WAR 10-31-2015-to-11-06-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(187) 10-10-2015-to-10-16-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...16-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(188) 10-17-2015-to-10-23-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...23-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(189) 10-24-2015-to-10-30-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...30-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

___

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151031/as--skorea-japan-china_summit-79d887ae57.html

S. Korea president, China premier meet ahead of 3-way summit

Oct 31, 5:09 AM (ET)
By KIM TONG-HYUNG

(AP) Chinese Premier Li Keqiang waves upon his arrival at Seoul Airport in Seongnam,...
Full Image

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korean President Park Geun-hye met with visiting Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on Saturday, a day before their three-way summit with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that aims to repair relations strained by historical and territorial issues.

The meeting between Park and Li was expected to focus on trade issues between two of the region's closest economic partners. Li might also seek assurance from Park that South Korea, a key U.S. ally, will keep a neutral stance over the recent flare-up between Washington and Beijing over the U.S. Navy's freedom of navigation operations in the disputed waters of the South China Sea, analysts said.

About 28,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea as deterrence against potential aggression from rival North Korea.

Sunday's trilateral summit will be the first since 2012. The meetings were shelved after Japan's ties with its two neighbors deteriorated over disputes stemming from its World War II-era aggression and territorial claims.

(AP) Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, top center, is greeted by South Korean officials upon...
Full Image

Park will meet separately with Abe on Monday in the first formal summit between South Korea and Japan in more than three years.

Japan and China have been gradually resuming exchanges following 2012 tensions over the control of disputed islands in the East China Sea. The rift began healing after diplomats agreed to restart contacts last November, when Chinese President Xi Jinping briefly met and shook hands with Abe.

Park has met with Xi six times since she took office in 2013, in efforts to further strengthen ties with Beijing. China is South Korea's largest trade partner, and also has leverage with North Korea, Seoul's hard-to-read, nuclear-armed rival.

However, Seoul's ties with Tokyo have been persistently icy after the hawkish Abe came to power in December 2012, with the countries struggling to settle disputes stemming from Japan's brutal colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula in the early 20th century. China has similar gripes with Japan.

The U.S. wants Japan and South Korea, important allies in the region, to be on better terms to counter China's growing geopolitical influence, including in the South China Sea, and also to strengthen security cooperation against North Korea.

(AP) Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, right, is greeted by Chinese embassy officials upon his...
Full Image

Earlier in the week, the U.S. Navy sailed a warship close to one of China's artificial islands in the South China Sea. It was most direct challenge yet by the U.S. to artificial island building by Beijing that has upset other claimants in the South China Sea, including the Philippines, a close U.S. ally.

China claims nearly all of the South China Sea, but Washington says the waters are international territory and must be open for navigation.

At this weekend's meetings, China might try to work its growing influence with South Korea so that Seoul maintains a muted, neutral stance in the South China Sea dispute instead of supporting the U.S., said Kim Sung-han, a professor at Seoul's Korea University and a former South Korean deputy foreign minister. Japan is unlikely to get too involved in the South China Sea dispute since it's not a direct party to the conflict, he said.

"Li might try to sneak a comment past Park, like how China would sensibly and carefully handle the South China Sea issue as a matter of its sovereignty," Kim said. "The Chinese are skillful at finding ways to get their message across without disrupting the main agendas (of the meetings)."

While it's unlikely that anything exceptional will result from the Seoul meetings, it's meaningful that the Northeast Asian neighbors have taken the first step toward overcoming their bitter differences by restoring an environment for higher-level dialogue, said Bong Youngshik, a senior analyst at Seoul's Asan Institute for Policy Studies.

Although much attention has been focused on history and territory, analysts believe the talks are more likely to be driven by economic and security issues. China, in particular, seems to be approaching the meetings in Seoul with a clear emphasis on economic relations as it desperately looks for ways to jolt its faltering economy.

Li, a policymaker with a focus on economic issues, will likely press Park over the free trade agreement between the countries that has yet to be ratified by South Korean lawmakers, Kim said. Li is also expected to push talks for a three-way free trade agreement including Japan that would give the Chinese economy a needed boost. The three countries had discussed the possibility of trilateral free trade in their last summit in Beijing in May 2012.

It remains to be seen whether the three leaders will be able to express something more than generalized acknowledgement and concern over North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

Chinese envoy Liu Yunshan's appearance at a military parade in Pyongyang earlier this month was considered a sign that China was moving to restore normalcy in its relations with North Korea, which had been seen as strained to some extent because of the latter's provocations in recent years. Park will also be reluctant to make a strong statement against North Korea in the presence of Abe because of public concern in South Korea over Japan's recent moves toward allowing an expanding role for its military, Bong said.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151031/un-united-nations-north-korea-rights-68a5e0b398.html

UN draft resolution asks UN to refer North Korea to ICC

Oct 30, 11:44 PM (ET)
By EDITH M. LEDERER

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The European Union and Japan circulated a draft U.N. resolution Friday that condemns "gross" human rights violations in North Korea and encourages the U.N. Security Council to refer the reclusive Asian nation to the International Criminal Court.

The draft General Assembly resolution encourages the council to consider targeted sanctions against those "who appear to be most responsible" for acts that a groundbreaking U.N. commission of inquiry report early last year said "may constitute crimes against humanity."

Marzuki Darusman, the special rapporteur on human rights in North Korea, put the spotlight on forced labor in North Korea as a human rights violation in a report to the General Assembly Wednesday that also cited summary executions, arbitrary detention, torture, massive ill-treatment of individuals in political prison camps and severe discrimination based on social class.

The draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, strongly urges the North Korean government to immediately end human rights violations, close prison camps and tackle the root causes leading to people fleeing the country.

The 193-member General Assembly is expected to vote on the resolution in December.

North Korea's dismal human rights situation has been under attack for more than a year. The groundbreaking U.N. inquiry forced Pyongyang to discuss an issue it usually disdains. Last December, the General Assembly approved a non-binding resolution urging the Security Council to refer North Korea's human rights situation to the ICC — but the council so far has not taken any action, mainly because of opposition from China, an ally of Pyongyang.

This year's draft resolution expresses "grave concern" at the commission of inquiry's findings and the lack of accountability.

It stresses North Korea's responsibility "to protect its population from crimes against humanity" and condemns "the longstanding and ongoing systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights" in the country.

It singles out rights violations including reports of torture, the extensive system of prison camps, limits on freedom of movement, and severe restrictions on freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, peaceful assembly, association, privacy and access to information.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151030/ml-islamic-state-333e120c73.html

Activists say 2 anti-IS Syrian activists killed in Turkey

Oct 30, 4:37 PM (ET)
By BASSEM MROUE

BEIRUT (AP) — Two Syrian activists, including one belonging to a collective that reports on Islamic State atrocities were found slain in a city in southern Turkey on Friday, the group said, in a rare attack in Syria's northern neighbor.

The Raqqa-based activist collective — called "Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently — did not say when Ibrahim Abdul-Qadir and Fares Hamadi were killed. It blamed IS for the killings, which took place in the city of Sanliurfa.

Another Syrian activist group, the Local Coordination Committees, said the two were known activists from Raqqa.

There was no immediate comment from Turkish authorities.

The Committee to Protect Journalists said Abdul-Qadir worked as the executive director and Hamadi as head of the production department for Eye on the Homeland, a Syrian media collective. CPJ added that Abdul-Qadir was a founding member of Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently.

"We call for an immediate and thorough investigation by Turkish authorities into these heinous murders and to bring the culprits to justice," said CPJ's Europe and Central Asia Program coordinator, Nina Ognianova. "The risks to journalists operating in Syria are well documented. These murders show how the grave risks journalists face in Syria have metastasized across the porous border with Turkey."

Islamic State militants captured the provincial capital of Raqqa in northern Syria two years ago and the city later became the de facto capital of the territory the IS controls, which encompasses a third of both Syria and neighboring Iraq. Since then, the activist collective has been releasing reports and photographs from inside Raqqa.

An activist with the group refused to speak about the killings of the two activists, saying only that "our wound is still fresh." The activist, who spoke on condition of anonymity fearing for his own safety, added that they are still waiting for the results of an ongoing police investigation.

The group later issued a statement saying that Abdul-Qadir was a member of Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently and only identified Hamadi as "our friend."

Abdul-Qadir's Facebook page was last updated at around 4 p.m. Thursday with a video posting showing the commander of rebel group that fights against IS declaring the northern Syrian province a military zone. In the video, Abu Issa, the commander of Raqqa Revolutionary Brigade, vows to launch an attack soon to cleanse the province of IS fighters.

Earlier on Thursday, Abdul-Qadir also posted that Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently won an America Abroad Media award.

The young man has photos of himself with friends inside a mall and another having breakfast in a restaurant. Abdul-Qadir posted a photo taken while he was giving a TV interview identifying himself as Raqqa-based activist Abu Khalil.

IS did not claim responsibility for the killings, although some of its supporters praised it. One posted their photos on Twitter and tweeted: "The slaughter occurred silently, as they used to lie silently."

In July, IS shot dead two activists in the head inside Raqqa after accusing them of sending information to Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently and taking pictures of IS positions.

The killings came as activists are saying that some rebel groups, as well as the main U.S.-backed Kurdish militia known as the YPG, are preparing for an offensive against IS in Raqqa. Earlier this month, U.S. cargo planes dropped small arms and ammunition to Arab groups fighting IS in northern Syria in what appeared to be preparation for the attack.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, that has a network of activists around the country, said dozens of families have fled Raqqa for villages outside the city, fearing an imminent attack.

IS has carried attacks in Turkey, including two suicide bombings earlier this month that killed 102 people at a peace rally in the capital, Ankara.

Meanwhile, the Islamic State group released a graphic video later Friday showing the beheadings of several purported Kurdish peshmerga hostages at a site raided by U.S. commandos in northern Iraq earlier this month.

The video, which was circulated on Twitter, shows four militants in hoods standing in front of the prison where U.S. special forces and Iraqi forces together helped free 70 hostages from captivity earlier this month. The militants then kill the hostages, all of whom are dressed in the trademark orange jumpers.

One of the militants speaks English in the video, with a message to President Barack Obama, saying "you did not gain anything, you returned to your bases and with losses and humiliation."

One American soldier died in the raid in the Iraqi town of Hawija.

U.S. and Iraqi Kurdish officials had said that the raid was initially intended to free peshmerga hostages held by IS, but in the end, no Kurds were freed.

The authenticity of the video could not immediately be verified, but it was posted on Twitter accounts with known links to the Islamic State group.

---

Associated Press writer Vivian Salama contributed to this report from Baghdad.

________


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151030/ml-syria-310e4d8b43.html

Attack kills dozens in Syria as talks begin in Vienna

Oct 30, 1:17 PM (ET)
By ZEINA KARAM

(AP) This photo provided by the Syrian anti-government activist group Syrian Civil...
Full Image

BEIRUT (AP) — A barrage of missiles slammed into an overcrowded suburb of the Syrian capital, killing at least 45 people on Friday, activists said, as world powers convened in Vienna for talks on how to resolve the country's conflict.

The attack in the Damascus suburb of Douma — the latest on this rebel-held area that has seen hundreds of people killed over the past few years — was a stark reminder of the enormous civilian suffering inside Syria while negotiations over President Bashar Assad's future take place abroad.

With 19 foreign ministers attending the meeting in Vienna, including those from regional powerbrokers Iran and Saudi Arabia, there was cautious hope that a small breakthrough would be achieved

"I am hopeful that we can find a way forward," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters, adding: "It is very difficult."

(AP) This photo provided by the Syrian anti-government activist group Syrian Civil...
Full Image

There were conflicting reports about the attack in Douma. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Local Coordination Committees group said government forces fired more than 11 missiles at a market. The Observatory said the attack killed 57 people, while the LCC said at least 40 perished. The different tolls could not immediately be reconciled.

Both organizations — and a third, Douma-based activist network — reported that dozens more were wounded in the mid-morning attack. The third group, the Douma Revolution network, listed the names of 45 people killed.

The Syrian National Council, the main Western-backed opposition group in exile, blamed Russian airstrikes for the "massacre" in Douma, saying 55 civilians were killed. It said it was the second deadly attack in the past 24 hours after Russian airstrikes bombed the main Douma hospital the previous day.

The sprawling suburb is a frequent target of deadly government airstrikes and barrel bombs dropped from helicopters. It is home to the Jaysh al-Islam rebel group, also known as Islam Army, which has claimed responsibility in the past for firing rockets on Damascus, the seat of President Bashar Assad's presidency.

In August, airstrikes on Douma were said to have killed around 100 people, provoking sharp rebuke from U.N. and other officials.

Douma has been held by anti-Assad rebels since the early days of Syria's conflict, which began in March 2011 with mostly peaceful protests but escalated into a full-scale civil war after a massive government crackdown. The conflict has claimed more than 250,000 lives and displaced up to a third of Syria's pre-war population.

Amateur videos posted on the Internet showed gruesome images of bodies strewn among wreckage and young men sprawled on the ground of what appears to be a market. Pools of blood and flames could be seen as people cried for help.

Meanwhile, at least 15 people, including four children, were killed in airstrikes Friday on the northern city of Aleppo, activists said. It was not clear whether the strikes were Russian or from Syrian government aircraft.

Russia, a strong ally of Assad, began airstrikes in Syria on Sept. 30, saying it is targeting mainly the Islamic State group. Most of Russian airstrikes, however, have centered on areas where IS does not have a strong presence.

In Moscow, the Russian general staff gave its rundown of facilities in Syria that Moscow claims to have destroyed in the past month of Russian airstrikes. The statement said 1,623 targets were hit, including militant training camps, command points and communication hubs, as well as workshops for preparing explosive devices.

 

[Lilbitsnana]

The two anti-ISIS activists were beheaded.

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...mic-State-(ISIS)-thread&p=5824290#post5824290

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/beijing-wont-accept-hague-courts-ruling-arbitration

Beijing won't accept Hague court's ruling on arbitration

Teo Cheng Wee
Saturday, Oct 31, 2015

China has rejected an international court's decision to allow arbitration on South China Sea claims brought forth by the Philippines, saying it is "null and void, and has no binding effect on China".

The Foreign Ministry, in a statement yesterday, stressed that when it comes to issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, Beijing will not accept any solution imposed on it, or any unilateral resort to a third-party dispute settlement.

It also accused Manila of political provocation and of trying to "negate China's territorial sovereignty".

"We will not participate and we will not accept the arbitration," Vice-Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin was quoted as telling reporters.

"The ruling or the result of arbitration will not affect China's position," he added. "It won't affect China's sovereignty rights and jurisdiction in the South China Sea. Our rights will not be undermined."

The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled late on Thursday that it had jurisdiction over a case filed by the Philippines, which contests China's claims to nearly all of the South China Sea. Its decision clears the way for Manila to argue the merits of its case.

A new hearing will be held behind closed doors, with a final decision not expected until next year.

Trade worth US$5 trillion (S$7 trillion) annually passes through the waters, which are also claimed in part by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei.

The claims have raised regional tensions in recent years. On Tuesday, a US guided-missile destroyer sailed through the contested waters, sparking a warning by Beijing.

Citing historical records and maps, China has long insisted that its claims over the 3.5 million sq km area are indisputable. It rejects arbitration, preferring to negotiate directly with other claimants.

Beijing has argued that The Hague court has no jurisdiction on sovereignty, which it says is the basis of Manila's case. But the Philippines counters that its case is not about sovereignty, but that China's claims are inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The Foreign Ministry statement yesterday said the Philippines' actions amounted to "political provocation under the cloak of law".

It charged that bringing the case to an international court was not an effort to settle disputes, but an attempt to "negate China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights".

It added that both sides had, since the 1990s, repeatedly reaffirmed in bilateral documents that their disputes should be resolved through negotiations. It called the Philippines' decision to file its case in 2013 a "breach of this consensus" which damages mutual trust.

The ministry also urged the Philippines to "change its course and return to the right track" of resolving South China Sea disputes through bilateral consultation.

"The Philippines' attempt to negate China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea through arbitral proceeding will lead to nothing," it said.

chengwee@sph.com.sg

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/a-first-japanese-and-us-navies-hold-exercise-in-south-china-sea/

A First: Japanese and US Navies Hold Exercise in South China Sea

Following Malabar 2015, a Japanese destroyer and a U.S. carrier are exercising together in the South China Sea.

