8 New Messages
Digest #4497
Messages
Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:56 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
September 21, 2012
West tests double standards on Syria
Konstantin Garibov
The West is testing its double standard policy on Syria. That’s how Russian experts have reacted to the reports that Western countries are planning to supply a large batch of heavy arms to the Syrian opposition and also that the United States has tightened sanctions against a Belarusian company which it suspects of supplying weapons to Damascus.
At the latest session of the so-called Friends of Syria Group in the Netherlands, representatives of more than 60 European and Arab countries called for boosting military support to opponents of the Bashar Assad regime. The possibility of bringing more groups of anti-Assad mercenaries into the country was also discussed.
Simultaneously, the United States slapped new sanctions against a Belarusian company, Belvneshpromservis, for the alleged arms supplies to Syria. Minsk refuted the allegations, seeing them as part of pressure on Belarus for having repeatedly spoken out in favor of a peaceful solution to the crisis.
Sergei Demidenko, an expert at the Institute for Strategic Assessments and Analysts, comments the issue:
"This is a standard situation. The Americans said nothing new but just accentuated their stance. And not just the Americans, but also that part of the global pool which campaigns for the overthrow of the Assad regime. They will make all sorts of verbal declarations in support of a political solution, while at the same time continuing to help the opposition. So here we once again came across double standards."
Yevgeny Satanovsky, President of the Institute of Middle East Studies in Moscow, remarked that the Americans had always practiced double standards towards virtually any conflict on the planet.
"It’s a U.S. foreign policy tradition that doesn’t pertain only to the civil war in Syria. As for Syria, the foreign policy task has been set – to remove Assad. That’s why, everything that helps the anti-Assad militants and terrorists is supported or ignored, while everything that helps government troops is condemned and punished with sanctions."
In this situation, Russia has renewed its calls for internal political dialogue in Syria without outside interference. Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov reiterated Moscow’s position during a meeting with Syrian ambassador to Russia Riyad Haddad. The ambassador thanked Russia for humanitarian supplies to Syrian civilians.
On Friday morning, a relief plane of the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry landed in Damascus. It brought 38 tons of food. Earlier, a similar batch of humanitarian aid was handed over to the Syrian Red Cross Society. The Russian Foreign Ministry has urged all countries that proclaimed themselves true friends of Syria to follow suit.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
September 21, 2012
West tests double standards on Syria
Konstantin Garibov
The West is testing its double standard policy on Syria. That’s how Russian experts have reacted to the reports that Western countries are planning to supply a large batch of heavy arms to the Syrian opposition and also that the United States has tightened sanctions against a Belarusian company which it suspects of supplying weapons to Damascus.
At the latest session of the so-called Friends of Syria Group in the Netherlands, representatives of more than 60 European and Arab countries called for boosting military support to opponents of the Bashar Assad regime. The possibility of bringing more groups of anti-Assad mercenaries into the country was also discussed.
Simultaneously, the United States slapped new sanctions against a Belarusian company, Belvneshpromservis, for the alleged arms supplies to Syria. Minsk refuted the allegations, seeing them as part of pressure on Belarus for having repeatedly spoken out in favor of a peaceful solution to the crisis.
Sergei Demidenko, an expert at the Institute for Strategic Assessments and Analysts, comments the issue:
"This is a standard situation. The Americans said nothing new but just accentuated their stance. And not just the Americans, but also that part of the global pool which campaigns for the overthrow of the Assad regime. They will make all sorts of verbal declarations in support of a political solution, while at the same time continuing to help the opposition. So here we once again came across double standards."
Yevgeny Satanovsky, President of the Institute of Middle East Studies in Moscow, remarked that the Americans had always practiced double standards towards virtually any conflict on the planet.
"It’s a U.S. foreign policy tradition that doesn’t pertain only to the civil war in Syria. As for Syria, the foreign policy task has been set – to remove Assad. That’s why, everything that helps the anti-Assad militants and terrorists is supported or ignored, while everything that helps government troops is condemned and punished with sanctions."
In this situation, Russia has renewed its calls for internal political dialogue in Syria without outside interference. Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov reiterated Moscow’s position during a meeting with Syrian ambassador to Russia Riyad Haddad. The ambassador thanked Russia for humanitarian supplies to Syrian civilians.
On Friday morning, a relief plane of the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry landed in Damascus. It brought 38 tons of food. Earlier, a similar batch of humanitarian aid was handed over to the Syrian Red Cross Society. The Russian Foreign Ministry has urged all countries that proclaimed themselves true friends of Syria to follow suit.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:56 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.globalti
Global Times
September 21, 2012
Election rhetoric drives China to speak out
====
The provocations by these presidential candidates are too much for the Chinese people to bear. US politicians show an indifferent attitude toward the feelings of the Chinese people. China should not turn a blind eye to such provocations.
