13 July 2011 — Stop NATO
- 117-Day War: France Extends Libyan Military Mission
- Poll: 68% Of Israelis Back NATO Membership, 60% NATO Troops In Palestine
- Georgia: Base To Be Used For Training NATO Militaries
- Afghanistan: NATO Air Strike Kills Four Civilians In Kunar Province
- Latvia: French NATO Jet Scrambled On Intercept Mission
- Commentary: End U.S. Imperialism To End Strife
- Max Boot’s Dangerous, Deluded Vision
- Oil Imperialism
- Pakistan To Withdraw Troops From Afghan Border If U.S. Cuts Aid
- NATO Chief Promotes Complete Absorption Of The Balkans
- U.S. Army Riddles Bavarian Buildings With Machine Gun Fire
- Afghan War: Germany Orders 76 New Armored Vehicles
- Angola: Germany Expands Military Role In Africa
- New Arms Race: Germany, World’s Third Largest Weapons Exporter
117-Day War: France Extends Libyan Military Mission
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-07/13/c_13981065.htm
Xinhua News Agency
July 13, 2011
French parliament authorises extension of military mission in Libya
-Since France took the lead in launching air strikes against pro-Gaddafi troop on March 19, it has mobilized around 4,400 soldiers, 40 fighting jets, 8 vessels and 18 helicopters in the coalition operation backed first by Britain and then NATO…
PARIS: The French parliament on Tuesday gave the green light for the extension of the country’s military intervention against Libya’s Gaddafi regime, while senior officials insisted that political solutions are ‘to take shape’ and contacts going on.
The French Senate, the upper house, approved in the evening to prolong the military intervention in Libya with 311 votes for and 24 against the bill proposed by the government. Earlier in the afternoon, deputies of the lower house (the National Assembly) gave a nod to the bill with 482 votes in favor and 27 against.
According to the French constitution amended in 2008, a parliamentary commission has to examine any military operation of French troops if their mission exceeds four months.
Before the parliament started debate over the continuation of the operation, Prime Minister Francois Fillon appealed to the legislators to agree with the government, noting a political solution was ‘beginning to take shape’ though the intervention against pro-Gaddafi forces had seen no quick end.
Like what happened in the National Assembly, a large majority of the senators, including those of the ruling party UMP and the opposition Socialist, let pass the bill authorizing the four-month long military intervention to continue in Libya.
…
Since France took the lead in launching air strikes against pro-Gaddafi troop on March 19, it has mobilized around 4,400 soldiers, 40 fighting jets, 8 vessels and 18 helicopters in the coalition operation backed first by Britain and then NATO, according to official data.
French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet estimated that the cost of France’s part in the operation had exceeded 160 million euros (223.6 million US dollars) by the end of June.
…
In an interview published by French daily Le Figaro on Tuesday, Libyan Prime Minister Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi said Tripoli was ready to negotiate directly with France and Gaddafi wouldn’t participate in the discussion.
Meanwhile, he called on NATO to stop military strikes in Libya first.
====
Poll: 68% Of Israelis Back NATO Membership, 60% NATO Troops In Palestine
http://english.cri.cn/6966/2011/07/12/1461s648044.htm
Xinhua News Agency
July 13, 2011
Israelis Back Deploying NATO Forces in West Bank, Gaza: Poll
More than 60 percent of Israelis said they would back deploying NATO troops in the West Bank and Gaza, according to a just-released survey by pollsters at the Ben- Gurion University (BGU) of the Negev.
According to the ‘Israeli Positions on the EU’ survey, 64 percent of Israeli Jews and 63 percent of Israeli Arabs citizens would support seeing peacekeeping forces in the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas-ruled areas, respectively. In 2009, 54 percent supported the idea.
In the poll, compiled by Sharon Pardo of the Department of Politics and Government, 68 percent are for joining North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Around 81 percent of Israelis want Israel to join the European Union (EU), up from 69 percent in 2009, and 43 percent would like to see stronger relations with the EU, against 20 percent with the UN and seven percent with NATO.
According to Pardo, ‘the message is quite clear, Israelis are not for isolationism, they want cooperation.’
The poll canvassed 1,000 Israelis from different walks if life in mid-June and had a 3.3 percent margin of error, according to the school.
‘Israelis are really into strengthening and deepening the cooperation between Israel and the EU,’ Pardo said, adding, ’ Israelis understand the importance of the EU for the future of Israel and they want to strengthen the relations.’
====
Georgia: Base To Be Used For Training NATO Militaries
http://en.trend.az/news/politics/1904483.html
Trend News Agency
July 12, 2011
Georgian military base becomes eligible to train NATO military
N. Kirtskhalia
Tbilisi: The Sachkhere military base (in the region of Imereti, Western Georgia) on training mountain soldiers got the status of PFP (Partnership for Peace], which gives it the right to train NATO military[ies].
The Georgian Defense Ministry reported that today the Ambassador of France to Georgia, Eric Fournier, and Deputy Defence Minister of Georgia Nodar Kharshiladze visited the base.
The deputy minister said henceforth the military base in Sachkhere, which was built by France, will begin to train NATO militaries.
‘The program on training of mountain shooters upon NATO standards will already start in September,’ he said.
Today, Fournier and Kharshiladze opened the honorary board on conferring the status of PFP upon Sachkhere military base.
