Feed aggregator

A brit Visiting Arts művészeti szervezet nemzetközi hálózatépítő platformot hozott létre a kulturális és a kreatív iparágaknak World Cultures Connect címmel.

2015 májusában ismét megrendezik Lyonban az Európai Labor Fórumot Képzeld el a jövő kultúráját! címmel.

In 2010 I ran a series of short pieces on these pages about the General Election (and the image is from the 2010 result). Back through no popular demand at all… some thoughts.

This election will have four main head-lines on May 8th, and a big mess of two significant minorities to hack about trying to form a government:

1) The SNP wiped the floor with Labour in Scotland.

2) The LibDems melted down

3) UKIP were second in over 100 seats, but gained only 5 seats, and thus – ironically – have become the new LibDems…

4) Both the Conservatives and Labour can mathematically form a minority government, and that leaves the Queen with a somewhat large constitutional headache.

So, let’s start with Scotland. Lovely place, one day I will live there. Well, Nicola Sturgeon (leader of the Scottish Nationalists) was the stand-out winner of the televised debate of all seven main party leaders. Indeed, the people I watched it with (who all live in England, and aren’t known for socialist tendencies) all wanted to vote for her by the end of evening. This was partly because she sounded competent (‘knows what she’s doing’), and partly because didn’t seem as ‘male and smug’ as the other ones. So, on an unscientific poll in the Midlands, the leader of a party no-one could vote for, had a clear majority. In more scientific polls, she is set to lead (despite not standing for a Westminster seat herself) an absolute drubbing for Labour north of the border. For Labour’s chances of forming a majority government this is catastrophic. Well, it has ended the chance of a majority. For Jim Murphy (the Scottish Labour Party leader) this will be – if it comes about – a disaster, which is a shame because he is both a competent politician and by most accounts a decent man too. So, whilst the SNP has been making strides to dominate Scottish politics for a good number of years it is the catalysing effect of the Scottish independence referendum that is catapulting the party ever higher in the polls. The notion that the independence referendum was the end of the matter ‘for a generation’ seems fanciful. The mode of exit for the Scots seems painfully clear: the 2017 EU referendum provides them with the perfect opportunity to jump a Brexiting ship. Expect to see to Nicola Sturgeon looking very pleased on May 8th, and her former mentor Alex Salmond restored to Westminster and full of the joys of holding someone over a barrel.

The LibDems are having what is known in cricketing circles as ‘a total mare’. There appears to be nowhere in the land that they are currently safe – bar Eastleigh – according to an aggregator poll yesterday, and the lack of local support (their traditional strength) will be particularly concerning for them. The LibDems have – by dint of their internal constitution – always been very close to their membership, but they seemed to forget this during Coalition and frankly didn’t spend enough time saying how they had held back the Tories from doing whatever it is we assume they would have done if given free rein. And that’s the LibDems problem in a nutshell: what did they provide the Coalition, short of bodies to form a majority? If Clegg is lucky he’ll be offered a seat in the European Commission, a job he’d do fabulously well. As for those LibDem MPs that survive next Thursday, theirs might be a cosy and lonely existence. Back to the drawing board, and the sort of localism that saw them as ‘the’ party of local government for 20years.

UKIP and the irrepressible Farage will be disappointed on 8 May. They’ll be disappointed because – ironically -we don’t have a European system of voting. If we did, they’d be laughing. Nige would be all over the papers guzzling warm beer and basking in the joy of 1953 (cards on the table: as a europhile, I’m not a fan, but I do think he’s a nearly-brilliant politician). So, in line with the Ashcroft polling, I’m also happy to think that UKIP will come 2nd in over 100 constituencies, but fail to win outright in many. The act of coming second in a large number of seats (although they’ll feel like it’s a cup of sick) is actually a very strong result, that they’ll need to work hard, and more coherently, to build upon. For me, the really interesting point is who they are taking votes from: I had assumed years ago that they were the militant wing of the Conservative Party, but there’s good evidence that they’re taking working class Labour votes (which will see Tory MPs saved) and I’ve heard a number of LibDems in the midlands saying they’ve switched to UKIP too (which is interesting, when you compare the platforms). What Farage does very well, is tap into the concerns of actual voters. Not the issues that the mainstream think we ought to be bothered about, but what the ordinary voter is actually bothered about. That makes him a bit of a mystery to people.. well, like me. But after May 8, if he can actually build a party machine and match populism to policies that don’t get automatically shredded by the majority of the press, he’ll cause electoral chaos.

