Agrégateur de flux

Chinese A200 Multiple Launch Rocket System

Situations of occupation are often among the most difficult conflicts to resolve, in particular if the occupied territory is also illegally annexed. Legally speaking, an illegally annexed territory is occupied. Third parties (like the EU) have an obligation to not recognise an illegal annexation and to not assist in the continued occupation and annexation. An occupying power has limited authority over the occupied territory under international humanitarian law (IHL), but has nevertheless an obligation to respect not only IHL but also international human rights law. The EU has so far not adopted a consistent policy in these cases, but there are elements of good practice that can be used. A future EU policy should be based on non-recognition – as has been the case with regard to Crimea. The EU and its member states should refuse to recognise legislative and other changes in the occupied territory, they should refrain from engaging in economic and other activities that sustain the occupation and they should seriously consider sanctions against the responsible government.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

[NB : article rédigé le 13 mai 2015] Au Mali, malgré le cessez-le-feu signé il y a un an, les accrochages se sont poursuivis et la liste des victimes n'en finit pas de s'allonger. La date du 15 mai 2015, avec la signature solennelle à Bamako de "l'accord de paix et de réconciliation au Mali", marquera-t-elle la fin de cette période particulièrement douloureuse pour les Maliens ? Malheureusement, aussi bien le contenu de l'accord que les modalités d'application semblent ne pas préparer cet avenir de (...) - Mali / Mali

Pontosan egy hónappal ezelőtt, 2015. május 24-én került megrendezésre Etiópiában a parlamenti választás, amelyen 1828 jelölt indult az etióp parlament 547 képviselői helyéért és ahogy a menetrendnek megfelelően ma (06.24.) napvilágra került hivatalos eredményekből kiderült, egyetlen nem tisztázott helyet leszámítva (Bonga szavazókörzetében, de azért itt sem valószínű, hogy a független jelölt nyert volna) az összes képviselő Hailemariam Desalegn elnök pártjának, az Etióp Népi Forradalmi Demokratikus Front (EPRDF) színeiben jutott a törvényhozásba (vagyis 500 az EPRDF színeiben, a maradék 46-ot regionális szövetségeseik révén szereztek meg) .

Annak ellenére, hogy tudjuk, az EPRDF négy egykori lázadó, etnikai alapon szerveződő politikai mozgalom szövetségéből jött létre még 1988-ban, az ország méreteit, lélekszámát (100 millió emberről beszélünk!) figyelembe véve azért még a legkevésbé kétkedők számára is furcsa lehet egy ilyen elsöprő eredmény, hiszen ekkora erejű győzelmet még olyan országokban sem láttunk a fekete kontinensen, ahol az uralkodó pártnak köszönhető az adott ország konkrét létezése és minden elért eredménye (lásd mondjuk Namíbia).

És itt most nem egyből összeesküvés-elméletekre, kamionokkal szállított dupla-tripla szavazókra kell gondolni, hanem arra a politikai környezetre, amelyben az ellenzéki mozgalmak mozgástere rendkívüli módon beszűkült, nem igazán lehet független médiáról vagy erős civil közösségről beszélni, sőt, ahogy láttuk már az elmúlt években, az ellenzéki megmozdulások ellen is elég kemény kézzel lépnek fel a hatóságok (és akkor egyes újságírók, bloggerek meghurcolásáról még nem is esett szó) – amúgy azért ilyen eredményre lehetett számítani, hiszen 2010-ben az EPRDF 99.6%-ot szerzett (akkor senki nem gondolta volna, hogy még ezt is felül lehet múlni).

Ha ellenzéki etióp blogokra, internetes oldalakra látogatunk el, akkor láthatjuk, hogy az aktivisták pénzügyi nehézségekről, felvonulások, kampányrendezvények szervezésének teljes ellehetetlenítéséről és az ellenzéki vezetők alaptalan letartóztatásairól írnak és persze mindig csínján kell bánni az ilyen megnyilvánulásokkal, azért az mégis elgondolkodtató, hogy ennyire egyoldalúvá vált az etióp politikai paletta. És ez a hivatalos bejelentés pont akkor látott napvilágot, amikor néhány nappal korábban bejelentették, hogy Barack Obama, az Amerikai Egyesült Államok elnöke utolsó, elnökként tervezett afrikai útja során felkeresi Etiópiát is és ez a döntés sokakat felháborított, főként a fentebb említett emberi jogi problémák és a demokrácia állítólagos összeomlása tükrében. Mindenesetre azt is látni kell, hogy az USA és az Európai Unió számára is kulcsfontosságú afrikai partnerről beszélünk Addisz-Abeba esetében és a jelenlegi jó kapcsolatokat valószínűleg senki nem fogja kockára tenni egy, a választások tisztaságát kétségbe vonó kinyilatkoztatással.

