Agrégateur de flux

Il y a quelques mois, l'ami Philippe (blog) me propose d'organiser un colloque sur le Big Data. Pour décentrer un peu le sujet, nous avons voulu nous intéresser à la donnée, sous-jacente au BD et rarement étudiée en tant que telle (voir l’argument scientifique ci-dessous) ; de même, notre tropisme stratégique nous a poussé à regarder l'aspect stratégique de la chose, tant en stratégie publique qu'en stratégie économique. Ceci donne lieu à un beau colloque, qui réunit des gens de tous horizons (par exemples : Ch. Balagué, Th Berthier, F. Douzet, O. Hassid, A. Rouvroy, K. Salamatian, Ch. Schmidt, M. Watin-Augouard) pour donner lieu à échanges et discussions. Cela aura lieu à l’École Militaire le lundi 23 mars. Inscrivez vous vite ! Argument, programme et détails ci-dessous.

Le colloque est organisé par EchoRadar et le Centre d’Études Supérieures de la Gendarmerie (et l'école d'officiers de la gendarmerie). Le partenaire principal est Keyrus, acteur central du BD en France. Sont partenaires la Revue Défense Nationale, la Vigie, la chaire Castex de cyberstratégie, la chaire Saint-Cyr de cyberdéfense. L'inscription au colloque est gratuite et s'effectue à partir du lien suivant

Argument

La « donnée » est devenue une valeur centrale de nos sociétés : manipulée à l’origine dans des « bases de données » où elle était cantonnée, elle a pris son autonomie et suscité des exploitations nouvelles, qu’il s’agisse de « données ouvertes » (open data) ou de « données massives » (Big data).

Le mouvement n’est pas fini : la révolution cyber va se poursuivre avec la production et l’utilisation de nouvelles quantités astronomiques de données émises et produites par l’Internet des objets, la robotique massifiée ou le corps connecté.

Parmi toutes ses caractéristiques, l'Internet des objets sera un producteur massif de données. Cette production massive, couplée aux capacités de calcul importantes de l'informatique actuelle et à venir, augure d'un traitement massif de données récoltées, quand bien même elles ne seraient pas ordonnées selon les schémas de bases de données.

Les premières mises en œuvre apparaissent déjà, de nombreux professionnels étant intéressés par les utilisations potentielles de ces données : urbanistes, médecins, sportifs, forces de sécurité mais aussi assureurs.

Tous cherchent à améliorer la performance de leur organisation grâce à une approche scientifique des phénomènes qu'ils génèrent ou auxquels ils sont confrontés, en laissant le moins de prise possible au hasard et à l'incertitude.

Dès lors, pour appréhender ce monde extrêmement mouvant, il convient de s’interroger non seulement sur les données mais sur la notion même de donnée. Vient un moment où leur nombre devient tellement élevé que la quantité ne signifie plus par elle-même. Passer du pluriel au singulier permet ainsi de poser un meilleur diagnostic, étape essentielle et première de toute démarche stratégique. À l’issue seulement peut-on envisager les objectifs et esquisser les chemins pour les atteindre, dans une double perspective de stratégie d’entreprise et de stratégie étatique. Cette démarche préside au déroulé de ce colloque autour de la donnée.

Après avoir examiné ce que peut signifier la donnée (ce qu’elle est et son sens) et comment elle peut être utilisée de façon agrégée, il s’interroge sur les conséquences stratégiques qu’elle peut produire, aujourd’hui et demain : celles de l'entreprise (producteur et utilisateur du big data) comme celles de l’État (gardien de l'ordre public mais aussi des libertés publiques) tout en les mettant en regard du droit actuel et de ses évolutions envisageables.

Programme

• 08h45 //Introduction /Général Marc Watin-Augouard, Directeur du Centre de Recherches de l'EOGN

Matinée : La donnée, singulière et plurielle

09h00 //Table ronde 1/ Qu’est-ce qu’une donnée ? Modérateur Jean-Paul Pinte (Université Catholique de Lille, Dr en Information Scientifique et Technique )

• ♦ Pour un informaticien : Jean Rohmer (Pole Universitaire De Vinci)
• ♦ Pour un économiste : Christian Schmidt (Paris Dauphine)
• ♦ Pour un philosophe : Emmanuel Brochier (IPC)
• ♦ Pour un sociologue : Antoinette Rouvroy (Université de Namur)

10h00 //Débat - 10h45 //Pause

11h00 //Table ronde 2/ De la donnée aux données Modérateur Christine Ballagué (Institut Mines Télécom Paris – Vice-Présidente du Conseil National du Numérique)

• ♦ Données de masse (Big Data) aujourd'hui : Jean-François Marcotorchino (Thalès)
• ♦ Données et ville intelligente : Jean-François Soupizet (Futuribles)
• ♦ L’Internet des objets et le décuplement des données : Eric Hazane (EchoRadar)
• ♦ Véracité de la donnée ? : Thierry Berthier Université de Limoges, EchoRadar
• ♦ Qui possède les données ? Gérard Haas (avocat)

12h00 //Débat - 12h45 //Pause Cocktail

Après midi : La donnée au cœur des stratégies

14h00 //Table ronde 3/ Donnée et stratégie d'entreprise - Modérateur :Général Watin-Augouard (EOGN)