It’s been noticeable that defence and security have been almost totally missing from the election debates. There was half a day on trident, and the debate centred on 4 boats, 3 boats, no boats, and what is trident? But by lunchtime, it was as if all the parties had come together and agreed that trident and defence in general was a bad topic for all of them, and it was better not to talk about it. What I took from this is that defence is going to suffer further irksome cuts after the election no matter who wins, and none of them wish to point out the emperor has his fundamentals dangling in the breeze. We must surely be at the point where the next SDSR needs to have a strong element of public engagement – we are moving from full-spectrum to limited spectrum capabilities and the public are only just beginning to wake up to it. Miliband’s attempt to engage on foreign policy – at Chatham House – was met with howls and protests, and the modification of what went out from the Labour press office the night before rather indicated that the language had been loose. It would have made for a more interesting foreign policy debate if Miliband had gone for the strongest interpretation of what he said – the debate around interventionism and isolationism (a false dichotomy in my view) would have been worth having. But all the parties decided this was bad karma for them too. Even the debate on economics has swirled around, with Cameron’s job’s miracle not landing properly, nor Labour’s swipe at zero-hours jobs and food banks misfiring – you’d have to wonder what carnage Blair and Campbell would have caused with this.

So, on May 8th (and then for probably a month) we’ll witness the moving of the chairs as two credible minority governments vie to actually form the government. Who’d be the Queen in those circs: unenviable! Cameron has seemed – unfairly, so he keeps saying – disconnected and without gusto. But he’s done the job as a Chief Exec rather than a vision thing, whilst Miliband – in not setting fire to anything or falling over in public – has exceeded popular expectations. His brand of geek-immunity from social pressure allows him to rock up with Russell Brand and not be intimidated by the coolest kid in the playground, whilst meandering into a hen party and looking appropriately geeky. Weirdly, Miliband is becoming the Labour party’s secret weapon… six months ago, you’d have laughed to see it written.

This election of disengagement and the race to the deadheat of 33% makes me almost nostalgic for the crushing certainties of electoral domination of the 80s and early 00s. Almost….

 

Dans la soirée du 27 avril 2015, un A340 de l'escadron de transport 3/60 "Estérel" a décollé en direction du Népal, avec à son bord du fret humanitaire et des équipes de secouristes, suite au violent séisme qui a frappé le pays samedi dernier. Après une escale aux Émirats arabes unis, il a atterri ce matin à Katmandou.

Der Ausgang der britischen Unterhauswahlen im Mai 2015 ist ungewiss wie nie zuvor. Diese Unsicherheit speist sich aus drei längerfristigen Entwicklungen. Erstens verliert das traditionell stabile bipolare Parteiensystem an Bindewirkung, während mehrere kleine Parteien an Zustimmung gewinnen. Es drohen unklare Mehrheitsverhältnisse, eine schwierige Regierungsbildung und eine instabile Regierung. Zweitens werden sowohl in Schottland als auch in England die Grundstrukturen des Vereinigten Königreichs in Frage gestellt. Drittens entscheiden die Bürgerinnen und Bürger in der Wahl auch darüber, ob und mit welcher Zielrichtung sie in naher Zukunft über Großbritanniens EU-Mitgliedschaft abstimmen werden – und ob der Austritt des zweitgrößten EU-Staates damit zur realistischen Option wird.

USDAW és Wilson
Jogszabályok közelítése
The Court clarifies the term ‘establishment’ in connection with collective redundancies

USDAW and Wilson
Approximation of laws
The Court clarifies the term ‘establishment’ in connection with collective redundancies

USDAW et Wilson
Rapprochement des législations
La Cour clarifie la notion d’« établissement » en matière de licenciements collectifs

The MIDCAS (Mid Air Collision Avoidance System) consortium together with the European Defence Agency (EDA) announce the completion of successful flight-test and simulation campaigns conducted as part of the MIDCAS project. Major milestones included fully automatic avoidance manoeuvres of a Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) relying on fusion of non-cooperative sensors.