twitter.com/napiafrika

3 ember kedveli ezt a posztot.Tetszett az írás.Tetszett az írás.

Az EU-s pénzügyminiszterek nem jutottak dűlőre a görög reformterv részleteivel szerda este. A hitelezők elégedetlenek.

„Aki több ezer kilométert jött, azt nem fogja megállítani a kerítés.” Szakértők vitatkoztak a déli határra tervezett kerítésről.

Photo Credit: CH’7K via Flickr

Information regarding the size and scope of the cyberattack against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) continues to grow. As many as 18 million current, former and prospective federal employees — ranging from military personnel to the IRS — are now thought to be affected. This figure is a massive increase in the initial OPM estimate of 4.2 million and it’s likely to grow. Officials speaking about the breach, which is believed to have originated in China, have now acknowledged the incident goes back to June of last year.

The slow drip of information regarding the extent of the security breach has frustrated policymakers, many of whom expressed those feelings to besieged OPM Director Katherine Archuleta, during her testimony on Capital Hill to a Senate Appropriations subcommittee.

Archuleta defended her time as director saying, “In an average month, OPM, for example, thwarts 10 million confirmed intrusion attempts targeting our network. These attacks will not stop — if anything, they will increase,” she said and went on to promote her “aggressive effort” to reform and update the policies and procedures that govern OPM’s aging cybersecurity infrastructure.

The Obama administration continues to express its confidence in Archuleta’s ability to lead OPM. Such a statement is deeply concerning, considering that the Office of the Inspector General warned OPM that critical vulnerabilities in its security authorization system left it open to exploitation. A warning that Archuleta seemed content to ignore, or at best move at a snails pace to address.

The lackadaisical attitude surrounding the OPM breach is indicative of a wider cyber security mindset that is plaguing our national security infrastructure in cyberspace. The U.S. is simply not adapting fast enough.  Every year the U.S. fails to adequately meet the threshold for the development of a robust and comprehensive cybersecurity platform, and we fall farther behind our digital adversaries. There is a mindset in Washington that addressing these security threats are somehow beyond our capability, and that no matter what we do there will always be penetrations of critical systems. You’d be hard pressed to find a policymaker that would tolerate, much less express, such an idea when it comes to terrorist threats from al-Qaeda or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Why such an attitude is allowed to exist when it comes to cybersecurity is deeply troubling.

In February 2013, President Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 13636: Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. The EO was intended to lay out the administrations priorities and commitment to improving critical infrastructure and thus mitigating the threat from cyberattacks. The plan was developed in conjunction with recommendations from the Internet Security Alliance, a multisector trade association that provides a unique combination of advocacy and policy development. The EO outlines a robust plan, full of big ideas but short on a strategy for how it can be implemented.

The perfect example of this is White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Michael Daniel. During an interview with Information Security Media Group, Obama’s point man on cybersecurity came under heavy fire when he down played his own lack of technical expertise and dismissed the importance of understanding the nitty-gritty of implementing cybersecurity policy. While Daniel’s pedigree is impressive, especially in terms the scope and skills he has brought to his numerous positions in government, the decision to appoint him to the position of White House Cybersecurity Coordinator is indicative of a pervasive belief cybersecurity leadership doesn’t require technical expertise in the field. Can you imagine the Director of the Center for Disease Control not being a doctor or the Attorney General not being a lawyer?

A report released from the software security firm Veracode highlights the staggering deficiencies in civilian federal agencies. Entitled State of Software Security, the report examined 208,670 applications over the course of 18 months, and the company audited source code from government and private sector clients.