====
Afghanistan: NATO Air Strike Kills Four Civilians In Kunar Province
http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2011/07/12/airstrike-kills-4-civilians-kunar-governor
Pajhwok Afghan News
July 12, 2011
Airstrike kills 4 civilians in Kunar: governor
by Khan Wali Salarzai
ASADABAD: Four civilians were killed and a fifth injured in an airstrike by NATO-led forces in the Asmar district of eastern Kunar province, the governor said on Tuesday.
The air raid was carried out on Tuesday afternoon in the Sewr area, Syed Fazlullah Wahidi, told Pajhwok Afghan News.
The airstrike came after militants fired rockets shells at a base of foreign troops from nearby mountains, he said.
The casualties occurred when jets dropped bombs on suspected positions. One of the bombs hit a civilian house, killing four inmates and injuring a fifth, he said.
====
Latvia: French NATO Jet Scrambled On Intercept Mission
Agence France-Presse
July 12, 2011
French NATO jet scrambled on Latvian intercept mission
A French NATO jet was scrambled Tuesday to intercept three unidentified aircraft over Latvian airspace, the Baltic state’s defence minister said, as news reports said the planes were German.
‘The French Mirage did its duty very well,’ Defence Minister Artis Pabriks told AFP.
‘Planes appeared on our screens which were unidentified and not responding. We were not too worried, but the principle is that there must be identification, so we followed the procedures,’ he added.
The Mirage 2000C interceptor took off from NATO’s Siauliai airbase in Lithuania after three small jet aircraft were detected flying over neighbouring Latvia.
France currently holds the rotating duties of patrolling the airspace of ex-Soviet Latvia, Lithuania and fellow Baltic state Estonia, whose own air forces lack suitable aircraft for the job despite being NATO members since 2004.
The French jet successfully forced the unidentified aircraft to land at the Adazi military base in Latvia, where the pilots were held by police.
They turned out to be German civilians who had travelled via Poland and Lithuania who had not followed correct flight plan procedures, the Baltic News Service reported.
====
Commentary: End U.S. Imperialism To End Strife
http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20110709/OPINION/107090316
Alexandria Town Talk
July 9, 2011
End U.S. imperialism to end strife
Sheldon Richman
Despite President Barack Obama’s trumpeted force drawdown in Afghanistan, by the end of next summer more than twice as many U.S. troops will be fighting in that country’s civil war as there were when he became president in 2009. A force of about 70,000 will remain there at least until the end of 2014.
Obama’s speech the other night was mostly show, a spectacle to make the war-weary public think he’s taking substantial steps toward disengagement.
It is easy for a president to manipulate public opinion, especially in foreign affairs and most especially when the mainstream media are so compliant. The war will go on, but probably under the radar more than before. The public and mainstream media attitude will be, ‘The president said the war is ending, so there’s no need to pay attention.’
One problem: Not much is changing.
Politicians and pundits will debate whether Obama’s drawdown is too slow or too fast. The president explicitly took a middle position between those who wanted merely a token withdrawal, such as the top military brass and U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and those who want an immediate exit, such as U.S. Reps. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Ron Paul, R-Texas.
But the pace is hardly the main issue. The main issue is the empire. If all combat troops were removed from Afghanistan tomorrow, the U.S. government would continue to treat that country like a protectorate. It’s the paradigm of empire that must be rejected.
Obama and the U.S. policy elite have no intention of reconsidering America’s hegemonic role in the world.
Fiscal difficulties have forced a reconsideration of tactics, but the imperial framework remains. As President George H.W. Bush said in 1991 as he prepared to move against Iraq: ‘What we say goes.’
Empires always require myths, and the U.S. empire is no different. Before Obama’s speech, McCain and others campaigned for no more than a token drawdown by asserting that Afghanistan would become a threat to Americans if the U.S. military disengaged, just as it did — supposedly — after the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
‘We withdrew from Afghanistan one time,’ McCain said. ‘We withdrew from Afghanistan and the Taliban came, eventually followed by al-Qaeda, followed by the attacks on the United States of America.’
That is empire-serving nonsense. The policymakers did not abandon Afghanistan; they tried to micromanage it in defiance of Afghan history and culture.
Instead of letting the conflicting Afghan factions find some way to peace after a decade of brutal Soviet intrusion, the U.S. fanned the flames of civil war.
Neither neglect of Afghanistan nor intervention prompted al-Qaeda’s attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. It was a half-century of U.S. support for brutality in the Muslim and Arab world.
As long as the U.S. government eyes the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia the way an imperial power eyes its colonies, there will be threats to counter. The path to American security lies in renouncing a foreign policy designed to rule the world.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at the libertarian Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) in Fairfax, Va.
====
Max Boot’s Dangerous, Deluded Vision
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/stephen-glain/2011/07/11/max-boots-dangerous-deluded-vision
U.S. News & World Report
July 11, 2011
Max Boot’s Dangerous, Deluded Vision
By Stephen Glain
I refer readers to a column penned by Max Boot, fountainhead for American militarism and herald of threats largely imagined, which appeared last week in the Los Angeles Times. It is a fine specimen of alarmist cant, drawn from antique and erroneous reference points and resonant among those who conflate defense spending cuts with unilateral disarmament.
Boot, who has built a career shilling for American empire and the ruinous investment of human and capital resources needed to sustain it, warns us that a curtailing of U.S. commitments overseas–specifically when it comes to nation-building, or ‘stability operations,’ in Pentagon parlance–will create failed states ripe for the taking by Bad Guys. Among other things, he associates America’s withdrawal from Southeast Asia in the early 1970s with the fall of the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam, the holocaust in Cambodia, the Iranian hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the evolution of al Qaeda.