Successful completion of flight tests

Flights with a demonstrator Detect & Avoid (D&A) system integrated in the Sky-Y RPAS test bed have been conducted since December 2014 at Grazzanise Air Force Base, Italy. First fully automatic coupled avoidance manoeuvres were performed by the RPAS based on combined cooperative and non-cooperative detection as well as non-cooperative detection only and put on collision course with a manned aircraft. The MIDCAS system had full authority over the RPAS flight control system. 

The formal flight test permit to perform the automatic manoeuvre was obtained using results from earlier flight tests demonstrating the readiness to safely perform such critical manoeuvres. Flight tests have covered numerous scenarios and sensor combinations bringing RPAS traffic integration a significant step closer to reality. The Detect and Avoid system tested, performs collision avoidance and traffic avoidance using data fusion for various combinations of the included detection technologies, i.e. the cooperative IFF and ADS-B equipment and the non-cooperative electro-optical, infrared and radar sensors.

Important simulations

Several types of simulations (including Monte Carlo simulations and real-time simulations) have been completed which will allow the project teams to demonstrate that the functional design of MIDCAS can be compliant with the safety levels for manned aviation. Simulations in Air Traffic Management (ATM) environment have also been performed to validate the system requirements in an operational context. “We are pleased with the outcome of the simulations where the involved air traffic controllers concluded that they were confident to control RPAS within their airspace and did not get any additional workload from the RPAS, whose behavior was fully in line with manned aviation”, MIDCAS project leader Johan Pellebergs explains.

MIDCAS is the European Detect & Avoid project

The MIDCAS project is laying the groundwork for future developments in the field of RPAS air traffic integration. The project has gathered European industries within the field of D&A with the purpose to achieve jointly agreed results with European and global standardisation stakeholders.The MIDCAS project was launched in 2009 by five contributing Member States (France, Germany, Italy and Spain under the lead of Sweden) under the framework of the European Defence Agency, with a total budget of €50 million. 

“The project has produced tangible results in the field of air traffic integration, which is a critical enabler for the use of RPAS in European skies”, Peter Round, EDA Capability, Armament & Technology Director, says. “In order to improve Member States’ RPAS capabilities, technological and regulatory issues need to be taken into account as early as possible”, he adds. 

MIDCAS has been carried out by an industrial consortium composed of 11 partners: Saab (project leader) from Sweden, Sagem and Thales from France, Airbus D&S, Diehl BGT Defence, DLR and ESG from Germany, Alenia Aermacchi, Selex ES, CIRA from Italy and Indra from Spain. Throughout the project, external stakeholders such as EASA, EUROCONTROL, EUROCAE or JARUS, were involved in the process. “The only way to achieve a high level of acceptance and reach a common European agreement on how to resolve the D&A issue is through close cooperation”, Johan Pellebergs concludes.

More information

• Find out more about the European Defence Agency's initiatives in the field of RPAS

Wer sind diese „Wutbürger“ – das wurde immerhin zum „Wort des Jahres 2010“ gewählt – heute? Warum gehen sie auf die Straße und werden aktiv; wie kann man mit ihnen umgehen? Eine Expertentagung Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung ist mit einem Vortrag des Stuttgarter Kommunikationswissenschaftlers Prof. Dr. Frank Brettschneider den Rahmenbedingungen dieses Phänomens nachgegangen.

Am 26. Februar 2015 wurden per Präsidialerlass vorgezogene Präsidentschaftswahlen in Kasachstan für den 26. April 2015 angesetzt. Bereits am 14. Februar 2015 hatte der Rat der Vollversammlung der Völker Kasachstans den Präsidenten zu diesem Schritt aufgerufen.