This particular report focused on the government sector, comparing it to 34 industries across a variety of different sectors. Veracode found that the government agencies ranks last in how often and how fast they are addressing security vulnerabilities — only 27 percent of identified vulnerabilities were adequately fixed and three out of four government sector applications consistently failed the OWASP Top 10, the pinnacle standard assessment of web application security. One reason cited for this high degree of vulnerability cited was an outdated programming language used in many government systems.

So why aren’t these government agencies adequately addressing these problems? The short answer is the government simply lacks the regulatory demands that is so often present in the private sector.

Many in Washington are expressing their collective outrage over the OPM breach, but the alarm bells that have been ringing over the last two decades will continue to be ignored. Incidents of computer attacks have increased 1,100 percent since 2006, the cybersecurity threat facing the U.S. is very real, unfortunately, for many policymakers on Capital Hill these security challenges exist in the abstract. There is no body count to tally from a cyber attack. There is nothing present in the physical world to help policymaker — many of whom purposefully avoid diving into the technical nuances of cybersecurity — properly conceptualize the threat. Right now, unless the problem we are facing in cybersecurity involves a Middle East government on the verge of collapsing, the desire and wherewithal to take action will continue to fall short.

Nations spy on one another; it’s a fundamental reality of the international system. The idea that China is spying on us is not the problem per se but rather the symptom of a much broader disease. The Chinese government is not going to stop trying to breach our digital bulwarks, no matter how much we whine. The problem is, however, that the digital age provides the potential for critical national security information to be taken with far greater ease and at much greater volumes than at anytime in history. We are making it far too easy for foreign governments to exploit our soft cyber underbelly. Can we really blame them for capitalizing on that advantage?

Survie, membre de la plateforme Paradis fiscaux et judiciaires, vous invite à ce colloque annuel de la plateforme, où l'association sera amenée ce vendredi 26 juin à intervenir. Inscription obligatoire ! LuxLeaks, SwissLeaks, EDF…Les 12 derniers mois ont à nouveau été ponctués de scandales de grande ampleur venus rappeler le caractère industriel de l'évasion et la fraude fiscales qui sont à l'origine d'un manque à gagner phénoménal pour les Etats, du Nord comme du Sud. En parallèle, l'année 2015 est (...) - Françafrique

IMF's Christine Lagarde, right, and EU economics chief Pierre Moscovici in Brussels Wednesday

As expected, the standoff between Athens and its creditors that exploded into the open on Wednesday has focused on pension reforms – a point made clear in a document obtained by the FT’s correspondent in Athens, Kerin Hope.

According to the five-page list of “prior actions” – which are always the real nitty-gritty in any bailout agreement, since it lists the specifics that the sitting government must implement and the calendar for implementation – creditors have asked for wholesale changes to the pension proposals made earlier this week by Alexis Tsipras, the Greek prime minister.

We’ve posted the document here.

In order to achieve savings of 1 per cent of gross domestic product – or about €1.8bn – starting next year, creditors are demanding a significant rewriting of Tsipras’ pension reform plan.

First, rather than gradually raising the effective retirement age to 67 by 2025 as Athens has proposed, creditors want that moved up to 2022 (Athens had originally shot for 2036 in one of its earlier proposals). The creditor plan would allow for retirement at 62, but only for those who have paid into the system for 40 years. Those measures would become law immediately, under the counterproposal.

Read more

For Immediate Release:
June 23, 2015Contact: info@humanrightsvoices.org
Follow us on Twitter

Shocking UN Report Calls for Arrest of Israelis Around the World
This article by Anne Bayefsky originally appeared on Fox News.


Arrest Benjamin Netanyahu and any other “suspected” Israeli war criminals wherever and whenever you can get your hands on them. That is the shocking bottom line of a scandalous report released today from the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.


The Human Rights Council, at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva,
Switzerland. (AP2012)

The report emanates from a board of inquiry the Council created in the midst of the 2014 Gaza war. In legalese, the call to arrest Israelis either for trial before the International Criminal Court (ICC), or before any court in any country that the U.N. labels “fair,” reads like this:

The board “calls upon the international community … to support actively the work of the International Criminal Court in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory; to exercise universal jurisdiction to try international crimes in national courts; and to comply with extradition requests pertaining to suspects of such crimes to countries where they would face a fair trial.”

