killed estimated by the UN to run into the low millions, and with many more displaced by the fighting, maybe we could have done more and at an earlier date. Maybe we should be doing more now.

Especially considering how brutally Europeans once exploited the region. Brussels itself could be said to be built on the ivory and rubber forcefully extracted from what is still the 'dark heart' of the African Continent.

If there are still people worried that the EU is becoming a super-state they should be reassured by the febrile nature of its interventions in the service of democracy and good governance.

Of course there are constitutional problems both for the EU and for the member states which would supply soldiers to any collective effort. There are diplomatic difficulties and technical problems to explain absence of action in any particular situation.

But overall there is a sense that the Union continues to sell itself short by not attempting to play a more forceful hand in those zones where its own interests are very real, principally Africa and the Middle East.

Armed intervention - peace-making as opposed to peace-keeping - may be necessary in certain circumstances if lives are to be saved. Rwanda was a case in point and now Darfur is another. Europe should not shy away from such interventions, provided they are lawful, to preserve legitimacy and to give people a chance.

African poverty
For Europe will never be completely stable while poverty, corruption and conflict persist in those regions. With much of Africa so desperately poor and ridden by disease and illiteracy what parent would not forgive their children seeking a better life somewhere in Africa's northern neighbour?

The last straw for many a family has been conflict; how many of the 2 million displaced by the fighting in Darfur, for instance, will not dream of living, however illegally, in a more stable environment where their children will be free and educated?

In addition to such peace-making episodes, many think that the EU should be doing more to assist the business of arms control. That anyway is the view of the European Parliament, reiterated this week with the aid of the Colombian singer, Juanes, who has the distinction of being the first person allowed to give a concert in the Brussels Hemicycle, the Parliament's plenary forum.

Anything the EU can do to help control the murderous trade in small arms and light weapons, responsible for so many African deaths, is to be welcomed. And such weapons include the deadly anti-personnel landmines used in staggering quantities all over Africa, and indeed elsewhere.

As the Parliament reminded us, this lethal detritus of war still claims, it is reckoned, up to 20,000 victims each year, most of them poor farmers and a large part of them children. 83 countries are affected to a greater or lesser extent. Buried in the soil landmines remain active and deadly long after the conflicts that sowed them have been resolved.

Arms control
Since the entry into force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel mines and their Destruction (the Ottawa Treaty) in 1999, 144 states have signed up. But some important states remain outside the Convention, notably the USA, Russia, China and India.

Last year the European Parliament passed a comprehensive resolution condemning the refusal of these countries to sign this historic landmine treaty. They are not letting the subject lie dormant. Hence the Juanes concert intended to raise awareness of the devastating suffering caused by the devices.

And it is necessary to keep the pressure on. Although some 40 million landmines have now been destroyed, the Parliament estimate that some 180 million remain in the world's stockpiles, of which some 100 million are estimated to be in China.

Earlier this year the Commission adopted its programme of landmine action for 2006. It will spend some 17.5 million euros, part of a 60 million euro budget for 2005-2007

Such actions are necessary and help to demonstrate that the EU is serious about promoting arms control - not just in the area of mine action - but more widely. The resolution passed by the Parliament last year's calls on the EU to strengthen European leadership in global disarmament, especially in the field of light weapons.

With so much of its focus directed inwards, at the constitution, reactions to enlargement, the single market, the budget and so on, it is easy to forget that many countries still look to the EU as an example. The bloc has a lot of influence if only it would be more prepared to use it.

The author is editor of EuropaWorld
Your comments are welcome debate@euobs.com

[Comment] Landmines on the map