Who would have thought that America’s withdrawal from the quagmire it created for itself in Vietnam would have precipitated such a nasty chain of events? Practically no one except Boot, whose understanding of the evidence he marshals on his own behalf must have been nurtured in the hot house that is the Council of Foreign Relations, where he is a senior fellow.
The scandal of America’s history in Vietnam was not its withdrawal but the fact that it assumed France’s corrupt colonial mission there in the first place. It was George Kennan, the sage foreign policy expert, who rightly declared Vietnam was a geopolitical irrelevancy and correctly dismissed fears that a U.S. pullout would foster a series of Soviet proxy states throughout Southeast Asia–the ‘falling dominoes’ theory that so closely echoes the canard Boot is pedaling today.
The genocide in Cambodia was triggered not by the removal of U.S. forces from Vietnam but by Richard Nixon’s decision to widen the war by bombing Viet Cong enclaves along Cambodia’s eastern frontier, which destabilized the neutralist government in Phnom Penh and paved the way for the murderous Khmer Rouge. The Iranian hostage crisis was the bill for Washington’s close ties with Iran’s venal and incompetent Shah; it was no more related to Vietnam than was Moscow’s decision to invade Afghanistan, which declassified Russian archives show was a reluctant effort to protect a client regime in Kabul from an Islamist insurgency, not unlike America’s objectives in Afghanistan today. [See photos of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.]
To suggest, as Boot does, that the rise of al Qaeda was a consequence of America’s climb-down from Southeast Asia and the decade of ‘isolationism’ that followed is to ignore Osama bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa against the ‘aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on [the Muslim world] by the Zionist-Crusader alliance,’ a reference to America’s close relations with Israel as well as pliant but oppressive Arab dictators like Egypt’s recently ousted Hosni Mubarak. Nowhere in Bin Laden’s 11,600-word screed is Vietnam even mentioned.
Boot is correct that American isolationists in the 1930s impaired the nation’s preparedness in the run-up to World War II. But the 2010s are not the 1930s, and isolationism is not an option for any country participating in today’s highly integrated global economy. Moreover, to imply as he does that a country that spends more on national security than the rest of the world combined eschews the burden of nation-building at its peril is nonsense.
Boot bewails our estrangement with stability operations, which he says are a byproduct of the failed U.S. mission to stabilize Somalia in 1992. In fact, Americans’ low regard for nation-building dates back to the late 19th century, when Washington wasted whole decades and thousands of lives trying to rebuild the Philippines after its imperial thrust through Asia and Latin America. Ironically, Boot lists the Philippines, along with Iraq, Afghanistan, Chad, Colombia and Mexico, as a host of U.S. military operations arrayed against ‘gangsters, terrorists and other threats.’ Such concentrated deployments, he argues, is ‘a good way to avoid a large-scale troop commitment’ abroad. He concludes with a proposal for a new government agency–a ‘Department of Peace,’ he calls it–dedicated exclusively to nation-building.
Given how three of the five countries Boots celebrates as models of stability operations have at one time or another endured massive occupations of U.S. troops, one could argue that nation building does as much to enable the use of armed force as it does to preempt it. Certainly it is intrinsic to the messianic seam in U.S. foreign policy, which is itself the fuel of empire. Boot’s Department of Peace is not as revolutionary as he seems to think. It would be, rather, only the latest such Orwellian conceit in our imperial project.
====
Oil Imperialism
http://www.frontline.in/stories/20110729281502100.htm
Frontline
July 12, 2011
Oil imperialism
John Cherian
The U.S. game plan, since the oil shock of 1973, has been to control the oil market by keeping the focus on the West Asian region
It is not a coincidence that global oil prices spiralled upwards immediately after the attack on Libya by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) forces in March. Oil production in the country has since virtually come to a halt. Libya holds the largest crude reserves in Africa and the ninth largest in the world. Libyan oil is considered to be of the highest quality. Oil prices have gone up by 35 per cent since the Western-backed rebellion in Libya started in the last week of February.
The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the cartel that plays an important role in controlling output and prices, is now divided down the middle. Member-countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait and Qatar, instigated by the United States, openly aid the Libyan rebels operating out of Benghazi, while another member, Algeria, has denounced the ‘foreign intervention’ in the conflict in Libya, also an OPEC member. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was one of the first world leaders to call for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. He issued a dire warning about the harmful political and economic consequences of the NATO-led war for the international community.
Oil has gained 9.5 per cent this year. For a period it crossed the critical $100-a-barrel mark. While the divisions in OPEC precluded an agreement to increase output, the war in Libya has blocked the supply of 1.4 million barrels a day. The International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a statement on May 16 that there was an ‘urgent need’ to pump more oil to help bring down global oil prices, which were threatening the economies of most countries, including India.
Washington’s numerous attempts at toppling or assassinating the Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi were closely linked to the desire to take control of Libya’s oil. In previous wars, too, it was oil and gas that the West was after. Every time the U.S. goes to war for oil, the price of the precious commodity starts skyrocketing. It happened after the first Gulf War and before that after the 1973 war between Israel and Egypt. Arab nations used the oil weapon collectively to pressure the U.S. into forcing Israel to agree to a ceasefire.