To be fair, the U.N. report says this could apply to both parties. In other words, the democratic state of Israel, with a moral and legal obligation to defend its citizens, and the Palestinian attackers bent on genocide are moral equals. Throughout the 183-page tome, the U.N. council “experts” play the old “cycle of violence” trick, otherwise known as “it all started when you hit me back.”

An infamous photo from the Third Reich shows eminent Jewish lawyer Michael Siegel, beaten and bloodied after going to police headquarters on behalf of a Jewish client who had been sent to Dachau, forced to walk through the streets of Munich with a sign around his neck saying: “I am a Jew, but I will never again complain to the police.”

The similarity with today’s U.N. authorities is painfully clear. When Israel responds to Palestinian rocket fire – 750 rockets in 2014 alone prior to the war’s start – or Palestinian terrorists emerging from tunnels into Israel bent on carnage, it is Israel who is accused of war crimes. The only acceptable response, apparently, is to hang their heads or make a U.N. speech.

In part, the war criminal charge is just one more U.N. slander. U.N. meetings routinely consist of wild allegations of Israel committing genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and crimes against humanity, and frequently analogizing Israelis to Nazis. The anti-Semitic dimension of these attacks is palpable, with constant references to the offense of “Judaization” – the criminalization of the presence of Jews in what is supposed to be Judenrein Arab territory, or what is in practice apartheid Palestine.

While the point of all this hate speech is to demonize and delegitimize Israel, the war crimes label takes the campaign one step further. It deliberately ravages Israel’s right of self-defense.

Self-defense is the essence of sovereignty. In the words of the U.N. Charter: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of … self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations …” The United Nations was not intended to be a suicide pact.

But incredibly, the U.N. council report purports to address legal responsibility for casualties in Gaza without once mentioning “self-defense.”

It was exactly the outcome that the council had planned. The Council gave the board of inquiry its marching orders on July 23, 2014, just 16 days into the war. It named June 13, 2014, as the starting line because Palestinian terrorists kidnapped three Israeli teenagers on June 12. It said the Council “condemns … the violations … arising from the Israeli military operations.” Guilty before proven innocent is how it all began.

The board’s first chair, William Schabas, was forced to resign after it was revealed he had been a paid legal adviser to the Palestinian Authority. On his way out the door in February, Schabas admitted the “fact-gathering” was “largely completed,” and yet the U.N. denied the obvious conclusion that the result was irrevocably tainted. Consequently, a Palestinian legal adviser chaired the inquiry for more than half of its 10-month existence.

Impartiality was equally alien to American Mary McGowan Davis, who took over from Schabas. She had already chaired a Council committee about the 2008/09 Gaza war, and she declared in a March 2011 report that Israel's legal system did not meet standards of independence or impartiality, or make “accountability” possible. Those criteria are both the pre-conditions for the ICC’s ability to throw Israelis in prison and the subject matter of her 2014 job.

In short, the Council gave the same person the same assignment on almost the same fact situation … and surprise! Israel is guilty as charged.

In 2011, McGowan Davis described the misogynist, homophobic, anti-free speech, "de facto authorities in Gaza" (i.e. Hamas) – infamous for throwing political opponents off tall buildings – as "generally tolerant of local human rights organizations."

A U.N. “human rights” expert par excellence.

Little wonder that the report is riddled with lies and libels. It claims Israel was “directing attacks against civilians,” and acted “in utter disregard of…the civilian population…” It omits that Hamas rejected or violated a total of 11 cease-fires that would have reduced Palestinian casualties by 90 percent. It says the intent of “Palestinian armed groups” in constructing and using tunnels cannot be “conclusively determined” – photographic evidence of weapons caches and terrorists emerging from openings terrifyingly close to Israeli villages to the contrary.

It even goes so far as to lament that Palestinian “armed groups” don’t have more room for their criminal enterprise: “…the obligation to avoid locating military objectives within densely populated areas is not absolute. The small size of Gaza and its population density make it difficult for armed groups to always comply with this requirement.”

The U.N. has reached a new low. The United States should start by resigning from the Human Rights Council effective immediately.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Pillar of Defense and UN Human Rights Council.