By Ankit Panda
October 31, 2015

58 Shares
0 Comments

The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) and the U.S. Navy are holding a joint naval exercise in the South China Sea, the Yomiuri Shimbun reports. The exercise marks the first bilateral U.S.-Japan exercise in the area. The drill comes days after the United States staged its first freedom of navigation operation within 12 nautical miles of a Chinese artificial island in the Spratly Islands. The Japanese Defense Ministry has told the Yomiuri that the ongoing South China Sea drill between the two allied navies is “an ordinary drill and unrelated to the U.S. Navy’s patrolling activities there.” The exercise is reportedly not taking place near the Spratly Islands.

Per the Yomiuri, the JS Fuyuzuki, an Akizuki-class destroyer, is currently conducting drills of an unspecified nature in the South China Sea with the USS Theodore Roosevelt, a Nimitz-class super-carrier. Both the Fuyuzuki and the Theodore Roosevelt participated in the recently concluded Malabar 2015 exercise – a trilateral naval exercise with India. Malabar 2015 concluded on October 19, 2015.

The Theodore Roosevelt docked in Singapore on October 24, three days before the scheduled U.S. freedom of navigation operation. The drills in the South China Sea between the U.S. Navy and the MSDF began on Wednesday and will “continue for several days” according to the Yomiuri. The report adds that the exercise will focus on the transportation of crew members and communication training exercises.

According to the Mainichi, the Fuyuzuki and the USS Theodore Roosevelt will sail “to waters just north of Borneo in the South China Sea.” The MSDF ship is expected to head back to Japan on November 10, meaning that this U.S.-Japan exercise will effectively last for nearly two weeks.

Japan’s involvement in the South China Sea has been limited to date. Most recently, in August, the MSDF participated in a humanitarian drill with the U.S. and Philippines off Subic Bay, the site of a former U.S. naval base. The Philippines, along with Japan, is a U.S. ally. As I noted at the time, the exercise demonstrated growing trilateral convergence between the three countries. Earlier, in June, Japan’s MSDF flew a P3-C Orion surveillance aircraft past Reed Bank in the South China Sea. Reed Bank is claimed by both China and the Philippines. During that operation, the MSDF aircraft carried three Philippines crew members.

Critically, the ongoing exercise in the South China Sea between the Japanese and U.S. navies is not a freedom of navigation operation. The United States may consider inviting Japan to participate in freedom of navigation and overflight assertion activities in the South China Sea, but, as things stand, Japan has good reasons to avoid a regular military presence in the South China Sea. Despite reservations, Japanese officials have said that they would consider joint patrols in the South China Sea with the United States.

-------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/31/us-southchinasea-usa-eu-iduskcn0so22g20151031

World | Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:07pm EDT
Related: World, China, United Nations, South China Sea

European Union sides with United States on South China Sea incident

BRUSSELS

The European Union sided with Washington on Friday over a U.S.-Chinese patrolling incident in the South China Sea, in a move that may affect Brussels' discussions with Beijing at next week's Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) of foreign affairs ministers.

On Tuesday, a U.S. warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of one of Beijing's man-made islands in the contested Spratly archipelago, triggering a sharp reaction from China.

"The U.S. are exercising their freedom of navigation," a senior EU official said at a briefing, chiming with the U.S. line.

A U.S. Navy spokesman had said that the patrol was part of the U.S. freedom of navigation operations meant to "protect the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace guaranteed to all nations under international law".

The EU is concerned about Beijing's plans to build new islands in contested waters, the EU official said, a statement that may be welcomed by other Asian nations opposing China's claims to almost the entire South China Sea.


Related Coverage
› South China Sea ruling in Hague could be mid-2016: Philippines lawyer

Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei contest China's sovereignty over parts of one of the world's busiest sea lanes.

"Whilst not taking a position on claims, the EU is committed to a maritime order based upon the principles of international law, in particular as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea (UNCLOS)," an EU foreign affairs spokesman said in a statement.

The EU has been nursing relations with Beijing, hoping to attract Chinese funds to relaunch the bloc's sluggish economy and has been negotiating a bilateral investment and trade deal.

In defiance of Washington, EU governments have also decided to join the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

European and Asian foreign affairs ministers gather in Luxembourg next week for ASEM, a regular event that brings together all 28 EU countries and 21 Asian nations, including China, Vietnam and the Philippines.


(Reporting by Francesco Guarascio; Editing by Louise Ireland)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......Particularly in light of the "talks" in Vienna.........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/31/us-mideast-crisis-syria-saudi-idUSKCN0SP07I20151031

World | Sat Oct 31, 2015 6:30am EDT
Related: World, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria

Saudi says Assad, Iran-backed foreign forces must quit Syria

RIYADH

Russia and Iran must agree to a date and means for Syria's President Bashar al-Assad to quit the country, and agree to withdraw all foreign forces from Syria, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said in an interview with Sky News Arabia broadcast on Saturday.

Arch regional competitors Saudi Arabia and Iran, whose rivalry has been aggravated by their support for opposing sides in Syria, both took part in talks to find a peaceful solution for the country for the first time in Vienna on Friday.

Jubeir said in the interview the Vienna talks, which will resume within two weeks, would show how serious Assad and his backers Iran and Russia were in seeking a peaceful solution to the crisis.

"Our two points where we differ from them are on a date and means for Assad's departure, and the second point is on a date and means for the withdrawal of foreign forces, especially Iranian ones. These are the two basic points without which there can be no solution," he said.

Assad and Iran accuse Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies of being behind terrorism in Syria through their backing of rebel groups. Those countries say they only arm and finance secular or moderate Islamist rebel groups.

Saudi Arabia has characterized Assad's use of air power and artillery in Syrian cities as genocidal and has described the presence of Iranian military forces and Shi'ite Muslim Iraqi and Lebanese militia in Syria as a foreign occupation.


(Reporting By Mostafa Hashem; Writing by Angus McDowall; editing by Susan Thomas)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-to-polls-seeking-to-break-political-deadlock

Turkey Goes Back to Polls Seeking to Break Political Deadlock

by Selcan Hacaoglu
October 31, 2015 — 3:27 AM PDT

- Opinion polls suggest prolonged stalemate is likelier outcome
- Parties spar over Kurdish conflict, economy and Erdogan's role

Turks go back to the ballot boxes on Sunday for a re-run of the inconclusive June election, with polls suggesting they’re more likely to perpetuate the political stalemate than end it.

Another hung parliament may pressure the governing AK Party, which lost its majority in June, to seek a coalition and avoid having to hold yet another election. “I don’t think Turkey can withstand this,’’ Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told NTV television Thursday.

At stake is the financial and political stability of the Middle East’s biggest economy and a key NATO ally in a turbulent region. Since June, markets have tumbled as the four parties in parliament failed to agree on a government: the lira is the world’s second-worst performing major currency this year. The backdrop has darkened in other ways too: war with Kurdish militants has flared up again, and a series of Islamic State suicide attacks have killed more than 130 people and deepened divisions.

Davutoglu’s AK Party and the main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, have both signaled they may be ready for a deal this time around. That would be “the most market-friendly outcome,’’ helping to ease tensions between different social groups, said Erkin Isik, a strategist at Turk Ekonomi Bankasi AS in Istanbul. “However it’s also the most difficult to achieve, due to their different opinions.’’

Erdogan Ambitions

Any coalition would endanger the aspirations of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who’s not up for re-election, to expand his powers. Although supposedly above politics, he’s been campaigning for an AK Party majority that could bring in an executive presidential system.

None of the opposition parties back that goal. The CHP also opposes Erdogan and Davutoglu’s policy of pursuing the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and wants to reverse reforms it says have made the education system less secular. On the economy, it wants to broaden the tax base, and has traditionally supported a strong state role and protection for workers.

There are even bigger obstacles to an AK Party coalition with either of the other two opposition groups. The nationalist MHP insists on pursuing corruption allegations against Erdogan’s inner circle. The pro-Kurdish HDP, which helped deprive the AK Party of its majority in June by passing the nationwide 10 percent threshold for the first time, has been demonized by Erdogan and Davutoglu: they accuse it of being in league with armed separatists.

The AK Party campaigns on its record of economic success, while the opposition says that is looking increasingly tarnished. Growth in the $720 billion economy was more than 6 percent in the first six years of AK Party governments, and about half that pace in the last six years.

Minimum Wage

The final weeks of campaigning have seen a heated competition to promise bigger increases in the monthly minimum wage, now about $340 a month. The AK Party would raise it by 30 percent, in a package combined with pension increases and more state hiring that’s worth about 1 percent of gross domestic product, Finance Minister Mehmet Simsek said Oct. 26.

“Our promises are realistic, solid and applicable,’’ Simsek said. “They’re not at a level that could damage macro-financial stability.’’

Before the last election, the AK Party was criticizing opposition spending plans, said Anthony Skinner, an analyst with U.K.-based forecasting company Verisk Maplecroft. It’s now “done a U-turn and is promising similar reforms in a bid to boost its share of the vote.’’

There’s a “risk of over-spend from a budgetary perspective’’ if the pledges are implemented, he said.

Simsek said the opposition plans would be even more expensive, costing as much as 10 percent of GDP.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151102/ml--iraq-de621d1895.html

Iraqi lawmakers force PM to seek their approval on reforms

Nov 2, 6:48 AM (ET)

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi lawmakers have voted to limit the powers of the country's prime minister in enacting reforms, forcing him to seek parliament's approval before going ahead and implementing new measures.

Kurdish lawmaker, Muhsin al-Saadoun, says Monday's decision by the parliament is not a "negative stand" against Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's reform plan, which was unanimously approved in August.

Al-Saaddoun says that the parliament simply wanted to maintain the separation of powers between government and the legislature, which are enshrined in the Iraqi constitution.

Al-Abadi's move to sack the country's three vice presidents and deputy prime ministers, and to cut the salaries of government employees, has sparked widespread condemnation from various political parties. His reform plan followed mass protests against corruption, poor services and reckless government spending.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151102/af--south_africa-police_shooting-1fc373028e.html

Video shows South African police shooting suspect on ground

Nov 2, 6:30 AM (ET)
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA

JOHANNESBURG (AP) — Authorities have opened an internal investigation after video footage emerged showing South African police fatally shooting a robbery suspect while he was on the ground, wounded.

The CCTV footage, posted on the website of South Africa's Sunday Times newspaper, shows the suspect being shot at close range and also kicked as he lies on a sidewalk last month in Krugersdorp, west of Johannesburg.

The man, identified as Khulekani Mpanza, had allegedly earlier fired on police, according to South African media. In the video, Mpanza appears to drop a pistol as he falls to the ground after being shot the first time.

The African News Agency quoted police Lt. Gen. Lesetja Mothiba as saying any police officers who acted unlawfully will be prosecuted.

South African police have been accused of brutality in the past. In 2013, a Mozambican taxi driver died after being dragged in the street from a police vehicle in an incident that was filmed while a crowd watched. Eight former police officers involved in the death were convicted of murder this year and await sentencing.

Police are under threat in a country with a high rate of violent crime, South Africa's police minister, Nkosinathi Nhleko, said on Sept. 10. He noted then that 60 police had been killed so far in 2015, 27 of them while on duty.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151031/ml--morocco-sahara_tensions-02e776f573.html

Morocco defends hold on Western Sahara - and targets IKEA

Oct 31, 9:14 AM (ET)
By SAMIA ERRAZZOUKI

(AP) In this Sept. 29, 2015 file photo, Moroccan workers walk past the...
Full Image

RABAT, Morocco (AP) — Morocco is reacting aggressively to any challenges to its claims on Western Sahara, as it marks 40 years since taking control of the mineral-rich territory. Among apparent targets of its wrath: Swedish icons IKEA, Volvo and H&M.

This month, the Moroccan government announced it would consider boycotting Swedish products and companies over reports that Sweden was planning to recognize the independence of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic, or SADR, which disputes sovereignty over Western Sahara with Morocco. Some 60 countries consider it an independent state, but no Western nation does. Morocco has been stuck in a frozen conflict for years with the Polisario Front, the Algeria-backed insurgency that proclaimed SADR.

Brands associated with Sweden have faced difficulties in Morocco in recent weeks: The country's first IKEA store was blocked from opening last month over administrative problems. Employees were mysteriously unable to enter a Volvo dealership.

Thousands of Moroccans from labor unions and non-governmental groups marched in front of the Swedish Embassy in support of the possible boycott — some distributing brochures showing the logo of companies such as Swedish retailer H&M crossed out with a bold red "x."

(AP) In this Oct.4, 2015 file photo, a man holds a placard with Swedish companies...
Full Image

"This is the Moroccan people's decision, not the Moroccan government's," said Mohamed Yacoubi from the Moroccan Center for Human Rights, who participated in the protest.

Sweden will undergo a review of its policy toward the Western Sahara, due to be completed in February. But so far, "there has been no dramatic development in Sweden," said Jens Orback, a former Social Democratic Cabinet member and current head of the Olof Palme International Center, a human rights group linked to Sweden's governing Social Democrats.

While in the opposition, the Social Democrats called for Sweden to recognize the Western Sahara as an independent state, but now that they are in government, they appear more cautious. "The experience from (Sweden's) recognition of Palestine have made them realize that they will get a lot of criticism," Orback said.

Meanwhile, Morocco sent a delegation to Sweden comprised of leaders of leftist parties, with Nabila Mounib, Secretary General of the United Socialist Party, at its head.

Upon her return, Mounib said that "Sweden does not understand Morocco's anxieties." She said she had the impression, however, that Sweden doesn't plan to recognize SADR independence.

The Sweden flap is one of several signs of tension ahead of the 40th anniversary of the Western Saharan conflict next month, which the Moroccan government is marking with speeches and royal visits.

Morocco annexed the mineral-rich former Spanish colony in 1975 and fought the Polisario Front until the U.N. brokered a cease-fire in 1991. The territory on the Atlantic Coast is home to the U.N.'s longest-running peacekeeping mission — and its only mission without a mandate to monitor human rights.

Human rights groups say Morocco uses violence to stifle dissent, while the government insists U.N. monitoring is only needed when there are major violations. The issue erupted into a diplomatic dispute with the U.S. in 2013.

The Moroccan government recently urged Human Rights Watch to suspend its activities in Morocco pending a meeting between government representatives and the group's executive director, Kenneth Roth.

Human Rights Watch says it responded and proposed meeting dates, with no response.

Then in early October, the Wall Street Journal carried a full-page appeal by Communications Minister Mustapha Khalfi to Roth describing the group's activities in Morocco as biased.

"We don't understand what motivates this surprisingly aggressive letter," said Ahmed Benchemsi, Human Rights Watch's Advocacy and Communications Director, for its Middle East and North Africa Division.

The group says it's especially surprised by the new pressure because in August it publicly praised the Moroccan government's approval of the Sahrawi Association of Victims of Human Rights Abuses Committed by the Moroccan State.

Diplomatic tensions around Western Sahara often manifest themselves indirectly.

The troubles with IKEA, for example, erupted just before it was scheduled to open Sept. 29. Morocco's Interior Ministry said its opening was blocked because it lacked a proper "certificate of conformity." But the move came amid Internet rumors about Sweden's potential recognition of the Western Sahara. While IKEA is now based in the Netherlands, its founder and public image are resolutely Swedish.

Soon afterward, the government said it was considering a boycott of Swedish goods. Around the same time, authorities reportedly blocked employees from entering a Casablanca Volvo dealership, operated by a private importer.

"We are not affected by the discussed boycott in Morocco," Volvo Cars said in a statement. "The incident in Casablanca relates to an issue around the ownership and rent of the dealership facility, it has nothing to do with the political debate."

---

Karl Ritter in Stockholm contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

This was discussed a while back in the diesel electric sub thread....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/australias-submarines-the-us-option/

Australia’s Submarines: The US Option

Why leasing U.S. boats might be Canberra’s best option.

By David Hamon and Christine M. Leah
November 01, 2015

1.5k Shares
20 Comments

Lost in the debate surrounding the Collins-class replacement was serious consideration on leasing Virginia-class boats from the U.S. According to a former Bush administration official, conversations were held but failed to progress due in part because Canberra was not entirely confident the U.S. government would agree. No less a strategist than Hugh White, in a recent op-ed, urged Australia’s new defense minister to “…ask very searching questions about what submarines we are trying to buy… (and she should) satisfy herself that the submarines’ operational roles have been properly thought through, and fit with Australia’s strategic needs over coming decades.”

Leasing is a simple solution to the seemingly endless debates and acquisition negotiations with the Japanese and European governments, and it offers Washington and Canberra a number of strategic benefits. The operational procedures would be fairly straightforward. It would also strengthen the overall alliance in a context of increasing friction between the U.S. and China, and more closely integrate the two countries’ naval forces in a fundamental way.