The important reason why the U.S. went into Iraq was to gain control of its oil. The assumption was that once the U.S. established control over the Iraqi oil sector, it would be able to control OPEC’s ability to manipulate energy prices. Iraq has the third largest known reserves of oil after Saudi Arabia and Iran. However, things have not gone according to the American blueprint for Iraq. The Shia-dominated Iraqi government is no quisling of the U.S.; it strives to maintain equidistance from Washington and Teheran. The vast Iraqi oil reserves still remain untapped. Oil production under Saddam Hussein was higher than what it is now and attacks on pipelines by the resistance forces continue to happen sporadically.
In Afghanistan, the American dream was to build a gas pipeline that would carry Central Asian gas to lucrative markets in India and beyond. The ongoing attempts to destabilise Iran are motivated primarily by the desire to control that country’s hydrocarbon assets. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-engineered coup against the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 took place after the nationalisation of the Western oil companies. The oil companies were against nationalisation after the revolution that toppled the Shah in 1979. The West was quick to impose economic sanctions on the country. The CIA-backed coup attempt against Hugo Chavez in 2002 was also aimed at reversing Venezuelan state control over hydrocarbon assets.
Additional punitive sanctions that were put in place recently by the Obama administration against Iran and Venezuela could push petrol prices even higher. Recently, U.S. lawmakers introduced in both Houses of Congress bills that empower the imposition of more draconian unilateral sanctions on Iran. If implemented, the new sanctions will prohibit both countries and companies from buying oil and gas from Iran.
Many Indian companies have already stopped dealing with Iran. The Indian market could have had access to cheap energy had the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline materialised. However, Western machinations, coupled with arm-twisting by Washington, have ensured that it will not.
Iran, along with Qatar, has the biggest known gas deposits in the world. It needs $200 billion in foreign investments to tap its oil and gas reserves. Currently, sanctions have made it difficult for the country to refine its own oil and forced it to import even from India. Besides, the government is forced to use domestically a significant amount of its oil meant for export.
U.S. ‘vital interest’
Ever since the ‘oil shock’ of 1973, Washington’s game plan has been to control the oil market and its main focus has been West Asia. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter declared the Persian Gulf an exclusive zone of American influence. ‘An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the USA, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force,’ Carter said. He created a Rapid Deployment Force, which later became the U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM. Under his successors, the U.S. built military bases all over West Asia.
The two wars against Iraq, whose government was the first to nationalise oil resources, followed. In 2008, the Bush administration set up the Africa Command (AFRICOM), which is currently headquartered in Germany as no African country has so far provided basing facilities. AFRICOM is playing a lead role in the war in Libya.
According to recent projections by the U.S. Department of Energy, West Asia and North Africa will jointly provide approximately 43 per cent of the world’s crude petroleum supply by 2035 and contribute a greater share of the world’s exportable oil.
The West has played a key role in dividing Sudan, one of the main oil exporters in Africa. Most of the oilfields were in South Sudan, which became formally independent early in July. Western oil companies are expected to reap handsome benefits. Libya, too, is headed for balkanisation. The area under the control of the Western-backed rebels is where most of the oil and gas fields are located.
Western oil corporations are also attempting to monopolise Central Asia’s huge hydrocarbon deposits by building a network of pipelines that bypass existing Russian pipelines and circumvent Iran. The Western-financed Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is an example. It pumps Caspian oil, taking a circuitous route through Georgia and Turkey. Oil and gas from the Caspian region can be transported more easily and cheaply through Iran and then onward to the lucrative Asian markets.
Russia and China are working to thwart America’s game plan for the region. Under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), energy cooperation between the member-states, which include the Central Asian states, has led to the emergence of alternative pipelines. India, Pakistan and Iran have ‘observer status’ in the SCO and hope to become full-fledged members in the near future.
According to Professor Michael Klare, an American expert on global oil politics, the American military has been transformed into a ‘global oil-protection’ service for the benefit of U.S. corporations and consumers, fighting battles overseas and establishing bases all over the world. The U.S. Army, which is engaged in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya at present, is itself one of the biggest consumers of oil. Klare writes that Pentagon’s annual consumption of oil for its Afghanistan operation is more than the annual petroleum usage of Bangladesh, a country with a population of more than 150 million.
Documents of the U.S. State Department accessed by WikiLeaks show that Washington was highly critical of the Libyan government’s ‘resource nationalism’. The cables were especially critical of a speech by Qaddafi in 2006, in which he said: ‘Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them. Now Libyans must take their place to profit from this money.’ Qaddafi had allowed Western oil companies back in return for the lifting of the economic and political sanctions on the country in 2004. But in recent years, the Libyan government was trying to regain control of its oil assets by trying to limit the profits of the Western-owned oil giants. The cables talk of Qaddafi pressuring the oil companies to hire more Libyans in managerial positions. To add to the discomfiture of the West, many of the recent oil concessions were given to Chinese oil companies.
Another State Department cable, in 2009, notes with alarm a speech by Qaddafi suggesting that all oil-exporting states nationalise their oil production in view of the falling oil prices. The leaked cables make it clear that the West’s hostility towards Qaddafi is on the issue of control of the country’s vast hydrocarbon resources. ‘Those who dominate Libya’s political and economic leadership are pursuing increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector that could jeopardise efficient exploitation of Libya’s extensive oil and gas reserves,’ a 2007 cable states. The Libyan rebel leadership seems to have assured Washington that a post-Qaddafi Libya will be a safe place for the big oil companies to rake in profits.