Anja Humljan
Urban Yoga
1 - 24. June 2015
You are kindly invited to the opening of the exhibition on Monday, 1 June 2015, at 8pm in the presence of the artist. The Urban Yoga is the herald of a novel approach to urbanism and architectural design. It evokes human sensory experience and uncovers newly established rules of interaction. It has almost become a cliché opinion that urban environments limit our freedom, keep us constantly alert, cause stress, and disturb our inner peace. The (...)

The EU is struggling to regain its lost popularity. There’s a sense of foreboding in Brussels that the radical and generally eurosceptic parties like Spain’s Podemos, Germany’s AfD, the Front National in France and even Britain’s UKIP and Greece’s Syriza are not the fleeting flash-in-the-pan phenomena they were first thought to be. Unless the EU can raise its game on communications and outreach, these ‘fringe radicals’ may soon be Europe’s game changers.

Anyone familiar with Brussels would probably agree that the institutions of the European Union generally prefer the detail of dossiers to the ‘big picture’. That’s understandable, given the sheer complexity of the technocratic issues that are the daily business of the EU. But it is also regrettable, and increasingly a problem.

Public opinion across Europe is rarely concerned with the minutiae of economic policies or even social measures. What the voters register are the things ‘Europe’ is or isn’t doing to confront the major challenges that feature so prominently in TV news bulletins.

There are times when such threats are indeed headed-off and defused by the EU; bird flu or the menace of jihadist terrorism are readily understandable examples of how Europe’s cross-border cooperation is invaluable. Most people also see the single market for goods and services as hugely beneficial.

Whether they see the underpinnings of the European economy as necessary trade-offs for what the EU’s critics call Brussels’ “high-handed interference” is less certain. The years of austerity have taken a heavy toll of people’s unquestioning support for the European project.

But the EU still has opportunities to demonstrate its value, not just within Europe but to the wider world. It should tackle the problem of refugees displaced by conflict in the Middle East and by poverty in Africa. Their plight has so far highlighted Europe’s impotence in the face of the huge humanitarian crisis on its doorstep, and the selfishness of the many European governments refusing to offer help. But it’s a chance for the EU to show its worth.

The drama of boatloads of people risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean, along with TV reports of teeming but flimsy refugee camps, is striking a chord with Europeans that’s more than a passing moment of sympathy. They feel their governments should be doing more, even though they themselves may want to resist immigration and a more multi-cultural Europe.

Jean-Claude Juncker and his fellow EU commissioners have been trying to rally member states to act, with little real results. The EU, they say, doesn’t itself have the instruments and funds to make a difference. But it does have a voice.

The refugee problem is just a symptom of the EU’s failure to grasp the dangers that follow the Arab Spring. Brussels should launch a truly ambitious long-term strategy for addressing the economic and security weaknesses of the countries that these refugees are fleeing from. It couldn’t resolve this crisis overnight, but it could show that Europe is about people, and not just red tape.

 

IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – European parliament

The post A more humane EU would boost its popularity appeared first on Europe’s World.

Written by Suzana Elena Anghel Gavrilescu and Ralf Drachenberg

The June European Council has a comprehensive list of topics to discuss, including the situation in the Mediterranean, the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), fighting terrorism, economic governance aspects, and the digital agenda. In addition, a presentation by the British Prime Minister on the future role of the United Kingdom is on the agenda.

Migration is the main topic of this June European Council. Heads of State or Government will discuss the recently published European Agenda for Migration and take stock of the progress made since the extraordinary European Council meeting on migration in April 2015. The European Council will discuss the European Commission’s proposal for a temporary relocation mechanism, which envisages relocating 40 000 persons from Italy and Greece to other Member States.

The European Council should also agree on a new CSDP roadmap and set the objectives for capabilities development, fostering the defence industry and the defence market, and strengthening relations with international organisations (i.e. the UN, NATO, the African Union). The Heads of State or Government will decide on a timeline for the completion of the strategic review process, most probably by June 2016. Within the broader context of discussing security aspects, the European Council will also examine the implementation of the informal February 2015 European Council‘s decisions on the fight against terrorism. 

