Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08BRUSSELS1900
2008-12-16 06:11:00
CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN
Embassy Brussels
Cable title:  

EU PONDERS MILITARY OPTIONS FOR DR CONGO

Tags:  PREL CG XA MOPS EUN 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO9507
PP RUEHAG RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHBS #1900/01 3510611
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 160611Z DEC 08
FM USEU BRUSSELS ZDK ZDK - CORRECTED COPY - ZDK ZDK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
RXFPSH/SHAPE SHAPE BE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEFDHN/DIA DH WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEFNGA/CDR NGIC CHARLOTTESVILLE VA PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM LIAISON CELL SHAPE BE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM ALT SHAPE BE PRIORITY
RUCBACM/CDR USJFCOM NORFOLK VA PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USSOCOM MACDILL AFB FL PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/CJCS WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/DOD WASHDC PRIORITY
RUDKSR/EUCOM PLANS AND ANALYSIS STAFF STUTTGART GE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHLGB/AMEMBASSY KIGALI PRIORITY
RUEHKI/AMEMBASSY KINSHASA PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY
RUEHKI/USDAO KINSHASA CG PRIORITY
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 001900 

C O R R E C T E D COPY: NOFORN CAPTION ADDED

SIPDIS
NOFORN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/15/2018
TAGS: PREL CG XA MOPS EUN
SUBJECT: EU PONDERS MILITARY OPTIONS FOR DR CONGO

BRUSSELS 00001900 001.2 OF 002


Classified By: Pol M-C Chris Davis for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 001900

C O R R E C T E D COPY: NOFORN CAPTION ADDED

SIPDIS
NOFORN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/15/2018
TAGS: PREL CG XA MOPS EUN
SUBJECT: EU PONDERS MILITARY OPTIONS FOR DR CONGO

BRUSSELS 00001900 001.2 OF 002


Classified By: Pol M-C Chris Davis for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).


1. (C//NF) Summary: During the week of December 8, the EU
Council Secretariat prepared a list of options for an EU
response to UN SG Ban Ki-Moon's request for an EU "bridging
force" in the DRC. Foreign ministers discussed these options
on December 11 at a dinner on the margins of the European
Council in Brussels, reaching no conclusions. USEU expects
the EU to find some way to provide assistance to the DRC, but
does not expect a robust military intervention or true
"bridging force," as the Member States most enthusiastic
about providing military forces do not have the capability to
provide the necessary enablers or the command and control
capacity to lead the operation. End Summary.


2. (C//NF) USEU PolMC and PolOff on December 12 met with
Didier Lenoir, Head of the Operations and Exercises Unit in
the EU Council Secretariat's DG E VIII, and Ken Hume, one of
the unit's action officers, to discuss the EU's potential
response to UN SG Ban's request for a DRC "bridging force."
Lenoir and Hume said EU SG/HR Solana had received the request
in a private letter from Ban on December 5, and that Solana
had directed Lenoir's unit to come up with options for an EU
response. The Council Secretariat on December 11 presented
those options to foreign ministers, who discussed the issue
over dinner that night. Ministers reached no conclusions
during the dinner, although the Political and Security
Committee may be asked to take up the issue this week.


3. (C//NF) Ban reportedly asked the EU -- or Member States
individually -- for a force capable of securing Goma and the
airport, key humanitarian corridors and lines of
communication, and population centers in North Kivu, until
the UN can beef up MONUC per the UN's mandate. The EU
estimates that accomplishing these tasks would require a
brigade-sized force of approximately 3,000 troops. The
Secreariat presented ministers with five options for an EU
response, only two of which would fulfill Ban's request, and

none of which is generating much enthusiasm across the Member
States.


4. (C//NF) The first, most robust option would be for the
EU to dispatch its two standby Battlegroups to North Kivu.
Each Battlegroup is a battalion-sized, combined-arms force,
so deploying both would answer the need for a brigade-sized
force of 3,000 or so. Battlegroups are also theoretically
capable of the kinds of tasks required in the eastern DRC.
However, Lenoir and Hume admitted that a Battlegroup
deployment is "not a serious possibility" for a number of
reasons. Even if the Member States agreed to dispatch the
Battlegroups, they would need t come up with the necessary
enablers to deploy and sustain those forces, a difficult
task. In addition, because of the conditions on the ground
and limitations on what the airstrip in Goma can handle, Hume
estimated that a Battlegroup deployment to North Kivu would
take one to two months -- not the five to fifteen days the EU
advertises for Battlegroups.


5. (C//NF) The second, also highly unlikely, scenario would
involve a force generated from among the Member States and
led out of one of the national headquarters on which the EU
draws for operations. Such a force would presumably resemble
the EU force in Chad. In this scenario, the EU would still
confront the problem of generating the necessary forces,
headquarters, and enablers. While Lenoir and Hume said
several Member States had expressed some interest in such a
force -- Belgium, Sweden, and Finland -- none of the
interested parties can provide the necessary headquarters or
enablers. Hume also estimated that generating and deploying
this kind of force would take three to four months, making it
of questionable value as a "bridging force."


6. (C//NF) The third option would be to reinforce MONUC.

BRUSSELS 00001900 002.2 OF 002


Lenoir and Hume speculated that this scenario would resemble
UNIFIL II in 2006, when Member States discussed the need for
force generation in EU fora but made force pledges to the UN
bilaterally. Also like UNIFIL II, generating bilateral force
pledges would necessitate allaying Member States' concerns
about the MONUC chain of command, and could involve an ad hoc
strategic cell in New York like the UN set up for UNIFIL.


7. (C//NF) In the fourth option, the EU would provide a
partial response to Ban's request, e.g. a force capable of
accomplishing one of the required tasks, such as securing the
Goma airport. Even this option would require a
Battlegroup-sized unit, which would confront the same
obstacles as options one and two. The fifth and final option
would be to respond to Ban's letter by providing something
entirely different, such as humanitarian assistance or
repairs to Goma's runway. USEU assesses that this latter is
a distinct possibility (if only because it was raised),but
would involve minimal, if any, military force contributions.


8. (C//NF) The feeling in DG E VIII is that the diplomatic
approach is back on track, so they would rather pursue a
low-key approach and not be the provocation Nkunda said a
EUFOR would be. Hume asked rhetorically whether a force of
3,000 troops is really required now, or if it would be
required only if the situation deteriorated again. Comment:
USEU suspects that this perspective is largely a reflection
of the fact that the EU is unlikely to generate a robust
force. End Comment.
SILVERBERG
.