• ♦ Données de masse (Big Data) aujourd'hui : Jean-François Marcotorchino (Thalès)
• ♦ Les données, nouvelle devise ? Yannick Harrel (EchoRadar)
• ♦ Transformer l’entreprise autour de la donnée : Bruno Teboul (Keyrus)
• ♦ Des acteurs français ou européens du Big Data, est-ce possible ? : Laurent Bloch (IFAS)
• ♦ Intelligence économique et Big Data : Jean-Pierre Vuillerme (ADIT)

15h00 //Débat 15h45 //Pause

16h00 //Table ronde 4/ Donnée et stratégie de l’état Modérateur : Olivier Hassid (CDSE)

• ♦ Le Big Data, le RoSO (Renseignement d’origine Source Ouverte) , et la transformation de la fonction renseignement Axel Dyèvre (CEIS)
• ♦ Les militaires et l’utilisation militaire opérationnelle des données Olivier Kempf (La Vigie, EchoRadar)
• ♦ Sécurité intérieure et Big Data Philippe Davadie (CESG)
• ♦ Peut-on réguler internationalement le Big data ? Thibault Lamidel, EchoRadar
• ♦ Cadre national ou européen ? Frederick Douzet (Chaire Castex de Cyberstratégie)

17h00 //Débat

17h45 //Conclusion générale par Olivier Kempf

Pour plus d'informations Nathalie Floc'h : +33 (0)1 41 34 11 48 - colloque-bigdata@keyrus.com

The substance of Netanyahu's speech:

• Two major concessions have gutted the Iran deal, making it into bad deal: a concession allowing Iran sufficient infrastructure during the deal to permit a breakout (i.e. none or limited dismantlement) and a concession allowing Iran to become a legitimate nuclear power on the brink of breakout after the deal (the sunset clause).
  
  
• Iran should have to meet three conditions, in addition to Iran giving up its nuclear infrastructure, before sanctions are lifted. Iran should be forced to end: aggression against its Arab neighbors, its export of terrorism, its pledge to annihilate Israel. Crucial line: "if Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country."
  
  
• Key line overall: "If the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them."

Two key points Netanyahu made:

1. Centrifuges - Bloomberg View's Eli Lake had the scoop. Netanyahu's major concern with the deal was the extent to which the P5+1 global powers have caved on centrifuge restrictions. During the deal - because the limited dismantlement concession - Iran will retain sufficient capacity to cheat their way to a bomb. Your key line for this part is "inspectors document violations; they don't stop them." After the deal - because of the sunset clause concession - Iran will be a screw's turn away from a bomb within a decade.
   
   
2. Israeli-Arab alignment - Netanyahu gestured toward this dimension during his AIPAC speech, but as expected he heavily emphasized the danger that Iran poses to its Arab neighbors (which have coalesced into a single bloc of traditional American allies: Israel plus the so-called Arab pragmatists). Note also this part carefully: the first of the three conditions that Netanyahu gave for lifting restrictions on Iran was that Tehran must cease its aggression against its Arab neighbors. There is little if no daylight between traditional American allies on this issue. Key line: "Israel's neighbors -- Iran's neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb."

Hat tip: The Israel Project

Here is the video of Netanyahu's Iran speech to Congress




The complete transcript of Netanyahu’s address to Congress (Washington Post)

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you...

(APPLAUSE)

... Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority -- Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it's good to see you back on your feet.

(APPLAUSE)

I guess it's true what they say, you can't keep a good man down.

(LAUGHTER)

My friends, I'm deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.

I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

[READ: Republicans loved every word of Bibi's address]

The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.

(APPLAUSE)

Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American -- of America's people and of America's presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.

(APPLAUSE)

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.

Now, some of that is widely known.

(APPLAUSE)

Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.

I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.

In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.

Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.

(APPLAUSE)

In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.

And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.

But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.

(APPLAUSE)

And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you've done for Israel.

My friends, I've come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

We're an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.

The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

(APPLAUSE)

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated -- he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn't exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.

But Iran's regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran's regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.


The people of Iran are very talented people. They're heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots -- religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime's founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to "export the revolution throughout the world."

I'm standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America's founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world's oil supply.

Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That's just last week, while they're having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran's attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran's aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

(APPLAUSE)

We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!

Rouhani's government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I'd like to see someone ask him a question about that.

Iran's regime is as radical as ever, its cries of "Death to America," that same America that it calls the "Great Satan," as loud as ever.

Now, this shouldn't be surprising, because the ideology of Iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

Don't be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn't turn Iran into a friend of America.

Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.

So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember -- I'll say it one more time -- the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can't let that happen.

(APPLAUSE)

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.

Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran's break-out time would be very short -- about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel's.

And if -- if Iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran's nuclear program and Iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here's the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don't stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn't stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.

Now, we're warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It's done that on at least three separate occasions -- 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.


Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock -- as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught -- caught twice, not once, twice -- operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn't even know existed.

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don't know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, "If there's no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn't have one." Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that's why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it's the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It's a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran's Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount -- 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

And by the way, if Iran's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.

So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That's why this deal is so bad. It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite -- would only wet Iran's appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world's: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel's neighbors -- Iran's neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb.

And many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won't change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won't be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks -- if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we'll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I've come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.

(APPLAUSE)

Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second...

(APPLAUSE)

Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

(APPLAUSE)

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.


