Agrégateur de flux

Ende März 2015 fand in Hangzhou, der Hauptstadt der chinesischen Provinz Zhejiang, in Kooperation mit der Zhejiang International Studies University (ZISU) und der Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung (HSS) ein deutsch-chinesisches Symposium zur Umwelt- und Bildungsforschung statt. In

ما مایل هستیم مراتب تقدیر خود را به مذاکره کنندگان چین، اتحادیه اروپا، فرانسه، آلمان، ایران، روسیه، انگلیس، و ایالات متحده آمریکا برای تلاش های خستگی ناپذیرشان از مهر ماه 1392 تا به امروز که منجر به دستیابی به چهارچوب برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک در روز 13 فروردین 1394 شد، ابراز داریم.

« L’Etat islamique » (EI) médiatise avec beaucoup d’habileté les atrocités qu’il commet, poussant les Etats à réagir dans l’émotion. Après l’Irak et la Syrie, c’est maintenant la Libye qui est concernée. La décapitation de 21 chrétiens égyptiens a conduit l’Egypte à bombarder des camps d’entraînements sur la côte libyenne et à lancer une offensive diplomatique auprès du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies (ONU) pour qu’il autorise des opérations militaires. Les exemples assez peu concluants de l’Irak et de la Syrie –sans même évoquer la campagne de l’OTAN en Libye de 2011 – devraient pourtant faire réfléchir : bombarder ne peut pas tenir lieu de stratégie politique, d’autant qu’en Libye, pays majoritairement sunnite, l’EI ne peut se nourrir des mêmes revendications sectaires qui l’aident en Irak et en Syrie.

Here is a new Iraqi paradox: whatever progress the Shi’ite Muslim-dominated Baghdad government makes against jihadi insurgents occupying large swathes of north-western Iraq, it is simultaneously undermining what is left of the Iraqi state, whose frailty and malfunctions created the environment in which jihadism was able to surge in the first place.

A MOVUPP Bt. a „Fiatalok vállalkozóvá válásának támogatása a konvergencia régiókban” című pályázaton 6 millió forint uniós támogatást nyert el projektjéhez, melynek során tanácsadás igénybe vétele mellett a filmkészítés, médiatartalom szolgáltatás, utómunka management tevékenységéhez szükséges eszközparkját fejlesztette.

A kecskeméti MOVUPP Bt. médiatartalom szolgáltatással foglalkozó vállalkozás, melynek fő tevékenysége a filmgyártás (forgatásszervezés, forgatás, eszköz beszerzés, gyártásvezetés, rendezés), utómunka folyamatok végzése (vágás, konvertálás, animáció készítés), média management (fájl archiválás, fájl transzfer szolgáltatás), valamint online oktatási tananyag készítése.

Az induló médiavállalkozás saját eszközzel forgatott filmek nyersanyagtár létrehozását és értékesítését is végzi online felületen, valamint előzetes tartalmi és műszaki tanácsadást nyújt, igazodva a megrendelő igényeihez.

A dél-alföldi cég archivált nyersanyagokat is kezel, igény esetén azok újrafeldolgozását is végzi, továbbá szükség esetén egyedi animáció gyártással is foglalkozik a bérkonvertálás, meglévő vagy akár idegen forrásból érkező médiatartalmak transzkódolása, csoportosítása és azok kívánt helyre való transzfere mellett.

A projekt során a MOVUPP Médiatartalom Szolgáltató Bt. tanácsadásokat vett igénybe, munkabér támogatásban részesült, valamint a működéséhez szükséges új médiatechnikai eszközöket szerzett be.

A fejlesztés eredményeként megvalósult a fiatal vállalkozók célja azáltal, hogy a cég elindítása mellett a technológiai fejlesztéssel versenyképességüket is növelték.