====
Pakistan To Withdraw Troops From Afghan Border If U.S. Cuts Aid
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-07/12/c_13980190.htm
Xinhua News Agency
July 12, 2011
Pakistan to pull troops from Afghan border if U.S. cuts aid
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar has threatened that the government will pull back troops from the tribal regions along border with Afghanistan in reaction to the suspension of nearly 800 million U. S. dollars of military aid.
The defense minister told local TV Express in an interview scheduled to be broadcast Tuesday night that the government would pull back troops from the nearly 1,100 check posts set up along the Pak-Afghan border, who have been deployed to check illegal cross-border movement.
He said that 300 million U.S. dollars of this aid specifically goes to troops serving in this troubled region. ‘This money (U.S. military aid) is not for fighting the war, but is money that we have spent already,’ he said, adding that Pakistan could not afford to keep its military out in the mountains or in the border areas for a long period of time.
‘The next step would be that the government or the armed forces will pull back the forces from the border areas,’ said the defense minister.
The U.S. aid was blocked to react to Pakistan’s decision to expel over 100 U.S. military personnel who had been in Pakistan to impart training to Pakistani forces.
Reports said that the United States is also angry at Pakistan’s refusal to grant more visas to its military officers. The U.S. is also considering a move to mount pressure on Islamabad to take more steps against the militants.
To a question about the U.S. Defense Minister Leon Panetta’s assertion that al-Qaida chief al-Zawahiri is hiding in Pakistan, Mukhtar said that he hoped the United States would not repeat the mistakes it made in the raid to kill Osama Bin Laden. ‘This time round we hope the Americans will work with the Pakistanis and share their intelligence,’ he added.
====
NATO Chief Promotes Complete Absorption Of The Balkans
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-E8B5B9BE-D6311B7F/natolive/news_76329.htm
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
July 11, 2011
Western Balkans: moving closer to Euro-Atlantic integration
For nearly two decades, NATO [has been active] in the Western Balkans. In that time, the region’s engagement with NATO has been shifting increasingly from peacekeeping and crisis management towards Euro-Atlantic integration.
‘We want to see the whole of this region sharing the stability and the well-being of the Euro-Atlantic community of nations,’ said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen during a speech in Montenegro on 29 June…
Within a few years of having deployed its first peacekeeping mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina in December 1995, NATO mobilized to intervene in the Kosovo crisis…and deployed the NATO-led Kosovo Force in 1999. In 2001, NATO along with the European Union came to the assistance of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia¹ [sic], facilitating the end of an internal conflict…
While the mission in Kosovo is ongoing, the focus of relations with partners in the region has shifted towards developing cooperation to promote reform and Euro-Atlantic integration. NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme has had a major impact, engaging partner countries in political dialogue and helping them with reform challenges, especially in the defence sector.
The Secretary General stressed that NATO would continue supporting the entire region on the way to Euro-Atlantic integration and that the Alliance’s door is open…
Members and partners
An important indicator of the progress that has already been made in the region is that some former partners have joined the Alliance, namely Albania (2009), Croatia (2009) and Slovenia (2004).
Three partners in the Western Balkans are membership aspirants. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia¹, will be invited to start accession talks when a solution to the issue over the country’s name has been reached.
Montenegro joined the MAP in 2009 and Bosnia and Herzegovina was invited to MAP in 2010, pending the resolution of a key issue concerning immovable defence property.
While Serbia does not currently aspire to join NATO, it is seeking to deepen cooperation with the Alliance and further its European Union integration goals.
No longer ‘security consumers’
Another important measure of progress in the Western Balkans is the fact that partners that were previously ‘security consumers’ are now themselves contributing to international security by supporting peace-support operations abroad.
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia¹ has been contributing to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan since 2002, Bosnia and Herzegovina since 2009, and Montenegro since 2010.
1. Turkey recognizes the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name.
====
U.S. Army Riddles Bavarian Buildings With Machine Gun Fire
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110712-36227.html
The Local (Germany)
July 12, 2011
Stray US Army bullets hit Bavarian buildings
-Last year a Black Hawk helicopter crashed near a Mannheim motorway killing three soldiers, though no civilians were hurt.
Ten years ago, an elementary school near the Grafenwöhr installation was hit by a shell during training.
Authorities are investigating how shots fired during a training exercise at the Grafenwöhr US military installation in Bavaria ended up hitting a school and residential building in the nearby town on Friday.
‘I was worried about the city, but fortunately nothing serious happened,’ deputy Mayor Udo Greim told the Süddeutsche Zeitung. The newspaper reported that there have been similar incidents three or four times over the past 25 years.
In a statement, the US Army said the bullets came from 12.7-millimetre rounds fired by a machine gun mounted on a Humvee. They hit several buildings, including a vocational school and residential building.
It added that US military and German police were looking into what happened and how such incidents can be prevented.
…
US military accidents occur periodically, though are rarely pose a danger to civilians. Last year a Black Hawk helicopter crashed near a Mannheim motorway killing three soldiers, though no civilians were hurt.
Ten years ago, an elementary school near the Grafenwöhr installation was hit by a shell during training.
————————————————————————–
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
July 11, 2011
US Army accidentally shoots at German town
Grafenwoehr, Germany: Stray bullets from a US Army firing range in southern Germany accidentally hit civilian buildings in a nearby town during shooting practice, the US military and German police said Monday.