(APPLAUSE)

My friends, what about the argument that there's no alternative to this deal, that Iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can't drive. A pilot without a plan can't fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can't make nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table -- and this often happens in a Persian bazaar -- call their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.

(APPLAUSE)

And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.

My friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it.

(APPLAUSE)

Now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true.

The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in place until Iran's aggression ends.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that won't give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country...

(APPLAUSE)

... no country has a greater stake -- no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.

The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don't have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.

(APPLAUSE)

My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.

(APPLAUSE)

Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, "never again."

(APPLAUSE)

And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

(APPLAUSE)

Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.

But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.

(APPLAUSE)

We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

(APPLAUSE)

This is why -- this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.

(APPLAUSE)

But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors.

(APPLAUSE)

Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.


And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), "Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them."

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

You're wonderful.

Thank you, America. Thank you.

Thank you.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Netanyahu and Iran.

Yemen is on the brink of collapse, with Houthi rebels having taken over large parts of the country, including the capital, Sanaa.

After months of tightening control and the resignation of former President Hadi in January, the Houthis have dissolved parliament and announced plans for a new interim assembly and five-member presidential council, which will rule for up to two years.

This, combined with internal tensions between north and south, upheavals fueled by the Arab spring and the presence of Al Qaeda, has made the situation unsustainable.

In this video-interview, FRIDE senior researcher Barah Mikaïl analyses the country’s future prospects.

 Photo Credit: Richard_Messenger

 

Alekszej Navalnij Borisz Nyemcov temetésének napján nyilvánosságra hozott levelének fordítása.

Read more...

Provides an overview of Mozambique, including key events and facts about this former Portuguese colony and its recovery from a long civil war in the 1980s.

Kétnyelvűsíti logóját a nyolcadik alkalommal megrendezendő Kürti Borfesztivál. A logó a borfesztivál egyik legláthatóbb jellegzetessége, tömegek szeme elé kerül, megjelenik az óriásplakátokon és meghatározza a rendezvény identitását. A vizuális kétnyelvűség azért is fontos, mert a magyar feliratok jelenléte javít a nyelvhasználati tudatosságon, bátrabban merünk és akarunk megszólalni az anyanyelvünkön.

A kürti pályázat beküldési határideje március 15., a legjobb pályázó ingyenes belépőjegyet nyer a kürti fesztiválra. A nyertes a Szlovákiai Magyarok Kerekasztala szimbolikus díját is elnyeri. A pályázati munkák pontos paramétereit és a pályázat módját a kiírásban lehet megtekinteni.

 

Provides an overview of Namibia, including key events and facts about this sparsely populated but stable country on Africa's south-west coast.

Le prix Albert Thibaudet a été remis cette année le 3 juillet 2014 à MM. Jean Lopez et Lasha Otkhmezuri pour leur ouvrage Joukov, éditions Perrin, 2013.

dd

Guest post by Diana Quintero, Vice Minister for Strategy and Planning, Ministry of National Defense, Colombia

Little is known about the Cartagena Dialogue – and I am not referring to a historical treaty signed in our beautiful walled city. Instead, I am referring to a new meeting point for leaders of Asian countries (such as Japan, South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines and Indonesia) and countries of the region (such as Chile, Peru, Panama, and Mexico) that will be coming together for the first time to establish a strategic dialogue on global trends in defense, security, and economics. Government leaders, academics and business people will participate in the dialogue, creating a bridge linking Asia with Latin America, as well as connecting Latin American countries among themselves.

A robust economy, reduction in poverty and unemployment, and the real possibility of finding an end to the armed conflict make Colombia a benchmark for the region and in the world. This is unquestionably thanks to the sacrifice of our soldiers and police – they are true architects of peace.

No country at peace can go without strong and modern armed forces. To offer assurance and security, law enforcement must be strengthened. It is the only way to create the right setting for a nation’s prosperity and sustainable development.

In the last decade, Colombia has been hailed by the international community for the progress it has made in matters of security. These results are due, primarily, to the increase in foot soldiers and the acquisition and modernisation of equipment, which have allowed an increased use of technology and greater effectiveness when protecting the Colombian people.

There can certainly be no better investment than that made in security. In fact, while the world at large discusses how to best resolve diverse conflicts, Colombia emerges as a great example in negotiated solutions.

The trust Colombia has built and our potential as a global actor make events like the IISS Cartagena Dialogue possible. This is an opportunity to share our success stories across multiple fronts. From 6–8 March, global leaders from the fields of business, politics, and academia will come together for strategic discussions in which Colombia will stand out as a central player in the fight against transnational crime and the reduction of social inequalities, building bridges that allow our nation to share its experience and capacity with the rest of the world.

This post is part of our content accompanying the IISS Cartagena Dialogue: Trans-Pacific Summit, which runs from 6-8 March 2015 in Colombia. You can follow the latest mentions of the Dialogue, or contribute your own, on Twitter via #IISSCartagena. Inquiries can be sent to cartagena@iiss.org.

Filed under: IISS Cartagena Dialogue

Az oroszok az egyik leghíresebb ellenzéki politikust, a jelenlegi szenátusi marsallt tiltották ki Nyemcov temetéséről.

Le BPC Vladivostok à quai à St Nazaire. Novembre 2014. Source : Shipspotting Tandis que la livraison du premier BPC russe, le Vladivostok, reste suspendue à une amélioration sensible de la situation en Ukraine orientale, le second BPC en cours de construction...