A „Filmkészítés, médiatartalom szolgáltatás, utómunka management a Dél-alföldi régióban” elnevezésű, 6 millió forint, 90%-os támogatást elnyert, 6,67 millió forint összköltségű fejlesztési projekt 2014. november 1-jén indult és 2015. április 30-án zárul.

We would like to recognise the nuclear negotiators representing China, the European Union, France, Germany, Iran, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States for their unwavering endeavours since October 2013, which have led to agreement on the framework for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, announced on 2 April 2015.

The International Crisis Group applauds the 2 April agreement on a framework for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action reached between Iran and the P5+1/EU3+3 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany). This achievement is a triumph of multilateral diplomacy and a testament to the seriousness of purpose, patience and persistence of the negotiators involved in this process.

The New York Times, in reporting an "agreement" implies that whatever is announced will fall short of the original goals going into Lausanne. Instead of having a framework agreement, they'll announce some kind of diplomatic understanding. It will lack the commitments necessary to make it a framework, and the Iranians have refused to allow the parties to call it an agreement.
The Israel Report notes some key things to be on the lookout for as the agreement/framework/understanding is discussed:

• Can the administration regain momentum in DC after Lausanne debacles? - Lausanne may turn out to be pyrrhic progress for the Obama administration. The White House had hoped to use this round to lock down an agreement by March 31, which would build momentum heading into further negotiations. Instead they not only missed the deadline, but they looked bad doing it. Seemingly every morning before March 31 had a scoop about a different enormous concession to Iran. On Wednesday the WSJ revealed that the US had punted on Iranian disclosure, on Thursday the AP revealed the US may let the Iranians spin centrifuges at their underground military bunker at Fordow, and on Monday The New York Times revealed that the Iranians had backtracked on shipping out their enriched uranium - and quoted a US official promising to find alternative solutions acceptable to Tehran. Then after the deadline slipped, there was coverage of FMs expressing wildly different public assessments, Zarif threatening the West that this is their last best chance, the Iranians digging in on new demands, administration press conferences being canceled, etc. The total effect was summed up by a senior Congressional staffer speaking to a reporter on the ground in Lausanne: "people here are wondering what the f___ is going on".
  
  
• How much of the deal will be secret? What did the US have to give the Iranians to make a public commitment? - The overarching dynamic from the last week has actually been very basic: the Americans wanted the Iranians to publicly commit to specific concessions and the Iranians kept refusing. But the P5+1 has made a range of highly publicized and functionally irreversible concessions to Iran across every core area involved in the talks because the Iranians refused to budge: centrifuge dismantlement, zero enrichment, heavy water plutonium-related work, ballistic missile development, disclosure, etc. Then there was the Lausanne flood of concessions. US negotiators couldn't go back to Congress now and say 'the Iranians won't give us anything yet, but they promise to make concessions some time in the future after they get more relief.' So for the last two days, US negotiators struggled to find anything more they could give the Iranians, in exchange for which the Iranians would make a public commitment on something. Question 1: did they succeed in getting the Iranians to make a public concession? Question 2: what did the Americans have to give up to get that public concession?
  
  
• What happened to P5+1 unity? - If the NYT has their scoop right, the joint statement will be from Iran and the EU, not Iran and the P5+1. The arrangement will raise eyebrows. The importance of maintaining P5+1 unity has been the argument - the central argument - that the administration has used to push back against efforts by Congress to impose new sanctions. The claim has been that Iran will walk away if Congress acts, then the P5+1 will blame Washington and fracture, then the sanctions regime will collapse. If there are already divisions inside the P5+1, that argument will get significantly less play - and the administration will be asked to explain why Congress shouldn't have acted earlier. Remember that Russian FM Lavrov and Chinese FM Wang left Lausanne as talks were coming down to the wire.
  