The Japanese government has proposed the Soryu design, built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries. It is among the most advanced and largest non-nuclear attack submarine in the world. Displacing about 4,200 tons submerged, the submarine is powered by a series of four Swedish Sterling V4-275R air independent propulsion (AIP) units that allow the ship to operate its diesels without the need to surface or snorkel. The Soryu also have a range of more than 11,000 km (6,800 miles) and come armed with Harpoon missiles, the export or transfer of which would be a first in Japan and might face political opposition. It would also be a lethal new technology for Australia.

According to some reports, some Japanese military officials and lawmakers with an interest in defense policy have signaled a willingness to consider supplying a full version of the highly regarded Soryu to Australia if certain conditions can be met, including a military alliance. This could bring important long-term complications. It is not immediately clear that a military alliance with Japan, outside the framework of a multilateral alliance that includes the United States, would necessarily be in Australia’s long-term interests. The two countries are in very different geographic locations, with strategic interests that will not necessarily always align. That is not to say that they shouldn’t – just that Australia has thus far been ambivalent about its position in Asia’s evolving strategic landscape. Put more bluntly, an alliance with Japan would commit Australia to an uncertain future and uncertain strategic choices.

Leasing America’s Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines may be a less provocative option. It would avoid the question of a potential new alliance with Tokyo, and reinforce the existing alliance with Washington. It would also be an exercise in mixed-manning, which would strengthen the credibility of U.S. extended deterrence – something Canberra has had a distant and ambiguous relationship with since the late 1960s.

Not only would the Virginia-class provide Australia with a substantially greater capability to defend the so-called “air-sea” gap, it would significantly enhance Australia’s contribution to collective security in the region. The Virginia-class are equipped with Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles, for instance, which would give the Australian armed forces a vast amount of operational flexibility, not to mention credible strike capability in the event of hostilities with a strategic competitor, providing a greater range of military options in the event of a conflict. Indeed, one of the reasons for acquiring such long-range strike capabilities would be as part of a larger effort to become more of a team player with the U.S. as tensions increase with China over possible future freedom of navigation patrols and faits accomplis in the South China Sea.

The only limit to the time a nuclear submarine can remain submerged is the crew. This would provide Australia with a powerful deterrent as well as a persistent attack capability and become an important step in strengthening and demonstrating extended deterrence in the form of nuclear sharing.

How would it work? The U.S. Navy and the RAN would jointly crew the platforms – mixed-manning. One issue for potential eyebrow-raising is the fact that these subs are nuclear-powered and Australia has no experience with nuclear reactors in naval propulsion. Australian forces operating with nuclear reactors should not be controversial in the first place, since the South Australian government has recently seriously explored establishing a nuclear power industry in the State. In addition, Westinghouse has recently been negotiating with the government in Canberra to set up an industry in the country. If this comes to pass, Westinghouse could extend its capability to include a full array of training for RAN personnel. Even if the lack of experience in the RAN did come to be an issue, the solution would simply be for American naval expertise to man the reactors.

The Virginia-class option would also reduce Australia’s own waiting time for a credible submarine capability. Depending on the terms of the agreement, the Australian government would not necessarily have to cover all the lifecycle costs associated with producing submarines in Australia from scratch. In fact, experts are warning that the rapid onset of technology in unmanned underwater vehicles will likely render Australia’s submarine fleet obsolete before the acquisition program is complete. Leasing proven platforms would buy Canberra time in a race to the future.

Reactor technology would not be the only potential hurdle. Noise abatement and quieting technologies along with certain stealth features are considered sensitive and would likely need to be modified or removed. But these issues are not fatal. Canberra is unlikely to acquire cutting-edge Japanese technology in these areas, if a Japanese platform solution is chosen. However, the U.S. government has recently aided the U.K. in re-establishing the technology necessary to build and maintain Astute-class submarines under agreement.

Joint crew solutions find precedents among Commonwealth members and certainly Canberra and Washington share a plethora of combined defense working arrangements, from R&D to procurement activity to personnel exchanges. USPACOM is a warfighting command in the Pacific Theater and the Deputy J5 is an Australian flag officer. The Boat Rider Program allows personnel from both countries to participate in a wide variety of maritime security operations. Close allies, a way can be found to make this work.

Hugh White wrote eloquently about the “China choice.” We can’t think of a better way to avoid this choice by strengthening extended deterrence.

Christine M. Leah is a Postdoctoral Associate in Grand Strategy at Yale University. She was previously a Stanton Postdoctoral Fellow in Nuclear Security at MIT. David Hamon is an independent analyst in International Security Policy.

_____

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/coul...place-the-australian-collins-class-submarine/

Could the French Barracuda Replace the Australian Collins-class Submarine?

The French companies DCNS and Thales reveal their finalized bid for Australia’s SEA-1000 program.

By Benjamin David Baker
November 02, 2015

15 Shares
0 Comments

The fight for Australia’s future submarine contract continues. As previously reported by the Diplomat, Canberra is currently considering a replacement for its six aging Collins-class subs, originally designed by Swedish manufacturer Kockums in the 1990s. The three contenders still in the so-called SEA-1000 acquisition project are Japan’s Soryu-class, German ThyssenKrupp’s Type-216-class and a collaborative offer between the French companies DCNS and Thales. The Australian government has stated that it will announce the winner of SEA-1000 by early 2016.

The French seem to have stepped up their game. According to Defense News, DCNS recently announced that it had filed a draft proposal outlining its finalized offer. The French offer is based on the Barracuda-class, the planned replacement for France’s Rubis, the current mainstay of its nuclear submarine fleet. To match Australian specifications of a conventional, non-nuclear sub, DCNS is offering an amended version of the Barracuda, the Barracuda Shortfin Block 1A (click here to see DCNS’ promotional video of the proposed sub.)

Although the details of the French bid are still classified, DCNS has revealed that the Shortfin Barracuda is over 90 meters in length and displaces more than 4,000 tons when submerged. This represents a significant increase from the Collins, which is 72 meters and displaces just over 3,100 tons under water.

Some of the key requirements for the Barracuda SSN are long endurance and high transit speed. The conventional Shortfin Barracuda will supposedly retain these intrinsic qualities. According to Xavier Mesnet, marketing director for Surface Ships and Submarines at DCNS, the submarine ”will be able to deploy far away, quickly and for a significant on-station period.”

One of DCNS’ major selling points is that Australia would benefit from France’s own operational experience with the Barracuda. The first delivery of the Barracuda to the French Navy is expected to be in 2017, some six months later than previously scheduled. As Canberra has stated that it plans to replace the Collins by the mid-2020s, this ostensibly gives the French company plenty of time to smooth out any inevitable technical glitches with the subs before they are launched in Australia.

However, the French Barracuda program has previously been mired in controversy. Like many ambitious military hardware acquisitions, the project has run into delays and cost overruns. Since then, DCNS seems to have brought the Barracuda program under control. The company has gone through reorganization, including appointing a new Barracuda program director last October.

Much of the French company’s chance of winning the bid will depend upon how much the Australian government trusts that there will be no further delays. The Collins-class also experienced significant problems at the beginning of its Australian service. According to several commentators, fundamental design flaws resulted in poor performance and frequent repairs. Canberra will be anxious to ensure that this won’t be repeated with the Collins’ replacement.

The French bid seems impressive. If DCNS delivers, the Barracuda Shortfin could be a worthy replacement for the Collins. However, major defense acquisitions, especially of platforms that haven’t been built yet, is have a habit of cost overruns and delays. (F-35, anyone?)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm..........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/the-strange-silence-surrounding-an-indian-military-exercise/

The Strange Silence Surrounding an Indian Military Exercise

The government has been unusually quiet about an exercise involving one of the country’s strike corps.

By Ali Ahmed
November 02, 2015

106 Shares
0 Comments

In late September, India’s media reported on a military exercise to be undertaken by one of the country’s three “strike” corps, 21 Corps. Since then, Indian military watchers have encountered only silence on the exercise. This is uncharacteristic of India, on two counts.

One, India has always undertaken such exercises with a flurry of publicity, even if the military details are necessarily kept under wraps. There is sense in publicity in that it reassures the public of a vigilant military; it is good for the government’s image as “strong on defense”; and it sends a deterrence message in the form of military readiness to India’s neighbor, Pakistan. Yet this autumn’s round of exercises is an interesting shift in India’s information strategy.

The silence could well be for a mundane reason: During October the formation moved into an exercise location in the desert sector and is undertaking preliminary training. The exercise proper could build up to its climax in the near future with the relevant publicity and the attendance of high-level officials such as the defense minister and Delhi-based military brass.

Nevertheless, thus far, all that is known is that 21 Corps is on exercise along with the remainder of Southern Command. Even the name of the exercise – usually a martial one and sometimes with mythological roots – has not reached the public domain yet; and therein is the mystery.

Two, this is the second exercise involving one of India’s strike corps in the same year; the earlier one being held in early summer, in which India exercised 2 Corps, alongside the “pivot” 10 Corps. In effect, two field armies have been exercised this year: South Western Command earlier, of which 10 Corps is part, and now the Southern Command.

Usually, India exercises one strike corps a year. This owes to reasons such as the cropping pattern in exercise areas only allowing a window in early summer along with budget limitations. To exercise a second strike corps in the second seasonal window in late autumn/early winter the same year is a departure that, while indicating more budget availability, also suggests urgency.

Why the silence and possible urgency attending this exercise?

It can plausibly be speculated that the lack of publicity so far owes to a statement made by Pakistan’s foreign secretary on the eve of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to the U.S., namely that Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) have been acquired to deter and if necessary respond to India’s conventional operations.

Since strike corps operations are offensive and have strategic ends, their employment can be expected to flirt with Pakistan’s nuclear thresholds. Pakistan has now publicly acknowledged a low nuclear threshold. Therefore, for strike corps operations it can no longer be business as usual.

From India’s conventional doctrine and exercises, it cannot easily be discerned if India is sufficiently cognizant of the nuclear reality. Its doctrine is of post-Kargil War vintage, though officially adopted after Operation Parakram in 2004. Much water has flown under the nuclear bridge since, including vertical proliferation and the addition of TNW to Pakistan’s arsenal in 2011.

India’s military, in exercising two field armies and two strike crops this year, is indicating that it can activate the border theater, from the semi-developed terrain abutting the northern part of Rajasthan to the desert terrain in the south. Strategically, it is projecting to Pakistan that it is not deterred by TNWs.

Such muscle flexing cannot be seen merely as going about what armies normally do in peace time: train. This could well imply that India has an answer to TNW that enables it to believe that it can persist with conventional operations.

Thus far, India’s declaratory nuclear doctrine has been of “retaliation only” and predicated on deterrence by punishment. However, since this would be a disproportionate response to TNW and could trigger a strategic exchange, it is possible that India’s operational nuclear doctrine has shifted to “proportionate” response or “graduated” deterrence. That way it can provide nuclear cover for conventional operations by employing TNW in retaliation. This has been the thrust of the recent strategic debate in India.

The urgency of two field armies exercising in the same year consequently derives from India’s conveying to Pakistan’s military unmistakably that it continues to have options, even when confronted by a lower nuclear threshold.

At the same time, the accompanying public silence (at the time of writing) surrounding the exercise appears to be intended to keep the focus of both strategic analysts and the international community away from this message intended for Pakistan’s military.

Strategic analysts skeptical of the so-called Cold Start doctrine of 2004 have pointed to the truncation of the crisis response window that quick-off-the-block conventional operations portend as well as the subsequent nuclear dangers. With India’s next edition of the conventional doctrine of 2010 not in the public domain it cannot be critiqued adequately. The manner in which the military exercises unfold will offer clues as to potential nuclear risks. Keeping the lid on this aspect enables the military to go about its business without external scrutiny.

If strategic analysts are unable to blow the whistle for want of evidence, the advantage for India is the lack of alarm in the international community. Even India’s public is kept ignorant of nuclear dangers, allowing its politicians to enjoy the limelight from military prowess while obscuring the dangers.

India’s belief that there is a conventional reply for any mega-terror action from across the border has one positive: It could help deter any Pakistani covert intelligence engagement in any such action. However, the flip side is that should rogue or autonomous elements undertake such action, the two states could be at blows before peace has a chance to intervene.

While both militaries apparently envisage few TNW mushroom clouds, they need to be forewarned that this will only be so if they mutually put in place de-escalatory measures.

Ali Ahmed (@aliahd66) is author of India’s Doctrine Puzzle: Limiting War in South Asia (Routledge 2014), On War in South Asia and On Peace in South Asia. He blogs at www.ali-writings.blogspot.in.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...a1-abrams-tank-co-production-resume/74861412/

As US-Egypt Tensions Thaw, M1A1 Abrams Tank Co-Production to Resume

By Oscar Nkala 10:37 a.m. EST November 1, 2015

GABORONE, Botswana — The United States and Egyptian governments will soon resume the co-production of M1A1 Abrams tanks, weapon systems and accessories after signing a deal that formalized the collaboration between the Egyptian Tank Plant and US defense equipment manufacturer General Dynamics Land Systems.

The production is partly meant to fulfill a 2011 Egyptian order of 125 M1A1 Abrams tanks from General Dynamics, delivery of which was halted in July 2013 when the US government froze military aid to protest the military coup that toppled Mohammed Morsi, the country's first democratically elected president.

The bulk of the tank order will be produced locally at Egyptian Tank Plant 200, a military industrial complex located in the city of Helwan just outside the capital of Cairo.

According to a statement from the US Embassy in Cairo, the agreement was signed Oct. 15 between Egypt's Minister of State for Military Production Mohamed Al-Assar, U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Robert Stephen Beecroft and Donald Schenk, the vice chairman of General Dynamics.

The US government and General Dynamics agreed to provide the components necessary for the resumption of production of the M1A1 Abrams tanks in Egypt. Delivery of the 125 will bring the Egyptian Army's number of Abrams M1A1 tanks in service to 1,130.

The reopening of the factory marks yet another thaw in the US-Egyptian security relationship which has since March this year seen the unlocking of military aid packages that were frozen to protest the military coup in July 2013.

DEFENSE NEWS
Obama Lifts Freeze on Egyptian Weapon Sales

In terms of the deal, General Dynamics Land Systems will supply 125 M1A1 Abrams tank kits for co-production, 125 M256 Armament Systems, 125 M2 .50-caliber machine guns, 250 M240 7.62mm machine guns, 125 AGT-1500 M1A1 series tank engines and transmission systems and 120mm test cartridges.

GD will also supply spare and repair parts, maintenance, support equipment, special tool and test equipment, personnel training and equipment, publications and technical documentation, U.S. government and contractor engineering and logistics support services and other related elements of logistical and program support.

At least 2,500 people will be employed for the duration of the contract. Since the unlocking of vital components of the $1.3 billion annual military aid package to Egypt, the country has received 10 of the 12 AH-64 Apache helicopters ordered from the US in 2009. The Egyptian Air Force has also taken delivery of 12 of the F-16 fighter jets ordered from the US three years ago.

The Egyptian Navy has taken delivery of two Fast Missile Crafts, the delivery of which was also frozen after the 2013 coup. According to a directive issued by President Barack Obama in March, Egypt also will shortly take delivery of 20 Boeing Harpoon missiles and some Hellfire missiles to help the country fight terrorism internally and in the broader Middle East and North Africa regions.

Email: onkala@defensenews.com

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ussia-seeks-energize-asian-presence/74861392/

Russia Seeks To Energize Asian Presence

By Matthew Bodner 3:04 p.m. EST November 1, 2015

MOSCOW — With Russia's defense industry cut off from Western markets following a series of sanctions imposed by the United States and European Union last summer, Moscow has been hyping up efforts to bolster its presence in Asia.

Russian arms exports already have a firm presence in the region. According to a report released earlier this year by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), more than 60 percent of Russian arms exports go to Asia and Oceania.

India and China in particular command a large percentage of these orders. As a share of total Russian arms transfers from 2010 to 2014, India and China represented 39 and 11 percent of Russian arms transfers, respectively.

As Russia's political and economic relations with the West collapsed last year over Moscow's actions in the Ukraine crisis, the Kremlin and senior Russian government officials have been pushing the development of a new Sino-Russian alliance to counter Western influence.

This has resulted in a number of joint-project announcements — from the co-design and production of new military transport aircraft, heavy-lift helicopters and even the sale of advanced Russian rocket engines to the Chinese space program.

“Russia may have a bigger share in the Asian arms markets due to offering attractive conditions for its deals with regional powers,” said Pyotr Topychkanov, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center, a think tank here.

In particular, Russia has a chance to expand deals with Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Pakistan, Topychkanov argued.