SOMMAIRE
Actualité :- Les fragilités du Tchad face à Boko Haram- De la Libye à la région péri tchadique, est-il encore possible d'endiguer le califat islamique ?
Dossier :L'Algérie produira-t-elle encore du pétrole et du gaz en 2030 ?
Histoire :Le premier conflit mondial en Afrique de l’Ouest

Editorial de Bernard Lugan :
En ce mois de mars 2015, en dépit des discours économiques  désincarnés prononcés par les « experts » et pieusement récités par les médias, l'Afrique est plus que jamais en perdition. En laissant de côté les crises politiques qui peuvent à tout moment déboucher sur des guerres, le simple énoncé des conflits en cours permet de le comprendre.
A l'exception du Maroc, toute l'Afrique du Nord est en guerre :
- L'Egypte est prise entre deux fronts jihadistes, celui du Sinaï à l'est et celui de Libye à l'ouest ; sans parler de la subversion intérieure qui se manifeste par des attentats quotidiens.
- En Libye les dernières structures étatiques ont achevé de se dissoudre dans des affrontements aux formes multiples à travers une fragmentation régionale et tribale que Daesch tente de coaguler.
- La Tunisie ne parvient pas à réduire ses maquis islamistes.
- En Algérie, des maquis islamistes sont actifs dans plus de la moitié du pays. L'Algérie est dans une impasse économique due aux aléas pétroliers, ce qui risque d'avoir de graves conséquences sociales et politiques.
Au sud du Sahara, la totalité de la bande sahélienne, de l'atlantique à la mer Rouge est en état de guerre ouverte ou larvée.
- La question malienne n'a pas été réglée. Elle n'est pas religieuse, mais ethno-raciale et elle ne trouvera pas de solution tant que l'Etat malien ne se sera pas véritablement « fédéralisé ».
- Dans toute la région péri tchadique, Boko Haram étant à l'offensive, le Niger, le Tchad et le Cameroun tentent de coordonner la résistance.
- Le Nigeria qui a militairement perdu le contrôle de trois de ses Etats est en plein délitement alors qu'il y a encore quelques mois, les « experts » du développement le présentaient comme un « relais de croissance »[1].
- En Centrafrique, l'actuel dégagement français et le passage de relais à la MINUSCA se fait alors qu'aucun des problèmes qui se posaient avant Sangaris n'a été réglé. Le pays est même devenu une nouvelle zone de déstabilisation régionale.
- Les deux Soudan sont toujours au bord de la guerre cependant qu'au Soudan du Sud, la guerre entre Dinka et Nuer prend chaque jour de l'ampleur.
- La Somalie demeure une plaie ouverte en dépit des interventions extérieures.
- L'est de la RDC, et plus particulièrement le Kivu, est toujours ensanglanté par les affrontements de milices qui permettent à Kigali de continuer à piller ses richesses minières.
[1] Les lecteurs de l'Afrique Réelle avaient été « vaccinés » contre cette illusion. Voir à ce sujet le numéro 52, avril 2014.

Ils ont moins de 40 ans. Ils sont entrepreneurs à succès, dirigeants et cadres à haut potentiel d’entreprises performantes ou d’administrations influentes. Ils ont en commun l’excellence du parcours, une réputation flatteuse, une influence grandissante et un potentiel hors norme. Ils seront dans les années à venir à la tête des grandes entreprises françaises, ou aux commandes des PME les plus dynamiques et florissantes du pays.

Pour la troisième année consécutive, l’Institut Choiseul publie le Choiseul 100, classement des cent futurs leaders de l’économie française.

Publié en exclusivité dans le Figaro Magazine du 27 février 2015, le Choiseul 100 est également consultable sur le site du figaro.fr

Télécharger l’étude complète ici.

Télécharger le communiqué de presse

var hupso_services_t=new Array("Twitter","Facebook","Google Plus","Linkedin");var hupso_background_t="#EAF4FF";var hupso_border_t="#66CCFF";var hupso_toolbar_size_t="medium";var hupso_image_folder_url = "";var hupso_title_t="Choiseul 100 : les leaders économiques de demain (classement 2015)";

Egy kedves olvasónk küldte el nekünk a vajdasági magyar kifejezések listáját, amelyet ő maga gyűjtött és szerkesztett. Mielőtt azonban rátérnénk a listára, szeretnék néhány gondolatot hozzátenni. 

A vajdaságban használt magyar nyelv sokaknak tűnik ízesnek, régiesnek, furcsának, akárcsak az erdélyi vagy más határon túli magyar. Tény azonban, hogy a határon túlra szakadt magyar közösségek az egységes magyar nemzetből hasíttattak ki, azaz, talán Erdély kivételével, soha nem működtek önálló régióként, nem tartoztak a velük szomszédos területektől eltérő nyelvjárásba. Éppen ezért a legtöbbször nem is lehet fellelni valamilyen különálló nyelvjárást az elszakított részeken, hiszen azok a területek egy nagyobb magyar nyelvjárási terület részei voltak és maradtak. Nyelvi sajátosságok természetesen kialakultak a lassan 100 évnyi különélésben, és a furcsa szavak nagy részét is ezek adják. 

