Agrégateur de flux

Entrevista - 4/5/2015
Emilio Lamo de Espinosa (Club de Exportadores e Inversores)
Entrevista a Emilio Lamo de Espinosa, presidente del Real Instituto Elcano, publicada en el Boletín Informativo nº 80 del Club de Exportadores e Inversores, en la que señala que “es necesario que las compañías de tamaño pequeño adquieran una mayor dimensión para estar en condiciones de salir a competir en el exterior”.

The ministerial meeting in Iqaluit, Nunavut (Canada), closed Canada's two-year Arctic Council (AC) chairmanship. Arctic cooperation seems relatively unaffected by the poor state of Russia's relations with the West. Canada invested much in its AC Chairmanship, but its deliverables have been less significant than those of previous chairs. Canada's two main achievements are the Arctic Economic Council and the framework for action on black carbon and methane. The framework is only a step in the right direction, not a full agreement. The programme of the new AC chair, the USA, has the potential to enhance practical cooperation between the EU and the AC. As Canada and the EU had resolved their differences, it seemed possible that the EU would at last receive formal observer status to the Council at the Iqaluit meeting, but Russia's geostrategic interests led Moscow to block the process. Given the growing number of observers, the US chair may propose that only one third of observers join high-level AC meetings under any one chair.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

From Arlene Kushner:
May 4, 2015

Towards a New Law of WarThis is the subject of a conference currently being held by Shurat Hadin, the Israeli Law Center, founded and run by the amazing Nitsana Darshan-Leitner. Credit: Wikimedia

Current laws of warfare are outdated, she explained in her introductory remarks.  The Geneva Conventions never envisioned the asymmetrical warfare that is waged today.  We must redefine the laws of warfare, so that democratic states can adequately fight back. Today, terror groups attack civilians, and when democracies fight back, their defense is referred to as a war crime.  Terrorists should not be able to apply to international courts as if they were victims when they are the perpetrators.


The IDF must be able to fulfill its mission of protecting the people of Israel and we we must protect our soldiers, as well.
~~~~~~~~~~

The conference is not being held with the expectation that it has any ability to change the rules of war. Rather, the goal is to stimulate an international dialogue on the issue.  What I will do here is summarize key speakers, and offer significant thoughts garnered throughout the day.

Participants are Israelis, Brits and Americans with legal and military expertise/experience.

~~~~~~~~~~

Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, immediate past Chief of Staff of the IDF, provided the opening keynote speech.Credit: Telegraph (UK)

His words were particularly powerful, as he spoke from experience in the field, addressing both strategic and moral issues.

Warfare in the past, he explained, took place on a battleground, on which military forces met each other. That battlefield has now disappeared and new dimensions have inserted themselves. As never before, we see the involvement of civilians – both as targets and human shields.  How does a soldier even determine who the enemy is, when he is not wearing a uniform?

As far as the international community is concerned, Israel has lost before even starting. Israel has no desire to hurt others who are not combatants but must protect the Israeli people.  A human dilemma.

~~~~~~~~~~

There are broad similarities with regard to the situations in Gaza and Lebanon.  In all instances, hostilities have been started by the terrorists, with Israel holding its force until there is no choice. In both instances, the enemy fighters are allied with the ruling powers, and operate from inside civilian society.  A house in a village in Lebanon will have a livingroom, but also a missile room; in the garden a launching pad may be hidden. Shifa hospital in Gaza has served as headquarters for Hamas terrorists.

We – as a moral nation - must update our legal tools.  The soldier today is subject to uncertainties as he faces a complicated situation.

~~~~~~~~~~

Second speaker, Lt. Gen. David Fridovich, Former Deputy Commaner, US Special Operations Command, asked:  Can you deter terrorists?  He thinks not.  Americans do not get it, he declared.  They are shielded by the media.

~~~~~~~~~~

The first panel addressed the problem of human shields – civilians who protect weapons.  What we are dealing with here is military necessity vs. humanitarian needs. We cannot attack civilians as such or use indiscriminate force. but there is an obligation upon the enemy (in principle only as it is never honored) to separate civilians from combatants and from military operations.

Said Prof. Richard Jackson, Special Assistant to the US Army Judge Advocate General for Law of War, eyes must stay on the target, with fire adjusted one round at a time, using precision weapons.  The enemy is trying to provoke a response that uses overwhelming force. What is needed then is a modulated response.

~~~~~~~~~~

The next member of the panel to speak was Col. Richard Kemp, Former Commander, British Forces in Afghanistan, and one of Israel’s staunchest friends.Credit: militaryspeakers (UK)

The use of human shields is rapidly increasing, he said:

• there is a greater prevalence of asymmetrical power, with the weaker side using civilians
• this is a means of political warfare against the Western powers (Israel included), a way to undermine democracies and democratic armies
• there is influence by the media
• this hinders direct attack, restrains democratic armies ability to operate

Today human shields are used as primary weapons. Greater blame is placed by the world on those who hit human shields than on those who use them.

The use of human shields continues, said Kemp, because this works.  He suggested here that if democracies had greater reluctance to be deterred by human shields they might be employed less.  He is not suggesting wholesale slaughter! but wonders if perhaps there is a need to permit greater collateral damage.  The proportionality calculus must change, and it needs to be codified.
~~~~~~~~~~

Human shields lose their status as protected persons because they enhance the enemy’s goals.  But only if they are serving as shields voluntarily. (More on this follows.)

Death of human shields must be considered the responsibility of those who use them.  It is illegal to use human shields.  In fact, the law requires moving civilians from a combat area.

Kemp suggested that over-all military objectives, and not just the immediate situation, must be considered when deciding on how to respond to human shields.  If there is greater collateral damage permitted in one operation, perhaps in the long term it would discourage use of human shields.

~~~~~~~~~~

Bassem Eid, a courageous Palestinian Arab Human-Rights activist, followed with some comments on what Kemp had suggested.

The civilians in Gaza must wake up, he declared: their leaders do not have the right to do as they do.  However, Hamas coerces people, pays them to motivate them to stay put, and charges those who flee an area that Israel is about to attack with being Israeli collaborators.

International human rights organizations do not raise the issue of human shields:  “No Jews, no news.”

Hamas cares nothing about civilians or reconstruction – only about new tunnels and a stronger military.

~~~~~~~~~~

I want to move here to the panel that discussed the critical issue of proportionality.  Proportionality is not about how many deaths were suffered on each side – which is how the topic is frequently represented.It is rather a question of what is a proportionate amount of collateral damage for a given military advantage. In the end, this is a principle that requires interpretation.  The rule of proportionality is the most misunderstood and misapplied.

Prof. Yuval Shany, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Hebrew University, says that democracies do not normally utilize indiscriminate force or kill civilians on purpose.  But there remains a host of related questions.  Regarding, for example, weapon choice: do you act quickly, even though there will be collateral damage?  Or do you lose valuable time and wait until a more accurate weapon is brought in?  Risk to the soldiers serving under a commander must be considered by him, as must issues of military necessity.

On these questions, “reasonable minds may disagree.”

Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Northwestern University School of Law, asked how one measures proportionality. The law does not define what the proportion is.  Who decides?  In international law, there is no final legal decider.

~~~~~~~~~~

Prof. Geoffrey Corn, of the South Texas College of Law, provided insights on this matter that were clear and enormously useful.Credit: mysantonio

We are dealing, he said, with the hypocrisy of double standards.  The law is not going to change, but we should not allow it to be distorted: if properly understood, there is flexibility.

The keyword is excessive: a significant imbalance.  Commanders must anticipate the risk, and make an assessment regarding whether it is worth it.

The commander must be judged on conditions that prevailed when he made his decision.  Many tactical factors will have weighed into the equation.

Instead, the commander is criticized based on the results.  No commander, no matter how moral, can always make the right decision.

~~~~~~~~~~

Professor Corn prefers to think in terms of the rule of precautionary obligations.  This provides objective evidence of good faith and morality.  Did the commander take into consideration different weapons, different timing, how much warning to give?  Etc. etc.  If all these measures have been weighed, then it is possible to move ahead with lethal force to defeat the enemy.

~~~~~~~~~~

Prof. Corn says that the moral considerations need to be ramped up when fighting the most immoral of enemies – otherwise all moral footing is lost.  The moral well being of our combatants at the end of the war must be considered.
~~~~~~~~~~

These are exceedingly heavy issues that must be struggled with in real time.  We know that down the road – soon - we will be confronting these situations again.

I close here by noting that it was remarked several times during the course of the day that there is no more moral army in the world than the IDF. No other army takes the extraordinary measures that ours does to warn civilians before we attack.  At the same time, we take the most heat from the world.

~~~~~~~~~~

It is highly likely that when I next post it will be to discuss the formation of the coalition.  The deadline for Netanyahu is almost upon us.  It has not been a happy scenario, but I believe he will pull it off somehow by Wednesday. The news today is that Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beitenu and until now foreign minister, is declining to participate in the coalition.

~~~~~~~~~~© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.  

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

Technorati Tag: Israel and Lawfare and Human Shields and Disproportionate Force.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Libération a consacré tout un dossier au vote obligatoire, un débat qui est de nouveau d’actualité en France après les abstentions records des derniers scrutins qui semblent favoriser le FN. Voici l’article que j’ai consacré au modèle belge, premier pays au monde à avoir instauré le vote obligatoire.

Comment éviter que la noblesse et la bourgeoisie ne fuient les bureaux de vote de peur d’être confrontées aux classes populaires ? Comment empêcher que les partis représentant la classe dirigeante ne soient laminés par l’abstention des riches ? C’est simple : il suffit de rendre le vote obligatoire. Ainsi fut fait en 1893 dans le Royaume de Belgique, premier pays au monde à introduire cette innovation. Et depuis 120 ans, les scores de participation, toutes élections confondues, tournent autour de 90 %, de quoi faire rêver les démocraties fatiguées.

Le vote obligatoire en Belgique est le pendant de l’instauration du suffrage universel (masculin, dans un premier temps, les femmes attendront 1948). Jusqu’en 1893, le suffrage est censitaire (le cens a été supprimé en France en 1848), c’est-à-dire lié à des conditions de revenus, ce qui limitait le nombre d’électeurs à environ 1 % de la population. Mais, le Royaume a été rapidement confronté à la chute de la participation : l’abstention est passée de 14 % en 1843 à 65 % en 1855. Aux élections bruxelloises de 1861, sur 6000 électeurs potentiels, seuls 370 se sont déplacés pour le second tour. Bref, il fallait réagir pour sauver la démocratie tout en évitant que le suffrage universel ne se traduise par une poussée des socialistes, les épouvantails de l’époque. « Les classes bourgeoises ont donc tout fait pour limiter son impact : vote obligatoire, mais aussi vote plural (les plus riches avaient deux ou trois voix) qui ne disparaitra qu’en 1919 », explique Christian Behrendt, professeur de droit constitutionnel à l’Université de Liège.

L’effet du vote obligatoire a été immédiat sur la participation : dès les élections de 1894, l’absentéisme chute à 5,4 %, menace de sanctions pénales à l’appui. Elles vont d’une amende (aujourd’hui comprise entre 30 € et 150 €) à l’exclusion des listes électorales pour dix ans. Mieux : « les fonctionnaires, qui doivent montrer l’exemple, peuvent être condamnés à ne pas être promus », s’amuse Christian Behrendt. Mais ces sanctions sont petit à petit tombées en désuétude : depuis 2003, aucune condamnation n’a été prononcée sans que cette impunité de fait n’influe sur le taux de participation. Il est vrai aussi que « comme on oblige les citoyens à s’exprimer, le vote blanc et nul est reconnu », souligne Christian Behrendt. Ainsi, en 2014, il pesait 5,77 % des voix pour les élections fédérales (participation : 89,68 %), 4,97 % pour le Parlement flamand (participation : 92,53 %), 7,41 % pour le Parlement wallon (participation : 87,88 %) et 5,35 % pour le Parlement bruxellois (participation : 83,62 %).

Aujourd’hui, « l’abrogation du vote obligatoire n’est pas un grand débat en Belgique, même si on en discute un peu plus en Flandre », note Dave Sinardet, professeur de sciences politiques à la Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). « Côté francophone, le PS, le parti dominant, craint que cela lui nuise, car les études montrent que ce sont les couches de la population les moins favorisées qui s’abstiendraient », poursuit-il. Au nord du pays, les libéraux de l’Open VLD et, dans une moindre mesure, les chrétiens-démocrates du CD&V sont favorables à l’abrogation au nom de la liberté individuelle, mais aussi pour inciter les partis à aller chercher les électeurs et à ne pas vivre sur leurs acquis.

« Comme le vote est obligatoire depuis 120 ans, il est difficile de dire quels seraient les effets d’une abrogation », estime Christian Behrendt. On peut en tout cas noter que si la Belgique francophone n’a jamais eu de parti d’extrême droite, la Flandre, elle, a longtemps dû s’accommoder d’un parti fasciste, le Vlaams Belang, aujourd’hui en voie d’extinction. Et dans les deux Régions, le vote est obligatoire.

N.B.: article paru dans Libération du 28/4/15

Alább az útról kiadott MTI hír, csak azért teszem fel ide, mert egy rövid keresés alapján nem találtam híroldalt, amely teljes egészében lehozta volna a hírt.
Ami érdekes a hírben, hogy az egynapos látogatáson Szíjjártó találkozott az olajminszter kivételével az összes fontos miniszterrel + az államfővel + turisztikai miniszterrel. Elég sűrű program volt, és egyben jelzi, hogy a iraki félnek mennyire fontos minden nyugati partner látogatása, érdeklődése (+ talán az eddig magyar erőfeszítéseket elismerését is jelzi).A másik érdekes a magyar kontingens érkezése. Mintha egy fél mondatban már olvastam volna korábban egy korábbi miniszteri kommünikében, de a mostani egy világos menetrend:Májusban a "parancsnoki karhoz" (bármit is jeletnsen ez, valószínűleg inkább a parancsnoki törzsekhez kerülnek Bagdadba, Kuvaitban, nem tudom még hova).Július-augusztusban pedig a század kitelepülése.
Bagdad/Budapest, 2015. május 4., hétfő (MTI) - Május végén a parancsnoki karhoz tartozó tisztekkel kezdődik meg a magyar katonai kontingens kitelepülése az iraki Erbílbe, és augusztus végéig befejeződik az Iszlám Állam nevű terrorszervezet elleni küzdelem keretében Irakba utazó magyar katonák kihelyezése - mondta Szijjártó Péter külgazdasági és külügyminiszter hétfőn telefonon az MTI-nek bagdadi tárgyalásait követően.    A külügyminiszter úgy nyilatkozott, hogy Bagdadban nagyra becsülik a magyar kormány erőfeszítéseit, mivel a közép-európai térségből Magyarország küld elsőként katonákat a közel-keleti országba. Leszögezte, nem csupán Irak vagy Magyarország, hanem egész Európa és a Közel-Kelet érdeke is az Iszlám Állam mielőbbi legyőzése, hiszen Irak stabilitása kiemelt jelentőségű Európa számára is.
    Szijjártó Péter megjegyezte, az Irakba induló magyar kontingens hat összekötő tisztből, 110 szolgálatot teljesítő katonából, valamint a rotáció biztosítása érdekében Magyarországon készenlétben álló 27 katonából áll. Az MTI kérdésére a külügyminiszter azt mondta, a magyar katonák őrzésvédelmi és biztosítási funkciókat fognak ellátni Erbílben, a kurd régió fővárosában, illetve annak környékén. Ez azt jelenti, hogy a kurd város nemzetközi repülőterén található, és az iraki hadsereg, valamint a kurd harcosok, a pesmergák kiképzésére használt bázis és a kiképzőtisztek biztonságának szavatolásért felelnek majd a magyar katonák. Hasonló feladatokat látott el a magyar kontingens Afganisztánban is, ahol a kabuli repülőtér őrzésvédelméért felelt.
    A külügyminiszter azt mondta, jelenleg is zajlanak a tárgyalások az olasz és az amerikai katonai kontingenssel a magyar katonák elhelyezéséről.
    Szijjártó Péter az Iszlám Állam legyőzése utáni újjáépítési időszakról is tárgyalt Bagdadban. Ezzel kapcsolatban elmondta, a két ország még az idén gazdasági együttműködési megállapodást és a kettős adóztatás kizáró megegyezést írhat alá. A magyar Eximbank 20 millió dolláros hitelkeretet hozott létre, és ennek a hitelkeretnek a terhére már zajlanak a tárgyalások a két ország között autóipari, egészségipari, valamint építőipari együttműködésről.
    A külügyminiszter tárgyalópartnereinek kiemelte, hogy a magyar kormány a kétoldalú együttműködés zászlóshajójaként tekint a kurd térségben két olajkutatási és kitermelési koncesszióval rendelkező MOL olaj- és gázipari vállalatra.
    A felek arról is megállapodtak, a magyar kormány megteszi a szükséges lépéseket annak érdekében, hogy a magyar Országgyűlés ratifikálja az Európai Unió és Irak közötti stratégiai együttműködési megállapodást. Szijjártó Péter hangsúlyozta, Magyarország úgy véli, Irak az elkövetkező időszakban az EU stratégiai energiapolitikai partnerévé válhat.
    Szijjártó Péter egynapos iraki látogatásán mások mellett Fuád Maszúm iraki elnökkel, Haider al-Abádi miniszterelnökkel, Hosjar Zebari miniszterelnök-helyettessel és pénzügyminiszterrel, Ibráhim al-Dzsaafari külügy-, Háled al-Obeidi védelmi miniszterrel.
    Emellett a külügyminiszter Ádel Fahd es-Sersáb iraki turisztikai és régészeti miniszterrel az Irakban lerombolt ókori műemlékek és világörökségi helyszínek helyreállításáról tárgyalt. A felek megegyeztek arról, hogy magyar régészek és asszírológusok vezetésével nemzetközi együttműködést indítanak.

En l’honneur de la 200e session en région de l’Institut des hautes études de défense nationale (IHEDN), la mairie de Bordeaux a reçu les auditeurs de cette session,...

en lire plus

Flüchtlingspolitik: Zehn-Punkte-Katalog ist unzureichend

A brit választások kimenetelétől függetlenül elkerülhetetlennek látja a referendumot az ország EU-tagságáról Írország egykori londoni nagykövete, aki egy hétfőn bemutatott könyvében arra is figyelmeztet, hogy bármilyen színezetű is lesz a következő kormány, iszonyatosan nehéz dolga lesz, ha az igen szavazatra akarja rábeszélni a brit választókat.

Dès les premiers jours du déploiement de l'armée française en Guinée dans le cadre de la lutte contre Ebola, les experts des systèmes d'information et de communication (SIC) et du soutien de quartier général (SQG) ont mis en place un dispositif opérationnel adapté aux conditions atypiques de cette mission. Il doit permettre au personnel du centre de traitement pour les soignants (CTS), ainsi qu'aux patients pris en charge au centre, d'être en permanence connectés.

Après l’Egypte et l’Inde, et peut-être la Malaisie et les Émirats arabes unis, le Qatar vient d’annoncer à son tour l’achat de 24 avions Rafale. Comment expliquer ce succès après une décennie d’échecs à l’exportation ?
Cela peut paraître étonnant mais cela est un peu dû au hasard. Il y a peu de débouchés pour ce type d’avions. Les échecs sur dix ans, c’est aussi moins d’une dizaine de pays dont certains étaient la chasse gardée des États-Unis comme la Corée du Sud ou Singapour. Avec ces trois contrats, la France atteint un taux de réussite d’environ 30%, ce qui n’est pas mal car il y a en général quatre concurrents sur les marchés à l’exportation : les Américains avec plusieurs types d’avions selon les demandes, les Russes, les Européens avec l’Eurofighter, et le Gripen suédois. Sur les trois contrats, deux d’entre eux étaient attendus car le choix du Rafale était arrêté : celui du Qatar et de l’Inde. En revanche, l’Egypte est une surprise ; la décision finale est liée au refroidissement de ses relations avec les États-Unis.
Une autre raison vient du fait que le Rafale est aujourd’hui à la fois un avion moderne mais éprouvé. Les Américains vont de plus en plus promouvoir le F-35, qui est plus cher, face au Rafale qui, en vieillissant, devient une meilleure option. De plus, le Rafale est un avion qui est régulièrement employé depuis cinq ans dans le cadre des opérations extérieures en Afghanistan, en Libye et au Mali.
En troisième lieu, l’État français et Dassault ont travaillé ensemble pour promouvoir cet équipement, ce qui ne fut pas toujours le cas dans le passé, notamment lors de l’échec au Maroc. On ne peut exporter des équipements aussi stratégiques et aussi chers sans une coordination étroite entre cette entreprise et l’État. Le fait que François Hollande signe en personne le contrat au Qatar, témoigne de l’importance de cette vente.
Enfin – et cela a été peu souligné -, l’Egypte, le Qatar et l’Inde disposaient de Mirage 2000. Les Indiens ont même décidé il y a quelques années de moderniser leur Mirage 2000-5. C’est une preuve de confiance quant à la qualité du matériel qui doit être soulignée.

Que penser de la négociation des contrats de vente des Rafale ? Peuvent-ils être préjudiciables à long terme, notamment ceux concernant l’Inde et le Qatar ?
Pour l’Inde, le contrat qui vient d’être signé ne comprend pas, pour l’heure, de transfert de technologie… et c’est sans doute plus un handicap qu’une bonne nouvelle sur le long terme. A court terme, il est certain que les trente-six avions vendus seront fabriqués en France. C’est de l’emploi garanti pour les cinq prochaines années, notamment en Aquitaine. Sur le long terme, l’Inde souhaite développer son industrie aéronautique militaire et ne peut pas le faire sans partenariat technologique. Nous connaissons parfaitement les mesures à prendre pour conserver une longueur d’avance, même avec des transferts de technologie, et donc limiter les risques de concurrence dans le futur. Le contrat pour la vente de cent vingt-six avions prévu initialement, et qui continuera à être négocié, nous permettrait d’avoir un partenariat avec l’Inde sur le long terme. C’est un choix politique qui est fait, c’est aussi un choix industriel et technologique qui est plus compliqué car il peut nous conduire à des obligations d’assistance technologique qu’il faut maîtriser.
En ce qui concerne le Qatar, on se trouve dans un cas plus classique de troc, c’est-à-dire que le pays acheteur souhaite obtenir des compensations vis-à-vis de son achat, qui ne sont pas directement liés à l’acquisition de Rafale. En l’occurrence, le Qatar aurait demandé des droits de trafic supplémentaires pour sa compagnie aérienne en France sur Nice et Lyon. Dans ce cas, il est donc nécessaire d’arbitrer entre l’intérêt commercial du constructeur aéronautique Dassault et celui d’Air France, qui ont chacun des intérêts qui relèvent de l’intérêt général tant l’impact en termes d’image et d’emploi est important dans les deux cas. Il est sûr que cette vente intervient dans une période très conflictuelle à ce niveau puisque la France et l’Allemagne ont par ailleurs demandé à la Commission européenne de négocier un accord équitable avec les compagnies aériennes du Golfe, accusées de concurrence déloyale.

Ces 84 avions de combat vendus ou en passe de l’être, et bientôt 50 hélicoptères en Pologne, font de l’année 2015 une année record pour la vente d’armes à l’exportation de la France. Peut-on imaginer que cette situation perdure à l’avenir ou n’est-ce finalement qu’une bouffée d’oxygène sans lendemain ?
En moyenne, nous vendons pour six à sept milliards d’euros d’armement par an. En 2015, le chiffre des prises de commandes pourrait avoisiner les dix-huit milliards d’euros. C’est sans précédent. C’est une conjonction extraordinaire et cela va permettre d’alimenter notre industrie pendant cinq à six ans dans la mesure où on ne construit pas 84 avions de combat et 50 hélicoptères du jour au lendemain. Par le passé, nous avions déjà connu une autre année exceptionnelle en 1984, avec un montant de 61 milliards de francs. Si on prend en compte l’inflation, le montant n’était donc certainement pas très éloigné de celui qui sera atteint en 2015. La mesure des ventes d’armes se fait donc plus sur des périodes de cinq ou dix ans. L’objectif pourrait être de maintenir une moyenne de huit à neuf milliards d’euros, plus élevé qu’il ne l’est actuellement, mais en deçà du chiffre que l’on atteindra en 2015.

Du 28 avril au 2 mai 2015, le groupe aéronaval composé du porte-avions Charles de Gaulle, de la frégate de défense aérienne Chevalier Paul, de la frégate anti sous-marine Jean de Vienne et du pétrolier ravitailleur Meuse, a conduit la 14e édition de l’exercice Varuna au large de la côte ouest de l’Inde avec le groupe aéronaval indien, constitué autour du porte-avions Viraat. C’était la 5ème fois que la Task Force 473 participait à cet exercice depuis 2001, la dernière datant de 2011, lors de la mission Agapanthe.

Provides an overview of Eritrea, including key events and facts for this country on the Horn of Africa.

Fin avril 2015, la frégate anti-aérienne Cassard a terminé sa mission de présence en Méditerranée centrale et orientale.

Du 20 au 30 avril 2015, la base aérienne 118 de Mont-de-Marsan a abrité un exercice d’ampleur nationale. L’exercice VOLFA 15-2 a regroupé pas moins de 460 militaires issus de 12 bases aériennes françaises autour d’un scénario grandeur nature.

Public hearing "The implementation of the security research programme for conflict prevention and peace building".
Location : Paul-Henri Spaak 5B001
Programme
Draft progarmme
Poster
Poster
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Le chef de l'Etat promet une augmentation du budget de la Défense de plusieurs milliards et annule la suppression de 18500 postes. Avec quel argent ? Mystère...

Here’s the second installment of my reporting from the 2015 MCIS conference. This one and the next will focus on Russian views of NATO as the primary source of military threat to the Russian Federation. The first speech was by General Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff. His topic was the military threats and dangers facing Russia in the contemporary period. He launched into a discussion of how the West saw Russia’s efforts to stabilize the situation in Ukraine as unacceptable independence in standing up for its national interests. He argued that this reaction was the cause of the increase in international tension over the last year, as the Western countries have sought to put political and economic pressure on Russia in order to “put it in its place.” He argues that while many Western experts believe that the Ukraine crisis has led to a sudden and rapid collapse of world order, the reality is that the situation has been developing since the start of the 1990s. The problems were caused by the collapse of the bipolar system, which allowed the US to consider itself the winner of the Cold War and to attempt to build a system in which it had total domination over international security. In such a system, the US would decide unilaterally which countries could be considered democratic and which were “evil empires,” which were freedom fighters and which terrorists and separatists. In doing so, the US stopped considering the interests of other states and would only selectively follow the norms of international law.

Russia has had to respond to this threat and has done so in its new military doctrine, which strictly follows international norms. The key points, as presented by Gerasimov in the slide below, include using violent means only as a last resort, using military force to contain and prevent conflicts, and preventing all (but especially nuclear) military conflicts. At the same time, the doctrine states that the current international security system does not provide for all countries to have security in equal measure. In other words, Russian military leaders continue to feel that Russian security is infringed by the current international security system and imply that they would like to see it revised.

The most significant threat facing Russia, in Gerasimov’s view, comes from NATO. In particular, he highlights the threat from NATO enlargement to the east, noting that all 12 new members added since 1999 were formerly either members of the Warsaw Pact or Soviet republics. This process is continuing, with the potential future inclusion of former Yugoslav republics and continuing talk of perspective Euroatlantic integration of Ukraine and Georgia. Political arguments about creating a single Europe sharing common values have outweighed purely military and security in enlargement discussions, with many new members added even though they did not fulfill the economic and military criteria for membership. This expansion has had a serious negative effect on Russia’s military security.

In addition to NATO enlargement, NATO has also expanded cooperation with non-member countries in the region through programs such as the Partnership Interoperability Initiative, which includes Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine among 24 priority countries for cooperation, and Privileged Partnership, which will allow NATO to use infrastructure in Finland and Sweden to transfer troops to northern Europe. Furthermore, NATO is actively seeking to increase its influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

NATO is using the crisis in Ukraine as an excuse to strengthen the forces it has arrayed against Russia. It has openly blamed Russia for aggressive policies in the post-Soviet space and has made containment of Russia the prime force for future development of NATO. The decisions made at the Wales NATO summit in September 2014 confirm this.

While NATO military activity near Russia was relatively stable through 2013, it has increased substantially over the last year. NATO states’ naval presence in the Black Sea has quadrupled, flights by reconnaissance and tactical aviation have doubled, and flights by long range early warning aircraft have increased by a factor of nine. US UAVs are flying over the Black Sea, while German and Polish intelligence ships are constantly present in the Baltic. The number of NATO exercises increased by 80% in 2014 compared to the previous year. The character of these exercises has also changed. Whereas in the past they were focused primarily on crisis response and counter-terrorism, now they are clearly aimed at practicing military action against Russia.

The action plan approved in Wales included a significant increase in NATO military presence in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, including a rapid reaction force and a constant presence of a limited contingent of forces rotating through the region. This will allow a large number of NATO military personnel to be trained to conduct operations against Russia. At the same time, military infrastructure, including weapons storage facilities, is being built up in Eastern Europe. Gerasimov argued that on the basis of all of these developments, it is clear that efforts to strengthen NATO’s military capabilities are not primarily defensive in nature.

Gerasimov then turned to the question of US efforts to develop global ballistic missile defense systems. He argued that Russia views the development of these systems as yet another move by the US and its allies to dismantle the existing international security system on their way to world domination. Over the last four years, US BMD systems have begun to appear near Russian borders, including Aegis-equipped ships in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, Aegis Ashore systems in Romania and Poland, and anti-missile systems being deployed in the Asia-Pacific region with Japanese and South Korean cooperation.

These forces present a real threat to Russian strategic nuclear forces and could also strike Russian satellite systems. Washington has so far refused to share command authority for global BMD systems, even with its allies, making it clear that it alone will decide which NATO member states it will defend from missile threats. Since Russia will have no choice but to take counter-measures against global BMD systems, this may subject non-nuclear NATO-member states to the risk of being early targets of Russian response measures.

What’s more, the deployment of anti-missile systems violates the INF treaty, since the Aegis Ashore systems can be armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles as easily as with SM-3 anti-missile systems.

Russia is also concerned with the development of the concept of Prompt Global Strike, which will also damage the strategic nuclear balance that currently provides the main guarantee for international stability.

In its efforts to “put Russia on its knees,” Washington and its NATO partners continue to create crises in territories on Russia’s borders. Having successfully carried out regime change scenarios under the guise of colored revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, the US was able to place anti-Russian governments in power in a number of states bordering Russia. The radicals and Russophobes who came to power in Ukraine in 2014 have based their policies on blaming Russia for all of Ukraine’s problems while persecuting the country’s Russophone population. They are now trying to use force to repress their own citizens who expressed a lack of confidence in this new government. As a result, Ukraine has been plunged into civil war. Gerasimov said that it is difficult to know how the conflict will end, since “we don’t know what directives Ukrainian leaders will receive from their Western ‘curators’ and where Kiev’s aggression may be directed in the future.” But it is clear that these actions pose a military threat to Russia, much as the Georgian attacks on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia in 2008 did. Gerasimov also noted that Mikheil Saakashvili, who ordered these attacks, is now an advisor to Ukrainian President Poroshenko.

Gerasimov then moved on to a discussion of other frozen conflicts in the post-Soviet space, noting the increased risk that these conflicts may be “unfrozen” as a result of the currently heightened threat environment. He noted statements by the current Georgian government reflecting its intention to restore control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by force. The Moldovan government has been pressing for the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers from Transnistria while continuing its economic blockade of the region. This is all leading to an increase in tension in these regions and may result in response measures from the Russian side.

In conclusion, Gerasimov turned to the threat posed by global terrorism. He noted that the number of members of various extremist organizations has grown from 2000 in the 1960s-70s, to 50,000 in the 1990s, to over 150,000 today. He also expressed concern about the growth of transnational terrorist networks, including some such as ISIS that have developed certain aspects of statehood. Some ISIS fighters are Russian citizens. These fighters threaten the entire world and attempts to fight the threat by a US-led airstrike operation have so far not achieved visible results. As a result, Washington and Brussels have once again turned to developing new armed groups among so-called “moderate Islamists.” But such projects do not take into account how such terrorist empires have formed in the past. Al-Qaeda, for example, formed from mujahideen who were funded by the US and its allies. Similarly, ISIS fighters until recently were “good” fighters but have now gone out of Western control and started to threaten their former sponsors.

In response to this range of threats, Russia has continued to develop its armed forces. Nuclear forces are maintained at a level designed to guarantee nuclear deterrence, including modern systems that can overcome US BMD systems. Russian Air-space defense systems continue to be developed. Defensive forces have been placed in Crimea. Russian bases have been placed in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. These bases will serve as a guarantee of stability and security in these regions.

At the same time, Gerasimov noted that Russia understands that most modern security threats affect entire regions and even the whole world so that their solution requires international dialog and cooperation.

—-

I’ll have some reactions to this speech in a follow-up post. For now, let me just say that it was interesting to see the shift to the discussion of “old school” military threats, following last year’s focus on colored revolutions and hybrid warfare.