However, “I wouldn't be overly optimistic regarding Russia's opportunities in Asia. Oil exporters like Vietnam have realized their need to review military demands, and other arms exporters are becoming more aggressive in the arms market, and flexible in establishing contacts with nations they previously viewed as unacceptable trade partners. "

Russia's room to maneuver in the Asian arms market is limited, as its main customers, China and India, are developing domestic military-industrial capabilities to eventually rival Russia's, and US arms remain a strong attraction.

China is rapidly developing in many industrial areas and should be able to ease its dependence on Russian weapons going forward. However, China lags in air defense systems, and is lining up to buy Russia's new S-400 system — a deal announced in April.

At that time, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin was quoted by Russian media as saying: "Russia and China are now becoming, as we wanted, not only neighbors but deeply integrated countries.”

In India, Russia is facing stark competition as the Indian government continues to promote a domestic production program that at best demands Russia establish local production lines for its hardware.

At the same time, “India has swung to acquiring American-built aircraft, and has recently announced that it will only procure domestically assembled ships and continues to follow a long trend of assembling vehicles locally,” said Ben Moores, a senior analyst at IHS Jane's.

“I am not sure who else Russia is going to be able to sell to. Vietnam was a key client, but there are numerous Western companies in Vietnam trying to sell right now. Indonesia is a fast-growing market but South Korea is currently doing well there,” he added.

Though Russian media has reported interest in Russian fighter jets from smaller Asian nations like Malaysia, these countries don't have the funds to balance out waning shares in the Indian and Chinese arms markets, Moores said.

Email: mbodner@defensenews.com

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...den-seeks-join-nato-info-war-agency/74812076/

Sweden Seeks To Join NATO Info War Agency

By Gerard O'Dwyer 2:02 p.m. EST November 1, 2015

HELSINKI — Concerned about the growing influence of foreign propaganda and disinformation across Swedish media, including by Russian state multimedia news outlets, Sweden plans to join NATO's Strategic Communications agency, which leads development of counter information warfare, cyber defense and counter-disinformation strategies.

NATO and its StratCom’s Center of Excellence (StratCom CoE) opened in Riga, Latvia, in January, and is backed by NATO members Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Germany, Italy, Britain and Poland.

Other NATO members in the Nordic-Baltic region, including Denmark, Norway and non-aligned Finland, are also showing an interest in joining StratCom.

Finland, along with the US and the Netherlands, have cyber defense experts assigned to StratCom under a Voluntary National Contributions’ agreement.

A Partnership for Peace ally of NATO, Sweden is expected to present a formal application to join StratCom in 2016, potentially becoming the first non-NATO state to do so.

Propaganda and disinformation have emerged as real threats to national security, said Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist.

"We not only need to strengthen our skills but also participate in this environment in partnership with other countries," said Hultqvist.

Sweden’s closer defense ties with NATO also has raised the possibility the country may apply to join the UK-led rapid response Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF).

Moreover, in September, the formerly anti-NATO Center Party voted to pursue NATO membership as part of its official political platform, becoming the latest political party to adopt this position.

StratCom’s primary focus, since it became operational in 2014, has been to investigate and test the efficiency of different strategies to identify and combat propaganda, information warfare and disinformation, particularly in relation to the activities of Russia in Ukraine and the Islamic State in Africa, the Middle East and in Europe.

With Riga as its CoE hub, StratCom operates at every level of the NATO command structure as well as in actual missions and exercises. The organization is becoming the go-to support resource for NATO on information warfare and related issues.

StratCom CoE’s core projects are directed by NATO’s Allied Command Transformation and Allied Command Operations, as well as by Latvia’s Ministry Defense. The organization largely focuses on improving capabilities to identify the early signals of hybrid warfare by Russia or the Islamic State, and to develop effective countermeasures.

Sweden’s state security agencies are becoming increasingly concerned over the use of international multimedia news services, such as the Russia’s Sputnik, in addition to the use of social media outlets to spread disinformation and racial hatred, particularly within the country’s expanding Muslim and ethnic communities.

The primary objective for Sweden is to tap into NATO’s cyberspace information weaponry capabilities to better combat state-sponsored propagandist media like Sputnik, said Jupp Hanke, a Berlin-based political analyst.

Rossíya Sevódnya, founded by a decree of the Russian president in December 2013, launched Sputnik’s Swedish and Norwegian language news services in the first half of 2015. Sputnik has repeatedly ridiculed efforts by Sweden and Finland to deepen their military relationships with NATO.

"The information war is very real. Sputnik is regarded by political leaders and the security communities in Sweden and Norway as a crude tool of Russian state propaganda that delivers the Kremlin’s uncensored worldview," Hanke said.

"We are seeing a new war for control of information in cyberspace. For NATO and countries like Sweden, the main battle will be fought against propaganda that is deliberately structured to fuel public unrest and cause domestic tensions. Sweden wants to re-engage in this battle at a skill level far higher than the Cold War era," Hanke said.

Initial contacts and dialogue between Sweden and StratCom have included visits by MSB, the state-run civil contingencies authority.

MSB’s remit includes collaboration and intelligence-sharing with key state organizations, including the armed forces’ military intelligence service MUST, the Ministry of Defense and the national security agency Säpo to combat the dissemination of hate campaigns, xenophobia and disinformation through foreign-controlled digital media channels in Sweden.

Sweden is seeing a trend toward increased use of propaganda and disinformation intended to cause internal public unrest, said Mikael Tofvesson, the MSB’s director of Emergency Preparedness.

"It is difficult to single out any specific foreign power, but there are different actors involved in this. The focal point is fear and xenophobia and these are being stoked by foreign actors. This is a clear trend we are seeing," Tofvesson said.

Security services in Sweden said there is a connection between recent digital and social media campaigns and attacks on refugee centers and ethnic minority groups in Sweden. The government has responded by deploying helicopters to increase protection around refugee residential centers.

Email: godwyer@defensenews.com

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ives-eastern-european-modernization/74652170/

Russian Militancy Drives Eastern European Modernization

By Jaroslaw Adamowski 1 p.m. EST November 1, 2015

WARSAW — Fearful of a possible military intervention by Moscow, Eastern European NATO member states are resisting acquiring new equipment from Russia and scrapping their cooperation with Russian defense manufacturers to service their existing gear.

In Slovakia, the Defence Ministry is planning to replace a large portion of its Warsaw Pact-era military equipment with new gear, preferably purchased from other NATO member states, local analysts said.

"The government is bent on replacing Soviet-era equipment through the most ambitious acquisition and modernization drive in modern history," Michal Šimeèka, a researcher at the Institute of International Relations (IIR) in Prague, said. "In the past year, Slovakia's Defence Ministry announced plans to purchase two Italian-made Spartan transport aircraft, Czech-made Bren rifles and nine UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters. The ministry also plans to acquire a new mobile air defense system."

According to Šimeèka, the crisis in Ukraine has provided Bratislava with additional political legitimacy to hike military procurement.

"The Ukraine conflict and the consequent worsening of the security landscape is one of the reasons behind the modernization program, or, at least, it is used to legitimize it," he said.

Other acquisitions that have been mulled by the Slovak government include replacing the country’s Mikoyan MiG-29 fighter jets with a lease of eight Swedish Saab JAS 39 Gripen aircraft. However, a final decision is yet to be taken by Bratislava.

Russia Main Security Threat

In Ukraine, this year’s edition of its military doctrine is the first to clearly identify Russia as an enemy and aggressor. Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said Sept. 1 that his government is modernizing its armed forces, and its key military objectives include strengthening military ties with Washington and upgrading Ukraine’s naval capabilities with the construction of four corvettes. The procurement is expected to contribute to efforts by Kiev to hamper Moscow’s activities in the Black Sea.

Russia’s increased military presence in Eastern Europe is reflected in the defense policies adopted elsewhere in the region.

In Lithuania, the Defence Ministry's strategic document, "Assessment of Threats To National Security In 2015," says that "Russia is searching for ways to leverage the advantage of NATO in terms of conventional warfare. Therefore, in the first place Russia is trying to achieve this goal by creating an area (buffer zone) situated close to Russia and controlled by political or military means," which drives Russia’s expansion on the Black and Baltic seas.

Together with Latvia and Estonia, Lithuania is responding by increasing its military spending and awarding military procurements to other NATO member states, including the US, Germany and Poland.

The Lithuanian Defence Ministry recently unveiled its draft defense budget for 2016, with plans to increase the military expenditure to €574 million (US$634 million), which represents 1.48 percent of Lithuania’s gross domestic product. With the Ukrainian conflict amplifying its threat perception of Russia, the ministry said in a statement that it will focus on “developing priority capabilities and combat training.”

"We will focus on the following priority areas: combat training and modernization of the Lithuanian Armed Forces’ units, and development of priority capabilities," Lithuanian Defence Minister Juozas Olekas said.

Olekas said that the increased spending will be used to acquire new infantry fighting vehicles, self-propelled howitzers, anti-tank weapons, aircraft defense and communications systems, rifles, surveillance and measuring equipment, personal gear, airspace surveillance systems, and other equipment.

Bulgaria, Poland Tighten Defense Ties

Bulgaria’s government has decided to award a deal to service its MiG-29 fighters to Poland despite repeated threats by Moscow, which claims that Polish companies are unauthorized to service Russian-designed jets.

Last October, RSK MiG, manufacturer of the MiG-29 fighter jet, sent a letter of protest to the Bulgarian Parliament's Defence Committee. The state-run company warned Bulgaria’s government against performing aircraft maintenance activities in Poland after Bulgarian Defence Minister Nikolay Nenchev and his Polish counterpart, Tomasz Siemoniak, inked a deal under which six of Bulgaria’s aircraft would be modernized and serviced by Polish aircraft maintenance plants.

However, Nenchev has responded by saying that the price offered by the Polish side was significantly lower than the costs of overhauling the fighter jets in Russia.

The final contract was signed Oct. 22 during Nenchev's visit to Warsaw, which saw both officials stress how Russia’s intervention in Ukraine bolstered military cooperation between Bulgaria and Poland.

"We have a similar perception of the [current] threats and crises," Siemoniak said Oct. 22. "We have a very well-developed cooperation [with Bulgaria] regarding our air forces.We are also developing this cooperation in the field of land forces and military training. However, we are also interested in extending it to other joint projects."

Email: jadamowski@defensenews.com

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Nathan J Hunt Retweeted
NavyRecognition ‏@NavyRecognition 1h1 hour ago

Indian Navy 2nd Kolkata Class Destroyer INS Kochi Hits Suface Target with #BrahMos #Missile http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3200 …

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/02/us-turkey-election-erdogan-idUSKCN0SR14B20151102

World | Mon Nov 2, 2015 1:21pm EST
Related: World, Turkey

Erdogan says world must respect Turkish election result

ANKARA | By Nick Tattersall and Ercan Gurses


A jubilant President Tayyip Erdogan on Monday cast the return of Turkey to single-party rule as a vote for stability that the world must respect, but opponents fear it heralds growing authoritarianism and deeper polarization.

The AK Party, whose roots are in political Islam, defied pollsters and even the expectations of its own strategists in a general election on Sunday, consolidating support from the right to claw back a parliamentary majority that will bolster Erdogan's grip on power.

It was a personal triumph for the combative leader, who despite being constitutionally above party politics as head of state had shaped the AKP's executive committee and its parliamentary candidates in the run-up to the vote.

The result handed the AKP 317 of the 550 seats in parliament, only 13 short of the number Erdogan would need for a national referendum on constitutional changes he wants to forge a presidential system granting him full executive powers.

"The national will manifested itself on Nov. 1 in favor of stability," Erdogan said in comments to reporters after praying at a mosque in Istanbul.

"Let's be as one, be brothers and all be Turkey together."

The vote came at a critical time for Turkey on the global stage, with the United States dependent on Turkish air bases in the fight against Islamic State in Syria, and the European Union desperate for Turkish help with its growing migration crisis.

Erdogan's victory, two weeks ahead of a G20 leaders' summit in Turkey, leaves Western allies dealing with an emboldened leader they may already know, but whose cooperation has not always been easy to secure.

Financial markets rallied, with the lira currency on track for its biggest one-day gain in seven years and stocks up 5 percent, relieved that uncertainty from an election cycle stretching back almost two years had finally ended.

But the result left the 50 percent of Turks who did not vote AKP in shock: from liberal secularists suspicious of Erdogan's Islamist ideals to left-leaning Kurds who blame the government for resurgent violence in the largely Kurdish southeast.

Since nationwide anti-government protests and a corruption scandal around Erdogan's inner circle in 2013, his opponents had lived in the hope that the power of modern Turkey's most divisive leader was finally on the wane.

"Back to Square One" said the headline on Today's Zaman, a newspaper critical of the AKP, casting the outcome as a result of a divisive and fiercely nationalist campaign.

Washington said it was deeply concerned that media outlets and journalists were subject to pressure during the campaign.


Related Coverage
› White House says urges Turkish authorities to protect press freedom

Amid reports that journalists were pressured in order to weaken political opposition, spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House had urged Turkish authorities to uphold the values of its constitution.


GREEN LIGHT FOR GREATER POWER

Erdogan won Turkey's first popular presidential election in August 2014 after more than a decade as prime minister and immediately vowed to use his mandate to strengthen what had been a largely ceremonial post appointed by parliament.

Even without constitutional change, he wasted little time flexing his political muscle, hosting cabinet meetings in his new 1,000-room Ankara palace and surrounding himself with powerful advisors in what effectively became a "shadow cabinet".

His opponents hoped that the loss of the AKP's majority in a June 7 election, raising the prospect of coalition government, would put a stop to such overreach of his powers. But Sunday's result has put his ambitions firmly back on track.

"The view that the June 7 elections were a 'no' to the executive presidency has been collapsed," said Mustafa Sentop, a senior AKP official who previously spearheaded the party's efforts at constitutional reform.

"The numbers are not enough at the moment, but I think these elections show a desire for the presidential system to be instilled. It could be seen as a green or yellow light for the presidency," he told Reuters.

It remained to be seen whether the additional 13 parliamentary votes needed to support a referendum could be found, but it was an ambition on which the AKP would "definitely not give up", he said.

In the meantime, a source in the presidency said, the cabinet would continue to meet in the palace "from time to time" suggesting no let-up in Erdogan's influence on daily affairs.

Erdogan has consistently portrayed criticism of his leadership as part of a foreign-backed effort to belittle him and undermine Turkey's influence in the region.

"Now a party with some 50 percent in Turkey has attained power ... This should be respected by the whole world, but I have not seen such maturity," he said on Monday, criticizing global media coverage of the election.


Related Coverage
› Turkish police raid news magazine over post-election cover
› Turkish campaigners dismayed at sharp fall in women MPs


DEEPER POLARIZATION

The rise in AKP support on Sunday appeared to have been motivated by renewed fighting between the security forces and Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militants in the predominantly Kurdish southeast since a ceasefire collapsed in July.

Right-wing voters supportive of the renewed military campaign abandoned the nationalist MHP, while conservative Kurds and liberal Turks who blame the PKK for the unrest turned their back on the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP).

"The recent sense of instability in Turkey, coupled with Erdogan's "strong man who can protect you" strategy seems to have worked. This is a victory for both Erdogan and for the PKK," said Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute.

"Erdogan has managed to consolidate much of the political right," he said in an email.

But in doing so he has also further alienated opponents.

The HDP, which is set to control 59 seats in parliament, accused Erdogan on Sunday of a deliberate strategy of polarization to stir up nationalist support. Erdogan meanwhile said the election outcome was a message to the PKK and its allies that violence could not coexist with democracy.

Analysts are divided on whether an emboldened Erdogan will now seek to push an even harder military strategy in the southeast, or whether he will return to a peace process with the PKK he initiated two and a half years ago.

"It must continue, but with a new understanding," said one senior AKP official familiar with the peace process, adding that, in line with Erdogan's majoritarian view of democracy, the HDP's role as mediator would from now on be limited.

"That role is finished. The most they can be is one of the actors."


(Additional reporting by Orhan Coskun and Tulay Karadeniz in Ankara, Daren Butler in Istanbul; Writing by Nick Tattersall; Editing by Peter Graff and Giles Elgood)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/02/us-mideast-crisis-iran-saudi-idUSKCN0SR19G20151102

World | Mon Nov 2, 2015 9:41am EST
Related: World, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Davos

Iran says may quit Syria talks, in worsening spat with Saudi rival

DUBAI | By Yara Bayoumy and Bozorgmehr Sharafedin


Iran said on Monday it would quit Syria peace talks if it found them unconstructive, citing the "negative role" of Saudi Arabia, in the latest twist in a spat between the regional rivals that bodes ill for efforts to ease turmoil across the Middle East.