  Joseph Henrotin, « Sur le remplacement des F-16 belges (et sur le « constructivisme » en études stratégiques) », DSI-presse.com, 22 avril 2015. Gilles Biaumet et Christophe Wasinski, « Remplacement des F-16 : la construction d’un besoin en matière d’armement« , Notes d’analyse du GRIP, 20 avril 2015. André Dumoulin, « Médias et sécurité-défense : de la visibilité PSDC (UE) et […]

André Dumoulin, « De la question de la résolution flamande sur le retrait des armes nucléaires américaines de Belgique, Emission « CQFD », RTBF-radio, 22 avril 2015. Joseph Henrotin, « Piratage de TV5 Monde : une illustration de la guerre hybride », Marianne, 11 avril 2015. Joseph Henrotin, « Yémen : comment Washington et Paris soutiennent l’Arabie saoudite », Marianne, 11 avril 2015. Joseph Henrotin, « Hebben […]

In the real world, the notions of security and defence are often used interchangeably. One of the flagship external policies of the European Union – the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) – also consists of both concepts. However, in the EU Treaty, these two elements have distinct funding bases. External security funding remains firmly anchored in the EU’s budget, while the defence/military component is controlled and funded almost exclusively inter-governmentally. This division is also reflected in the research domain, leading to a paradoxical situation: while the EU’s research budget (channelled through its current multi-annual framework programme, Horizon 2020) is arguably the largest research budget in the world (reaching around EUR 70 billion), defence research in Europe remains underfunded, to the detriment of European defence capabilities and economic interests. While the European Defence Agency (EDA) has successfully initiated some small-scale defence research pooling initiatives (reaching around EUR 350 million since its creation), it remains a drop in the ocean of needs. This paper analyses the current state of play, and some actions proposed to foster synergies between security- and defence-related research, focusing on a preparatory action (PA) and a pilot project in support of CSDP-related research.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Le blog "Blogdefense" a lu l'OTAN au XXIe siècle et vient de publier une fiche de lecture détaillée de l'ouvrage. Mille mercis à son auteur, DImitri Queloz. Car cela me permet également de signaler son blog, que je ne connaissais pas, avec plein de fiches de lecture. Bienvenue dans la blogosphère stratégique et de défense !

Cet ouvrage d’Olivier Kempf constitue une excellente synthèse sur l’OTAN. En quinze chapitres, l’auteur traite de manière claire et didactique de l’histoire de l’alliance, de son organisation et de ses institutions, de ses élargissements successifs, des relations entre les différents alliés, de leurs conceptions de l’alliance, des concepts stratégiques (1991, 1999 et 2010), des engagements réalisés, des défis actuels et de l’évolution prochaine de l’alliance…

Un premier thème particulièrement intéressant est celui de l’élargissement de l’OTAN. A l’origine, l'alliance est limitée dans son cadre géographique (nombre de membres et zone d’intérêt) et dans ses buts (défense contre l’URSS et ses alliés). Toutefois, assez rapidement, elle s’agrandit. De nouveaux Etats (Grèce, Turquie, RFA…) deviennent membres, entraînant une extension de la zone d’intérêt. Au lendemain de la chute du mur de Berlin et de la disparition de la menace constituée par le Pacte de Varsovie, l’OTAN n’est pas dissoute – cela aurait pourtant été une évolution possible et, somme toute, logique. L'alliance connaît au contraire un développement remarquable, et ce dans plusieurs domaines. Tout d’abord, de nombreux pays d’Europe de l’Est (Tchéquie, Hongrie, Pologne…) et même certains Etats ayant appartenu à l’URSS (Pays baltes) intègrent l’alliance. De plus, la zone d’intervention est étendue. C’est ainsi que l’OTAN est engagée dans des opérations en ex-Yougoslavie, en Afghanistan, en Libye… De nouvelles missions sont par ailleurs formulées (lutte contre le terrorisme, cyberguerre…). Enfin, la constitution de partenariats divers (Partenariat pour la Paix notamment) représente également une autre forme d’élargissement politique permettant une influence à grande échelle.