  
• As per the AP report on Thursday, Zarif confirmed the U.S. has completely caved on the Fordow - the underground bunker, built into the side of a mountain, which the Iranians emptied and made into an illicit enrichment facility. President Obama said as late as 2012: "We know they don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordo in order to have a peaceful program", and the Iranians said 'no'. In response, the US conceded and said Iran could keep it open as a research facility, but they had to remove all the centrifuges for storage. This was claimed to a sign of Iranian flexibility. Then this week, it emerged that in fact the Iranians would be allowed to keep centrifuges spinning inside the mountain, spinning Germanium or similar non-nuclear elements as opposed to Uranium. The Obama Administration is claiming there will not be any "enrichment" going on at Fordow - a claim that ignores the fact centrifuges spin isotopes into lighter and heavier elements, thereby "enriching" the material. That's what they do.
  
  
This isn't a minor point. The concession has the potential to gut the whole deal:


• Allows N-generation centrifuge R&D beyond the reach of the West- since the process is the exact same process, Iran will have a hardened facility where it will be able to research and develop N-generation centrifuges. Zarif bragged from the stage in Lausanne that Iranian R&D on centrifuges will continue on IR-4s, IR-5s, IR-6s, and IR-8s, and that the pace of research will be tied to Iranian scientific progress. The development of advanced centrifuges would give the Iranians a leg up if they decide to break out, and will put them instantly within a screw's turn of a nuke when the deal expires.
  
  
• Leaves Iranian nuclear infrastructure running beyond the reach of the West - if the Iranians kick out inspectors and dare the world to respond, the West will have zero way to intervene. The Iranians will have a head start on enrichment, and a place to do it beyond the reach of Western weapons. The administration's early pushback has been that the breakout time will still be a year, so they could in theory reimpose sanctions, but it takes more than a year for sanctions to take an economic toll. So: zero options to stop a breakout.

And now you know why Mohammed Zarif is laughing.

Now we know why Mohammed Zarif is laughing. Photo: The Guardian;  Pool/AP
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Iran.

Dijsselbloem, left, with Spanish rival de Guindos during a eurogroup meeting in December

The second quarter of 2015 will not only bring a crescendo in the ongoing Greek crisis for the 19 eurozone finance ministers who make up the eurogroup, which must ultimately decide whether Athens gets the bailout funds it needs to avoid bankruptcy. It will also trigger something nearly as closely-watched by EU insiders: an active race to head the group.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch finance minister who was the surprise pick to preside over the powerful committee when he was plucked from obscurity just weeks after national elections pushed his party into government in late 2012, will see his two-and-a-half year term end in July.

Unusually for such high-profile EU posts, both Dijsselbloem and his leading challenger, Spanish finance minister Luis de Guindos, have publicly declared their interest in the job. Indeed, de Guindos received a very public, full-throated endorsement from his prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, at last month’s EU summit in Brussels.

Although the politicking hasn’t really begun in earnest yet – the group is somewhat preoccupied with Greece at the moment – the Brussels Blog has talked to a handful of insiders to gauge where the race stands. Most believe it will come down to a political showdown between the EU’s two main pan-European party groups, the centre-right European People’s Party and the centre-left Party of European Socialists.

Here’s how most are handicapping it now – plus a few dark horses who could emerge if the two men cancel each other out.

Read more

Date de publication: Jeudi 02 Avril 2015Couverture: Type de publication: RapportSous la direction de (complément): Gilles Babinet et Robert VassoyanPrésidents du groupe de travailRésumé long: La révolution du Big data et des objets connectés crée d’immenses perspectives de création de valeur mais suscite également des interrogations nouvelles sur la protection des droits des individus. Pour renforcer la confiance entre les acteurs et soutenir le développement de modèles économiques innovants, les différentes parties prenantes doivent saisir les opportunités offertes et travailler en confiance.