Increasingly bad-tempered exchanges between the conservative Sunni-ruled kingdom and the revolutionary Shi'ite theocracy have dampened hopes of improved ties after the adversaries sat down for their first meeting to discuss the Syria war last week.

"In the first round of talks, some countries, especially Saudi Arabia, played a negative and unconstructive role … Iran will not participate if the talks are not fruitful," ISNA cited deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian as saying.

Delivering unusually personal criticism, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani appeared to reprimand Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, who, on Saturday, lashed out at Tehran for what he termed its interference in regional countries.

"An inexperienced young man in a regional country will not reach anywhere by rudeness in front of elders," Rouhani was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA on Monday. He did not name the 'young man' but Jubeir was assumed to be his target.


PROXY STRUGGLE

Jubeir, in his mid-50s, took up his job on the death this year of veteran predecessor Prince Saud al-Faisal at age 75.

World and regional powers including Iran and Saudi Arabia met in Vienna on Friday to discuss a political solution to Syria's civil war but failed, as expected, to reach a consensus on the future of President Bashar al-Assad. Iran backs Assad in the war while Saudi Arabia supports rebels seeking to oust him.

It was the first time Tehran and Riyadh were at the same table to tackle a war that has evolved into a wider proxy struggle for regional dominance between Russia and Iran on Assad's side and Turkey, U.S.-allied Gulf Arab states and Western powers who support rebels to various degrees.

Saudi Arabia wants Assad gone, and has provided support to Syria's moderate opposition forces, while Iran has sent in fighters and material support to bolster Assad.

Less than 24 hours after the Vienna talks, Jubeir used a high-profile regional security conference in the Gulf Arab kingdom of Bahrain, which Iran's government did not attend, to attack Iranian policies.


"NEGATIVITY"

Jubeir accused Iran of attempting to smuggle weapons to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, as well as meddling in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, something he said was "driving the negativity" in Iran-Saudi relationship.

"We have extended our hand in friendship to Iran," said the soft-spoken Jubeir, adding that Riyadh had made the point "time and time again" that it sought good relations with Tehran.

"It is up to the Iranians whether they want to have relations with us based on good neighborliness ... or if they want to have relations that are filled with tension.

"That is on Iran."

Tehran reacted with ire.

Speaking to Iranian media, Abdollahian warned Jubeir "not to test our patience". He did not elaborate.

In 2011, U.S. authorities said they had foiled a plot by two men linked to Iran's security services to assassinate Jubeir, then the Saudi ambassador in Washington. Iran denied any role.

Riyadh had long refused to accept any Iranian presence at Syria peace talks. Dynamics changed after Iran sealed a deal on its disputed nuclear program with world powers that began to ease its international isolation.

The start of Russian air strikes in Syria in support of Assad helped to persuade Western powers that as one of Assad's top supporters, Tehran had to be at the negotiating table too.

(Reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin; Writing by Yara Bayoumy; Editing by William Maclean and Mark Heinrich)

 

[Lilbitsnana]

BeyondTheLevant Retweeted
Military Edge ‏@Military_Edge 32m32 minutes ago

Russia Delivering Air Defense Systems to Iran http://bit.ly/1MCAKe9 via @SputnikInt


Russia Delivering Air Defense Systems to Iran
© AP Photo/ Alexander Zemlianichenko
Military & Intelligence
17:11 02.11.2015(updated 17:12 02.11.2015) Get short URL
3698162
The list of weapons banned from being delivered to Iran does not include air defense, some types of electronics, head of Rosoboronexport Anatoly Isaikin said.

An S-300 surface-to-air missile system
© Sputnik/ Uriy Shipilov
Russia Modernizing S-300 Missile System for Iran

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia is already delivering air defense systems, as well as certain types of electronics to Iran, the head of Russia's state arms exporter Rosoboronexport said Monday.

"The list of weapons banned from being delivered to Iran does not include certain weapons, such as air defense, some types of electronics. It is in these areas that the Russian Federation, through Rosoboronexport, maintains contacts and provides these types of weapons to Iran," Anatoly Isaikin told Rossiya-24 television.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.daily-times.com/story/op...n-pretending-victory-doesnt-make-so/75040242/

Gerson: Pretending victory doesn't make it so

Michael Gerson, michaelgerson@washpost.com 11:30 a.m. MST November 2, 2015

WASHINGTON – Break out the name tags and Styrofoam-flavored coffee; it is conference season for Iran.

Iran's foreign minister will attend the Vienna talks on Syria's future for the first time, effectively ending his country's regional diplomatic isolation. Supporting terrorists, brutally repressing human rights, making a play for regional hegemony, propping up a dictator guilty of mass atrocities, and doing as much as anyone to destroy Syria's future are no longer disqualifications. The nuclear deal is evidently Iran's all-access, backstage diplomatic pass.

And let's not forget the annual "Death to America" events in Iran surrounding the Nov. 4 anniversary of the 1979 American embassy takeover. Also the second annual "End of America" confab in February, featuring academics explaining American decline.

At that event, it may be hard to pick among the sessions. Even if you consider the Iran nuclear deal a good thing, everywhere else in the region is likely to be markedly worse when President Obama leaves office than when he took it: Iraq in pieces; Syria in ruins; the rise of a terrorist state with unprecedented reach and resources; Yemen in civil war; Egypt under repressive military rule; Libya in chaos; Afghanistan with unraveling security; poisoned relations with Israel and the Sunni powers.

Obama's chance for a positive legacy in the Middle East depends entirely on the nuclear deal. Many of his other policies in the region are really more like poses. The administration still says that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must go — but everyone knows this is another meaningless red line, with Russia and Iran now intervening heavily to save the Syrian dictator. The administration insists that the nuclear deal is separable from confronting and isolating the Iranian regime on other issues like proliferation and terrorism — but containment already seems to be collapsing.

The administration pledges to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the Islamic State — but has produced a strategy of stalemate, in which the U.S. military is struggling to fight within the political boundaries of Obama's claim to be the ender of wars. So, no "boots on the ground," but boots on the ground. No combat mission, but combat missions. And now Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is promising a new stage of direct American attacks in Iraq and Syria to help turn the tide in Raqqa and Ramadi.

So what does this improved military strategy actually mean? Does it reflect a new set of national goals that Obama has set and will be held accountable for achieving? If so, why didn't the president announce these goals himself? Carter, for all his virtues, is not the commander in chief. Why isn't Obama leading the public and the military into this new phase of the conflict and potential sacrifice?

Or was this announcement just a CYA maneuver, in case there are more casualties in America's non-war against the Islamic State? Or maybe it was the military trying to remind an insular White House staff that they are actually in a desperate fight and need more leeway and leadership to win?

Who knows? But the situation points to the administration's ultimate pose: Obama has claimed to conclude a war that he has continued to fight — just not adequately or competently. This fight continues because Sunni radicals want to destroy American allies and proxies and establish a terrorist kingdom. At the same time, Iran and its Russian ally want a tired and humiliated America to retreat from the region, leaving an open field for Hezbollah, the Quds Force and the Russian air force.

Into this strategic snake pit came the Obama administration, utterly convinced of a few things: That America has been too focused on the Middle East and too prone to ill-considered commitments. That our friends and allies have often been freeloaders, and that America should pull back and take off their training wheels. And that a nuclear deal with Iran was pretty much worth any price, and that it might lead to a strategic rebalancing, in which Iran and the U.S. could cooperate against Sunni radicalism.

The results? A vacuum filled by the worst people in the world. A massive humanitarian disaster, which Obama will be forced to explain for the rest of his days. An emboldened Iran, with an infusion of legitimacy and cash. An emboldened Russia, preening on the global stage. Friends and allies who feel betrayed. The cynical abandonment of human rights and democracy promotion in America's approach to the region.

And still for Obama, the pose of victory.

Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151103/eu-germany-migrants-e6dba79dc3.html

Germany's Merkel, domestic critic show unity over migrants

Nov 3, 12:05 PM (ET)
By GEIR MOULSON

(AP) German Chancellor Angela Merkel, right, and the Governor of the German State of...
Full Image

BERLIN (AP) — German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her most prominent domestic critic put on a public show of unity over the refugee crisis Tuesday, appearing together to stress their aim to limit the influx.

Horst Seehofer, Bavaria's governor and leader of the Bavarian branch of Merkel's conservative bloc, has criticized Merkel's welcoming approach to refugees for weeks, stridently demanding federal government action.

On Sunday, however, the conservatives thrashed out their demands in the enormous migration crisis facing Europe, patching up a damaging rift and switching instead to pressuring their coalition partners, the center-left Social Democrats.

Their deal doesn't refer to any limit on the number of refugees, as some conservatives have advocated, and Merkel still says closing borders isn't an answer. But it does advocate "transit zones" near the country's borders to weed out those with no realistic asylum claim, and curbing relatives from joining some asylum-seekers.

(AP) German Chancellor Angela Merkel, right, and the Governor of the German State of...
Full Image

"We want to organize and steer the refugee flow, fight the causes of flight and so reduce the number of refugees," Merkel, speaking alongside Seehofer, said before a meeting of conservative lawmakers.

She stressed again the need for "European solidarity" on the migrant crisis.

"I want people in Germany to be able to say in a few years 'they did it well, and we were able to manage it,'" she said.

Seehofer said helping people in need and integrating new arrivals is only feasible "if there is also a reduction in the refugee figures."

Leaders of Germany's coalition government are meeting Thursday. Seehofer said "we should, perhaps even must, reach an agreement so the population sees ... the coalition partners are in a position to act."

So far, though, they are still arguing about the vague "transit zones."

Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel's Social Democrats, one of the parties in the German government say the "transit zone" plan is impractical because it would effectively detain masses of people. They also say the number of arrivals from Balkan countries deemed safe has dropped so low that it's barely relevant.

"I think it's relatively silly that we're arguing about a problem that affects 2.4 percent of incoming refugees," Gabriel said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151103/eu-russia-syria-ecc28e6d2a.html

Russia says it doesn't mind if Assad stays or steps down

Nov 3, 9:59 AM (ET)

(AP) In this Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2015 file photo, Russian President Vladimir Putin,...
Full Image

MOSCOW (AP) — In an apparent effort to set the stage for transition talks, a Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman said on Tuesday that Moscow does not consider it a matter of principle that Syrian President Bashar Assad should stay in power.

Asked whether it was crucial for Moscow that Assad stays, Maria Zakharova said on the Ekho Moskvy radio station: "Absolutely not, we've never said that."

"What we did say is a regime change in Syria could become a local or even regional catastrophe," she said, adding that "only the Syrian people can decide the president's fate."

Russia is believed to be Assad's strongest backer and has previously balked at the West's suggestions that the Syrian president should be ousted.

Russia in September began carrying out air strikes at Islamic State fighters in Syria at Assad's request.

Earlier on Tuesday, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov told Russian news agencies that Moscow is aiming to host a round of talks between Syrian officials and opposition leaders next week.

Bogdanov said the Syrian government has agreed to participate, but that it is unclear which opposition groups might come. He did not give a specific date for the proposed talks.

The talks are expected to be discussed Wednesday at a meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.N. Syrian envoy Staffan de Mistura, Bogdanov said.

Assad made a surprise visit to Moscow last month, which was viewed as a signal that Russia ultimately seeks a political settlement after weeks of heavy airstrikes in Syria, although the terms of such an arrangement are uncertain.

---

This story has corrected the spelling of the spokeswoman's surname to Zakharova.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151103/ml--iran-6e2377fc6c.html

Iran Ayatollah: 'Death to America' refers to US policies

Nov 3, 9:44 AM (ET)
By NASSER KARIMI

(AP) In this Sunday, Nov. 1, 2015 file picture released by the office of Iranian...
Full Image

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — The slogan "Death to America" is not aimed at the American people, but rather American policies, Iran's supreme leader said in comments reported on his official website Tuesday.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei discussed the slogan while meeting with Iranian students ahead of the anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979. Militant students stormed the compound and took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

The two countries have had no diplomatic relations since then. However, current President Hassan Rouhani has made efforts to improve relations, including a landmark nuclear agreement reached with world powers this past summer.

Khamenei says the "aim of the slogan is not death to American people. The slogan means death to U.S. policies and arrogance." The slogan has "strong support" In Iran, he said.

Khamenei and hard-liners in the Iranian government remain deeply suspicious of the United States and view its policies a threat to the country.

He reiterated his warning that the U.S. is not to be trusted despite the nuclear deal reached with the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany. The agreement promises Tehran relief from crippling economic sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

Khamenei also expressed his apparent belief that the U.S. "will not hesitate" if given a chance to destroy Iran.

"The nature of the U.S. attitude is continuation of the same hostile aims from the past, and the nation will not forget this," Khamenei said.

However, anti-American sentiment is rife in Iran. As every year, ahead of the anniversary, the Tehran municipality displays anti-American posters and billboards along the Iranian capital's main squares and key streets.

One such billboard this year — at Tehran's Vali-e asr Square — represents a mock-up of the historic and Pulitzer Prize-winning 1945 "Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima" photo by Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal, one of the iconic images from World War II. Except in the billboard, the hands of the Marines are stained red from blood and instead of rocks and stones, the U.S. troops are standing on a pile of corpses.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/taiwans-south-china-sea-headache/

Taiwan's South China Sea Headache

Caught between its own territorial claims and international criticism of the “nine-dashed line”, what is Taiwan to do?

By Shannon Tiezzi
November 04, 2015

6 Shares
3 Comments

One week ago today, the U.S. sent a destroyer within 12 nautical miles of the Chinese-controlled Subi Reef in the South China Sea on a freedom of navigation patrol. Two days later, on October 29, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that it does have jurisdiction to hear the Philippines’ case challenging China’s “nine-dash line” in the South China Sea. In other words, it’s been a big week for the South China Sea disputes.

Discussions of the South China Sea tend to center around China – its “aggression” or “assertiveness”; the ambiguity of its claims; its moves to overturn the “status quo” or create “facts on the water” by building artificial islands. But China isn’t alone in claiming wide swathes of the South China Sea based on “historical” claims that seem out-of-step with UNCLOS. In fact, Taiwan – a close U.S. partner and generally seen as an upstanding supporter of international law – has claims almost identical to Beijing’s, a function of the fact that the Republic of China government was the originator of China’s claim to the u-shaped line encircling most of the South China Sea.

Taiwan is in something of a bind when it comes to the South China Sea issue. On the one hand, no government wants to relinquish territorial claims – in Taiwan’s case in particular, the constitution dictates that “the territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly.” That means, legally speaking, Taipei could not simply relinquish its claim over the South China Sea features even if it were so inclined.

And there’s no evidence that Taipei is interested in doing so. In response to the events of last week, Taiwan’s Executive Yuan made sure to reiterate that Taiwan will take all necessary steps to defend its sovereignty in the South China Sea.

Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense, meanwhile, said that it will plan “emergency response measures” for potential conflicts in the area and will continue to “improve combat capability for the defense of Taiping Island,” the largest of the Spratlys (at least before China’s artificial island-building), which is occupied by Taiwan.

However, though Taiwan’s claims in the South China Sea are as extensive and ambiguous as Beijing’s, Taipei does not want to be labeled a violator of international law. Nor does it want to alienate the United States, which still functions as Taiwan’s main security partner. President Ma Ying-jeou tried to thread the needle by announcing his vision for a South China Sea Peace Initiative earlier this year. The Peace Initiative stipulates that Taiwan will uphold its claims to sovereignty, but calls for all parties to put aside disputes in favor of peaceful settlements in accordance with international law. Ma even proposed pursuing joint development of natural resources in the area.

In response to the USS Lassen’s patrol near Subi Reef, Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense also made sure to not only reiterate sovereignty, but its commitment to international law. Defense Minister Guangchi Gao emphasized that Taiwan respects the “principle and spirit of related international acts,” including UNCLOS and respects freedom of navigation rights.

The full statement from Taiwan’s government called for “the coastal states of the South China Sea to respect the provisions and spirit of the UN Charter and UNCLOS, and to exercise restraint, safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea.” All parties should “uphold the freedom of navigation and overflight through the South China Sea, refrain from taking any action that might escalate tensions, and resolve disputes peacefully,” the statement continued.