Nem valamiféle kuriózum, hogy a Vajdaságban szajlának nevezik a bovdent. Az együtt élés idején ez a szó még nem volt elterjedt, ha egyáltalán létezett, ezért a szerb neve a "szajla" honosodott meg később, amikor már mindenkinek volt legalább biciklije és azon bovden.

Ezek a jövevényszavak, az én véleményem szerint, másra nem, csak a nyelv rontására jók. Az erdélyi magyarban is számos román átvétel van. Nem gondolom, hogy a "buletin" megfelelő kifejezés lenne a "személyi igazolvány"-ra, csak egy román megnevezés, amely meghonosodott. Senki nem mondana ma Budapesten "buletin"-t a személyi helyett, pedig a ma divatos "el kell menjek" jellegű szókapcsolatokban is csak a román grammatika üt vissza, szó nincs valami szép régies mondatszerkesztésről.

Meg kell értenünk (és nem "meg kell értsük"), hogy a határon túl élő magyarok nyelvére nagy hatással van azoknak a népeknek a nyelve, amelyekkel együtt élnek. Aki tehát manapság keresné az erdélyi, vajdasági, kárpátaljai, felvidéki magyarban az ősi nyelvet, alighanem csak egy románnal, szerbbel, szlovákkal, orosszal és ukránnal kevert korcs nyelvi kódot talál, de semmiképpen sem valami tiszta ősi nyelvet.

[...] Bővebben!

 

This article originally appeared in ISN.

What geopolitical factors helped transform Geneva into a global economic and diplomatic center? For Nayef Al-Rodhan, two of them stand out – the city’s role as a safe haven during the two World Wars, and its ability to provide a needed ‘coordination point’ during the Cold War.

Introduction

On 19 May 2015, Geneva will celebrate the two-hundredth anniversary of its accession to the Swiss Confederation. This occasion provides an opportunity to reflect on how the past two hundred years have transformed Geneva’s relationship to Switzerland and Geneva’s role in the world. With a population of less than 200,000 inhabitants, Geneva is a global and multicultural city, a hub for humanitarian diplomacy, an epicenter for banking and trading, and it ranks behind only Zurich and Vienna in global  measures of the quality of life .

Alongside New York, Geneva has also become one of the  most active locations for multilateral diplomacy  . It hosts 30 international organizations, including the European headquarters of the United Nations, 250 international non-governmental organizations and 172 permanent missions. In total, the international sector in Geneva employs over 28,000 people . Geneva is a center of humanitarian action, education, peacekeeping, security and nuclear research. This critical mass of mandates makes the city uniquely relevant in world politics.

The story of how Geneva acquired this role is tightly connected to the history of power politics in Europe, the distinct advantages of Swiss neutrality and the evolution of international diplomacy. Two hundred years ago, Geneva was treated as an object of geopolitics and bartered away at the Congresses of Paris and Vienna in order to establish a post-Napoleonic equilibrium on the European continent. This geopolitical role was retained until the Inter-War Period. Today, Geneva is often described as “the diplomatic capital of the world” and is an important node in the global economy. Two factors explain this remarkable transformation: 1) the role of the city as a “safe haven” that could offer intact infrastructure and ‘business as usual’ during the two World Wars and 2) its role as a hub of political and economic coordination between the West and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Paris, Vienna and Geneva

The year 1815 marked the end of a fifteen-year period of  French rule  over Geneva. After Napoleon’s troops were driven from the city following his defeat at Leipzig in 1813, the Swiss federal assembly voted to integrate Geneva, Neuchâtel and the Valais into the Confederation, leading to the signing of the  Treaty for the Admission of Geneva  on 19 May 1815.

On Geneva’s part, the move for admission was primarily a geopolitical calculation. In an era of empires and nation-states, Geneva recognized that city-states would require a larger entity to provide for their defense and survival.

At the Congresses of Paris and Vienna, Geneva won support for its desire to become a part of Switzerland. Represented by the diplomat Charles Pictet de Rochemont, Geneva received seven communes from the Pays de Gex and twenty-four communes from Savoy. Both France and the Kingdom of Sardinia ceded territories for this purpose, according to the  Treaty of Paris of 1815 and the Treaty of Turin of 1816 .

Geneva achieved its objectives because they were in line with the geopolitical aims of the great powers of the day. At the same time, those great powers guaranteed the city’s neutrality which helped it to become an important setting for international cooperation.

Fifteen years after Geneva became the twenty-second canton of Switzerland, Swiss philanthropist Jean-Jacques Sellon created the Society for Peace. Another 33 years later, Geneva became the seat of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and witnessed the signing of the first international humanitarian treaty, the Geneva Convention, in 1864.

A global capital

The first attempts at formal international cooperation in Geneva were not resoundingly successful. The League of Nations, which came into existence in 1920, was headquartered in the city – first in the Palais Wilson and then in the purpose-built Palace of Nations. Though it ultimately failed to prevent the slide towards the Second World War, the League was not without its  successes : for instance, the work performed by the International Labour Organization, the International Refugee Organization and the Health Organization helped to raise Geneva’s stature in the interwar period.