During discussions on the 2015 European Semester the European Council endorse the Country Specific Recommendations that Member States should implement to ensure sound public finances and to make their economies more competitive. Whilst on the topic of better economic governance in the euro area, the ‘Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union’ report is expected to be presented to the Heads of State or Government.

The European Commission’s recent Digital Single Market strategy for Europe will be tabled for examination, and the European Council will most likely call for a rapid adoption of pending legislation in this field, such as the European Single Market for Electronic Communications, the Directive on Network and Information Security and the proposal for a Regulation on Data Protection.

This European Council meeting will also hear United Kingdom Prime Minister, David Cameron outline his vision for renegotiating his country’s relationship with the EU.

Read the complete ‘Outlook for the European Council of 25 – 26 June 2015‘ in PDF.
Filed under: BLOG, Policy Cycle Tagged: briefings, counter-terrorism strategy, CSDP, digital agenda, economic governance, EPRS briefings, European Council, Pre-European Council Briefing, Ralf Drachenberg, Suzana Elena Anghel Gavrilescu

Ritkán lehet olvasni a honvédség egyik legkisebb missziójáról, az UNIFIL II-ben működő magyar katonai térképészekről. Egy volt szerencsém meglátogatni őket 2010-ben asszem. Már nem tudnűm pontosan felidézni mit mondtak, de annyi megmaradt, hogy a feladatuk, hogy az izraeli-libani határ nagy részét pontosítsák.  Bármilyen érzékeny is a terület, a határ pontosan még nem volt/nincs kijelölve, és ebben a nagyjelentőségű munkában a magyar katonák kulcsszerepet játszanak.
Az ú.n. Blue Line (valamiért ez lett a határ neve történelmileg) pontos kijelölése során az a cél, hogy 50 méreterenként legyen a kék  hordó lerakva. Amikor a térképszek kimérik a pontos helyét, bejelentik a libanoni és izraeli félnek, hogy megvan a pont. Egy megbeszélt időpontban kijön mind a három fél, mindegyik hozza a GPS készülékeit, és árgus szemek kíséretében az ENSZ lerakja a hordót. Nyilván egyetlen négyzetcentiméterről sem mondhat le egyik ország sem a földterületéből, ezért olyan fontos ez.
Sajnos akkor nem volt lehetőség kimenni és megnézni egy ilyet, de remélem a legközelebbi látogatáskor összejön majd. A mi látogatásunk annyira hirtelen és gyors volt, hogy csak a bázison volt idő beszélgetni, meg inni egyet a kávézóban. A februári időjárásnak megfelelően egész nap ömlött az eső.
Miért írok most erről? Mert a Honvédségi Szemlében megjelent egy cikk az UNIFIL II misszióról és a magyar részvételről. Még az is lehet, hogy ezekről is írnak benne (elolvastam már egy hónapja, de nem emlékszem.
Kállai Attila alezredes – Lusták Péter alezredes: Magyar katonai részvétel az ENSZ dél-libanoni békefenntartó missziójában, Honvédségi Szemle 2015/3 
Ez első két kép alán Szidonban készült, de az is lehet, hogy Naqurában, ahol a misszió bázisa is működött. 

Ezek a képek a bázison készültek, kutyafuttában. Ma már emlékeim szerint elköltözött innen a bázis fel a hegyekbe. Ha jó idő volt, pazar lehetett (leszámítva a nagyon párás időt), mert az akkori bázis közvetlenül a tengerparton feküdt. Mivel a misszió akkor olyan 12.000-16.000 főből állt, ezért itt csak a HQ működött szerintem. Az egyes dandároknak meg volt a maguk bázisai bent a Bekaa völgyben.

A költözés oka részben az volt, hogy szűk volt a bázis, és a helikopterekkel ugyan le lehetett szállni de elég szűkösen :)


Car pool

Nem tudom mi  a mostani helyzet, de abban az időben az elhelyezéshangulatos konténerekben történt. Az utolsó képet megnézve látszik, hogy mennyire meredeken emelkedik a vidék. Naqura egyébként a libaoni-izraeli határon fekszik a tengerparton. Az UNIFIL bázis pedig Baqura város déli szélén feküdt, azaz utána már valószínűleg semmi sem jött az izraeli határig.

