Finland and Austria's contributions, for example, are troops which are already solely earmarked for UN peacekeeping operations. If most of the states contributing to the EU force already had earmarked troops deployed elsewhere, it would be difficult to draw on these experienced and well-equipped units for other major humanitarian operations. Britain, for example, is already suffering from overstretch due to commitments to NATO and the UN as well as in her own overseas territories. The US Secretary of Defence William Cohen recently argued that it could be a threat to NATO if the force was made completely independent or duplicates NATO military structures. George W. Bush is also likely to monitor the force's ongoing development as he becomes the US' 43rd President next year.
Turkey also wants to have a strong role in the force.
It will have to meet acceptable levels in areas such as human rights before being granted full EU membership. Greece, however, is. Turkey wants to know if the force would deploy if a major incident arose over the two countries ongoing Aegean Sea territorial dispute. Nonethelesss, the EU Council Summit Declarations stressed the importance and responsibility of NATO as the main security apparatus for Europe - this being reiterated in the Provisional Treaty of Nice drawn up at the European Council Nice Summit during December 2000. The EU plans to draw on NATO resources when conducting operations including US facilities and personnel.