This article initially appeared in the 7th issue of European Defence Matters, the magazine of the European Defence Agency.
Click here to access the full digital edition

Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq… The Cold War aftermath has seen European armed forces engaged in a wide variety of operational commitments around the globe, vastly expanding the set of missions they have to conduct. “Nowadays, soldiers often operate among civilian populations in a set of missions ranging from emergency humanitarian relief to crowd and riot control, counter-insurgency and interposition between warring factions”, Jean Michelin, detached to the EDA as an intern from France and acting as Project Officer Engage, points out. But in these complex and demanding situations, the soldier on the ground can no longer rely on the sole use of his weapon if he wants to avoid a catastrophic escalation of violence; somewhere in the broad range of requirements that have fallen on the shoulders of modern armed forces, the need for non-lethal capabilities (NLC) has emerged.

Lessons from Kosovo

For western armed forces, the Kosovo conflict acted as an eye-opening experience in that regard. “In 1999/2000, we had to resort to using non-lethal capabilities during our mission in the city of Mitrovica, where Austrian units were deployed within German, British and French troops in order to prevent the escalation of riots”, Colonel Erich Weissenböck, Deputy Head of the Force Development Division in the Austrian Ministry of Defence, explains. “As soldiers were attacked with stones and explosives, they used wire barriers and other tactics to try and contain the threat. But eventually they had to use tear gas, shotguns and even snipers to stop the demonstrators”, he adds.

With today’s military experience from various theaters of operation around the globe, non-lethal capabilities could be regarded as a logical step forward for military expeditionary forces, especially when operating under the UN flag and the blue helmet – and yet, somehow, their development has been very slow. Currently, apart from the notable crowd and riot control era experienced by NATO forces in Kosovo, they are virtually non-existent in land forces across the globe, despite an identified shortfall. 

“To ensure that a potential threat doesn’t enter a protected perimeter, or to deter an angry crowd from approaching a compound, it often boils down to the use of the warning shot, which is most of the time impractical and dangerous, let alone can lead to collateral damage”, stresses Jean Michelin, who is also a French Army officer with significant operational experience. “Moreover, using conventional weapons in a non-lethal manner will usually deter a potential hostile action by an individual, but its impact on a crowd is less reliable, especially when there is a threat of violence escalation”, he adds.

Maritime domain

But land forces are not the only ones who might benefit from the development of NLC. The EU-led counter-piracy operation Atalanta conducted off the Somali coast has demonstrated the need for naval forces to neutralise potential pirates before they can attack nearby commercial ships. “In combination with audible or visual warnings, non-lethal weapons provide a stand-off with regards to the threat, thus allowing to identify the real intentions of a potential adversary”, Colonel Weissenböck details. 

With an identified capability gap on one hand and a proven operational need on the other, ten Member States (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden) expressed in October 2007 their will to set up a dedicated NLC project team under the framework of the European Defence Agency. Over the last seven years, and under a proactive chairmanship from Austria, the project team focussed on four main strands of work, starting with a development of a NLC concept by the EU Military Staff (EUMS), in synergy with similar efforts previously conducted under a NATO framework.

The project team also dealt with information exchange between Member States, so as to provide them with a forum to remain aware of national initiatives in terms of procurements, cooperation potential, interoperability as well as research and technology (R&T). The effects of non-lethal capabilities were also explored, with a specific attention on legal issues and the medical impact of NLCs.

Future systems © Austrian MOD

Perhaps the most visible output of the project team’s work in the field of NLCs, two R&T studies are conducted in order to assess technologies available for future non-lethal weapon systems. “Based on operational experience, a need for longer-range capabilities has already been identified”, explains Colonel Erich Weissenböck, who also happens to be the Chairman of EDA’s NLC project team. “Additional applications, such as the protection of vehicles and convoys, also need to be explored”, he points out. While one of the studies focuses on microwave-based NLC systems, the other explores optical and acoustic solutions.

These two studies help to provide a comprehensive picture of the current state-of-play regarding NLC technology development, as well as of the challenges arising in research. “For example, the technology to direct a non-lethal energy beam at a hostile individual already exists”, Jean Michelin underlines. “However, it is still far from the technology-readiness level needed to integrate it into a portable, easily deployable, autonomous and ruggedized device that would match basic operational requirements”, he adds. 