A UNIFIL II misszió nem csak szárazföldi és "légierő" elemmel rendelkezik, hanem haditengerészetivel is. Az alábbi képeket még Bejrútban lőttem, ahol szerencsémre pont ott létemkor között ki az egyik hadihajó. Egyelőre csak annyit látok, hogy mintha a portugál haditengerészet hajója lenne.

Qui espionne qui et avec quelles méthodes ? "Libération" et Mediapart lèvent le voile sur une réalité ancienne : les États n’ont pas d'amis, juste des intérêts.

Qui espionne qui et avec quelles méthodes ? "Libération" et Mediapart lèvent le voile sur une réalité ancienne : les États n’ont pas d'amis, juste des intérêts.

Elektromajdan – ezzel a hashtaggel terjednek a net orosz nyelvű részén két napja a jereváni tüntetések fotói.

Read more...

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations is embarked on a bold integration initiative that will increasingly align the member states, including through the ASEAN[1] Community to be declared in late 2015 when the region’s leaders meet in Malaysia. The enduring vision and ambition of ASEAN leaders has been the creation of a dynamic, people-centered, inclusive, integrated and globally important collective.

This ambition matters. If ASEAN were a single country, it would be the world’s 7th largest (World Bank 2013 statistics). Or, better still, 4th in World Bank purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. That puts ASEAN just behind the United Kingdom in raw GDP or just behind the combined weight of Germany and the United Kingdom in PPP terms. From 2006-11 ASEAN average growth was 5.14 %, while the EU achieved 1.03 %. Not bad for a region that barely registered in global economic terms before the 1980s.

ASEAN has the world’s 3rd largest population, with over 630 million people. It ranks behind China and India, but ahead of the EU (507 million in 2014) and the United States.   By 2020 around half of the region’s population will be under 30, creating market growth and employment opportunities.   By comparison, in 2014 about one third of the EU’s population was under 30, down from over 40 per cent in 1994 (Eurostat). In 2010 only 5.6 per cent of ASEAN’s people were aged over 65 (EU 18.5 per cent: 2014).   In addition to the population dividend that ASEAN will continue to enjoy, increasing urbanization and rapid uptake of new technology add to the attractiveness of the region as a market and partner.

ASEAN’s drive to integrate has been long in the making.   It was born out of the original wish of the six founding members of ASEAN to work together to ensure the security of their region and to increase the prosperity of their people. Emerging from colonialism and post-war conflicts involving great powers, conscious also that their development levels were low, poverty was endemic, and they had no natural ally, the original members of ASEAN agreed in 1967 to work together for mutual benefit.   Since then the membership has grown, the language and vision have evolved, but the impulse remains the same. ASEAN realizes that their best interests are served by working together to ensure their prosperity and security.

Their current objective is the establishment of an ASEAN Community at the end of year Leaders’ Summit in Malaysia. This comprises three pillars: economic, political-security, socio-cultural.

The economic pillar aims to create a single market and production base, a highly competitive regional economy, equitable economic development to narrow development and wealth gaps, and full integration into the global economy. Many building blocks are in place and others aligned with the blueprint are underway, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership free trade negotiations involving ASEAN and its free trade partners (Australia, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand).

The political security pillar focuses on a rules-based community with shared values and norms. Some elements relate to political and institutional development within ASEAN. Good governance, human rights and anti-corruption endeavours are among the elements. Others focus on regional interests, like the South China Sea and the implementation of ASEAN’s nuclear free zone. ASEAN already sits at the centre of regional architecture, including through its leadership in the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Regional Forum, and it wishes to cement this positioning.   There’s also work underway to develop common ASEAN positions on foreign policy issues, but this looks likely to be a long haul endeavour.

The socio-cultural pillar seeks to forge a common identity in a people-centred and socially responsible framework.   The broad-ranging elements include cooperation in areas like education, health, sport, culture, disaster risk management, humanitarian activities, sustainability and science and technology.   Narrowing the development gaps within and between countries features in this pillar, as in the economic one.

ASEAN officials have been working hard to advance the many elements of the overall Community project.   It has long been clear that the 2015 outcome will not be a complete, shining edifice that will transform links among the ASEAN countries and further strengthen their ability to meet the world.   It’s not an EU-style union. Nor at the economic level is it the kind of open partnership in goods, services, investment and labour that New Zealand and Australia have achieved.   Such comparisons ultimately miss the point.