Both are investigating why 12.7-millimetre rounds, fired Friday from a four-wheel-drive vehicle, hit a vocational school, a house and a garage outside the Grafenwoehr US Army training ground, 200 kilometres north of Munich.
Police said nobody was injured in the incident. An army spokesman said an investigation has begun. The buildings were 5 kilometres from where the heavy machine gun mounted on the vehicle was firing.
Ten years ago, a wayward shell hit a German elementary school near the grounds, where troops train before heading to Afghanistan.
====
Afghan War: Germany Orders 76 New Armored Vehicles
United Press International
July 11, 2011
Germany orders armored vehicles
KOBLENZ, Germany: Germany’s defense procurement agency has contracted Daimler AG for 76 ENOK command and operations vehicles.
The ENOK has been used on operational deployments by German forces since February.
Germany has military forces in Afghanistan as part of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force.
Daimler AG said that in comparison to the vehicle with special protection kit Wolf SSA, which is effectively the same size class and also used on operational deployments, the ENOK features significantly improved protection in the field against mines and improvised explosive devices.
The vehicles procured under the contract will be the military police vehicle variant. They are to be delivered by the end of 2013, the company said.
…
The monetary value of the contract wasn’t disclosed.
====
Angola: Germany Expands Military Role In Africa
Angola Press
July 12, 2011
German defence attaché accredited
-The attaché is…an official cadet of the logistics body of the army, chief of staff of the 31st parachute [unit], assistant director for the Horn of Africa of the Central Command combined planning group in Tampa, United States of America.
Luanda: Lt. Colonel Thamas Brillisauer was accredited Monday in Luanda as non-resident German defence attaché to Angola.
The accreditation ceremony was presided over by the director of International Relations of the National Defence Ministry, Admiral André Mendes de Carvalho ‘Miau’.
Addressing the ceremony, the senior officer of the Angolan Armed Forces (FAA) said that the Federal Republic of Germany is among the main countries based in Europe with a strong economy and [with] which Angola intends to strengthen cooperation in military field.
In his turn, Lt Colonel Thomas Brillisauer stressed the fact Angola to be one of the strongest countries in the southern and central region of Africa which also the Germany wants to reinforce ties in military field.
Born on November 28, 1965 in Frankfurt, the German defence attaché joined the Armed Forces of Germany in 1975 and concluded two university courses.
The attaché is also an official cadet of the logistics body of the army, chief of staff of the 31st parachute [unit], assistant director for the Horn of Africa of the Central Command combined planning group in Tampa, United States of America.
…
The accreditation ceremony of German defence attaché took place on the eve of the visit to Angola of German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, as part of strengthening bilateral cooperation.
====
New Arms Race: Germany, World’s Third Largest Weapons Exporter
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,773626,00.html
Der Spiegel
July 11, 2011
A New Arms Race
Exports Booming for German Weapons Manufacturers
By Dietmar Hawranek, Markus Dettmer and Ralf Beste
-The international arms industry doesn’t face crises; crises are its business. In 2010, global arms expenditures rose to $1.63 trillion (€1.14 trillion). This represents a growth of 56 percent over the last decade, according to SIPRI. Indeed, almost one-tenth of all the money generated by global weapons exports ends up in the pockets of the German defense industry.
-Gone are the days when huge formations of soldiers faced off against each other. These days, fighting is conducted in many places at the same time and often by small units. This type of fighting calls for high-tech solutions, including drones, satellites, radars and electronic gadgetry. Much of this is based on technology in fields where Germany companies are among the world’s leaders.
A decrease in orders from its own military has led Germany’s arms industry to turn the focus of its sales efforts abroad. It has recently enjoyed amazing successes despite seemingly strict export controls.
For Frank Haun, it’s all a matter of ‘red’ or ‘blue,’ a minor color change on his map of the world.
Haun is the boss of Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), a Munich-based defense company whose product line includes tanks and other armored vehicles. Not long ago, Haun used a projector to display a map of the world on the wall for some visitors. Countries his company could export arms to – such as Canada, Brazil and Chile – were in blue. Those in yellow could only import arms under certain conditions. And, as a general rule, the firm considered those in red to be off-limits for exports. The Gulf region was lit up in red.
At the time, KMW figured that it wouldn’t get official permission to export its wares to the crisis-hit region. ‘Whether a country is red, yellow or blue is something the German government decides,’ Haun says.
But now, red might suddenly turn blue: Germany’s Federal Security Council, a group that decides which weapons exports to allow, has green-lighted the sale of more than 200 model 2A7+ Leopard tanks to Saudi Arabia.
News of the deal has unleashed a controversy in Germany over the country’s foreign and arms export policies, the likes of which hasn’t been seen for quite some time. But the tank deal with Saudi Arabia has also thrown a spotlight on an industry that prefers to do business in the shadows. In fact, the industry usually only causes a stir once a year: when the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) publishes its annual ranking of the world’s largest arms exporters.
Behind the Big Guns
Germany is in third place among the world’s biggest weapons suppliers, behind only the big guns of Russia and the United States and in front of France and Great Britain. Its arms are coveted around the world: tanks from Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall; submarines from ThyssenKrupp; fighter jets, helicopters and drones from EADS; missiles and munitions from Diehl; rifles from Heckler & Koch; torpedoes from Atlas Elektronik; and telescopic sights from Carl Zeiss.