Equipment opportunities

Although it is still being discussed, the project team’s next step could be the identification of NLC equipment opportunities for Member States, as well as the definition of a set of common requirements based on the available technology and an agreed concept of operation. “This in turn could lead to the establishment of a common project whose exact scope will have to be decided by the Member States”, Jean Michelin underlines. 

The end objective is to provide European soldiers with a common tactical doctrine and even a common set of tools when it comes to NLC operations, thus greatly increasing their effectiveness and interoperability. But this will not be a quick win. “In contemporary operations like in cooperative capability development, the only lasting achievements require commitment, caution, time and effort”, the French army officer points out. “It is through small victories and determination that we will succeed in reaching our objective, however far it may seem.” 

More information

• Non-lethal capabilities
• Non-Lethal Micro-Wave State-of-the-Art (HPM)
• Non-Lethal Optical and Acoustic Systems (NLOAS)

 

This article originally appeared in YaleGlobal Online.

 

Blogs continue to wield influence; governments and bloggers could coordinate on regulations to increase the potential.

The internet and global interconnectivity, while often taken for granted, has changed the face of social reality. Weblogs, more commonly known as blogs, have emerged and in many ways manifest both extremes of positive and negative potential.

Because blogs have tremendous potential to be used either for good or ill, they could be dubbed  a new avatar of a power group supplementing the old. The modern expression of the separation of powers in the executive, legislative and judicial branches became known as the three estates, later to be followed by a “fourth estate” in the form of the media. The designation has often been contested simply because the media does not implement policy or mandate particular activity, yet these criticisms miss the larger point. The essence of “estates” as used here refers to sources of power.

When the term “fourth estate” was coined by Edmund Burke and referred to by Thomas Carlyle, their astute observation was that the press had come to wield an equal or occasionally greater power to influence policy than the original three state powers.

The internet multiplied this power, providing the possibility for previously unheard voices to gain an audience as well as provide another check on the power of the other estates. This led me in 2007 to designate blogs as  the fifth estate .

The revelations of Edward Snowden via WikiLeaks are a resounding example. The evidence he provided about the extent and mechanisms of US state surveillance have sparked overdue global  discussions about the limits of privacy in the age of the Internet, as well as closer investigations into the legal and technical aspects of spying and surveillance.  Blogs  have emerged almost imperceptibly, especially as so much content is non-political. Still, blogs nonetheless represent a tremendous capacity for the masses to disseminate information, encouraging public participation and interest in politics, and opinions, which in many countries can be openly expressed without censorship, barriers or editorial boards. This realization has started to cause anxiety in some countries that have a poor record of civil liberties. In China, for instance, blogs like  “China Change”  have emerged as sources of news and commentaries on human rights and civil society issues in the country.

Blogs have been bolstered by more frequent contributions from experts and shown themselves to be the least constrained forum. Examples  come from established journalists, members of parliaments, and political parties from different ends of the political spectrum or key figures in global politics such as  John Kerry .

In a hyper-capitalist environment dominated by media giants, the means available to independent journalism have narrowed considerably. The advent of blogs has reinvigorated such possibilities of independence, giving not only journalists but anyone with access to the internet the capacity to express views and disseminate information. At the same time, some adverse effects have been recorded as so-called netizens and  bloggers  covering political events or revolutions in real time later became targets of backlash. Recently Avijit Roy, an influential Bangladeshi-born American blogger, was hacked to death in Dhaka. He was a persistent critic of the Islamist radicals.

