At a European Union meeting in Brussels that ended Tuesday, defense ministers from the 25 member states postponed making any decision on whether to send troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo. The EU is considering a proposal to send 1,000 to 1,500 soldiers to provide peacekeeping during elections planned for June 18.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cabinet has signalled a willingness to provide 400 troops from Germany's army, the Bundeswehr, and to co-lead the deployment with another as-yet-undetermined EU member. Nevertheless, opposition to a Congo mission is still strong in Berlin, with considerable skepticism even within Merkel's own conservative Christian Democratic Union.

Numerous questions still surround the mission, which would aim to stabilize a country that has been gripped with some of the worst violence ever seen in Africa. For one, it is unclear whether any other EU country will be willing to take up leadership of the security mission with Germany. Second, how will they succeed in putting together a force with 1,500 soldiers? So far, the only countries that have made solid troop pledges are Poland and Austria, with 30 and 10 respectively. Belgium, France, Portugal, Sweden and Spain have made non-binding offers of help.

And whether the mission will even be needed is still an open question. Current Congo President Joseph Kabila, ascended to power bolstered by the Europeans and Americans in 2001, hasn't signed the election law yet which would pave the way for the first free elections in the country in 46 years.

The business daily Handelsblatt notes that the driving force in Germany behind the Congo proposal has been Angela Merkel. But it wasn't always that way. When she got back to Berlin from her January visit with US President George Bush, the paper notes, she grew "contemplative that Germany and Europe should engage more strongly in Africa." Bush had expressed Africa's growing importance and said the US would increase its engagement. Africa's "failing states" could be harboring potential terrorists, he argued. Additionally, West Africa's natural resources are becoming increasingly important to industrialized nations. Behind the scenes, there is currently competition between the West and China to obtain these resources. "There's also a European dimension," the paper writes. Part of the immigration problem in Europe stems from refugees from war-torn lands in West and Central Africa. "Last but not least, the Europeans don't like to turn down the UN, and it has asked for help." Unfortunately, none of these things deal specifically with Congo's challenges. Of course it's in everybody's interest to prevent carnage after the elections between different ethnic groups. But it's not immediately clear how 1,000 to 1,500 EU soldiers will be capable of doing this," the paper concludes.

The conservative daily Die Welt makes a simple geographic argument in its case against sending German troops. "The Democratic Republic of Congo is seven times as big as Germany," the paper writes. "If one would cut the European mainland out of the atlas and lay it on the map of Africa, Europe would take up about as much room as the Congo." Europe, the paper argues, is incapable of providing any serious aid to the 16,000 overburdened UN peacekeeping troops already stationed in massacre-plagued Congo. With 1,500 soldiers, including 400 Germans, Europe is now supposed to guarantee a free election against a backdrop of 300 rival factions, in a region that the Congolese government itself can't even control. Apparently Brussels thinks that the mere appearance of the Europeans on the scene will bring eternal peace. Europe suffers from megalomania." Comparing the population of the Congo to that of Kosovo, the paper estimates that 750,000 troops would be needed to help, but concludes that the Congo is not important enough for European interests to warrant deploying that number.