However, when it comes to the Philippines’ arbitration case, Taiwan has less wiggle room. A key part of the case calls into question the validity of the “nine-dashed line.” Though the case specifically mentioned the “nine-dashed line” only in reference to mainland China, the ruling would have implications for Taiwan’s similar claims. Thus Taipei has been at pains to emphasize that the ruling has nothing to do with Taiwan. A statement from Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasized that:


The Philippines has not invited the ROC to participate in its arbitration with mainland China , and the arbitral tribunal has not solicited the ROC’s views. Therefore, the arbitration does not affect the ROC in any way, and the ROC neither recognizes nor accepts related awards.

The statement also makes it clear that Taiping Island “indisputably qualifies as an ‘island’ according to the specifications of Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”; the Executive Yuan has said that Taiping “certainly can claim [an] exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.” However, Taiwan is not limiting its claim to Taiping Island, as the MOFA statement made clear:


Whether from the perspective of history, geography, or international law, the Nansha (Spratly) Islands, Shisha (Paracel) Islands, Chungsha Islands (Macclesfield Bank), and Tungsha (Pratas) Islands (together known as the South China Sea Islands), as well as their surrounding waters, are an inherent part of ROC territory and waters.

Beijing was pleased with Taiwan’s response, which is viewed as in line with the People’s Republic’s own claims to the South China Sea. “Chinese people from both sides of the Straits have the responsibility and obligation to jointly uphold territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests of the country,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told reporters. Beijing was particularly pleased to see Taiwan saying it “neither recognizes nor accepts” the tribunal’s ruling — although Taipei’s rationale for doing so is very different than Beijing’s.

China has tried before to get Taiwan to coordinate an approach to the South China Sea, but Taiwan has been adamant about pursuing its own approach (Ma’s South China Sea Peace Initiative). Taiwanese officials have said they will not cooperate with China on territorial issues.

But that should not be taken to mean Taipei is giving up its own claims. On the contrary, just before the Philippines presented its oral arguments on the jurisdiction question before the arbitral tribunal, Ma Ying-jeou vowed that Taiwan would “staunchly defend its sovereignty over Taiping [Island] and every right held by the country under international law.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/the-...navigation-operations-in-the-south-china-sea/

The Unintended Consequences of the US Freedom of Navigation Operations in the South China Sea

The U.S. needs to carefully consider the implications of its South China Sea operations for international law.

By Brendan S. Mulvaney
November 04, 2015

1 Shares
0 Comments

Over the course of the last several years, tension in the western Pacific has been building. Naval buildups and military modernization efforts continue apace, despite economic downturns. Deployment of ships and new aggressive actions by surface fleets continue unabated. Most recently, plans to spend billions of dollars building up islands that are far from the continental territory have been put into motion. And those are just the actions by the United States.

For its part, China has been acting more assertively as well. Although it is certainly not the sole instigator in the region, it is by far the largest. Since 2010, which not coincidentally coincides with the start of historically high oil prices, China has continued to adopt more assertive positions and actions when it comes to enforcing its claims in the South China Sea. Over the course of the past year, China, as well as Vietnam and the Philippines (a U.S. treaty ally), has undertaken a series of projects to build and expand its claimed territories in the region. This has been the subject of much reporting and hype, and has elicited multiple calls from the U.S. and others for all parties to halt the build-up of these areas. The most recent development is that the U.S. Navy sailed a military ship, a destroyer, within 12 nautical miles of one of the ‘features,’ aka shoal of rocks, in the region, thus touching off another round of escalating tensions.

The thorny problem here is that the United States is not a claimant in the region, is not a member of ASEAN, and has not signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). As such, the U.S. has little to no legitimate standing to actually take actions to intervene or influence what goes on in the South China Sea, outside of the diplomatic arena, or in the global commons of international waters.

The main justification for the recent patrol revolves around the issue of whether or not these ‘features’ should count as islands at all. UNCLOS says, “An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide… Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.” The convention further states, “Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf.”

On the face of it, an objective reading would lead to the conclusion that Subi Reef (along with several other features in the area) does not qualify as an “island,” and at best is an “artificial island” and thus not entitled to a territorial sea. However, there are a wide variety of other ‘features’ in the region, some of which may well qualify as islands. The problem is the United States doesn’t get to decide how to classify them; that is the purview of an international arbitration court. Well-respected China expert Bonnie Glaser of CSIS recently summed up the American government’s position as follows: “The U.S. government takes no position on the territorial disputes in the Spratly Islands, but does take a strong position on what kinds of claims are made to the waters surrounding those features.” But the fundamental problem is that one requires the other. The U.S. can’t say that it takes no position on sovereignty of land claims in the South China Sea, as stated by the State Department, but then take a position on what is land in the first place, and then what water rights might accompany that land.

Surely Subi Reef does not, under any reasonable reading of UNCLOS, qualify as land. The reef was submerged at low-tide until China began its so called “land reclamation” program. However, under UNCLOS and customary international law, no one nation, the U.S. included, can simply arbitrarily decide what does and does not merit a 12 nautical mile territorial sea. On October 29, the Permanent Court of Arbitration agreed to hear a case brought by the Philippines regarding China’s claims in the South China Sea, including Subi Reef, Mischief Reef, and other areas. Until the court rules, the status of the features is undetermined. But by taking the case, the court has acknowledged at least that a dispute exists.

This particular freedom of navigation, or FONOP, patrol near Subi Reef, as well as nearby features claimed by the Philippines and Vietnam, was in accordance with customary naval law by any rational reading of it. However, should these patrols expand to more established islands in the region, this could potentially expose Washington to charges of contradictory policies at best, and hypocrisy at the worst.

As for this particular naval patrol itself, the first since 2012 to broach a 12 nm distance to any of these features, it has been described as a “diplomatic and legal demonstration … as opposed to some sort of military escalation.” This may be the signal that the United States intended to send to China, and indeed hopefully that is what was communicated when the chiefs of the two navies spoke on October 29. But China may not take it that way. China has gone to some lengths in the past to avoid using naval vessels when dealing with claims in the South China Sea, preferring to rely on its version of the Coast Guard or fisheries ships. The direct challenge by a U.S. Navy ship to China’s claims of sovereignty may alter that policy with follow-on consequences. During this particular patrol, the USS Lassen was followed by PLAN ships, which, by all public accounts, maintained suitable distance.

According to the Wall Street Journal, an unnamed Defense Official stated that the Lassen’s patrol was not taken in accordance with the “innocent passage” clause of UNCLOS because that would imply that the U.S. recognized China’s sovereignty over the area. Thus, the only conclusion to draw from such action seems to be that the U.S. has made a determination that this area is not China’s, or any other nation’s, sovereign territory. However, deciding that there is no territorial claim to the area is, in fact, a position on sovereignty. This goes against stated U.S. policy to not take a position on claims in the region. Regardless of what we might believe about the status of this, or any other feature in the area, the PRC clearly feels they are entitled to a 12 nm zone. Washington’s unilateral decision to not recognize those claims is no better than Beijing’s unilateral decisions to claim these artificial structures as sovereign territory in the first place.

Should patrols continue, much less expand to other islands/features, this policy incongruity will have unintended consequences. Although China is still relatively weak when compared to the United States, particularly on a global scale, that will not always be the case. This is one of the reasons many in the U.S. believe now is the time to conduct these operations. China is continuing to rapidly develop their military, slimming it down, making it more modern, more networked, and more professional; this is particularly true of their navy. But by setting a precedent that navies can sail within what another state considers to be sovereign waters, and not do so under the innocent passage provisions, the U.S. may embolden an already aggressive, and likely more capable, PLA Navy in the future.

Multiple parties in the region have stated concerns that China may be able to expand its military power projection capability in the region – or might even be in the process of doing so. While this could have a serious impact on the ability to conduct operations during times of conflict, there is little in the way of legal standing or precedent precluding a nation from building military or even joint-use facilities on its sovereign territory. The United States, along with it allies and partners, may not believe Subi Reef is sovereign Chinese territory, or that it is territory at all, but Beijing certainly does, and will act accordingly.

Furthermore, China is not the only nation with which the United States needs to be concerned. The Russian military still is a formidable force with global reach when it so desires. Iran continues expand its regional influence. How would the United States react if either of those nations decided to exercise their rights to patrol in another countries’ claimed territorial waters, much less American waters?

Here’s the bottom line: at what point does “non-recognition” of a dispute or territory begin to threaten international law? Where might Russia choose to “not recognize” a dispute or territory and start sending its warships? Indeed, why stop at warships: where might nations send their ground forces by simply not recognizing others’ claims to the area. Far-fetched? Perhaps, but the United States should consider the long term implications of adopting this justification on a future time when we may not be so dominant, either globally or regionally. Even without providing competitors with such a precedent, the harm to international law and norms should be apparent. What the U.S. gains from these actions, other than a vague notion of conducting freedom of navigation operations, where no impediment to navigation currently exists, is far less tangible.

Although the U.S. made little public noise about the recent transit in September of five ships from the PLA Navy through the Aleutians, the signal was unmistakable: China, too, can play this game and the U.S. may well reap what it sows when it comes to naval maneuvers and Freedom of Navigation Operations. The far reaches of the Aleutians are hundreds of miles from the mainland of Alaska, not to mention Guam and other far flung U.S. territories and possessions. Washington certainly considers them to be unquestionably sovereign U.S. territory. Why then should we expect anything less from China when it comes to their claims, regardless of geographic distance from some particular point of land? The same applies to all the other claimants in the region: Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and even Brunei. They all claim some or all of these features; will the U.S. be as fast to dismiss their claims as well, particularly while having an explicit policy of “taking no position?”

The United States has an interest in ensuring that the seas remain open to all and that sea-borne commerce continues unimpeded, but this is in China’s interest as well. The U.S. also has an interest in, and regularly stresses the need for, adherence to international standards and norms. China should not be allowed to violate them, but nor should the United States. The claims that Subi Reef is entitled to any recognition as territory at all are specious at best. But those and other similar claims are made by multiple countries in the region for a whole variety of features. Washington should well consider the ramifications of unilaterally declaring a decision, particularly under the auspices of UNCLOS (to which the U.S. isn’t even a party), regarding other nation’s territorial claims. This is even truer when the actions based on that decision directly contradict stated American policy. The U.S. should carefully craft its actions to ensure adherence to our stated policy, or one of them will need to change. Washington is quick to criticize, and rightfully so, China, Russia, and a host of other nations whose policies and actions are in conflict or go against customary international law. It should protect itself against the same charges.

Brendan S. Mulvaney is a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps and is currently the Associate Chair of the Languages and Cultures Department at the U.S. Naval Academy. He was previously an Olmsted Scholar in Shanghai, China. The views expressed in this article are his alone and do not in any way represent those of the Marine Corps, USNA, or any part of the U.S. government.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://warontherocks.com/2015/11/with-or-without-you-germany-and-nato/

With or Without You: Germany and NATO

Ulrich Kühn
November 3, 2015

“I can’t live with or without you,” crooned Bono in U2’s 1987 smash hit. The band surely did not mean to anticipate Germany’s complicated relationship with NATO nearly 30 years later, but they did. Facing a newly aggressive Russia, Germans are torn. On one hand, we have Germany’s cultural attachment to the West, alliance commitments, and a friendship with the United States. On the other, we have Germany’s traditional post-war pacifism, fear of what Vladimir Putin is capable of, and largely good (and mostly economic) relations with Moscow. And as everyone knows, Germany’s friendship with America is not what it used to be.

Germans know they need NATO — and therewith America — but they don’t always like that fact. This is obvious when dealing with Putin’s Russia, the war in Ukraine, and NATO’s nuclear weapons policy.

A Problematic Past

Twenty-five years after the end of the Cold War, memories of military standoff with the Warsaw Pact are fading. Most Germans today associate NATO with the failed war in Afghanistan and the flawed interventionism of the George W. Bush years rather than long-standing alliance commitments to secure German freedom and prosperity.

In Germany, pacifism, anti-Americanism, and anti-nuclear sentiments often go hand-in-hand. Leftist criticisms of NATO and the United States have a long legacy that dates back at least to the student protests of the 1960s and 1970s. Under the umbrella of the peace movement, a new generation of NATO skeptics protested the dual-track decision of the early 1980s to station additional U.S. nuclear weapons on West German soil. That generation’s younger political figures are still influential today, particularly among the senior ranks of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party.

While the post-Cold War world saw Germans struggling to come to terms with the huge economic costs of reunification, the new millennium and America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq left many Germans wondering whether Uncle Sam was capable of anything besides deploying “boots on the ground.” In the same vein, Germans proudly recall the German “Nein” to the 2003 U.S.-led intervention in Iraq by then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of the SPD and his Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of the Green Party.

When then-presidential candidate Barack Obama referred to “the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right” in his 2008 speech at the Berlin Brandenburg Gate, some 200,000 Germans applauded in approval. Hopes were high in Germany that this new president would enact changes to U.S. foreign and security policy and therewith NATO.

Yet these Germans were to be disappointed, particularly once the revelations of Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks came to light. Today, we find anti-Americanism and anti-NATO sentiments en vogue again. Two recent polls illustrate these negative trends: 70 percent of Germans view the United States as “greedy for power” and only 55 percent of Germans still hold a favorable view of NATO (down from 73 percent in 2009).

Squaring the Circle on Ukraine

With the war in Ukraine and relations between Washington and Moscow quickly deteriorated from partnership to open enmity, Germans are now facing the difficult task of recalibrating their stance towards the United States, NATO, and Russia.

Germans prefer a balancing middle-position between the West and Russia more than a strong position within NATO (49 to 45 percent according to a survey from April 2014). Yet polls suggest that 81 percent of Germans do not trust Russia and 68 percent of Germans believe that Washington would come to the defense of NATO allies if push came to shove. These conflicting viewpoints find their echo also in Germany’s official positions.

The Obama administration’s policy of retrenchment has given Angela Merkel and her foreign policy team additional room for maneuver to search for a diplomatic solution in Ukraine, a policy in line with Berlin’s self-image as a conflict mediator. While the German chancellor received almost equal praise and criticism for her efforts to secure an extremely shaky ceasefire in Eastern Ukraine, foreign policy pundits often overlook the fact that the conflict itself creates a completely new challenge for German diplomacy — one where Germany must assume a leadership role.

So far, Germans reward their foreign policy executives with high approval rates for their silent crisis diplomacy. The current German government and the German public reject calls by some U.S. foreign and security policy experts for arming Ukraine. However, the question looms large how Germany would react if the next occupant of the White House displays a more muscular policy towards the Kremlin or if Putin were crazy enough to make moves against the Baltic States. Would Germany be ready to defend its Baltic allies? This is a question that particularly NATO’s easternmost members are asking.

German politicians have been resolute in issuing verbal and operational assurances aimed at dispelling any possible doubts. At the NATO Summit in Wales, Germany took on the role of one of the Framework Nations, essentially setting up the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), which will function as a “Spearhead Force” in case of a Russian aggression against an ally. In addition, Germany committed to modernize the German–Polish–Danish Multinational Corps Northeast and help set up military bases on NATO’s eastern and southern periphery.

Germany’s grand coalition (Christian Democrats and the SPD) is thus carefully trying to satisfy the public majority’s wish for a peaceful solution to the conflict while, at the same time, living up to its alliance commitments. But the real tricky issue will be NATO’s future nuclear posture.

Germany’s Nuclear Quagmire

Against the background of Putin’s continued nuclear saber-rattling and the Russian doctrine of “de-escalating nuclear strikes” (meaning a limited number of smaller nuclear strikes to deter an adversary in case of an overwhelming conventional threat to the Russian territory), a small number of U.S. experts have pleaded for adjusting NATO’s nuclear strategy, perhaps by deploying new nuclear weapons to Europe.

Recalling the massive anti-NATO protests of the early 1980s in Germany, it does not take much imagination to see the current Merkel government terrified of such a scenario becoming reality. Germany’s already ambiguous stance towards nuclear weapons adds to the problem.

Germany has signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In addition, Berlin is a long-time advocate of nuclear arms control and supports calls for the global elimination of nuclear weapons. At the same time, the country takes part in NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangements and roughly 20 U.S. B-61 nuclear gravity bombs are still stationed at the German airbase of Büchel (approximately 180 more of these U.S. weapons are deployed in Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey). These weapons are under the full authority of the United States. In case of an Article V declaration by NATO, however, it would be German pilots and German Tornado fighter aircraft delivering the bombs.

Clearly, the lines between nuclear-sharing commitments and nuclear disarmament advocacy are blurred. The discussion in the German defense and foreign policy community reflects this uneasy dichotomy. Former Head of Planning Staff in the Federal Foreign Office, Frank Elbe, warned in 2014 of the nuclear risks associated with the new West–Russian clash, arguing for diplomatic efforts to strengthen nuclear arms control and asserting that NATO contributed to the escalation of the crisis. In contrast, the current Head of Energy Security at NATO, Michael Rühle, in a recent op-ed called for “rediscovering the concept of nuclear deterrence” and pointed out that “almost no one in Washington speaks of ‘global zero’ anymore.”