Geneva attained even greater significance, however, in the post-War period when many high-level negotiations and diplomatic summits began to take place in the city. These included the 1954 Conference on Indochina, the post-war meeting of the Allies in 1955, the Reagan-Gorbachev Summit in 1985, START negotiations in 2008-2009, and the ongoing high-level talks on the Iranian nuclear weapons program. For its contributions to international peace and stability, Geneva-based organizations and personalities have received no fewer than sixteen Nobel prizes, most of them for peace. The first was awarded to Henry Dunant, the founder of the ICRC; the most recent was awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Geneva, however, is not only a global diplomatic capital but an important node in the global economy. In particular, it has become a center for the global trade in raw materials. More than 500 multi-national corporations trade in raw materials from Geneva, accounting for approximately  10% of the city’s (and the canton’s) GDP . On a given day, Geneva-based corporations process over  700 million tons of oil , which exceeds the trading volumes of the City of London (approximately 520 million tons per day) and Singapore (440 million). 80% of all Russian oil is traded through the city and approximately 20% of all cotton. Some estimate that a third of the global trade in oil, cereals, cotton and sugar, as well as half of the global trade in coffee are also  directed through Geneva .

Geneva has risen to become an important geopolitical city for a variety of reasons. During the First World War, Switzerland, and hence also Geneva, was able to offer “business as usual” to international trading firms. During the 1920s, the first cereal traders, such as André, came to Geneva, primarily to be close to their main customer, Nestlé. On top of this, several Ottoman and later Turkish traders found it convenient to establish trading subsidiaries in the region of Lausanne, located on the route of the Orient Express between London and Istanbul.

Furthermore, Geneva began to benefit from the image of neutrality bestowed upon the city by the international organizations which increasingly established their headquarters there. Yet it was perhaps Geneva’s role as a “safe haven” (and its intact infrastructure) during the Second World War that attracted the most business to the city.

During the Cold War, as a result, Geneva was already well known throughout the world as a ‘neutral’ trading location. This meant that it was in Geneva that economic and political coordination between the West and the Soviet bloc came to be orchestrated. It also continued to function as an economic safe haven. Indeed, it was to Geneva that Egyptian cotton traders transferred their activities during the Nasser era, just like many Arab oil traders after the oil crisis of 1973-1974.

Swiss meta-geopolitics

Undeniably, one of the reasons why Geneva is so international is because the European headquarters of the UN and its agencies are located in the city. This reflects Switzerland’s long-standing commitment to provide federal and cantonal support to the United Nations. Most recently, this took the form of a generous loan at preferential rates for the renovation of the UN’s Palais des Nations, covering almost 50% of the costs (approximately 300 million Swiss francs). Nowhere else does the UN benefit from such facilities and this level of support.

Over decades, Geneva has established a well-defined identity as a city of peace and an ideal meeting place for diplomats – whether in the field of humanitarian action, disarmament, climate change or other concerns. In recent years, activities in other sectors, such as the crude oil trade, have increased the city’s international renown. While Geneva faces competition as a global economic and diplomatic center from cities in Asia, Africa and Latin America – some of which are becoming prominent regional centers of dialogue and diplomacy – it is unlikely that the city’s stature will diminish anytime soon.

Using the framework of  meta­-geopolitics , the following table discusses the geopolitical strengths and imperatives of “International Geneva.”

Issue Area

Geopolitical Realities and Dilemmas

Social and Health Issues                                                                                                                                                

Excellent services, quality of life and an ideal location for diplomats and expats.

Geneva is a central location for global governance regarding social issues, public health, employment, youth, education and other areas.

Domestic Politics

Swiss neutrality, highly stable and democratic, but the initiative to curb the number of foreigners is perceived as a major setback for the city and country (although these regulations do not affected the staff of international organizations from the UN family.)

Economics

Trade hub, both private companies and inter-governmental organizations in the area of trade, development, labour.

Environment

The city and canton of Geneva place strong emphasis on energy-saving and a clean environment. In line with the Swiss environmental policies, Geneva has strict standards of agricultural biodiversity, waste management or water management.

Geneva is a center for environmental diplomacy and climate change dialogue (e.g. the UN Environmental Programme is located here).

Science and Human Potential

High-profile universities, excellent research centers in medicine, chemistry, physics and other sciences.

Numerous UN research centers and institutes are located in Geneva (e.g. UNITAR).

Military and Security Issues                             

Geneva is a key centre for disarmament diplomacy, including the Conference on Disarmament and is host to numerous NGOs and think tanks with a unique profile in security studies, small arms, demilitarization.

International Diplomacy

Unique strength as global meeting point for international diplomats, activists and NGOs.

 

Issue Area

Imperatives and future trajectories

Social and Health Issues                                                                                        

High quality of life, among the top best in the world (ranked before London) will make it attractive for foreign companies.

Domestic Politics

Greater openness to foreign workforce, imperative for more facilities for expats.

Economics

Increasing importance as trading center for petrol and other commodities, growing importance in cereals trading, insurance companies, consultancies and shipping.

Low inflation - gives strength to the economy

The simple and strict tax system, with some tax discounts for companies contributes to attracting companies and investors (taxes from 3.5 to 14.1%, compared to London - 30%)

Environment

N/A

Science and Human Potential

Continued investment in sciences and research. Excellent universities and highly skilled workforce on the local market are expected to attract even more foreign companies.

Military and Security Issues

N/A

International Diplomacy

Geneva will retain a prominent place in global diplomacy, yet the future of "International Geneva" strongly correlate with the future of the UN system.