Les chapitres sur les relations entre l’OTAN et la défense européenne – les différentes organisations, CED, UEO, Europe de la défense de l’UE, et leur évolution sont analysées – sont également d’un intérêt tout particulier. Washington a toujours souhaité un renforcement de l’autonomie européenne en matière de défense. Le but est de faire partager de manière plus équilibrée le poids des efforts militaires. Ainsi, à la fin de la Guerre froide, lorsqu’est signé le traité de Maastricht qui crée les premiers éléments d’une politique extérieure et de défense commune aux Etats membres de l’Union européenne, le concept d’Identité Européenne de Sécurité et de Défense (IESD) est bien accepté. Toutefois, pour les Américains, l’alliance a toujours représenté un moyen d’influencer, voire de contrôler, les politiques extérieures et de défense des pays européens. Dès lors, une trop grande autonomie européenne en la matière déplait. Lorsque la déclaration franco-britannique de Saint-Malo de 1998 insiste sur ce point, Washington réagit en imposant la règle des 3 D – pas de duplication des institutions militaires de l’OTAN, pas de découplage par rapport aux USA, pas de discrimination envers les Etats de l’OTAN non membres de l’UE. Pour la majorité des pays européens, la domination américaine et la faible autonomie de la défense européenne créent cependant une situation très confortable. Elle leur permet de disposer d’une puissante protection militaire à moindres frais.

Soulignons cependant que la relation Europe – Etats-Unis en matière de sécurité s’est complexifiée depuis une vingtaine d’année. Pour Washington, l’Europe n’a plus la même importance stratégique qu’auparavant. La disparition de la menace soviétique et la montée en puissance de la Chine ont conduit les USA à se détourner de cette région du Monde. Les attentats du 11-Septembre et le refus de certains Etats européens de les soutenir dans leur intervention en Irak en 2003 les ont également incités à faire cavalier seul et à constituer des coalitions ad hoc (doctrine Rumsfeld). Les expériences des interventions de cette dernière décennie ont toutefois montré les limites du hard power américain. La conception de la politique de sécurité européenne, basée davantage sur le soft power et une approche globale des problèmes, ne peut plus être négligée et raillée – tout le monde se rappelle de la métaphore domestique de Robert Kagan "Les Américains font la cuisine, les Européens font la vaisselle". La relation OTAN – PESD est ainsi de plus en plus envisagée dans un cadre de complémentarité plutôt que de domination.

Le lecteur regrettera de ne pas pouvoir disposer des analyses de l'auteur pour la période qui a succédé au moment de la publication de l'ouvrage. Depuis une année environ, la situation internationale, notamment en Ukraine, a en effet connu des évolutions rapides et l'OTAN se voit contrainte à s'adapter une fois de plus, notamment en ce qui concerne l’engagement américain en Europe, les missions de défense et les relations avec la Russie. On ne peut donc que souhaiter pour bientôt une troisième édition mise à jour en tenant compte des derniers rebondissements de l’actualité!

Indonesiens Präsident Joko Widodo, auch Jokowi, »will innenpolitische Stärke demonstrieren«, sagt...

La crisis en la Habana dificulta - y sin embargo podría facilitar- las negociaciones con el ELN. Explicación perceptiva de por qué ha sido tan difícil empezar, de los riesgos que están corriendo el ELN y el gobierno, y de cómo podrían salir del atolladero.

Along with Head of the European Defence Agency and HR/VP Federica Mogherini, EDA Chief Executive Jorge Domecq travelled to Washington on 29 April to attend the 4th Annual Transatlantic Symposium on the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

Bringing together senior EU and US military and civilian leaders, the event provided a forum to discuss the role of CSDP and transatlantic cooperation in addressing challenges such as hybrid warfare, crisis management in Africa, maritime security and global security.

Transatlantic cooperation

After an opening address given by Federica Mogherini, EDA Chief Executive Jorge Domecq took part in a panel discussion focused on the reinforcement of the transatlantic security cooperation. There he shared views with Maciej Popowski, Deputy Secretary General, European External Action Service; and Jim Townsend, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy, as well as with the rest of the audience.

“It is important that we maintain a sound working relationship with NATO”, Jorge Domecq stressed during the conference. “In the current security environment we will need to further enhance this link by avoiding unnecessary duplications and reinforcing the EU’s ability to act as a security provider with the right set of capabilities and a strong and balanced defence industry”, he explained.

Constant interaction

“We have to keep in mind that each EU Member State can only rely on a single set of forces to achieve EU and NATO ambitions”, the EDA Chief Executive added. “Thanks to constant interaction between EDA and NATO experts, we have already established transatlantic links that could be further developed in the years to come”.

Jorge Domecq also took advantage of this trip to the United States to meet with Department of Defense officials.

More information

• Link to the event's website