ASEAN is forging its own unique set of arrangements that will bind its members ever more closely, while recognizing the massive differences among them not only in economic and development terms, but also in matters of language, culture and confidence. They looked at other models, but are shaping their own course at a pace and in a direction that works for them.   The progress they achieve with small, often over-worked bureaucracies is remarkable.   The 2015 outcome will reflect the start of the next phase of their journey – they will improve, tweak and nuance it over time. In short, the ASEAN Community represents a milestone, rather than a destination, in the long journey of regional integration.

Indeed, ASEAN has already begun talking about their next vision looking beyond 2020. That determination to keep moving, to keep improving, is a powerful driver for a region that does not want to be left behind and which aspires to have an ever more significant global presence.

To be sure there are challenges and problems that ASEAN must confront.

The Asia-Pacific region remains one of critical strategic significance. It has benefitted from the leading role the United States has played in supporting peace and prosperity. China’s rapid recent development has also presented fresh opportunities for ASEAN. Yet the current South China Sea debate highlights evolution in the regional dynamic. ASEAN recognizes that it needs to remain nimble, cohesive and neutral in the wider context if it is to remain at the heart of regional processes. As Indonesia’s former foreign minister Marty Natalegawa used to say, ASEAN has to earn its place in the driver’s seat of regionalism.

Within ASEAN there are challenges also. In integration terms, for example, labour mobility is currently a long term dream for most. Then there are various bilateral issues that create awkwardness among certain member states from time to time. And despite the commitment of their leaders to ASEAN, they are still working on getting the region’s people to fully embrace the notion that ASEAN should now be part of their DNA (Europe faces a similar challenge). And so on.

At its core, gradual evolutionary improvement in every facet of life and activity within the ASEAN community will make those countries stronger, with higher levels of development, improved regulation, stronger economies and fewer challenges. That will heighten their attractiveness as partners. Along the way, there will also be greater opportunities to work with ASEAN to help the grouping achieve its vision in each of the three pillar areas.   Each external dialogue partner, including the EU, is already deeply engaged in helping ASEAN in areas where there are skills and capabilities to share.   This creates an excellent base for further development of existing relationships and partnerships and the development of new ones. The EU has in fact just decided to take its relationship with ASEAN to a “strategic level”.

ASEAN is rising, quickly. The integration initiative takes account of regional realities, needs and aspirations and is unique – it does not parallel other integration efforts in other regions. It has set the grouping on a course that will have far-reaching consequences.   The opportunities for partnership and deeper engagement will increase over time as ASEAN progresses its integration project.     May ASEAN continue to have bold dreams.

[1] ASEAN members include Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand). Vietnam joined in 1995, Laos and Burma in 1997, and Cambodia in 1999.

 

IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – Prachatai

The post With integration comes opportunity: the ASEAN story appeared first on Europe’s World.

A mother holds her child outside a migration centre in Rome last week

Brussels may be obsessed with the prospect of Grexit, and much of the focus of the two-day EU summit that starts on Thursday may be Brexit. But the issue worrying many EU diplomats going into the summit is something else entirely: migration.

For the first time, a draft conclusions sent around to national capitals on Monday (we have posted a copy here) includes language on how leaders will deal with the massive influx of refugees from North Africa. If you’ll recall, an emergency summit held in April explicitly left out any targets for numbers of refugees washing up on Italian and Greek shores that would be “relocated” in other EU countries.

Then the European Commission decided it would propose 40,000 of those refugees would be relocated and even came up with European schemes for relocation and resettlement (pdf) that divvied up how many each country would accept. National capitals were not too pleased with that.

The European Commission seems relatively happy with the new draft communiqué. The figures — 40,000 people, over two years — are still there. Likewise, the call for “rapid adoption” — perhaps at a meeting next month — of their migration proposals is stronger than some within the Berlaymont had feared.

But the conclusions do not mention the word “mandatory”, which has raised red flags since many fear that without resettlement quotas, countries will be hard pressed to avoid political pressure to keep refugees out. But it should be noted that the original proposals didn’t mention the word “mandatory”, either.

Read more

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP