Archive
China-Russia Partnership Protects Rights Of Developing Nations
Global Times
April 28, 2012
Sino-Russian ties protect rights of developing nations
The official visit to Russia by Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang has further strengthened the two countries’ partnership.
International relations seem to be at an intersection of choices, as the Western world still has ambiguous ties with the emerging economies. Both China and Russia have been pushed into a “non-Western” position.
The governments in both China and Russia play a vital role in guiding domestic recognition of the other nation within their own country. Non-governmental exchanges are not enough by themselves to support the strategic relationship. This relationship is vital for both sides as it is determined by the need for national interests, not out of simple utilitarianism.
The development of globalization expanded the Western political arena, and the process inspired non-Western countries’ political awareness but impaired their ability to independently select their own paths.
No country in recent years has succeeded by directly following in the footsteps of the West. Countries that do are caught in a dilemma since they have been deprived of the political legitimacy in exploring their own paths for development.
The biggest significance of the China-Russia partnership, in the foreseeable future, may be that it establishes an obstacle to the Western monopoly and protects the basic rights of the non-Western world, including the independence of national interests and the diversity of political systems.
There are pessimistic people in China and Russia who are not confident in the return of this strategic partnership, and who believe that only by Westernizing itself can a country integrate into the world. They are not confident in themselves.
Both China and Russia are world powers, and their emergence means a balanced global order. It is wrong for either China or Russia to perceive their relationship with the West as the source of their power.
China and Russia are capable of establishing a new strategic direction against the West and providing a promising future by securing their all-round partnership. This is in line with their national interests and will benefit their strategic position. Of course, China and Russia also have suspicions of each other, so it is everyone’s interests to build mutual trust.
Li’s first visit to Moscow offers a timely opportunity to consolidate bilateral relations for the future.
The visit demonstrates the confidence of both countries in securing relations in a year of global elections, and makes their partnership clearer and more attractive.
NATO Invades Chicago: Where Is Responsibility To Protect?
Global Research
April 29, 2012
NATO Invades Chicago: But Where is the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) for Citizens in this War-Zone City?
By Ross Ruthenberg
The city of Chicago will be invaded by a NATO conference next month, costing US taxpayers up to $100 million for the provision of facilities and security for 50 delegations comprising some 100 dignitaries and thousands of advisors.
But instead of providing ring-of-steel security for the NATO bureaucrats in attendance, what the hard-pressed citizens of Chicago would appreciate more is a little application of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine that NATO powers are so keen on bestowing on other parts of the world wracked by violence.
Chicago’s notoriety as a violent city has gone into overdrive in recent years with an epidemic in fatal shootings. Last year, nearly 2,300 people were shot in the Windy City, resulting in 441 homicides, including men, women and children. In the first three months of this year, some 656 were shot, with 145 homicides. At that rate, the victims of gun crime will amount to over 2,600 shootings and 580 homicides by the end of this year alone.
With this level of violence, the people of Chicago do not feel safe in their own city, and the state and federal authorities are conspicuously inadequate in their duty to protect citizens.
In that way, it is not far-fetched for the people of Chicago, or some concerned foreign governments on their behalf, to invoke the principle of R2P, in emulation of how the NATO powers so readily intervene around the world purportedly to “protect human rights”. After all, the R2P advocates tell us that “sovereignty is not a right, it is a privilege” and if governments cannot protect their citizens then they forfeit their right to sovereignty, thereby giving the UN or NATO a mandate to protect vulnerable populations.
Likewise, the case can be made for NATO intervention in Chicago whereby heavily armed “peacekeepers” with strange accents lock down large areas of the city, impose no-fly zones and launch missiles from aerial drones on groups suspected of perpetrating violence against vulnerable citizens who are left unprotected by the presumptive authorities.
Let’s put Chicago’s annual casualties of gun crime into a Syrian context. On a Syrian versus Chicago population basis (20.5 million versus 2.8 million), the American figures would be equivalent to 18,815 civilian shootings and 4,160 homicides in Syria. This is of the same order as the unverified, and no doubt grossly exaggerated, UN figures commonly quoted for Syrian victims since conflict broke out in that country 13 months ago. If such dubious figures for Syria have sparked so much attention from Western governments, mainstream media and the UN Security Council, why is the plight of Chicago citizens being ignored? As the cheeky saying goes in this city: “What are we? Chopped liver?”
It is not hyperbole to say that large areas of Chicago resemble a war zone for its hapless population. Schoolchildren have to be escorted daily by armed guards for even a short trip to visit a library across town. People from ethic minorities are particularly at significant risk of suffering a violent death from just walking out on the streets. Surely, there is a legal case at the UN or some other international court that the US authorities are abdicating a responsibility to protect their own citizens. The UN or NATO is thereby mandated to intervene to protect Chicago citizens (assuming, of course, that the principle and practice of R2P is genuinely construed).
Another factor for R2P being applicable to Chicago is the level of systematic violence emanating from armed gangs and criminal mercenaries. Many of the shootings in the city are believed to be the work of heavily armed gangs or private militia engaged in industrial-scale drug dealing. Furthermore, many of these private armies are funded and directed from foreign territories – Mexico and Colombia.
In the coming weeks, no doubt we will hear a lot from Western governments and the mainstream media exhorting the UN or NATO to intervene in Syria because of violence against citizens whom the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad is not protecting in the face of armed gangs (even though these same armed gangs are being supported by these same Western governments and media).
Therefore, applying the same – albeit cynical – criteria, a case could be made for NATO peacekeepers being sent to liberate Chicago and overseeing some badly needed regime change here.
Ross Ruthenberg is a Chicago area political analyst rossersurf@comcast.net
Now India: NATO Has James Bond Badge To Kill With Impunity
Pakistan Observer
April 28, 2012
NATO: “James Bond” 007 force
Geopolitical notes from India
M D Nalapat
===
[I]f NATO personnel were to be arrested for killing innocent civilians, tens of thousands would now be in jail for the murder of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere. To join NATO is to get an invisible 007 badge which confers the right to kill without any fear of punishment.
The only way to teach NATO that India is still an independent country would be to set a figure for compensation that is similar to what citizens of the alliance themselves claim when a loved one is killed.
Countries across the world that have lost lives as a consequence of NATO action need to come together and shame the UN into conducting an investigation into the matter, rather than ignoring it because the headquarters of that venerable institution is dominated by members of NATO, whose license to kill with impunity needs to be taken away before more tens of thousands of innocents perish in bombs, bullets and missiles.
====
Justice K John Mathew of the Lok Adalat (Peoples Court) of Kochi in Kerala has computed the value of a human life at Rs 1 crore. That is the money paid by Italian authorities to the next of kin of each of the two fishermen who had been shot dead months ago by Italian marines. Although the victims were in waters where there had been no pirate trouble, and in a small fishing boat rather than in a much larger pirate ship, and all but one of them had been visibly asleep on deck when the attack took place, the other having died when he awoke to the sound of shots and raised his head, the Italians have claimed that the shootings were justified as “the suspicion was that these were pirates about to attack” the Enrico Lexie, an Italian tanker.
Why pirates about to attack a huge ship would be fast asleep on deck, besides being visibly unarmed, has not been explained by the Italian navy, which was angry that two of its men were arrested just for shooting two innocents from India. After all, if NATO personnel were to be arrested for killing innocent civilians, tens of thousands would now be in jail for the murder of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere. To join NATO is to get an invisible 007 badge which confers the right to kill without any fear of punishment.
Admirers of Italy in India (and there is at least one prominent political family in India, one very close to the Bhuttos, that speaks only Italian when they are with each other) ensured that the lawyer for the central government sought to excuse the two Italian marines from being prosecuted by saying that the shooting took place “outside the territorial waters of India”, an untruth.
If such an argument be accepted, should any person wish to conduct an assassination, all that needs to be done is to lure the victim beyond Indian waters and kill him or her there. According to the government lawyer, Harish Rawal, this would mean that Indian courts would automatically have zero jurisdiction over the case.
The intense effort to free the two Italians may ensure that they be allowed to return to their country by next month, if the Kerala High Court accepts Rawal’s arguments. Such an outcome would mean that India would de facto have joined Afghanistan, Iraq and other locations where NATO personnel cannot be held to account by local courts, but must be sent back, usually to be freed even after committing rape and murder. Incidentally, the two Italians who killed the fishermen were first placed in luxurious guest house accomodation and later moved to a special cell in a Trivandrum jail, where they are allowed to dress and move about as they please, and get specially-prepared meals served to them. Part of the benefits of working in NATO.
Justice Mathew ought to have decreed that, at the least, the Italian government should pay Rs 5 crores for each of the dead fishermen. These days, even a middle-sized apartment in a big city costs Rs 1 crore to buy.
Bringing up a family on that capital would be very difficult. Hence the fact that, at the least, Justice Mathew ought to have awarded Rs 5 crores to each of the two “NATO widows”. That sum would still be much less than what was demanded of the Libyan government (and got) by European governments after the Lockerbie air disaster.
It is unfortunate that authorities in India seem comfortable with a situation where the price of a human life in India is placed at a level far below that of a life in any of the NATO member-states, barring perhaps Turkey, which the EU does not accept as European enough to join the grouping.
Justice Mathew is following in the path of then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, R S Pathak, who decreed that the tens of thousands killed and disabled by the 1984 Bhopal gas disaster were collectively worth only around $400 million, when in fact a much more reasonable value would have been $4 billion, at the least. The only way to teach NATO that India is still an independent country would be to set a figure for compensation that is similar to what citizens of the alliance themselves claim when a loved one is killed.
India is a democracy where the top priority of the government is the protection of the reputation and assets of the ruling branch of the Nehru family, which interestingly has much more contact with the Italian side of the family than with the Indian. While relatives from Italy come at frequent intervals to enjoy the gracious hospitality of Sonia Gandhi at her government-provided fortress, such a privilege is almost never extended to the Indian relatives, most of whom meet her – if at all – only during special occasions such as weddings, that too in public locations.
Officials who know that if their identities are revealed they will face severe punishment claim that Sonia Gandhi’s Italian relatives have interceded “several times” in the matter of the arrested Italian marines, and that they themselves and their illustrious sister have been “regularly contacted” by Italian authorities to ensure an early release of the two NATO personnel.
We do not know if such claims are correct. However, what is clear is that the government of India has gone the extra ten thousand miles in accomodating the wishes of the Italian side. There have also been reports that the Vatican in Rome has interceded with prominent Indian politicians to secure an early release of the two marines. Again,such a report is difficult to accept. Why would the Vatican get involved in a muder case, just because the alleged perpetrators are Italian?
The world is a much less secure place because of the James Bond-style 007 privileges given to NATO personnel in action. A human being is a human being, and just because she or he is Afghan, Indian or Iraqi does not mean that a muder should be ignored by the international human rights brigade, the way such killings are at present.
In Libya,to tale just this example, several thousand civilian lives were lost in NATO military action, besides much more as a result of the ongoing rampage of those armed,funded and trained by NATO to kill their fellow citizens. There is no longer any security for life or property for Libya, and yet neither BBC nor CNN nor Al Jazeera refer to the country at all in their broadcasts, having moved on to the next target, Syria.
Here too, armed gangs have sprouted up so that it is no longer safe to go about in some parts of the country. Countries across the world that have lost lives as a consequence of NATO action need to come together and shame the UN into conducting an investigation into the matter, rather than ignoring it because the headquarters of that venerable institution is dominated by members of NATO, whose license to kill with impunity needs to be taken away before more tens of thousands of innocents perish in bombs, bullets and missiles.
As for the two Italian marines who killed innocent fishermen off the Kerala coast, the chances are that the power of NATO will ensure their escape from justice. They will not be the first NATO personnel to get away with murder. Interestingly, those such as Bradley Manning who sought to expose such crimes are now in prison rather than celebrated for their ethics and courage. But why blame NATO? When governments crawl before the alliance, who can blame them for continuing to regard themselves as above international law and morality?
— The writer is Vice-Chair, Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair & Professor of Geopolitics, Manipal University, Haryana State, India.
State Department Reveals 21st Century NATO’s Global Priorities
Stop NATO
April 27, 2012
State Department Reveals 21st Century NATO’s Global Priorities
Rick Rozoff
The State Department’s top Eurasia hand addressed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs’s Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia on April 26 to present Washington’s perspective on and expectations of next month’s summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
In a presentation titled “The Chicago Summit and U.S. Policy,” the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, Tina Kaidanow, laid out what the military alliance’s main powerhouse and financial backer demands of its 27 allies and in so doing indicated many of the top geopolitical objectives of her department and the U.S. government as a whole for the upcoming years.
Commenting on the fact that the May 20-21 gathering of over fifty heads of state from nations supplying troops for the longest war in her nation’s history, that in Afghanistan, will occur in Chicago, only the second NATO summit in the U.S. and “the first ever outside of Washington,” Kaidanow reiterated the main purpose of the world’s only military bloc:
“Our hosting of the Summit is a tangible symbol of the importance of NATO to the United States, as well as an opportunity to underscore to the American people the continued value of the Alliance to the security challenges we face today…NATO is vital to U.S. security. More than ever, the Alliance is the mechanism through which the U.S. confronts diverse and difficult threats to our security…Our experiences in the Cold War, in the Balkans, and now in Afghanistan prove that our core interests are better protected by working together than by seeking to respond to threats alone as individual nations.”
What the House members listening to her, if not the casual reader, would understand by the above comments is that NATO is the chief vehicle employed by the State Department, White House and Pentagon to advance American political, economic and military interests in Eurasia and increasingly the rest of the world. As such, it’s well worth the U.S.’s effort to provide the preponderance of its funding and military assets and further engineer its evolution into an expanding, ultimately global, military-political network.
Kaidanow included an elementary school primer-level synopsis of NATO’s history from its founding – “For…40 years…we..stood united in purpose against the specter of communism” – until the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which “NATO helped to rebuild Central and Eastern European countries while integrating them into the trans-Atlantic community of democratic states.”
The latter was accomplished by absorbing every former Soviet ally in the Warsaw Pact, and three past Soviet republics, into the alliance from 1999-2009, in the process conscripting troops from every one of them for deployment to war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. No troops from the Warsaw Pact except the Soviet Union had been deployed outside Eastern Europe during the entire Cold War period.
Her presentation dutifully echoed that of her boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in the latter’s speech at the World Affairs Council 2012 NATO Conference on April 3. The U.S. is the only NATO member whose leading officials speak authoritatively in advance of the outcome, in fine detail, of the upcoming summit as the nation effectively determines the agenda, with a friendly nod in the direction of its fellow NATO Quint states – Britain, France, Germany and Italy – but nevertheless calling all the important shots. One wonders why, except for a vain propensity for pageantry and pomposity, summits are held at all given that the results have been decided upon long in advance.
Early in her talk Kaidanow invoked the new Strategic Concept adopted at the last NATO summit in 2010, particularly highlighting the bloc’s Article 5 mutual military assistance (war) clause, affirming that “First and foremost, NATO remains committed to the Article 5 principle of collective defense.”
That article is responsible for the stationing of 152,000 troops, at peak strength, from 50 nations in Afghanistan.
When Kaidanow spoke of “integrating them [twelve Eastern European nations incorporated into NATO from 1999-2009] into the trans-Atlantic community,” she was in fact if not openly confirming the practical results of NATO expansion: To provide the U.S. and its Western allies with air, infantry, naval, radar and drone surveillance, missile, strategic airlift, cyber warfare and other bases and facilities east of the former Berlin Wall and legionaries for neocolonial wars and military occupations in the Balkans, Asia and Africa.
She has been no disinterested observer in that process. In her current position and in a post that preceded it, Kaidanow has cultivated and consolidated the power of what are without dispute Washington’s two most favored – and pampered – satraps, Georgia’s Mikheil Saakashvili and Kosovo’s Hashim Thaci, than whom there are no less savory and more malicious heads of state in the world. If the sociopathic ghoul in Kosovo and the megalomaniacal self-styled reincarnation of the medieval King Davit IV in Georgia are indicative of the U.S.’s political alliances, and if an empire can be judged by the foreign stooges it employs, then Washington has plummeted to a new imperial nadir.
Like most of the current American foreign policy elite, Kaidanow cut her teeth in the Balkans in the 1990s, her first State Department assignments being in the U.S. embassies in Serbia (1995-1997) Bosnia (1997-1998) and Macedonia (1998-1999), in the last instance focusing on neighboring Kosovo.
She attended the infamous Rambouillet conference in February of 1999 where the American delegation headed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright threw down the gauntlet to Yugoslavia with the infamous Appendix B ultimatum and set the stage for the 78-day war that began on March 24. Rambouillet was also the debut of American asset Thaci, then an underworld kingpin and head of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army, who was even then being groomed as the head of state be became in 2008 ahead of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence in February of that year. Four years later a majority of the world’s nations still don’t recognize his organized crime-ridden fiefdom as a nation.
Kaidanow was the Chief of Mission and Charge d’Affaires at the U.S. Office in Kosovo from July 2006 to July 2008, until the George W. Bush administration appointed her the first American ambassador on July 19 of the latter year.
In 2009, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (her position as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, a promotion, was obtained last July), she visited Georgia a year after the Saakashvili regime invaded South Ossetia, thereby provoking a five-day war with Russia, and met with Defense Minister Bachana (Bacho) Akhalaia to discuss modernizing the nation’s armed forces (described as “reforms”), the impending deployment of U.S. Marine Corps-trained Georgian troops to Afghanistan to serve under NATO command and the U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership signed four months after the war of the preceding year. She returned two months afterward for the same purpose.
In her April 26 appearance before the House committee, she hailed NATO as an alliance of “like-minded states who share our fundamental values of democracy, human rights, and rule of law.” NATO’s first war, against Yugoslavia thirteen years ago, and its partnerships with nations in former Soviet space have produced the likes of Hashim Thaci and Mikheil Saakashvili. Democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Speaking of goals to be discussed and promoted at the Chicago summit, she said:
“In addition to being a collective security alliance, NATO is also a cooperative security organization. Unlike an ad hoc coalition, NATO can respond rapidly and achieve its military goals by sharing burdens. In particular, NATO benefits from integrated structures and uses common funding to develop common capabilities.”
That is, NATO is a mechanism for the permanent military integration of European states for the purpose of the U.S. securing auxiliary troops for wars outside the Euro-Atlantic zone.
Concerning the first of three main items of discussion at the summit, the war in Afghanistan, Kaidanow asserted:
“[T]he Summit will make clear that NATO will not abandon Afghanistan after the ISAF mission concludes. In Chicago, the Alliance will reaffirm its enduring commitment beyond 2014 and define a new phase of cooperation with Afghanistan.”
As to the true and residual purpose of the Afghan campaign, she added, “we must continue our efforts to develop NATO’s role as a global hub for security partnerships,” which Afghanistan has been used as the crucible for.
The latter relates to the third point, building worldwide military partnerships, regarding which one is reminded of Aesopian cautionary tales about being offered cooperation by wolves and lions. Upon hearing such propositions, a sensible creature starts inching backward into the sheep pen or out of the lair.
The other priority at next month’s summit is what both Kaidanow and Clinton before her referred to as critical defense capability requirements, with the former saying, “NATO’s ability to deploy an effective fighting force in the field makes the Alliance unique” and that, pressuring allies to cough up the funds to ensure it, “its capacity to deter and respond to security challenges will only be as successful as its forces are able, effective, interoperable, and modern.”
To reinforce and flesh out the above, she added:
“The United States is modernizing its presence in Europe at the same time that our NATO Allies, and NATO as an institution, are engaged in similar steps. This is a clear opportunity for our European Allies to take on greater responsibility. The U.S. continues to encourage Allies to meet the two percent benchmark for defense spending and to contribute politically, financially, and operationally to the strength and security of the Alliance.”
She, like her superior at Foggy Bottom, accentuated several key projects in Europe, the most important of which is the U.S.-created European Phased Adaptive Approach interceptor missile system.
Kaidanow acknowledged commitments already obtained to that end in Poland, Romania, Turkey and Spain and said, “We would welcome additional Allied contributions.”
Another summit item is the further integration and expansion of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. Lest anyone be confused about the purpose of those and mistake them as in any way defensive in character, the following comments from Kaidanow will disabuse them of the notion:
“Allies contributed more combat power in Libya than in previous operations (almost 90 percent of all air-to-ground strike missions in Libya were conducted by European pilots, as compared to 10 percent in the Kosovo air campaign in 1999). However, Libya demonstrated considerable shortfalls in European ISR capabilities as the U.S. provided one quarter of the ISR sorties, nearly half of the ISR aircraft, and the vast majority of analytical capability. This past February, NATO defense ministers agreed to fund the Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) program. The five drones that comprise this system will provide NATO with crucial information, including identifying potential threats, monitoring developing situations such as humanitarian crises, and distinguishing possible targets for air strikes.”
She also spoke of the now over eight-year patrol of the Baltic Sea sky by NATO warplanes which this year has been extended to 2018, which is to say in perpetuity, revealing an interesting link along the way: “This helps assure the security of allies in a way that is cost effective, allowing them to invest resources into other important NATO operations such as Afghanistan.”
Kaidanow also assured her congressional interlocutors – again in advance; see above comments – that next month’s NATO summit will endorse the Deterrence and Defense Posture Review (DDPR).
Doing so “will reaffirm NATO’s determination to maintain modern, flexible, credible capabilities that are tailored to meet 21st century security challenges. The DDPR will identify the appropriate mix of nuclear, conventional, and missile defense capabilities that NATO needs to meet these challenges…”
She then touted the role of NATO’s global partnership arrangements, “working with a growing number of partners around the world,” as they “allow the Alliance to extend its reach, act with greater legitimacy, share burdens, and benefit from the capabilities of others.”
Regarding which regions among others the expanding military partnerships will be focused on, Kaidanow stated: “In light of the dramatic events of the Arab Spring and NATO’s success in Libya, we envision a particular focus on further engagement with partners in the wider Middle East and North Africa region.”
She also promoted a new category of nations being cultivated for full NATO accession called aspirant countries – currently Bosnia, Georgia, Macedonia and Montenegro – which are “all working closely with Allies to meet NATO criteria so they may enter the Alliance.”
Regarding the most controversial of those four candidate nations, Georgia, she insisted:
“U.S. security assistance and military engagement support the country’s defense reforms, train and equip Georgian troops for participation in ISAF operations, and advance its NATO interoperability. In January, President Obama and President Saakashvili agreed to enhance this cooperation to advance Georgian military modernization, defense reform, and self-defense capabilities…U.S. support for Georgia’s territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders remains steadfast, and our non-recognition of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia will not change.”
*****
The U.S. makes decisions for the military bloc it created and its 27 allies rubber-stamp them.
With the results already determined, the claim by NATO that it is an alliance of equals and that their summits are in any many deliberative is given the lie.
What has already been decided, as confirmed by Deputy Secretary Kaidanow on April 26, is that NATO will remain the world’s only nuclear alliance, one which will continue stationing U.S. strategic weapons on air bases in European countries under NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement.
That NATO military forces, including the NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan, will remain in Afghanistan long past 2014.
That the U.S. will steadily expand its interceptor missile system from one end of Europe to the other under NATO auspices.
That the U.S. and NATO will continue to move military forces and equipment to Russia’s borders.
That the hallmark of NATO mutual obligations is the bloc’s Article 5, which commits all members to intervene, up to and including going to war, on behalf of any member state which requests intervention.
That NATO will be used to recruit national contingents from scores of nations for military actions like those in Afghanistan and Libya.
That NATO will continue to build a global military network even beyond its 80 or so current members and partners.
That the U.S.-led organization will even more aggressively promote itself as an international – as the only international – military intervention force.
Stop NATO news: April 27, 2012
====
Three NATO Soldiers Killed In Eastern Afghanistan
Afghan Government Troops Slay 18 NATO Counterparts This Year
U.S. Air Combat Drills Bring “Security” To Bulgaria
Bulgaria: Crash Puts Dent In Unprecedented U.S. Air Exercise
Georgia, Poland Sign New Security Cooperation Deal
U.S., NATO Discuss Cyber Warfare Operations In Georgia
Global NATO “Open To BRICS”: Italian Defense Chief
====
Three NATO Soldiers Killed In Eastern Afghanistan
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-04/27/c_123044244.htm
Xinhua News Agency
April 27, 2012
Three NATO soldiers killed in E. Afghanistan
KABUL: Three NATO soldiers were killed on Thursday in a blast in eastern Afghanistan, the military alliance confirmed on Thursday.
“Three International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) service members died following an improvised explosive device (IED) attack in eastern Afghanistan today,” the NATO-led ISAF said in a press release.
The brief statement did not provide more details and the nationalities of the victims, only saying “it is ISAF policy to defer casualty identification procedures to the relevant national authorities”.
Taliban insurgents, whose regime was toppled in a U.S.-led incursion in late 2001, have intensified their activities against Afghan forces and some 130,000 ISAF troops recently as spring and summer, known as “fighting season”, are drawing near in the insurgency-hit country.
A total of 127 NATO soldiers with majority of them Americans have been killed in Afghanistan so far this year.
====
Afghan Government Troops Slay 18 NATO Counterparts This Year
http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=170497
Azeri Press Agency
April 26, 2012
Afghan special forces soldier kills American ally
Baku: An Afghan special forces soldier killed an American when he opened fire on US troops in southern Afghanistan, military spokesmen said Thursday, the latest in a series of such attacks, APA reports quoting news.yahoo.com website.
The soldier’s death takes the toll of foreign troops killed by Afghans they were working with to 18 this year – including 10 Americans and five French trainers – in 11 separate attacks.
“An officer of the Afghan special forces opened fire on a group of American soldiers in Shah Wali Kot district of Kandahar province, killing one US soldier,” regional Afghan corps commander Abdul Hamid Hamid told AFP.
“The officer was himself killed when the Americans returned fire,” he said.
A spokesman for US forces in Afghanistan and a defence official in Washington confirmed the incident, without giving details.
…
====
U.S. Air Combat Drills Bring “Security” To Bulgaria
http://paper.standartnews.com/en/article.php?d=2012-04-27&article=39014
Standart News
April 26, 2012
Miracle Saves Two Villages from Hell Fire
Two pilots have survived by miracle in a plane crash and managed to divert their MIG 29 fighter from two villages before bailing out.
The jet fighter caught fire during a Bulgarian-US joint military training.
“If the aircraft fell over the houses there would have been hundreds of victims,” the residents of Graf Ignatievo and Golyam Chardak said…
====
Bulgaria: Crash Puts Dent In Unprecedented U.S. Air Exercise
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=138846
Sofia News Agency
April 26, 2012
MiG 29 Crash Wrecks Largest Bulgarian, US Air Force Training
-Defense Minister Angelov noted that Bulgaria is now left with 15 MiG 29s that will continue to be used to patrol the Bulgarian air space and to participate in NATO tasks.
Last week the air forces of the USA and Bulgaria have started the most large-scale military aviation drills of their type entitled “Thracian Star 2012″.
The Bulgarian Air Force has terminated all of its flights as a result of Thursday’s crash in which a Bulgarian MiG 29 fighter jet went down during joint drills with the US Air Force, Defense Minister Anyu Angelov announced.
Thus, Thursday’s incident has ruined the Thracian Star 2012 military exercise, which was supposed to last until May 11, and to boost substantially the interoperability between Bulgarian and US forces.
In addition, the crash of the Bulgarian MiG 29, in which the two pilots survived by bailing out, while also managing to direct the fighter jet away from populated areas, has led Bulgarian authorities to cancel the VIP Visitors’ Day at the Thracian Star 2012 drills that was supposed to be held on Friday, April 26, 2012, Gen. Angelov explained.
Bulgarian military aviation will abstain from any flights until the causes of the incident with the MiG 29 are established, except for emergency flights. Meanwhile, the US Air Force will continue its schedule training in Southern Bulgaria as part of Thracian Star 2012, the Bulgarian Defense Minister said.
…
The Bulgarian MiG-29 aircraft plummeted into a river earlier on Thursday between the southern villages of Tsarimir and Golyam Chardak near Plovdiv.
…
Defense Minister Angelov noted that Bulgaria is now left with 15 MiG 29s that will continue to be used to patrol the Bulgarian air space and to participate in NATO tasks.
Last week the air forces of the USA and Bulgaria have started the most large-scale military aviation drills of their type entitled “Thracian Star 2012″.
The drills at the Graf Ignatievo Air Base near the southern Bulgarian city of Plovdiv are conducted jointly by the Bulgarian Air Force, the Romanian Air Force, and the 31st Force Support Squadron stationed at the Aviano Air Base, a NATO Air Base under US Air Force administration in northeastern Italy.
Because of the large number of US F-16 fighter jets participating in the drills – two squadrons of 16 planes each – Bulgarian media have been quick to note that the Aviano Air Base has moved to Graf Ignatievo.
The Graf Ignatievo Air Base has already been used jointly by Bulgaria and the USA for seven years. Bulgaria, Romania, and the USA have boosted their military cooperation in the recent years under the so called Task Force East (formerly known as Joint Task Force East). According to the Bulgarian newspaper 24 Chasa daily, the Romanian Air Force is also taking part in the Thracian Spring drills.
The Thracian Star 2012 drills taking place between April 17 and May 11, 2012, feature Bulgarian Air Force MiG-29, MiG-21, Su-25, and Spartan C-27J planes; US Air Force F-16s, and Romanian Air Force MiG-21s
The drills are managed by Bulgarian Brigade General Rumen Radev, deputy commander of the Bulgarian Air Force.
The major goals of the drills were to improve the tactical interoperability of the US Air Force in Europe and the Bulgarian and Romanian military aviation.
====
Georgia, Poland Sign New Security Cooperation Deal
http://en.rian.ru/world/20120427/173079383.html
Russian Information Agency Novosti
April 27, 2012
Georgia, Poland Sign New Security Cooperation Deal
TBILISI: Georgia and Poland have renewed bilateral cooperation plan in the field of security, which takes into account new global and regional threats and challenges.
The previous cooperation agreement expired at the end of 2011.
The new document was signed on Thursday in Tbilisi by Secretary of Georgia’s National Security Council Giorgi Bokeria and Chief of Poland’s National Security Bureau Stanislaw Koziej.
The plan outlines Georgian-Polish bilateral cooperation in the field of security with the focus on the exchange of data and experience. Joint events and drills are included in the plan.
After the signing, Koziej praised Georgian involvement in the NATO and EU missions around the world and reiterated Poland’s support of Georgia’s aspirations to join the alliance.
Georgia has been negotiating NATO membership since 2006, when it signed the Intensified Dialogue on Membership Issues.
In April 2008 at the Bucharest NATO summit, Georgia and Ukraine were given a green light for NATO accession on condition that they carry out military and political reforms.
Georgia was named a NATO aspirant country in a document issued by the alliance last December in Brussels.
Russia, which won a brief war with Georgia over South Ossetia in August 2008, has strongly opposed Tbilisi’s NATO bid as Moscow fears the alliance’s expansion closer to the Russian borders and the strengthening of Georgia’s military potential.
====
U.S., NATO Discuss Cyber Warfare Operations In Georgia
http://en.trend.az/news/politics/2019319.html
Trend News Agency
April 26, 2012
US, Georgia discuss issues of cyber security in Tbilisi
N. Kirtzkhalia
Tbilisi: Deputy Secretary of the Security Council of Georgia Batu Kutelia met with U.S. Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Jane Holl Lute. At the beginning of the meeting Jane Holl Lute expressed deep regret at the death of a Georgian soldier Valerian Hudzhadze in Afghanistan, and particularly emphasized the substantial contribution of Georgian troops in peacekeeping mission of ISAF.
The parties paid special attention to the challenges that exist in the area of cyber security, and discussed prospects for bilateral cooperation in this area at the meeting, NSC of Georgia told Trend on Thursday.
Kutelia informed the guest about the cyber threats reflected in the concepts of national security of Georgia, cyber-security strategy, project and those activities, implementation of which is planned by the Georgian authorities. The U.S. side expressed its readiness to share its experience in the field of cyber security.
The apparatus of the Security Council of Georgia has already begun a public discussion of cyber security draft strategy. The first discussion took place with representatives of the embassies of NATO member states and civil society.
====
Global NATO “Open To BRICS”: Italian Defense Chief
Agenzia Giornalistica Italia
April 26, 2012
Nato to open to Brics Countries, Di Paola
Rome: “The strategic partnership between Nato member countries must be opened to new partners, in particular to the BRICS countries”, as claimed by Italian Defence Minister Giampaolo Di Paola at the “Nato Smart Defence Agenda” meeting in Rome, organized by the Institute for International Affairs.
The Minister underlined that: “We must establish an important relation with Russia and other countries like Brazil, India, China and South Africa. To imagine a closure on the side of Nato – Di Paola added – would be a mistake. In fact the Alliance must have a global vision and must take responsibility for the problems concerning security on a global level.”
====
Partners Across The Globe: NATO Consolidates Worldwide Military Force
Partners Across The Globe: NATO Consolidates Worldwide Military Force
Rick Rozoff
The military leaders of 50 nations, more than a quarter of those in the world, opened a two-day conference at NATO Headquarters in Brussels on April 25 to discuss, as the Pentagon’s website described it, “the present and future of the effort in Afghanistan” and other topics.
Afghanistan being the main subject of discussion, the military chiefs of NATO’s 28 member states, collectively the Military Committee, presumably met with the chiefs of defense staff of the 22 non-NATO nations supplying the alliance with troops for the war in Afghanistan.
In January top military leaders of 67 countries, over a third of those in the world, met at NATO Headquarters to discuss operations in Afghanistan in what is the largest-ever meeting of chiefs of defense staff in history.
The recently concluded expanded meeting of the NATO Military Committee was the last before next month’s summit in Chicago and was largely focused on that impending event.
Participants in the conference included General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff; General John R. Allen (in teleconference), commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, in charge of the largest foreign military force ever to be stationed in that nation; NATO’s two top military commanders, Supreme Allied Commander Europe Admiral James Stavridis and Supreme Allied Commander Transformation General Stéphane Abrial; U.S. military chief Dempsey’s equivalents from 49 nations in Europe, North America, Central America, the Middle East, the Caucasus, Northeast Asia, South East Asia and the South Pacific supplying troops for NATO’s Afghan War. (Armenia, Austria, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bosnia, El Salvador, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Jordan, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Montenegro, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Tonga, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates.)
Photograph: NATO’s Allied Command Transformation
In short, NATO’s 21st century global expeditionary force and its top commanders. An international military coalition never authorized by the United Nations or discussed at any conference or other fora except at NATO Headquarters and at the bloc’s summits.
On the second day of the Military Committee conference in Brussels, NATO’s Allied Command Operations reported on a training course underway at the Allied Joint Force Command Headquarters in Brunssum, the Netherlands where staff officers from NATO’s Partnership for Peace, Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative military partnerships are being instructed to “work as augmentees in a Deployable Joint Force Headquarters (DJF HQ) environment.
NATO added, “DJF HQ serves as an example of a Joint HQ for non-NATO nations to contribute to the Alliance’s missions.”
“Many of the attending nations already share close ties with NATO and have taken part in NATO’s missions, including the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.”
Participating officers were from Azerbaijan, Belarus, Finland, Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Qatar, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates.
At the gathering of military chiefs on April 25 and 26, subjects addressed were NATO’s wars and occupations in three continents: In addition to the ten-and-a-half-year conflict in Afghanistan, NATO’s top brass discussed missions in Kosovo (Kosovo Force), off the Horn of Africa (Operation Ocean Shield), in Libya (Operation Unified Protector), the Mediterranean Sea (Operation Active Endeavor) and no doubt others. Most everywhere, indeed, but on or near the Atlantic Ocean, north or south.
Reporting on the conference, the Pentagon’s website paraphrased an unnamed senior Defense Department official, “speaking on background,” as affirming that “Every opportunity for NATO members and their partners to work together helps to keep the alliance moving forward…especially as they seek to improve interoperability [and] refine tactics and procedures…”
Quoted directly, the source added:
“NATO remains a very strong partnership – as strong as ever – and we have a lot of demonstrated successes with NATO if you look at the history up through today and current events, and especially in the last year. So I think that bodes well for the future of the partnership. The United States involvement in NATO is a strong partnership for tackling any future challenges.”
The Pentagon account also mentioned meetings between the assembled military chiefs and representatives of Georgia and Ukraine, within the NATO-Georgia Commission and NATO-Ukraine Commission frameworks, and of the NATO-Russia Council.
The top military commanders also discussed what in a Pentagon report on the conference was alluded to as Pacific perspectives.
The North Atlantic Alliance in fact has a Pacific strategy. Most of the most recent additions to NATO’s Troop Contributing Countries in Afghanistan have come from Asia-Pacific nations: Malaysia, Mongolia, Singapore, South Korea and Tonga. Japan has dispatched military personnel, medics, as well. Australia and New Zealand have had troops, including special forces, engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan for years. With 1,550 soldiers assigned to the International Security Assistance Force, Australia is the largest troop provider to that NATO operation of any non-NATO country.
The Afghan war has been employed by the U.S. and NATO to forge an unprecedented 50-nation interoperable military force and the bloc has formalized the arrangements initiated to that end with its new Strategic Concept adopted at the last NATO summit in Portugal in late 2010. At a NATO foreign ministers meeting in Berlin a year ago the alliance endorsed a new partnership format, a uniform Partnership Cooperation Menu (with approximately 1,600 activities), to strengthen already existing military cooperation programs and to expand its network of military partnerships throughout the world.
In addition to the Partnership for Peace, Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative programs – in Europe and Asia, North Africa and the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf, respectively – NATO has a new category it calls partners across the globe, which as its name indicates has no geographical boundaries.
NATO lists Partnership for Peace members, which with the alliance’s 28 members are subsumed under the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, as:
Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.
Its Mediterranean Dialogue partners are Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia.
Istanbul Cooperation Initiative partners are Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, with Saudi Arabia and Oman next in line.
Partners across the globe are, to date, though subject to expansion, Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan and South Korea.
The new Partnership Cooperation Menu provides for a new type of global NATO partnership arrangement called an Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme. The first country to be enrolled in it was Mongolia last month. With Kazakhstan, NATO now has two partners that border both China and Russia.
The issue of Israel employing the Partnership Cooperation Menu to secure Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme status like Mongolia (in 2006 Israel was the first nation to be granted membership in another NATO partnership modality, the Individual Cooperation Program) has arisen lately in regard to reports that Turkey has blocked Israel’s participation at next month’s NATO summit to prevent the above reaching fruition.
The Partnership Cooperation Menu became effective the first of this year and initial plans were to grant the above-mentioned program to Israel and other members of the Mediterranean Dialogue.
NATO is cultivating Iraq and Yemen for prospective Istanbul Cooperation Initiative membership and Libya for membership in the Mediterranean Dialogue, with Lebanon and Syria (in the event of a change in regime) after it. With Iraq the partnership with the Western military organization is a continuation of the seven-year NATO Training Mission-Iraq.
In reference to partners across the globe, NATO maintains that “Japan is NATO’s longest-standing global partner,” adding:
“At their meeting in Berlin in April 2011, Allied foreign ministers listed Japan as one of NATO’s partners across the globe. As such, in the framework of the establishment of a single Partnership Cooperation Menu (PCM) open to all NATO partners, Japan will be able to access a wide range of cooperation activities with the Alliance and develop a more effective individual programme.”
Article 9 of the Japanese constitution expressly forbids the nation entering into any form of collective self-defense. A formal partnership with the world’s only military bloc is doing just that.
The government of South Korea has stated: “Following the new partnership policy of NATO approved in the NATO Ministerial meeting in Berlin, Germany in April 2011, the Republic of Korea is committed to further developing its partnership with NATO and to deepening practical cooperation with the trans-Atlantic defense organization.”
Pakistan is another nation that has expressed interest in the Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme.
Afghanistan, whose new military is being developed for interoperability with those of the major Western powers through the NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan, is another candidate.
The 21st century has witnessed the emergence of a truly worldwide military alliance, one which in regard to the number of members and partners, geographic range, defense capabilities and universal ambitions is staggering.
As the war council in Brussels was underway, Italian Defense Minister Giampaolo di Paola (former chairman of the NATO Military Committee) while speaking at a NATO Smart Defense Agenda meeting in Rome advocated the establishment of ties between the military bloc and the BRICS nations (Russia, Brazil, India, China and South Africa), asserting that “the Alliance must have a global vision and must take responsibility for the problems concerning security on a global level,” according to Agenzia Giornalistica Italia.
Stop NATO news: April 26, 2012
====
Turkish Prime Minister: Will Enlist NATO Against Syria
Fighter Jet Catches Fire, Crashes During U.S.-Bulgaria Drills
U.S. F-16s, MiGs Engage In Combat Training Over Bulgaria
U.S. To Hold Largest-Ever Interceptor Missile Test
Sixteenth Georgian Soldier Killed In Afghanistan
NATO Trains Global Adjuncts At Deployable Joint Force Headquarters
====
Turkish Prime Minister: Will Enlist NATO Against Syria
http://en.trend.az/regions/met/turkey/2018958.html
Trend News Agency
April 26, 2012
Turkey to turn to NATO if Syria violates Turkish border once again
A. Taghiyeva
Baku: If the Syrian army violates the Turkish border once again, Turkey will turn to NATO to address this problem, the country’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in an interview with Qatari Al-Jazeera TV channel.
“Turkey is a NATO member. Violation of borders of the country, a member of the Alliance gives the right to turn to NATO for help,” Erdogan said.
He also said that Turkey will always support the Syrian opposition and accept all the refugees from that country. President al-Assad regime can no longer stay in power after so many crimes, Erdogan said.
…
====
Fighter Jet Catches Fire, Crashes During U.S.-Bulgaria Drills
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-04/26/c_131553703.htm
Xinhua News Agency
April 26, 2012
MiG-29 fighter jet crashes during Bulgarian-U.S.drill
SOFIA: A MiG-29 fighter jet crashed Thursday near the Graf Ignatievo Air Base in Bulgaria during a Bulgarian-U.S drill, and the two pilots survived, local media reported.
According to Radio Focus, the MiG-29 crashed between the villages of Tzarimir and Golyam Chardak, some 7 km northwest of the Graf Ignatievo Air Base, 150 km southeast of the Bulgarian capital Sofia.
The fighter plane was engulfed in flames before the crash, the radio said, citing witnesses.
The two pilots ejected successfully, and have returned to the base.
Bulgaria has 16 Soviet-made MiG-29 fighters that make up the backbone of the country’s current air defense.
The joint Bulgarian-American flight training, codenamed “Thracian Star 2012″, began on April 17 and will end on May 11 at the Graf Ignatievo Air Base, one of the four military facilities jointly used by the United States and Bulgaria.
—————————————————————————-
http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c154/403613.html
Itar-Tass
April 26, 2012
MiG-29 crashes in training flight in Bulgaria, pilots catapulted
SOFIA: The fighter MiG-29 crashed in the Plovdiv Region in Bulgaria on Thursday. The pilots managed to catapult and were not injured, the Focus news agency reported.
The firemen, the ambulances and the military police rushed to the incident site. According to the eyewitnesses, the fighter caught fire in the air.
====
U.S. F-16s, MiGs Engage In Combat Training Over Bulgaria
http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123299416
U.S. Air Forces in Europe
April 25, 2012
F-16s, MiGs engage in combat training over Bulgaria
By Senior Airman Katherine Windish
31st Fighter Wing Public Affairs
GRAF IGNATIEVO AIR BASE, Bulgaria: U.S. pilots from the 555th and 510th Fighter Squadrons based out of Aviano Air Base, Italy, have been given a rare opportunity to train and share experiences with Bulgarian air force MiG-21 and MiG-29 pilots during their deployment here in support of Thracian Star 2012.
Since the start of the training mission on April 18, Bulgarian and American pilots have been flying together and working toward the goal of the exercise: to strengthen partnerships, increase interoperability between NATO allies and maintain a standard of excellence.
Throughout the month-long bilateral training exercise, Aviano F-16 Fighting Falcon pilots will spend more than 60 hours per week flying close air support, basic fighter and air combat maneuvers, tactical intercepts, defensive counter air and large force missions with Bulgarian MiG-21 and MiG-29 pilots.
“We are performing the same mission sets we do at home station, but we are integrating the Bulgarian pilots into the training,” said Capt. Bryan Faughn, 555th FS F-16 pilot. “It gives us an opportunity to see how another country’s air force works…”
To gain better insight into both the tactics of the pilots and the capabilities of the different aircraft, pilots have gone on ride-along flights in the other country’s jets.
Capt. Kirby Sanford, 555th FS F-16 pilot, was the first American pilot to get the opportunity to ride in a MiG.
…
Bulgarian air force Capt. Petar Milkov, was the first MiG-29 pilot to fly in an F-16 during Thracian Star 2012. The aircraft was piloted by Col. David Walker, 31st Operations Group and Thracian Star detachment commander.
…
====
U.S. To Hold Largest-Ever Interceptor Missile Test
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_04_26/72999242/
Vesti.ru
April 26, 2012
US to conduct ‘largest ever’ missile defense test – Pentagon
The US plans to conduct ‘the largest ever test launch’ of its missile defense program elements to intercept and destroy five ‘enemy’ missiles- three medium-range ballistic missiles and two cruise missiles, the director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency Gen. Patrick O’Reilly told Congress on Wednesday.
It is planned to use several surface-to-air guided missile air defense systems, including the Patriot, THAAD and Aegis.
The US has been working with other NATO countries to locate such defense systems in the Asia-Pacific region and in the Middle East.
====
Sixteenth Georgian Soldier Killed In Afghanistan
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=24692
Civil Georgia
April 25, 2012
Sixteenth Georgian Soldier Killed in Afghanistan
Tbilisi: Sergeant Valerian Khujadze from the 31st infantry battalion died following an improvised explosive device attack in Afghanistan’s southern province of Helmand, the Georgian Ministry of Defense said on April 25.
The recent incident puts the total death toll of Georgian soldiers in Afghanistan to sixteen – all of them were serving in Helmand province; this is the fifth fatality among the Georgian soldiers in Afghanistan this year.
The Georgian MoD said that 35-year-old Sergeant Khujadze died of injuries sustained from IED attack during patrolling.
“He had been serving in the Georgian Armed Forces since 2004. Sergeant Khujadze also participated in a peacekeeping mission in Iraq. In 2011 he was awarded with the “Medal for Participation in Peacekeeping Operations,” MoD said.
This is the second tour of duty in Afghanistan for the 31st battalion of the 3rd infantry brigade.
The battalion was the first Georgian military unit, which was deployed in Helmand to serve alongside with the U.S. marines, in April, 2010; during its first six-month deployment, the battalion lost five of its soldiers.
Georgia plans to send one additional infantry battalion to Afghanistan on top of 936 Georgian soldiers who already serve there. After the deployment of additional battalion Georgia will become the largest non-NATO contributor to the ISAF.
Georgia’s first contribution to the Afghan operation came in 2004 when 50 soldiers were briefly deployed in the country under the German command as part of ensuring security during the presidential elections.
In November, 2009 Georgia deployed 173 soldiers in Kabul under the French command and in following year Georgia increased presence in Afghanistan by sending an infantry battalion in the Helmand province serving along with the U.S. marines.
Last year Georgia also sent 11 military instructors to Kandahar to train Afghan forces in artillery, according to the Georgian MoD.
====
NATO Trains Global Adjuncts At Deployable Joint Force Headquarters
http://www.aco.nato.int/natos-partner-nations-gain-knowledge-on-joint-operations.aspx
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Command Operations
April 26, 2012
NATO’S PARTNER NATIONS GAIN KNOWLEDGE ON JOINT OPERATIONS
23 staff officers from NATO’s Partner countries learn the principles of the DJF HQ organization
With two weeks 23 staff officers from NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP), Mediterranean Dialogue (MD) and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) countries learn the principles of the DJF HQ (Deployable Joint Force Headquarters) organization.
The training conducted from 16 to 27 April, at NATO Allied Joint Force Command (JFC) Headquarters Brunssum aims to prepare the participants to work as augmentees in a Deployable Joint Force Headquarters (DJF HQ) environment. DJF HQ serves as an example of a Joint HQ for non-NATO nations to contribute to Alliance’s missions.
Shared knowledge
With the course, the attending officers gain knowledge in crisis management, Logistic support, Special Operations, Intelligence, Strategic Communications, other Functional Areas as well as take part in workshops.
Based on an operational scenario, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) guidance and UN resolutions, the staff officers have to develop their assessments and deliver situational awareness briefings.
“For Finland this has been a routine to send officers here and it forms a part of our officers’ training. We use this as an opportunity to learn how NATO conducts international operations and to keep us up to date with the latest developments,” Major Ari Laaksonen from Finland said.
…
“United Arab Emirates has worked with NATO before; we were in Kosovo for KFOR. I find this course important, as it helps the participating nations to be on the same line with their procedures,” Lieutenant Colonel Suhail Al Rashedi from the United Arab Emirates said.
Shared experiences
Students from Azerbaijan, Belarus, Finland, Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Qatar, Ukraine and United Arab Emirates attend the course.
Many of the attending nations already share close ties with NATO and have taken part in NATO’s missions, including the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
Military Cooperation, one of the framework tasks of JFC Brunssum, aims to broaden and strengthen the Alliance by establishing enduring relationships and effective cooperation mechanisms with Partner Nations.
The ICI is an initiative to engage in practical security cooperation activities with states throughout the Greater Middle East. The initiative stands alongside NATO’s PfP Program aimed at creating trust between NATO and other states in Europe and the former Soviet Union while MD continues to offer a forum of cooperation between NATO and seven countries of the Mediterranean.
JFC Brunssum, the Netherlands is one of three NATO operational level commands in NATO Allied Command Operations (ACO) and serves as the higher headquarters for ISAF in Afghanistan, with ISAF as a primary mission and NATO Article 5 Operational Planning, Baltic Air Policing, Military Cooperation and NATO Response Force (NRF) among other major activities.
By CPO Roland Murof (EST N), NATO JFC HQ Brunssum
====
NATO Chief Recruits European Union For Global Interventions
Stop NATO
April 25, 2012
NATO Chief Recruits European Union For Global Interventions
Rick Rozoff
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen addressed the European Parliament on April 23 and, as published on the website of the military bloc he heads, “called for closer NATO-European Union coordination on security issues and urged the EU to adopt the needed capabilities to take action abroad.”
For abroad, read anywhere NATO’s bombs, missiles, fighter jets and warships have paved the way: The Balkans, Central and South Asia, North Africa, the Arabian Sea and the Broader Middle East.
His speech, entitled “A global perspective for Europe,” was delivered to the foreign affairs committee of the European Parliament, the elected body of the European Union, as – again according to the Alliance’s website – “part of a debate on preparations for next month’s NATO Summit in Chicago,” which will be attended by European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso by way of quid pro quo.
Addressing the EU as what in fact it is and is even more markedly becoming, the semi-civilian European wing of global NATO, Rasmussen made little distinction between the organization he leads and that he was addressing:
“When it comes to security, Europe has reason to be proud. Over the past decade, NATO’s European Allies have stayed the course in Afghanistan. They flew most of the sorties in Libya. And they helped stabilise the Balkans. Over the same period, the European Union has taken on key roles in Georgia, the Balkans and Africa.”
The European Union, which is in many ways no less under the influence of its “Euro-Atlantic” big brother on the other side of the ocean than is NATO, is in the viewpoint of Brussels a collective of NATO members and partners (all 27 EU member states are in NATO or its Partnership for Peace program except for small and divided Cyprus) that anticipates, supports, complements and cleans up after NATO in several parts of the world outside EU territory and mainly outside Europe itself.
The EU sanctions, freezes the assets of, bans visits from leaders of and in general softens up targeted nations. NATO bombs and occupies them. When the latter accomplishes its mission the EU steps in to supply security, policing, financial and other assistance and to relieve NATO forces (which are often interchangeable with their EU counterparts) for their next deployment. The EU has fulfilled that function, entirely or partially, in Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo and will do so next in Afghanistan and Libya.
Rasmussen further spelled out the global nature of the NATO-EU-U.S. triad and its alleged unique role in “preserv[ing] freedom and democracy,” presumably in the bloc’s member states as anyone familiar with the aftermath of NATO interventions in Bosnia, Yugoslavia-Kosovo, Macedonia, Afghanistan and Libya would hardly hail the situations prevailing in those states as triumphs of freedom and democracy. Surely not as hallmarks of peace and stability.
His comments included this attempted justification for the consolidation of NATO as an international expeditionary and assault force, history’s first:
“Today, our security cannot be separated from global security. This sometimes means we have to deploy our forces beyond our borders to keep our people secure at home. As we have done in Afghanistan. Off the coast of Somalia. And in the skies over Libya.”
“European nations must look outwards, and stay ready and able to act for their own sake. And be capable of joining our North American Allies in operations outside the Euro-Atlantic area.”
NATO, which is a consortium of Europe’s past colonial masters (Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Turkey), post-World War II world neocolonial powerhouse the U.S and assorted underlings and appendages, is bluntly asserting as its prerogative – as its new foundational mission – the exclusive right and obligation alike of intervening anywhere it chooses to outside the “civilized world”: The Balkans, Central and South Asia, Africa, the Gulf of Aden, the South Caucasus and the Middle East.
When NATO’s 28 heads of state gather in Chicago in May they will, with the exception of the American president, look very much alike. The military organization that presumes to direct the course of world affairs has no members in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Oceania. The combined population of NATO’s member states is only slightly over one-eighth of the human race.
The fiftieth anniversary summit of the military alliance in Washington, D.C. in 1999 revived and emboldened it with a 21st century global version of the infamous Berlin Conference of 1884 in which a majority of NATO’s non-North American founding members divided the African continent into spheres of influence.
The Washington summit, of NATO’s 24 summits to date the sole one in the U.S. (the second will occur in Chicago on May 20 and 21), introduced among several other initiatives for the current century the basis for the Berlin Plus agreements between NATO and the EU adopted three years later. Ever since, NATO and the EU have shared information and intelligence, planning capabilities and personnel and military assets and missions as well as conducting joint exercises.
The EU’s first naval mission, Operation Atalanta (European Union Naval Force Somalia), is conducted in conjunction with NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield off the Horn of Africa and the U.S.-led Combined Task Force 150, Combined Task Force 151, Combined Task Force 152 and Combined Task Force 158 in and off the Arabian Sea.
On April 23 Rasmussen wove together the strands of NATO-EU integration, the 21st century rebirth of 19th century European military interventions abroad and the ultimate subordination of both to the U.S. in stating:
“Today we have a more capable and more willing Europe than 20 years ago. More European troops are deployed in more places than ever in recent history. Even smaller nations, like my own [Denmark], have shown their capacity to punch above their weight.
“In Libya last year, European nations clearly demonstrated that they are willing and able to lead a NATO operation.”
“NATO and the European Union can, and should, play complementary and mutually reinforcing roles in supporting international peace and security.
“To carry out this role, Europe must invest sufficiently in our common security. And Europe must continue to invest in the vital transatlantic bond – in political, economic, and military terms.”
The declaration issued by NATO at its last summit in Lisbon, Portugal in November 2010 at which the alliance unveiled its first Strategic Concept for the new millennium contains this section on EU-NATO relations:
“NATO and the European Union (EU) share common values and strategic interests, and are working side by side in crisis management operations. We are therefore determined to improve the NATO-EU strategic partnership, as agreed by our two organisations. We welcome the recent initiatives from several Allies and the ideas proposed by the Secretary General. Building on these initiatives and on the guidance provided by the new Strategic Concept, we encourage the Secretary General to continue to work with the EU High Representative…”
The summit declaration issued in Chicago next month will reaffirm and strengthen that commitment. Heaven help their next joint targets.
Russia-India-China: International Balance Of Power Changing In Favor Of World Peace
Russia & India Report
April 24, 2012
RIC: trilateral set to scale new heights
Nivedita Das Kundu
====
RIC’s main agenda has been to oppose unilateralism and to promote a pluralistic democratic international order. The three countries believes that the diverse threats and risks cannot be addressed by military power alone…
RIC trilateral cooperation has great importance in terms of geopolitics as the three countries are home to around 2.4 billion, 40 percent of the world’s total population and account for 22.5 per cent of the total area of the world. Undoubtedly, the three countries have great human resources, huge potential of market and rich endowment of natural resources.
During the recent RIC meeting in Moscow, the three countries have taken similar positions on the issues of the Syrian crisis and on Iran’s nuclear standoff.
There are strong complementarities among the three countries, in terms of natural resources, services capability, skilled labour, manufacturing capability and technology.
====
The Russia-India-China trilateral is an idea whose time has come, and will become increasingly more important in setting the global agenda, says Nivedita Das Kundu.
The international balance of power is changing in favour of world peace. Russia, India and China (RIC) have been interacting trilaterally since 1996. The 11th round of the Russia-India-China (RIC) Foreign Minister’s meeting was held on April 13, 2012 in Moscow. The impetus of the RIC Foreign Ministers’ recent meeting was strengthened as it was held within a fortnight after the March 29 BRICS summit in New Delhi. RIC’s main agenda has been to oppose unilateralism and to promote a pluralistic democratic international order. The three countries believes that the diverse threats and risks cannot be addressed by military power alone but need to be appraised through political, social and economic prisms.
Russia-India-China’s possible axis formation is an important political idea that emerged in the post-Cold War period. It was advocated by Russian President Yeltsin in 1993 and Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov in 1996. Indo-Russian, Sino-Russian and Sino-Indian relations have begun to unfold a new trend now. If this trend continues it will stimulate the process of multi-polarity which will be of far reaching significance for international relations.
Countries like Russia, India and China need a multi-polar world in order to promote their national interest across and autonomy of decision-making. To construct a multipolar world, the Russia-India-China triangle would be indispensable. Although there are some unresolved issues between these countries, the movement towards a better understanding between these three states is evident. The relations between the three flourished during the Cold War period. Even after the end of the Cold War, the relationship was maintained as Russia proved to be India’s tested and trusted friend.
Similarly, the China-India relationship became smoother in the eighties and after the 1993 accord economic relations acquired an added momentum. The three countries have many converging interests that could add substance to trilateral cooperation. They back the primacy of the United Nations in solving crises and support the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs of sovereign states. In the long term, it is the mutual confidence which will help these three powers to play a larger role in global politics and to respond jointly to the challenges of the new century. There is, however, a need to coordinate the actions as the international environment has become more intricate and complicated. The commonality of key national interests and the long-term friendly relations in the field of culture, economy and science and technology create a real possibility for cooperation between these three great powers.
The three nations share wide-ranging interest on many major international issues, and are committed to build a just and fair, new international political and economic order. There are advantages of trilateral cooperation despite the obvious asymmetries, given the fact that they are amongst the world’s largest continental-sized entities and civilization states.
All three countries have had a long history of interaction, exchange, cooperation and close relationships. In the post-World War II period, there have been phases of tremendous warmth and bonhomie among them. There have also been periods of near-total breakdown and actual hostilities, as happened during the 1962 India-China war. However, what has become clear to all three is that any restructuring of relations would be based on a qualitatively different strategic reality. There is, for instance, no doubt that there could be no resurrection of any kind of alliance relationship clearly directed against or targeting any third country or any agreement offering unconditional support to the other.
One of the major areas of cooperation for the three countries is energy security. Russia is an energy-surplus country, whereas China and India are energy-deficient. If these three states can work together, they can invest in joint projects that could facilitate the flow of oil and gas from Russia into China and India. The trilateral cooperation can improve the overall energy security scenario in Asia and the world.
They can also cooperate in combating separatist movements. With each other’s cooperation, they can refrain from supporting these movements in each other’s country, exchange their experience in solving ethnic problems and can cooperate in opposing terrorism and extremism.
Sustained economic development of Russia, India and China has become the engine of the global economy. There are many similarities in the socio-economic conditions of the three countries and the way they are responding to globalization. The prospects of cooperation in technology, energy, raw materials, etc. are extremely broad. The population of each country should recognise the benefits of Russia-India-China cooperation so that it could gain popular support. Globalisation offers new opportunities and brings new challenges to China, India and Russia. In order to realise the opportunities and to respond to challenges, there is a need for a permanent mechanism for a regular exchange of views and coordination of actions.
RIC trilateral cooperation has great importance in terms of geopolitics as the three countries are home to around 2.4 billion, 40 percent of the world’s total population and account for 22.5 per cent of the total area of the world. Undoubtedly, the three countries have great human resources, huge potential of market and rich endowment of natural resources.
All the three countries are faced with the tasks of developing their economy. China has common borders with both Russia and India. All three countries advocate non-alliance and non-confrontation. The relationship among the three countries affects the basic principles of Asian security. It will definitely have a positive impact on Asian security if their ties could be further improved and more countries are persuaded to observe these principles.
The trilateral cooperation has made much headway in the past few years since the first meeting in Moscow in September 2001. The trilateral format was initiated by holding meetings of the ministries of foreign affairs on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly sessions in New York in the year of 2003 and 2004.
A landmark stand-alone meeting of the foreign ministers was held in Russia in June 2005 in Vladivostok. As a result, a clear-cut profile of the troika took shape. The agenda of the ministerial meeting in this format includes an exchange of views on key international and regional problems, including the war on international terror, illicit drug trafficking and other major challenges.
The intensification of trilateral economic interaction acquired an added importance in the ensuing years. At the October 2007 meeting of the three ministers in Harbin, China, the three countries provisionally divided these lines of preparation in a way that the issue of agriculture was coordinated by China, that of health care by India, and emergency prevention and response by Russia.
In February 2007 and later in October 2007 when meetings of the foreign ministers of the three countries were held in New Delhi (India) and in Harbin (China) respectively, it was decided to give a structured and dynamic character to relations in this format to promote practical cooperation. The initiation of the consultation mechanism between the heads of territorial departments of the ministries of foreign affairs of Russia, India and China became a key agency in implementing these objectives. It was decided to hold such events on a regular basis, at least once a year, and since then yearly meetings of the RIC foreign ministers are taking place regularly.
In recent years, the trilateral has been marked by closer coordination on key international issues. During the recent RIC meeting in Moscow, the three countries have taken similar positions on the issues of the Syrian crisis and on Iran’s nuclear standoff. They were supportive of Kofi Annan’s peace initiative on Syria. According to RIC, Iran has the sovereign right to peaceful nuclear energy and has strongly argued for resolving this issue through political and diplomatic dialogue and through consultations between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The RIC joint statement also reiterated their concerns on Afghanistan, where increasing focus on the exit of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was discussed and RIC focused on post-ISAF exit responsibilities of these three countries. They are all immediate neighbours of Afghanistan and victims of terrorism and drug trafficking emanating from Afghanistan.
The joint statements mentioned their commitment to ensuring stability in Afghanistan and reaffirmed their commitment to contribute towards ensuring stability and security within the UN framework or through other regional initiatives, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), as Russia and China are full member or observer of the SCO and India is an observer. The growing closeness amongst RIC is clearly noticeable in various fora from the United Nations to the G-20 Summits, within the SCO, during Asia-Europe meetings, during climate change meetings, during East Asian summits, and so on.
There are strong complementarities among the three countries, in terms of natural resources, services capability, skilled labour, manufacturing capability and technology. They are all strong on entrepreneurial activity and in innovation and technology activities.
However, the current levels of trade, investment and economic interaction between them are far below their potential. There is, therefore, considerable scope for cooperating on technology and innovation. The RIC has already set up subsidiaries like the RIC trilateral experts meeting on disaster management, the trilateral business forum, and the trilateral academic scholar’s dialogue, and held other trilateral projects and conferences in these specialised fields. However, for all three, food and commodity security will emerge as a major concern and that is one area in which closer interaction and some understanding would be essential as the three states go forward to integrate in the global market.
The regular meetings of the three countries’ foreign ministers are playing a key role in promoting the trilateral cooperation. The main task of the troika forum is to create a good climate among the three countries and to improve the security paradigm in the region and to strengthen mutual understanding and trust, which is essential for finding the best solutions for certain problems at the bilateral level. The principles laid down in the trilateral dialogues are those of equality, mutual trust and consensus. Trilateral cooperation has gained strong momentum and as long as patience and perseverance are maintained, cooperation among the three countries will go on to scale new heights.
Nivedita Das Kundu is assistant director, (research), Indian Council for Social Science Research, New Delhi, India and a foreign policy analyst
The Arctic Heats Up
Russia & India Report
April 25, 2012
Arctic heats up
Ilya Kramnik
Global warming is making the polar regions of the Earth more accessible, and while the possibility of armed conflict is limited, all regional players are preparing for such a scenario.
The Arctic region is expected to be the disputed territory between the world’s powers. Source: Geo Photo
The opening of the Arctic as a result of global warming only interested academics and journalists until recently. Now, however, it attracts the attention of politicians and military leaders.
The possibility of the revival of the Cold War in the Arctic is being increasingly discussed in both global and regional media. Meanwhile, the chiefs of the general staffs of the countries of the region have begun holding regular meetings on the issue of maintaining peace and security in the Arctic.
The latest meeting, which took place in Canada on April 12-13, was attended by military leaders of all Arctic powers, including Nikolai Makarov, chief of the Russian General Staff. The meeting took place against the backdrop of military revival in the region: Both NATO countries and Russia have conducted military exercises in the Arctic. The NATO Cold Response exercises, which took place in March, were held in the area between Sweden and Norway, with the participation of 16,300 troops. The exercises did not take place without incident: Five Norwegian soldiers were killed in a crash when a C-130J military transport plane crashed into the western slope of Mt. Kebnekaise in northern Sweden.
Russian soldiers have also conducted exercises. The 200th Motorized Rifle Brigade stationed near Murmansk has also performed military drills in the Arctic. Its T-80 tanks, which are the most adapted to Arctic conditions because their gas turbine engines are much easier to start in the cold than conventional diesel ones, were engaged in maneuvers. Ships of the northern fleet, airplanes and helicopters of the air force and naval planes all participated in maneuvers.
The air force also conducted separate maneuvers in the north of the country. The Ladoga 2012 exercise was held April 9-15 at the Besovets Air Force Base in Karelia and included the participation of more than 50 airplanes and helicopters. During the exercises, pilots shot down more than 150 aerial targets.
Intersection of interests
The Russian and NATO maneuvers are both in pursuit of one goal: With the growing accessibility of the region, all the key players want to demonstrate their capabilities and at the very least gain extra points through the kind of information-psychological confrontation that largely determines the outcome of today’s diplomatic conflicts. Of course, no one wants an actual war, least of all the United States, which has most of its military forces tied up in another part of the world. But the active acquisition of polar resources, territorial disputes and the imminent expansion of navigation along the Northern Sea Route make the Arctic a very important region.
The atmosphere at major maritime crossroads has always been difficult: witness the Mediterranean, the Horn of Africa and the Strait of Malacca. If the Arctic becomes such a crossroads, and this seems very likely, then conflicts will quickly appear. How they will be resolved depends on the willingness of the parties to defend their interests.
Russia has expressed its readiness in both its military operations and its plans to expand its Arctic infrastructure. Twenty border posts will be built in the near future in order to protect and exercise some control over the polar domains. Some of these posts will be located next to the nine centers planned by the Emergencies Ministry and the Russian Ministry of Transport, which must be deployed according to the program for the development of the Northern Sea Route. The other frontier posts will be located on islands. Uninterrupted communication with the “mainland” will be provided through the Arctic satellite system, which is being deployed specifically for this purpose.
Frontier posts will act as the first layer of protection of Russian interests in the Arctic. If necessary, they can be supported by the Northern Fleet, a part of the air force and Arctic Brigades of the Ministry of Defense. Almost all of the countries of the region already have or are in the process of forming Arctic contingents that are adapted for operations in the region.
For the time being possible conflicts in the Arctic remain the subject of theoretical debates and of computer games – in particular the recently released game Naval Warfare – Arctic Circle, which conceives a war between Russia and NATO in the Arctic using naval and air forces.
Currently the world’s leading players are too busy fighting the global economic crisis to make this story a reality. But the situation could change, faster than we think.
Ilya Kramnik is an analyst with Voice of Russia.