 

 

>> Back to GCSP Staff Publications

A „Komplex vállalati technológiafejlesztés mikro-, kis- és középvállalkozások számára” című konstrukció keretében 95,91 millió forint vissza nem térítendő uniós támogatást nyert el a LEMANIT Kötőipari és Kereskedelmi Kft.

A cég közel 240 millió forint összköltségű projektje során telephelyi termelési infrastruktúra kiépítése és eszközbeszerzés történt.

A Lemanit Kft. mosonmagyaróvári komplex beruházása során elkészült egy új 1720 m2–es telephely, kötöde és nyílászáró szalon funkcióval, gyártócsarnok épült, továbbá raktár, iroda és szociális helyiségeket alakítottak ki. A projekt keretében a vállalkozás a kötödei gyártási tevékenységhez szükséges eszközparkját is fejlesztette.

A beruházás nyomán várhatóan kissé nő a Társaság árbevétele, a termelési volumen és a foglalkoztatottak száma, valamint erősödik piaci helyzete. A Társaság stratégiai célja termékei piaci részarányának növelése a termelési hatékonyság és minőség megőrzése mellett, valamint a termelési feladatok magas színvonalú és rugalmas végrehajtása, nagyobb volumenű és hozzáadott értékű termelő tevékenység végzése.

Az új termelő - épület és gép - kapacitással saját tulajdonú termelési bázis jött létre, a termékportfólió diverzifikálódott, a kockázat csökkent, a termelési kapacitások bővültek, a fajlagos költségek csökkentek. Mindezek következtében a beruházással biztosítottá vált a gazdaságos és versenyképes működés.

A GOP-2.1.1-12/B „Komplex vállalati technológiafejlesztés mikro-, kis- és középvállalkozások számára” elnevezésű pályázati kiírásán 95 915 828 forintos támogatást elnyert, 239 789 571 forint összköltségvetésű fejlesztés 2013. november 25-én indult és 2014. december 31-én zárult.

A projekt az Európai Unió támogatásával, az Európai Regionális Fejlesztési Alap társfinanszírozásával valósult meg.

Orbán szerint a kormánya által elértek miatt Magyarország Közép-Európa vezetője lett.

Welcome to this week’s CCLKOW discussion piece. This time, we are looking at the portrayal and perception of military veterans in the UK and other western countries. In short, veterans are frequently characterised as ‘victims,’ in the media and by the public at large. Moreover, there is increasing concern that they will experience long-term mental health problems in the wake of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. However, veterans are a far more heterogeneous and resilient group than reports seem to indicate. Read the piece and join the discussion on Twitter at #CCLKOW

In the last few years, media reports have suggested that there are an alarming number of British veterans experiencing service-related psychological problems. Commentators have argued that an increasing pool of ex-servicemen and women are falling through the cracks. As operations in Afghanistan have come to a close, numerous authors have expressed the fear that a record number of veterans will present with mental health problems like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PSTD) in the near future.[i] The debate over how best to address their needs and foster a supportive environment for these men and women has become highly politicised. In the process, the veteran has become a hotly contested figure. The popular portrayal of military veterans in the UK and other western countries has only served to further complicate this dialogue.

There is a growing and widespread perception amongst the media and public alike that war is a universally traumatising event and veterans, without exception will be damaged by their experiences. Beginning in 2011, Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft conducted a study to evaluate public opinion of the British Armed Forces. Amongst his chief findings, he reported that, ‘in our poll of the UK public, more than nine out of ten thought it was common for those leaving the Force to have “some kind of physical, emotional or mental problem” as a result of their time in the military; more than a third (34%) thought it was “very common” for this to be the case.’[ii] In a recent article, journalist Max Hastings has also pointed out that, ‘those who have participated in wars are widely perceived not as protagonists…but instead as victims.’[iii] Popular television shows of the past decade frequently depict veterans as broken individuals who can lash out violently at those around them. They are characterised as ‘ticking time bombs,’ who will inevitably experience difficulties in processing their experiences.[iv]

This image is further reinforced when the war in question is unpopular. As historian Helen McCartney has underlined, ‘much of the UK newspaper coverage of the armed forces depicts service personnel as victims, either of failed strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan or of government underspending or MoD incompetence.’[v] In the United States, retired four star General Jim Mattis has also publicly criticized news outlets and politicians for helping, ‘fuel [the] perception that most or all…veterans come back from war traumatized.’[vi] Mattis is but one of many voices within the wider community of American veterans who have expressed concern over public perception.[vii]

On both sides of the Atlantic, the black and white picture that has been presented does not accurately reflect the complexity of the issue at hand and lacks a great deal of nuance. According to a 2014 study conducted by researchers at the King’s Centre for Military Health Research, ‘contrary to many people’s expectations, deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan has not led to an overall increase in mental health problems among UK personnel.’[viii] The authors estimated that only around 1.3% to 4.8% of UK Regulars returning from deployment exhibited symptoms of probable PTSD.[ix] Recent reports also indicate that rates of suicide are lower within the military than in the civilian population.[x] In general, veterans who have deployed on more than one occasion are less likely to suffer from ‘subsequent mental health problems.’[xi] Around 18,000 service personnel are discharged from the British Armed Forces every year. While little research has been done on service leavers in the UK, the American literature suggests that, ‘military service for most people, has a positive effect on…life trajectory.’[xii]

There will be those veterans who experience psychological difficulties as a result of their service and will require help in processing their experiences and adjusting to civilian life. Scholars have identified several groups (e.g. combat veterans, reservists) as at higher risk for mental health problems.[xiii] These veterans and their families deserve to be treated fairly and receive the attention that they require. Be that as it may, the present paradigm of the veteran as victim fails to acknowledge the range of human experience in relation to trauma. Not all veterans are damaged by their experiences of war. Acknowledging this resilience does not trivialize or delegitimize individual suffering. On the contrary, it simply recognizes the complexities of how human beings react to stressful or traumatic events and the difficulties inherent in trying to neatly categorise people into boxes.