The United States military is generally only allowed to order armaments from domestic suppliers. But even it makes an exception when it comes to Germany: For their tanks, they order the smooth-bore guns made by Rheinmetall because they are more precise than those developed in the US.
The international arms industry doesn’t face crises; crises are its business. In 2010, global arms expenditures rose to $1.63 trillion (€1.14 trillion). This represents a growth of 56 percent over the last decade, according to SIPRI. Indeed, almost one-tenth of all the money generated by global weapons exports ends up in the pockets of the German defense industry.
But what is it about the German arms industry that has made it so successful? And how can it still succeed in exporting so many weapons despite what appear to be strict export controls?
‘The Number of Global Trouble Spots is Rising’
In late February, Abu Dhabi is pleasantly warm; the temperatures stay far below the 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) found here in the summer. Indeed, it is the best time to take a trip to the United Arab Emirates. And, every other year, it is also the best place to be if you’re in the global arms business as the executives of arms companies meet here with military and government officials for the industry’s largest worldwide trade fair.
The hosts of the 10th International Defence Exhibition & Conference, which was held in mid-February, reported record figures. The trade fair saw 1,060 exhibitors from 52 countries showcase their wares for everyday military needs. There were helicopters that can destroy any kind of ground targets and ground defenses that can shoot any helicopter out of the sky. There were tanks that can withstand any attack, and defensive weapons that can penetrate any armor.
The pavilion in Abu Dhabi reserved for German companies included displays from Diehl, Krauss-Maffei, Rheinmetall, Carl Zeiss Optronics and many others, and was bigger than those of the United States and Russia.
Rheinmetall was displaying tanks and defensive weapons systems. Company head Klaus Eberhardt will admit that ‘the number of global trouble spots is rising,’ but won’t say he is pleased about that fact. Either way, his company is benefiting from the increase. Eberhardt estimates that the global arms trade will increase by between 5 and 6 percent this year.
Changing Times
Like most other German arms companies, Rheinmetall has adapted its business to fit changing times. A decade ago, the companies primarily supplied Germany’s military, the Bundeswehr. But these days, roughly 70 percent of their products are sold to foreign clients.
German arms companies enjoy a reputation for delivering high-tech weapons of the highest quality. For example, the ThyssenKrupp submarines outfitted with fuel cells are considered the best in the world because they are practically undetectable.
…
The companies are also profiting from how military conflicts have changed. Gone are the days when huge formations of soldiers faced off against each other. These days, fighting is conducted in many places at the same time and often by small units. This type of fighting calls for high-tech solutions, including drones, satellites, radars and electronic gadgetry. Much of this is based on technology in fields where Germany companies are among the world’s leaders.
Precision Firing at Full Speed
What’s more, manufacturers are increasingly taking know-how that has been employed in civilian products and putting it to use in military projects. Take the example of Carl Zeiss, the optics company with a long and distinguished history that is primarily know for making lenses for glasses and binoculars. Through its Carl Zeiss Optronics subsidiary, the company now offers telescopic sights for gunners and alignment systems for the ‘Leopard 2? tank that allow for precision firing even at full speed.
Optronics is the defense division of the Carl Zeiss Group and numbers among the leading companies in the world when it comes to optical systems. Its product portfolio includes infrared cameras for border surveillance, multi-sensor systems for drones, laser communication systems that cannot be intercepted and night-vision devices that can be employed at sea, on land and in the air.
The German arms industry is made up of both lesser-known companies and big names. Global giants Siemens and SAP offer military software solutions. At the same time, Kärchner, a medium-sized company known for high-pressure cleaners, is also a world leader when it comes to NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) protection and water treatment. And, whether big or small, they all see their future in exports.
‘Growth doesn’t come from Europe anymore,’ says Stefan Zoller, head of Cassidian, a defense company that is an offshoot of EADS. Defense budgets in Europe are stagnating, Zoller explains, and the biggest opportunities are to be found in the Middle East, India and Brazil. Over the next decade, Cassidian hopes to double its sales volume to €12 billion. At the moment, a quarter of the company’s sales are generated outside Europe, and it expects this figure to rise to 40 percent in the near future.
German Arms Manufacturers ‘Need Government Support’
For years, executives from German arms companies complained about the competitive disadvantage they faced compared to rival companies in France, Great Britain and the United States. They bemoaned the fact that politicians from these countries didn’t think twice about promoting their arms manufacturers abroad, while German ministers and chancellors steered clear from doing so. But, to the great joy of the German arms industry, things have now changed.
As Zoller puts it, German arms manufacturers ‘need the support of the federal government in this global race.’ His company has high hopes in border security, a branch of the industry recently enjoying increased attention. The company has been contracted by Saudi Arabia to set up radars, sensors, cameras and other electronic gadgetry to safeguard 9,000 kilometers (5,600 miles) of border as well as air and sea ports.
Cassidian’s success in landing the €2 billion contract was probably helped by the fact that the German government had just recently signed an agreement in Riyadh to collaborate with the Saudis on security issues, which involves having officers from Germany’s federal police force train their border police. Zoller was recently quoted as saying that the Saudi government ‘had put the country’s security in our hands to a major extent.’
Since then, it has emerged that the Saudis aren’t just depending on Cassidian, but also on Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, the manufacturer of the ‘Leopard 2? tanks.