These internal German extremes are only exceeded by the different positions of NATO allies. The most obvious case is the future of the B-61. Given the outdated military value of these weapons and the 64-percent majority of Germans supporting withdrawal, different German governments have lobbied in Washington and Brussels for withdrawing the bomb. They have all failed, mostly due to the concerns of NATO’s easternmost allies who attach a highly symbolic/political value to the only American nuclear weapons currently stationed in Europe. As a result of NATO’s 2012 Deterrence and Defence Posture Review, allies decided that the bombs remain in place. Even more sobering for German politicians, in January 2014, Congress agreed to fully fund an expensive, $10-billion upgrade for the bomb, with the new bombs (the B-61 mod. 12) being fielded in 2020.

Trouble on the Horizon

For Russia the U.S. modernization plans and the failed German calls for withdrawal are pure PR gold. “This could alter the balance of power in Europe,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned. “It would demand that Russia take necessary countermeasures to restore the strategic balance and parity.” With relish, Russian state-owned media outlet “Sputnik News” quoted from a 2010 Bundestag Resolution calling on the Federal Government to “urge American allies to withdraw nuclear weapons from Germany.”

While German politicians are trying to duck and cover, the next wave of U.S. modernization plans is already on the horizon. In Washington, the discussion about 1,000 to 1,100 new nuclear-tipped air-launched cruise missiles is only unfolding.

If the Kremlin plays it well the dynamics between U.S. modernization plans and continued Russian nuclear intimidations could cause a lot of trouble for Germany and NATO in the upcoming years. The author of this article has therefore elsewhere argued for a NATO policy of “nuclear patience.” The real value of such a policy would be twofold: preventing Mr. Putin from employing his well-known divide-and rule tactics and avoiding a new all-time low in the complicated German–NATO relationship.



Ulrich Kühn is a Research Associate at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (Germany). He coordinates the trilateral U.S.–Russian–German “Deep Cuts Commission” and has been working for the German Federal Foreign Office. The views expressed here are his own. Twitter: @UliTKuehn.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.janes.com/article/55696/plan-holds-snap-drills-in-south-china-sea

Country Risk

PLAN holds snap drills in South China Sea

Mike Yeo, Melbourne, Australia - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
02 November 2015

China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has carried out air and naval exercises in the South China Sea: a move that may be in response to the US Navy's (USN) 27 October freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) near the Spratly Islands.

Chinese state media reported that on 28 October, after the USS Lassen sailed within 12 n miles of Subi Reef, the PLAN sortied 10 warships from the South Sea Fleet based in Zhanjiang, Guangdong Province, at short notice for a series of exercises that included gun and missile live firings.

Subi Reef is one of the disputed Spratly Islands on which China has carried out extensive island-building and construction activities. Recent imagery shows that a 3,000 m-long airstrip is under construction. Lassen 's mission was described by the USN as a FONOP and was the first time a USN ship had gone within 12 n miles of the newly created islands.

China Military Online , a military news website sponsored by the PLA Daily , also reported that fighter jets belonging to the South Sea Fleet carried out what it called a combat training exercise in "unfamiliar environments" on 30 October.

Photos published in China Military Online showed PLAN Air Force Shenyang J-11B/BSH 'Flankers' landing on an airfield that other Chinese media sources said was the military airport located on Woody Island, the largest of the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea that are also claimed by Vietnam.

The J-11BH/BSH is a navalised version of the J-11B/BS, which is itself based on the Sukhoi Su-27 fighter but fitted with Chinese avionics, weapon systems and the Shenyang-Liming WS-10 turbofan engine.

The J-11Bs involved in the exercise carried PL-8 and PL-12 air-to-air missiles and their aircraft serial numbers indicate that they are assigned to the PLAN's 8th Air Division, most possibly the 25th Fighter Regiment at Lingshui on Hainan Island.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options ihs.com/contact

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/chinese-submarine-stalked-us-aircraft-carrier/

Chinese Submarine Stalked U.S. Aircraft Carrier

Attack submarine sailed near USS Reagan south of Japan

BY: Bill Gertz
November 3, 2015 5:00 am

A Chinese attack submarine stalked the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan near Japan last month in the closest encounter between a carrier and a People’s Liberation Army Navy submarine since 2006, according to American defense officials.

The Chinese submarine sailed very close to the Reagan during the weekend of Oct. 24, said defense officials familiar with reports of the incident.

The incident occurred as the Reagan sailed from its home port to the Sea of Japan around the southern end of Japan.

Days later, in the Sea of Japan, the Reagan was targeted for a close flyby by two Russian Tu-142 bombers that flew within a mile of the ship at an altitude of 500 feet. U.S. Navy jets were scrambled to escort the bombers away from the carrier group.

The submarine encounter also occurred days before the USS Lassen, a guided missile destroyer, carried out a freedom of navigation operation in the South China Sea.

The Lassen’s passage within 12 miles of a disputed island in the South China Sea on Oct. 26 was fiercely denounced by the Chinese government. Chinese spokesmen, both military and civilian, said the passage was a violation of Beijing’s territorial sovereignty, a claim rejected by the United States, which said the ship was sailing in international waters.

Disclosure of the Chinese submarine encounter comes as Adm. Harry Harris is visiting China for the first time as the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific.

Pacific Fleet and Pacific Command spokesmen declined to comment on the submarine encounter but did not deny that the incident occurred.

Additional details of the encounter—such as the type of submarine involved, whether it surfaced or remained submerged, and how close it came to the ship—could not be learned.

The nuclear-powered carrier is a symbol of U.S. power projection capabilities. China’s military has been attempting to drive the U.S. military out of Asia as part of efforts to assume the sole leadership role in the region.

One defense official said the detection of the submarine set off alarm bells on the Reagan, although it could not be learned whether anti-submarine warfare aircraft were launched to locate and track the vessel.

Other defense officials said the Reagan’s recent submarine encounter appeared similar to China’s stalking of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk in 2006.

During that incident, a Song-class attack submarine surfaced undetected within torpedo range of the Kitty Hawk on Oct. 26, 2006—nearly nine years to the day of the recent Reagan encounter.

The 2006 incident also was disclosed during the visit to China by Adm. Gary Roughead, then-commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

China is known to use its military forces to send political messages and it appears that the Reagan incident also was timed to the expected navigation operation in the South China Sea and to Harris’ visit.

Harris has been a forceful advocate within the military for challenging China’s claims to vast areas of the South China Sea. He told a Senate hearing in September that “the South China Sea is no more China’s than the Gulf of Mexico is Mexico’s.”

Harris visited U.S. troops in South Korea over the weekend and took part in the annual U.S.-South Korea Military Committee Meeting and Security Consultative Meeting in Seoul.

On Monday, Harris traveled to Beijing for a three-day visit and talks with Chinese military leaders. He was scheduled to speak at Peking University on Monday.

“Sustained military-to-military dialogue between the U.S. and China is designed to maximize cooperation on areas of mutual interest while candidly addressing and managing disagreements,” the Pacific Command statement said.

Harris’ last visit to China took place in April 2014 when he took part in talks with the Chinese military on a Code of Unplanned Encounters at Sea in Qingdao, China. The code, which covers submarine-ship encounters, was approved in 2014.

It is not known whether the Chinese submarine followed safety guidelines outlined in the code during the Reagan encounter. The code is designed to prevent collisions at sea.

The Reagan and four other warships were on the way to conduct joint naval exercises with South Korean naval forces at the time of the Chinese submarine stalking.

The exercises were held Oct. 26 to Oct. 29 in waters around the southern end of the Korean peninsula. The carrier arrived Friday in Busan, South Korea, for a port call.

Accompanying the Reagan are the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville and the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers USS Fitzgerald and USS Mustin.

A Pacific Command statement issued Saturday said the Reagan is one of two carrier groups operating in the region. The second is the USS Roosevelt, which departed Singapore Oct. 28 on its way to San Diego.

The Reagan was “operating off the east coast of the Korean peninsula conducting routine bilateral training with the Republic of Korea navy,” the command statement said, adding that anti-submarine warfare training was part of the exercises.

“The U.S. routinely conducts carrier strike group operations in the waters around the Republic of Korea to exercise maritime maneuvers, strengthen the U.S.-ROK alliance, and improve regional security,” the statement said.

“The U.S. Navy maintains a presence in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region to help preserve peace and security and further our partnerships with friends and allies,” said Rear Adm. John Alexander, the Reagan’s commander. “Our forward presence contributes to freedom of navigation and lawful use of the sea, as well as furthers operational training and enables an exchange of culture, skills, and tactical knowledge.”

Rick Fisher, a Chinese military affairs analyst, said China’s willingness to use submarines to harass U.S. large warship demonstrates that the Navy needs more submarines for escort missions.

It also highlights the need for additional U.S. attack submarines as Los Angeles-class submarines are retired and are not replaced quickly enough by newer Virginia-class vessels.

“The importance of our aircraft carriers was just demonstrated in the South China Sea,” said Fisher, with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.

“While most press attention focused on the freedom of navigation exercise of the destroyer USS Lassen, the larger story was the fact that the destroyer was covered by the presence of the aircraft carrier USS Roosevelt,” he added. “The carrier was deployed to ensure that China was deterred from attacking or substantially harassing the destroyer.”

Fisher said that he expects China’s attack submarine fleet to begin increasing in size.

“The PLA may build up to 14 of their third-generation Type 095 SSN, which might add up to a total SSN fleet of about 20,” he said, using the military designation for attack submarine.

“Inasmuch as the U.S. may only be able to spare about 30 SSNs for its Pacific-based forces, this could greatly stress the U.S. submarine fleet absent new construction,” he added.

A fleet of 30 attack submarines may limit continuous deployment of submarines to around 10, given the need for maintenance and for crew rotations.

Chinese state-run media and military commentators have denounced the deployment of the Reagan, which replaced the carrier group led by the USS George Washington.


“The United States intends to strengthen its military superiority in order to frighten the neighboring countries of the disputed region, such as China, [North Korea], and Russia,” retired Chinese Rear Adm. Yin Zhuo told state television in September.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ing-islamic-state-with-simple-means-in-syria/

U.S.-Backed Forces Fighting Islamic State With ‘Simple Means’ in Syria

New program to combat terror group already faltering

BY: Morgan Chalfant
November 3, 2015 11:00 am

The alliance of ground forces the United States is now training and arming to fight the Islamic State in Syria after the failure of its $500 million Pentagon rebel training program is already facing difficulties.

According to interviews conducted by the New York Times, the alliance–called the Syrian Democratic Forces but largely composed of Kurdish fighters–is combating the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIL or ISIS) with “simple means.”

The Times reported:

One Arab commander, sitting near the earthen wall that separates [the town Ein Eissa] in Syria from the Islamic State’s front line, bitterly recalled being chased from his Syrian hometown by the jihadists and said he would do anything to reclaim that territory. But then he detailed a list of things his forces needed: ammunition, radios, heavy weapons and more American airstrikes. “This is the state of our fighters: trying to fight ISIS with simple means,” he said, pointing to a fighter in broken boots, tattered fatigues and a dirty sweatshirt that read “Skateboarding ruined my life.”

The Syrian Democratic Forces also do not have their own bases or even a defined command structure, according to Talal Sillu, a spokesman for the alliance of fighters. Sillu said that only one person–himself–has been selected to serve on the six-person military council supposed to command the allied fighters.

The program also faces a larger challenge stemming from the fact that Kurdish forces make up the bulk of the alliance which is supposed to combat IS in predominantly Arab areas.

The U.S. announced the new plan to support groups fighting IS terrorists after shuttering the Pentagon program to arm and train Syrian rebels last month. The program, for which Congress had approved $500 million in funding, had produced no more than five U.S.-trained rebels fighting the terror group. Initially, the Defense Department’s goal was to train up to 5,400 Syrian troops in 2015.

The White House announced last week that it is also sending a small number of U.S. special operations forces into Syria to help support the Syrian Democratic Forces as they combat IS.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.politico.eu/article/six-takeaways-turkish-elections-akp-victory-november-erdogan/

Forum

6 takeaways from the Turkish elections

A defiant Erdoðan rides back to power on a wave of violence.

By Aykan Erdemir
| 11/1/15, 10:45 PM CET
| Updated 11/2/15, 2:24 PM CET

ANKARA — After losing their single-party majority for the first time in 12 years, the Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) returned to power after a five-month intermission. Turkey’s supposedly nonpartisan president Recep Tayyip Erdoðan has demonstrated his mastery of politics by winning the election gamble to lead his party back to government. Although the AKP has failed to win the super-majority needed to unilaterally impose an executive presidential system tailor-made for Erdoðan, the party regained a clear mandate to rule Turkey for the next four years.

1. Violence wins

Since the June elections, Turkish politics has been marred by intimidation and violence, by the Turkish state, the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) and the Islamic State, leading to hundreds of casualties. Erdoðan seems to have ridden the wave of mayhem back to power by taking the votes of Turkish nationalists away from the far-right MHP and of religious Kurds from the pro-Kurdish HDP. The AKP’s promise of strong leadership, security and stability seems to have struck a chord with an electorate deeply worried about Turkey’s spiraling into violence in a volatile region. Ironically, the PKK’s fight against Erdoðan helped him back into power. But the PKK could, now, step back from the unilateral ceasefire it declared in the aftermath of ISIL’s Ankara bombing on October 10 and return to its tradition of violence.

2. Turkey descends further into competitive authoritarianism

Although the AKP lost its single-party majority in June, the party has managed to rule Turkey for the last five months without sharing power with the opposition, with the exception of a 25-day term when it had two HDP ministers. The AKP used the five-month run-up to the snap elections to crack down on opposition NGOs and businesses, take over critical media, and intimidate journalists and opposition figures, and this strategy has seemed to produce significant gains for Erdoðan. He will most likely try to settle scores with the remaining critical media, businesses and NGOs, thus further undermining Turkey’s democracy, rights and freedoms, and rule of law. The next general elections, expected to take place in 2019, could end up being the most unfair and fraudulent elections to date.

3. The Peoples’ Democracy Party (HDP) is here to stay

The HDP was the first pro-Kurdish party in Turkish history to pass the 10 percent threshold to gain representation in parliament. Although the failure of the Kurdish peace process and the escalation of the PKK violence have presented significant challenges for the HDP, the party managed to clear the threshold again, albeit with significant losses. The HDP became the first pro-Kurdish party to win seats in the Turkish parliament. If the party can do some soul-searching to question the PKK’s hardline tactics that have, unfortunately, served Erdoðan’s authoritarian ambitions, it could be integrated further into the Turkish political system…

4. Turkey’s far-right Nationalist Action Party (MHP) has committed suicide

Turkey’s far-right nationalists were hoping to make notable gains, capitalizing on the Turkish reaction to the rise of PKK violence. To their dismay, they lost a quarter of their votes. This, however, was a disaster in the making. Since the June elections, the MHP refused to enter into any coalition, failed to undertake proactive policies and purged most of its competent members from candidate lists. Although the MHP leadership expected the party’s staunchly ideological grassroots to remain loyal to the party no matter what, they were shocked to learn that even far-right voters hold their leaders accountable.


TURKEY-POLITICS-VOTE
Also On Politico

Erdoðan regains majority rule
Laurens Cerulus

TURKEY-POLITICS
Also On Politico

Erdoðan pushes Turkey to the brink
Melik Kaylan


5. A Pyrrhic victory for the AKP

The AKP leadership and cadres seem to be jubilant with a landslide victory that no pollster saw coming. The results, however, could push the party further toward authoritarian excesses and reprisals against the opposition. If the AKP continues on its path to undermine Turkey’s rule of law, free markets, and media freedoms, the country could melt down further into the toxic climate of authoritarianism. If the elections end up highlighting Turkey’s image as a grudgingly democratic authoritarian regime, it could turn into a Pyrrhic victory for the AKP as it suffers the economic costs and political consequences of Turkey’s drift away from the transatlantic world.

6. This could be the beginning of the end for Davutoðlu-Erdoðan duo

These elections failed to provide Erdoðan with the super-majority he needed to bestow upon himself the executive presidential powers he covets. Prime minister Davutoðlu, however, has won a significant victory, proving his leadership skills and strengthening his credentials within the AKP. Can these two leaders continue to work in harmony? Will Davutoðlu feel tired of working under the tutelage and shadow of Erdoðan? If the two fail to arrive at a modus vivendi about the future parameters of power sharing, election celebrations could soon lead to brutal infighting in the AKP ranks, adding further fuel to Turkey’s political chaos and conflict.

Aykan Erdemir is a former member of the Turkish Parliament for the Social-democrat CHP and a nonresident senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington. He currently teaches at Bilkent University in Ankara.

This article was updated to reflect the most current election results.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/turkey-targets-supporters-erdogan-foe-police-raids-110706961.html

Turkey targets supporters of Erdogan foe in police raids

Reuters
By Daren Butler | Reuters – 11 hours ago.

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkish police detained dozens of people including senior police officers and bureaucrats allegedly linked to President Tayyip Erdogan's foe Fethullah Gulen on Tuesday, widening a campaign against the exiled Muslim cleric after Sunday's election.

The prosecutor's office in the western city of Izmir said it ordered the arrest of 57 people believed to be members of the "Gulenist terror group", on allegations they sought a purge of the army by engineering a 2012 espionage trial.

Gulen was the "number one" suspect in the latest investigation, according to the Dogan news agency.

The operation came two days after the AK Party, which Erdogan founded, secured a return to single-party rule, in an election result he portrayed as a vote for stability but which opponents fear heralds growing authoritarianism.

Police detained 44 of the suspects in dawn raids, including a former Izmir police chief and three state governors, in an operation covering 18 provinces, state-run Anadolu Agency said. Arrest warrants were issued for the other 13.

The 2012 espionage case involved the trial of 357 people, including soldiers, accused of possessing secret military information and documents. Those defendants have been released but the case continues.

The Izmir prosecutor's office said in a statement there was "serious evidence" that the 57 suspects sought to use the 2012 case to orchestrate a purge in the state bureaucracy and the military.

During his early years as prime minister, Erdogan sought to tame the power of an army which had dominated Turkish politics for decades. Gulen, then his ally, was widely held to have helped in the process through his influence in the judiciary.

The drive was epitomized by high-profile trials of those who allegedly plotted to overthrow his government. Officials suggest those cases were brought by police and prosecutors close to Gulen. Gulen denies such allegations.

Erdogan turned against Gulen and launched a crackdown against his followers after police and prosecutors seen as sympathetic to the cleric opened a corruption investigation into Erdogan's inner circle in 2013.

The cleric has lived in exile in the United States since 1999 and is himself the subject of arrest warrants in Turkey. A prosecutor is seeking a prison sentence of up to 34 years on allegations that he sought to topple Erdogan. Gulen also denies that allegation.

Erdogan's campaign against Gulen continued in the months leading up to Sunday's election. On Oct. 27, Turkish authorities took over the management of companies including newspapers and TV stations linked to the cleric.

(Writing by Daren Butler; Editing by Nick Tattersall, David Dolan and Raissa Kasolowsky)

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Hasan Sari ‏@HasanSari7 19m19 minutes ago

�� President of King Abdullah City for Atomic & Renewable Energy Dr. Hashim Yamani reveals #Saudi exceeded 'limited uranium enrichment phase'

 

[Lilbitsnana]

BeyondTheLevant Retweeted
Daniele Raineri ‏@DanieleRaineri 12m12 minutes ago

U.S. government approves Italy's request to arm its two Reaper drones http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...pe=RSS&feedName=worldNews#0fmwFZBEiCGm5ib6.97 …


posted for fair use
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...pe=RSS&feedName=worldNews#0fmwFZBEiCGm5ib6.97

Wed Nov 4, 2015 9:03am EST
Related: World, Italy, Aerospace & Defense
U.S. government approves Italy's request to arm its drones

WASHINGTON | By Andrea Shalal

A General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper stands on the runway during ''Black Dart'', a live-fly, live fire demonstration of 55 unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, at Naval Base Ventura County Sea Range, Point Mugu, near Oxnard, California July 31, 2015.
Reuters/Patrick T. Fallon

The U.S. State Department has approved a longstanding request from Italy to arm its two MQ-9 Reaper drones with Hellfire missiles, laser-guided bombs and other munitions, two U.S. officials said Wednesday.

This would be the first sale of armed drones approved since the U.S. government established a policy in February for exports of the new type of weapons that have played a key role in U.S. military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen.

Italy would be only the second country to be approved to buy armed drones after Britain, which has been using them since 2007, according to the officials who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly ahead of a formal announcement later Wednesday.

The Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified U.S. lawmakers late Tuesday about the possible sale, which is valued at $129.6 million, with privately held General Atomics to serve as the prime contractor, the officials said.

Italy has been asking the United States since 2012 to add weapons to two unarmed MQ-9 Reapers, whose sale was first approved in 2009. Turkey has also requested to buy armed drones from the United States.

Initially U.S. lawmakers had concerns, ultimately spurring an interagency review that produced the new drone export policy.

U.S. lawmakers have 15 days to block the sale but such action is rare since deals are carefully vetted before Congress is formally notified.

The proposed sale includes 156 AGM-114R2 Hellfire II missiles built by Lockheed Martin Corp, 20 GBU-12 laser-guided bombs, 30 GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and other armaments, according to the officials.

One official said any exports of drones, armed or not, require a case-by-case assessment and close scrutiny, but the sale was ultimately approved because Italy was a key ally and partner of the United States.

"It's not a decision we've taken lightly, and it's symbolic of our trust in Italy as a partner," the official said. "Italy is a responsible member of the international community and they have been with us in every significant recent NATO and U.S.-led operation."

Italy asked for the drones to support NATO and coalition operations, increase operational flexibility, and better protect deployed Italian forces.

The new U.S. export policy maintains "a strong presumption of denial" of sales of the biggest drones like the MQ-9 - Category I aircraft that have a range of at least 300 km (186 miles) and can carry a payload of at least 500 kg (1,102 pounds). It allows such exports on rare occasions.

Under the policy, buyers of military drones must agree to strict conditions, including a ban on using the drones for unlawful surveillance or to crack down on their domestic populations.

(Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

 

[vestige]

Germany is in deep sh*t.

My last correspondence with an old friend there indicated (approx 4 years ago) things were going downhill fast.

No one will admit it but the only thing going for Germany is the strong nationalist movement. Unfortunately they are labeled as neo nazis.

Similar things here in U.S.

Stand back and watch.

 

[Housecarl]

Hasan Sari ‏@HasanSari7 19m19 minutes ago

�� President of King Abdullah City for Atomic & Renewable Energy Dr. Hashim Yamani reveals #Saudi exceeded 'limited uranium enrichment phase'

Well so much for that "Iran Agreement"; nevermind the NPT.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/11/china-clones-its-way-to-military-dominance/

China ‘Clones’ Its Way to Military Dominance

Comments
Posted by Vijeta Uniyal
Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 11:35am

Asian giant using espionage and reverse engineering to copy advance US defense technology

China has been a global hub for manufacturing counterfeit electronics and consumer goods, but as the Asian giant asserts its dominance in the Asian Pacific and beyond, its defense establishment is using the same approach to modernise its vast armed forces.

Despite its large standing and reserve army, Chinese Armed Forces technologically lags behind US, Russian and NATO forces. China has decided to manufacture ‘counterfeit’ high-end defense technology on a large scale to overcome its existing strategic weakness. According to a recent report published by the US Naval Institute, China is using military espionage and reverse engineering to build a modern army with “cloned weapons.”

Using cyber espionage and by making secret deals with US arms buyers, China has managed to obtain advance US weapons technology. China is reportedly also targeting Russia in its quest for high-end military technology. The Chinese often buy single units of Russian advanced military systems on a “trial” basis and reverse-engineer the weaponry to produce a large-scale Chinese version:

China’s expanding military and growing assertiveness has been bolstered by weapons cloned from the arsenals of other countries. Bleeding edge U.S. aircraft including the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Northrop Grumman X-47B unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) have Chinese counterparts that are remarkably similar. Some of the technology used in these designs was almost certainly acquired through a vigorous Chinese cyber spying campaign.

U.S. Defense officials have stated that Chinese military hackers undertaking “technical reconnaissance” have succeeded in pilfering highly classified technical documents on a number of occasions. The sensitive technical data that is known to have been compromised is now evident in the latest versions of several Chinese weapons.

Officials also suspect that China has managed to obtain valuable technical advances by making backroom deals with U.S. allies that bought American weapons. It is for this reason that the U.S. decided not to export the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor stealth fighter. [USNI News, October 27, 2015]

China’s new knock off armoury includes US-designed fighter jets, Predator drones, Humvees, tanks and infantry weapons. The country is financing this counterfeit weapons program by selling its knockoff weapons in the international market.

There might be one downside to this Chinese proposition. The US Naval Institute’s report doubted the quality of Chinese counterfeit weapon systems. The report quoted senior naval analyst Eric Wertheim, saying, “I think the big issue with all Chinese weapons – including copies of Western equipment – is that they remain untested in combat.” Considering the sophistication of Chinese operation, it could only be a matter of time before Chinese engineers and manufacturers locate the bugs and smooth out the glitches.

Why go through the trouble and risk of counterfeiting military technology? It could be a question of territorial dominance. Since the days of the Communist China’s founder Mao Tse-tung, China has made territorial claims on Japanese Islands and Indian border provinces.

China wants control over oil-rich Japanese islands located in the east of Chinese mainland. In recent years, the Chinese Navy has aggressively patrolled the neighbouring waters and has even started creating artificial islands to operate as advance air- and military bases in the South China Sea.

To restrict India’s maritime reach, China is busy building naval bases across the Indian Ocean. With the completion of Gwadar Port in Pakistan, China is set to acquire a naval outpost as far out as the Arabian Sea.

These aggressive moves coupled with growing military capabilities, give China control over some of the world’s busiest commercial shipping lanes and strategic bases. And while President Obama has been busy talking “global leadership” on Climate Change and sustainability, China is ‘cloning’ its way to global military dominance.

(Cover Image courtesy BBC News, YouTube screenshot)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/evelyn-farkas-russia-pentagon-215517

Pentagon's top Russia expert says her calls for tougher policy were overrruled

By Austin Wright
11/04/15 11:58 AM EST
Comments 11

The Pentagon's former top Russia policy expert, who stepped down last week, says she worked behind the scenes to get the Obama administration to take a harder line with Moscow over its forays into Ukraine and Syria but was overruled — and remains concerned that Russian President Vladimir Putin will test the U.S. and its allies in other places.

Evelyn Farkas, who served as deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia until last Friday, made clear in an exit interview with reporters on Wednesday that her departure "was not motivated by policy differences.”

But she said she advocated, unsuccessfully, for the administration to do more to deter Russia, including providing “lethal, defensive assistance to Ukraine, primarily anti-tank weapons.”

She also said that the administration should review its force posture in Europe and consider putting more troops further east and that top U.S. officials should spend more time in the region.

“We need more high-level attention being paid to the countries that feel directly threatened by Russia,” Farkas said.

Farkas announced last month her decision to leave the Pentagon after five years, during which she advised three secretaries of Defense and played a major role in securing $244 million in military support for Ukraine. Her departure comes at a sensitive time for the administration, which is struggling to figure out how to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine and its new bombing campaign against Syrian rebels to prop up Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Farkas said she was proud of her work at the Defense Department but painted a grim picture of U.S. relations with Russia.

She said she believes Putin is seeking to be a counter to the United States on the world stage and that Ukraine and Syria might not be the last of his military adventures.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if he tried to counter-balance us elsewhere,” she said, noting that there was some concern in the administration that if Putin saw an opening, he might try to “test NATO.”

She added: “I do think that we need to, unfortunately, do a better job of really understanding what Russia and the Kremlin’s interests are. They have, thus far, prioritized their security interests over their economic interests.”

She insisted, though, that she wasn’t leaving the administration with any hard feelings, explaining that now was “a good time personally for me to leave.”

“I will say that certainly I advocated for things internally, and I have personal views that may be further afield or may be slightly different from what the current administration position is, but I’ve always felt that I gave my advice and was listened to and we had a full hearing and we have a very healthy inter-agency process.”

She demurred when asked about her post-Pentagon plans.

“I’m going to take my time to decide exactly what is next, and I’ll leave it at that,” Farkas said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/11/04/turkey-politics-presidency-idINKCN0ST10A20151104

World | Wed Nov 4, 2015 8:52pm IST
Related: World

Flush with victory, combative Erdogan demands Turkey constitution change

ANKARA | By Ece Toksabay and Tulay Karadeniz


Flush with an election victory, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan demanded constitutional change that he wants to gain sweeping powers, and vowed to "liquidate" Kurdish guerrillas in a defiant speech that gave no quarter to those hoping for conciliation.

Three days after the Islamist-rooted AK Party he founded won back the mandate to govern alone in a surprise landslide, Erdogan used Wednesday's speech to make clear military action in the largely Kurdish southeast would not end any time soon.

The election victory also puts him closer to his dream of changing Turkey's constitution to consolidate power in the hands of the presidency, a move his opponents fear would enable an already authoritarian leader to govern unchecked.

Turkey's dominant political figure, Erdogan served as prime minister for more than a decade before being elected president last year.

He aims to transform the previously ceremonial office into that of a chief executive, a Turkish take on a Russian or U.S.-style presidency. That goal was set back when the AKP lost its parliamentary majority in June but is again within reach after Sunday's surprisingly strong comeback in an election rerun.

He said Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu would consult opposition leaders on rewriting the constitution, and he would back any parliament decision to hold a referendum on changes.

"One of the most important messages of Nov. 1 is that Turkey needs to solve the new constitution issue as soon as possible," Erdogan said in a speech to hundreds of "muhtars", local administrators generally loyal to the government.

"I hope that opposition parties will not fail to contribute to the work on this. If they try to block it, they will give account for it at the next election in four years."

He did not directly refer to presidential powers, but has long made clear those were the changes he seeks.

"The executive presidency is as important as the new constitution for Turkey's growth," Deputy Prime Minister Yalcin Akdogan, a long-standing Erdogan advisor, said on Tuesday.

"This is one of the issues on which we will not give up."


"MAKE LIFE UNBEARABLE"

With an election cycle stretching back almost two years now behind him, many Turks wondered whether Erdogan would tone down his combative leadership style and adopt a less polarising tone. Wednesday's speech suggested not.

"For whoever wants to make life unbearable for us, we will make life unbearable for them," he said, in apparent reference to violence between the security forces and Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) militants in the southeast.

He pledged to continue operations against the PKK until every last insurgent was "liquidated".

Turkey launched military action against the Kurdish insurgents in July in response to what it said was a surge in attacks on the security forces, leaving a ceasefire in tatters. Hundreds have since died.

Many Turks viewed the crackdown as an attempt to win back nationalist votes, but there has been no sign that the campaign will be eased now that voting is over.

Two soldiers and 15 militants were killed in clashes on Wednesday, the general staff said, a day after the military carried out new air strikes on PKK camps. A 20-year-old man was shot dead in the town of Silvan, where authorities ordered a round-the-clock curfew in three neighbourhoods for a second successive day.


OPPONENTS STUNNED

Erdogan's opponents - from liberal secularists suspicious of his Islamist ideals to left-leaning Kurds who blame him for resurgent violence in the southeast - were stunned by the AKP's strong election victory, which defied forecasts by pollsters and even the party's own strategists.

While the party fell short of the super-majority it would need to change the constitution unopposed, it won 317 of 550 seats, only 13 short of the number needed to call a referendum on constitutional changes.

Erdogan has cast the outcome as a vote for stability at a time when Turkey is battling PKK militants, fending off a threat from Islamic State in Syria and coping with an influx of more than 2 million refugees, just as economic growth slows.

Those close to Erdogan say a presidential system would give Turkey the firm leadership it needs to prosper and argue that the constitution, born of a 1980 coup and still bearing the stamp of its military authors, badly needs replacing.

Opposition parties agree on the need for a new constitution but do not back the presidential system envisaged by Erdogan.

His spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin, rejected suggestions that the proposed change was simply an attempt to grab power.

"The executive presidency is not a question of our president's personal future. He has already entered the history books. The basic motivation is to make the system in Turkey as effective as possible," Kalin told a news conference.

Kalin indicated there would also be little change in Turkey's foreign policy following Sunday's election, saying an "open-door" policy to refugees from Syria would continue whether or not it received assistance from the European Union.

Turkey is under pressure from the EU, which it aspires to join, to do more to keep refugees on its soil and help stem the biggest migration to Western Europe since World War Two. The EU has proposed financial aid and accelerated membership talks for Turkey in the hope of winning its help.


(Additional reporting by Jonny Hogg in Ankara; Writing by Nick Tattersall)