Over the next decade, the UK and its allies will undoubtedly continue to face challenges in caring for and adequately addressing the needs of a new generation of veterans. There is evidence to suggest that stigma remains a barrier to those who might wish to seek professional help.[xiv] Furthermore, the military footprint is shrinking in response to cuts in manpower. Consequently, fewer members of the public have ties to those in uniform. There is also a need to continue improving the options available to veterans and their families in connection to services like counseling.[xv] However, this process should not be informed by extreme stereotypes but by a well-rounded and realistic picture of the veteran population. The public should be encouraged to see veterans as they would see themselves, as human beings with challenges to face and reserves of strength upon which to draw. Like civilians, service personnel and veterans struggle with addiction, depression and many other disorders. Equally, they can recover and/or live with those disorders and still have much to offer society. Moreover, they frequently exhibit a remarkable resilience that should be recognized and celebrated.

So the questions for this week are:

Does public perception help or hinder the recovery of veterans who have experienced trauma?

How should the media portray veterans in order to more accurately reflect their experiences?

Is it possible to effectively ‘support the soldier’ without supporting the cause for which they fight?

 

*’Culture of trauma’ is a phrase that appears to have been coined by Ben Shephard, War of Nerves: Soldiers and Psychiatrists in the Twentieth Century, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), p. 385.

[i] Sima Kotecha, ‘Care for UK Military Veterans is “Flawed,” Medical Experts Say,’ BBC News, 29 Oct 2014.

[ii] Lord Ashcroft, ‘The Armed Forces & Society: The military in Britain—through the eyes of Service personnel, employers, and the public’ (May 2012), p. 15.

[iii] Max Hastings, ‘Veterans and Mental Health in Contemporary Britain,’ Royal United Services Institute Journal 159, No. 6 (Dec 2014), p. 36.

[iv] Ben Farmer, ‘Army recruitment could be hit by charities portraying troops as victims,’ Telegraph (25 Dec 2013), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10531300/Army-recruitment-could-be-hit-by-charities-portraying-troops-as-victims.html.

[v] Helen McCartney, ‘The military covenant and the civil-military contract in Britain,’ International Affairs 86, No. 2 (2010), p. 424.

[vi] General Jim Mattis, as quoted in, Jim Michaels, ‘Mattis: Veterans are not victims,’ USA Today (5 May 2014), http://www.usatoday.com/story/nation/2014/05/05/mattis-iraq-afghanistan-marines-usmc/8632093/.

[vii] David Morris, ‘Surviving War Doesn’t Turn All Veterans into Victims, Sometimes it Helps Them Grow,’ The Daily Beast (18 May 2014), http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/18/surviving-war-doesn-t-turn-all-veterans-into-victims-sometimes-it-helps-them-grow.html; Dave Philipps, ‘Coming Home to Damaging Stereotypes,’ New York Times (5 Feb 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/us/a-veteran-works-to-break-the-broken-hero-stereotype.html?_r=0

[viii] Deirdre MacManus, N Jones, S Wessely, NT Fear, E Jones, N Greenberg, ‘The mental health of the UK Armed Forces in the 21st century: resilience in the face of adversity,’ J R Army Med Corps 0 (2014), p. 1.

[ix] Ibid., p. 2.

[x] MoD, ‘Suicide and Open Verdict Deaths in the UK Regular Armed Forces 1985-2013,’ 27 March 2014; ‘Myth Busters,’ Combat Stress (2015), http://www.combatstress.org.uk/veterans/myth-busters/#VeteransAndSuicide

[xi] James Gallagher, ‘”Violence Risk” after Military Tours,’ BBC News, 15 March 2013.

[xii] Amy Iverson, Vasilis Nikolaou, Neil Greenberg, Catherine Unwin, Lisa Hull, Mathew Hotopf, Christopher Dandeker, John Ross and Simon Wessely, ‘What happens to British veterans when they leave the armed forces?,’ European Journal of Public Health 15, No. 2 (2005), pp. 175-184.

[xiii] MacManus, N Jones, Wessely, NT Fear, E Jones, Greenberg, ‘The mental health of the UK Armed Forces in the 21st century,’ p. 1.

[xiv] Amy C Iverson, Lauren van Staden, Jamie Hacker Hughes, Neil Greenberg, Matthew Hotopf, Roberto J Rona, Graham Thornicroft, Simon Wessely, and Nicola T Fear, ‘The stigma of mental health problems and other barriers to care in the UK Armed Forces,’ BioMed Central Health Services Research 11 (2011), pp. 1-10.

[xv] MoD, ‘Annual Medical Discharges in the UK Regular Armed Forces 2009/10-2013/14,’ 10 July 2014.