Almost half of KMW’s sales continue to come from the ‘Leopard 2,’ which was originally developed in the 1970s. But in most cases, modern armies need different kinds of tanks. As the website of KMW puts it, ‘the clearly defined frontlines of the Cold War era have been replaced by a multitude of globally dispersed hotspots as the primary deployment scenarios of modern armies.’ To respond to these changing needs, KMW has outfitted the ‘Leopard 2? with an ‘obstacle clearance blade,’ which can push either cars or demonstrators out of the way, as well as a mounted machine gun as a ‘secondary weapon.’
With this ‘upgrade kit,’ the ‘Leopard 2? becomes the ‘Leopard 2A7+.’ This is the model that won over the Saudis, the model that is apparently superior to the tanks made by French and American competitors.
‘The Export of Weapons of War Is Not Approved, Unless…’
Each December, Germany’s federal government releases a report on the previous year’s arms exports. The report includes a list of all the permits issued to export weapons and other military equipment. Since 2000, Saudi Arabia has numbered among Germany’s top 20 clients for such goods. Deals involving the export of missile parts, machine guns, munitions and artillery shells to Riyadh were approved – even in the years when Germany was led by a coalition government made up of the center-left Social Democrats and the Green Party (1998-2005).
The planned tank deal, however, would take things to a whole new level. In 2009, Germany’s government green-lighted deals worth a total of €167.9 million in arms exports to Saudi Arabia. But a contract to supply 200 ‘Leopard 2A7+’ tanks would be worth roughly €2 billion.
In total, Berlin approved about €7 billion in global arms exports in 2009. The most important buyers were the United States, followed by the United Arab Emirates and Great Britain.
…
The ‘political principles’ that the federal cabinet last tightened on Jan. 19, 2000 are meant to provide guidelines which the Federal Security Council can base its decisions on. These guidelines are supposed to attach ‘particular weight’ to the ‘observation of human rights in the destination country.’ This criterion alone would have been enough to block the export of tanks to Saudi Arabia.
The guidelines are also meant to block the approval of arms exports to countries ‘in which there is a risk of armed conflict breaking out.’ The Middle East is considered a trouble spot, so it would only seem logical that Saudi Arabia would not be allowed to receive tanks.
But these ‘political principles’ also offer some loopholes, which usually start off along the lines of: ‘The export of weapons of war is not permitted, unless…’ For example, an exception is possible when ‘special interests of foreign or security policy’ argue in its favor. Indeed, this was the exception the Federal Security Council cited in justifying its approval of the tank deal with Saudi Arabia.
Redirecting Export Deals through Other Countries
Still, for many arms export deals, German companies do not have to get the government’s blessing. Indeed, international collaborations allow members to redirect their deals through countries with more liberal export regulations.
The best example of this practice is the ‘Eurofighter,’ which was developed by a collaboration of Germany, Italy, Great Britain and Spain. Since each of these countries handles its own exports, Great Britain can close deals that wouldn’t get the blessing of Germany’s Federal Security Council — but Germany benefits from the transaction either way. Indeed, the British closed a €6.4 billion deal with the Saudis for 72 of the fighter jets.
Since it is getting increasingly expensive to develop new weapons systems, this type of collaboration is becoming more common. Likewise, it’s not just airplanes that German manufacturers are jointly developing with foreign partners; it’s also helicopters and missiles. And these partners can take charge of the export deals at any time.
The potential consequences of this kind of structure can be seen in the conflict in Libya. When the UN Security Council voted on whether to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, Germany abstained. The stated reason for the abstention was the desire to not have German soldiers participate in the war.
Despite this desire, however, Germany is still playing a role in the fighting, with ‘Made in Germany’ written on many of the weapons used – by both sides. For example, the military transports ferrying Gadhafi’s tanks to the frontline are made by Mercedes-Benz. His soldiers are using German jamming devices to disrupt communications between their opponents. And Gadhafi’s troops can shoot down low-flying helicopters with the French-German ‘Milan 3? anti-tank missiles, whose launchers are manufactured at a factory in the Bavarian town of Schrobenhausen.
NATO troops also rely on German technology in the form of the ‘Eurofighters.’ And even the Libya rebel forces can make use of German engineering after having reportedly been supplied with ‘Milan 3? missiles by Qatar.
Fundamental Problems
All of this would seem to make the war in Libya good business for the makers of the ‘Milan 3.’ But the fact that three parties involved in the fighting are all using weapons made in Germany shows the fundamental problem of these kinds of arms export policies.
Tanks, helicopters, airplanes, missiles and guns can often be in service for several decades. This makes the chances slim that the buyer countries will only use them in this period for defensive purposes and not for attacking another country or suppressing the domestic population.
This is what makes each decision on whether to approve an export deal so difficult. And the debates on such issues will only increase.
Under these circumstances, Germany’s federal government must avoid liberally handing out export permits in order to safeguard the survival of the domestic arms industry. Though most German arms manufacturers rely on exports, the health of German’s export economy does not depend on the arms industry.
Roughly 80,000 people work in Germany’s arms industry. In terms of sheer figures, this makes the wind-energy industry – with its 100,000 jobs – more important.
What’s more, many of the weapon makers are also involved in producing items with non-military uses, and they could strengthen these activities if their arms business declines. Rheinmetall, for example, generates almost half of its sales with components for the automotive industry.
Indeed, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann is the only company whose well-being is solely dependent on military deals. At the moment, the company has declined to make any statement on the planned tank deal with Saudi Arabia and will only say that ‘the permit situation has not changed.’
On the company’s boss’s world map, the Middle East is still marked in red.
The New Dark Age 
Leave a comment