As a mechanism of positive policy reform, blogs continue to face challenges:

How the blogosphere tends to be perceived: Despite general acknowledgment that freedom from influence or constraint of major media channels or ideological bias is a favorable quality, blogs often suffer from the concern that their authors lack journalistic experience or other relevant credentials.

bsence of oversight: Questions are raised about blogs’ lack of editorial review and insufficient fact-checking mechanisms. Such shortcomings leave readers in a dilemma. Yet well-researched and reviewed information from dominant media outlets can be prone to biases, too. Doubts can also emerge by the perception of the blogosphere as a source of entertainment and “light” information, rather than contributor of serious content. Further issues of credibility arise also as some bloggers joined programs like the  “paid blogger program”  where they commit to endorse companies or products in exchange for money.

A source of polarized views: Without oversight and checks, blogs can serve morally dubious intentions by those who aim to spread propaganda, radicalize readers or exacerbate antagonisms. For readers who deliberately seek out only blogs that reinforce their views without checks, such content ceases to become a source of understanding.

Sensitive or dangerous information: Blogs can disrupt society, business and government activities, such as by  disclosures of secret information . Apple Computers, for instance, reportedly filed a lawsuit against bloggers who communicated confidential company information on their blogs. Other blogs  disseminate information or blueprints for constructing weapons of mass destruction or propagate  anarchist messages . All of these concerns would be ruled out in more traditional media sources by journalistic integrity and institutional checks.

A primary countermeasure to these negative implications is education. The ways in which readers encounter and relate to information is dramatically influenced by their education as well as their awareness of the pitfalls relating to the information source.

Furthermore, serious bloggers should welcome expert guest commentary, critical feedback and open dialogue in their blogs. Only through education and critical engagement can readers become more demanding and circumspect, which in turn improves the quality of blogs.  

The question of oversight-free authorship remains the prevailing concern, and people must become critical readers with a heightened sensitivity to unjustified positions or unsubstantiated claims.

Other regulatory steps are also necessary to limit the extreme abuses of blogs. The question of absolute anonymity has a downside from the viewpoint of global security. Anonymity can protect activists working in the world’s most brutal areas, but can also allow rogues or criminals to spread ideas without being easily tracked.

Governments must combat bloggers engaging in deliberately radicalizing rhetoric, employing hate speech, or engaging in criminal activity including human trafficking or pornography.

These recommendations might raise concerns about censorship and rights to free speech, but  just as there are reasonable limits to free speech in public life, the same logic and amount of regulation should be applied in the digital domain. There are inherent difficulties about establishing such limits in an even-handed way yet this should not mean that these limits should not be sought and imposed.

The blogosphere must function as an extension of the public space, where people can be held accountable and liable for their actions as well as potentially investigated for threats of violence or criminal activity.  Nevertheless, the plurality of legal systems and  many interpretations  of freedom of speech or hate speech remains a persistent challenge in the blogosphere. Conundrums are bound to arise as the internet is a global medium and the removal of some content will be problematic especially if the servers are located in countries where those messages are not illegal. As an information stream that reveals public opinion largely free from outside influence, the capacity of blogs for shaping attitudes positively is tremendous. Governments must ensure that the power of blogs is cultivated and implemented in collaborative ways, with a view to preserve peace and human dignity. Contributors, too, must become more proactive and committed to integrity and responsible content. The idea of a  bloggers’ code of ethics , proposed a few years ago, deserves renewed consideration.

Undoubtedly, the future of information holds high potential for blogs. Their political relevance is only expected to expand.

The question is not whether or not the influence of the fifth estate will increase, but what form this influence will take and what regulatory mechanisms are necessary to implement to cultivate blogs’ positive potential.

 

 

>> Back to GCSP Staff Publications 

Dacára annak, hogy a lengyeleknek csupán 3 százaléka vallja magát ateistának, vagy agnosztikusnak, 70 százalékuk támogatja az in vitro...

Analyste pour le think tank stratégique Sogdiane, Christine Dugoin-Clément publie avec Mathieu Boulègue un livre sur l'Ukraine, mal en point. Entretien.

Russian T-95 Main Battle Tank