====
The campaigns for the US presidential election is well underway. Both the Republican candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are competing for the toughest stance involving China. Romney promised to take action against China on his first day in office if elected, and Obama took the relay baton by bringing up a trade case at the WTO against China's automobile industry.
It's an old story, China becoming a political card to play in US elections. This year, Romney and Obama seem to be playing it more heavily.
China has been blamed for the US' falling unemployment rate and taking jobs from Americans.
Friction on trade issues between China and the US will escalate thanks to the election, and mutual political mistrust may deepen.
The provocations by these presidential candidates are too much for the Chinese people to bear. US politicians show an indifferent attitude toward the feelings of the Chinese people. China should not turn a blind eye to such provocations. No matter who the current president or candidate is, they should respect China. They should mind what they say.
The words uttered by Romney are like those of young cynics on the Internet. If he does what he has promised, he will become a president that holds extremely nationalistic views toward trade with China and may trigger a trade war between the two nations. The US economy, in its current state, wouldn't be able to stand such consequences.
There is too much China-bashing going on in the US elections. The things these politicians have promised are not likely to be realized based upon past experience, but the promises are still very disturbing.
Their speeches are misleading the American public, who will have more complaints or even resentment toward China.
With mutual discontent accumulating, the slogans politicians have chanted may become real actions. Many international conflicts stem from the showmanship of politicians.
As US elections often involve China-bashing, China cannot remain out of the affair. China should play a role in the elections and correct the attitude of both candidates and the American public toward China.
US elections should not be a playground where China is demonized. As the elections bring American attention toward China, China should make an effort to improve its image rather than remain silent over how it is portrayed by the candidates.
------------
http://www.globalti
Global Times
September 21, 2012
Noda playing with fire over Diaoyu
Yoshihiko Noda has reinforced his position amid rocky relations between China and Japan after winning the election of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan on Friday.
Noda is mistaken if he believes pushing for the "nationalization" of the Diaoyu Islands and escalating tensions assure him political gains. It may also suggest that Japan has taken the wrong track.
If political maneuvering - garnering votes through orchestrating diplomatic crises and displays of muscle-flexing - prevails or becomes a common aspiration among politicians in a certain country, the country's politics must have gone wrong. And this seems to be the case for Japan.
Japan describes China, a country that has been subject to its aggression, never engaged in any warfare in the past decades and does not possess any overseas military base, as a threat. Japan has taken increasingly hostile views toward China. It adopts a proactive and aggressive posture when dealing with China and has initiated all provocations. Japan is pushing bilateral ties to the brink of strategic confrontation.
The current tensions are focused on the Diaoyu Islands, a thorny issue that could cause bigger damage with less room for maneuver. Noda is undoubtedly behind such escalation of frictions.
His reelection as the DPJ party chief could mean a longer term for him as prime minister. If a tendency for confrontational ideology and policies takes root during his tenure, Japan will find itself leaning closer to another strategic track, away from the cause enshrined in its Peace Constitution and rational diplomacy.
The Noda administration has showed unprecedented rudeness and blind stubbornness over the Diaoyu Islands spat. It recklessly touches upon the sensitivity of bilateral ties, ignoring the possible strong reaction from China and the new balance of power. If it is true that Noda was surprised by China's reaction, he must take the issue seriously from now on.
He must consider China's overwhelming resolution in defending its sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands and the strategic emphasis on the issue.
Noda also needs to realize that China is no longer a weak opponent, regardless of the role of the US in the matter. Strategic confrontation is not a choice for Japan.
Churning out votes by masterminding diplomatic tensions has been an eye-opener for many Chinese. It is a luxury to expect these politicians to act in line with their consciences. But we hope that Japanese and Western politicians can honor a bottom line. If they dare to risk anything for personal political gains, China will give them a taste of bitterness.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Global Times
September 21, 2012
Election rhetoric drives China to speak out
====
The provocations by these presidential candidates are too much for the Chinese people to bear. US politicians show an indifferent attitude toward the feelings of the Chinese people. China should not turn a blind eye to such provocations.
====
The campaigns for the US presidential election is well underway. Both the Republican candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are competing for the toughest stance involving China. Romney promised to take action against China on his first day in office if elected, and Obama took the relay baton by bringing up a trade case at the WTO against China's automobile industry.
It's an old story, China becoming a political card to play in US elections. This year, Romney and Obama seem to be playing it more heavily.
China has been blamed for the US' falling unemployment rate and taking jobs from Americans.
Friction on trade issues between China and the US will escalate thanks to the election, and mutual political mistrust may deepen.
The provocations by these presidential candidates are too much for the Chinese people to bear. US politicians show an indifferent attitude toward the feelings of the Chinese people. China should not turn a blind eye to such provocations. No matter who the current president or candidate is, they should respect China. They should mind what they say.
The words uttered by Romney are like those of young cynics on the Internet. If he does what he has promised, he will become a president that holds extremely nationalistic views toward trade with China and may trigger a trade war between the two nations. The US economy, in its current state, wouldn't be able to stand such consequences.
There is too much China-bashing going on in the US elections. The things these politicians have promised are not likely to be realized based upon past experience, but the promises are still very disturbing.
Their speeches are misleading the American public, who will have more complaints or even resentment toward China.
With mutual discontent accumulating, the slogans politicians have chanted may become real actions. Many international conflicts stem from the showmanship of politicians.
As US elections often involve China-bashing, China cannot remain out of the affair. China should play a role in the elections and correct the attitude of both candidates and the American public toward China.
US elections should not be a playground where China is demonized. As the elections bring American attention toward China, China should make an effort to improve its image rather than remain silent over how it is portrayed by the candidates.
------------
http://www.globalti
Global Times
September 21, 2012
Noda playing with fire over Diaoyu
Yoshihiko Noda has reinforced his position amid rocky relations between China and Japan after winning the election of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan on Friday.
Noda is mistaken if he believes pushing for the "nationalization" of the Diaoyu Islands and escalating tensions assure him political gains. It may also suggest that Japan has taken the wrong track.
If political maneuvering - garnering votes through orchestrating diplomatic crises and displays of muscle-flexing - prevails or becomes a common aspiration among politicians in a certain country, the country's politics must have gone wrong. And this seems to be the case for Japan.
Japan describes China, a country that has been subject to its aggression, never engaged in any warfare in the past decades and does not possess any overseas military base, as a threat. Japan has taken increasingly hostile views toward China. It adopts a proactive and aggressive posture when dealing with China and has initiated all provocations. Japan is pushing bilateral ties to the brink of strategic confrontation.
The current tensions are focused on the Diaoyu Islands, a thorny issue that could cause bigger damage with less room for maneuver. Noda is undoubtedly behind such escalation of frictions.
His reelection as the DPJ party chief could mean a longer term for him as prime minister. If a tendency for confrontational ideology and policies takes root during his tenure, Japan will find itself leaning closer to another strategic track, away from the cause enshrined in its Peace Constitution and rational diplomacy.
The Noda administration has showed unprecedented rudeness and blind stubbornness over the Diaoyu Islands spat. It recklessly touches upon the sensitivity of bilateral ties, ignoring the possible strong reaction from China and the new balance of power. If it is true that Noda was surprised by China's reaction, he must take the issue seriously from now on.
He must consider China's overwhelming resolution in defending its sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands and the strategic emphasis on the issue.
Noda also needs to realize that China is no longer a weak opponent, regardless of the role of the US in the matter. Strategic confrontation is not a choice for Japan.
Churning out votes by masterminding diplomatic tensions has been an eye-opener for many Chinese. It is a luxury to expect these politicians to act in line with their consciences. But we hope that Japanese and Western politicians can honor a bottom line. If they dare to risk anything for personal political gains, China will give them a taste of bitterness.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:56 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.apa.
Azeri Press Agency
September 20, 2012
One NATO soldier killed in S. Afghan attack
Baku: A NATO soldier was killed Thursday in an insurgent attack in the restive southern Afghanistan, APA reports quoting Xinhua.
"An International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) service member died following an insurgent attack in southern Afghanistan today," the NATO-led ISAF confirmed in a statement.
The brief statement did not disclose the nationality of the victim under the ISAF policy.
Troops mainly from U.S., Britain and Australia have been stationed in the southern region within the framework of ISAF to curb Taliban-linked insurgency there.
A total of 340 foreign soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan so far this year.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Azeri Press Agency
September 20, 2012
One NATO soldier killed in S. Afghan attack
Baku: A NATO soldier was killed Thursday in an insurgent attack in the restive southern Afghanistan, APA reports quoting Xinhua.
"An International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) service member died following an insurgent attack in southern Afghanistan today," the NATO-led ISAF confirmed in a statement.
The brief statement did not disclose the nationality of the victim under the ISAF policy.
Troops mainly from U.S., Britain and Australia have been stationed in the southern region within the framework of ISAF to curb Taliban-linked insurgency there.
A total of 340 foreign soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan so far this year.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:56 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.mod.
Ministry of Defence of Georgia
September 21, 2012
US Group of Experts visits MoD
A group of experts from the United States paid an official visit to Georgia.
The goal of the visit is to launch the implementation of a 6-point plan reached in the defence field between Georgia and USA. In the context of the agreement, the U.S.-Georgia partnership moves to the next phase of defence collaboration. In the beginning, the U.S. experts will provide advice and assistance to the Georgian side in strengthening air defence capabilities.
The visit aimed at providing a close study of air-defence potential on the ground and to analyze the existing environment while considering potential threats.
Within the 3-day visit in Georgia, the U.S. panel of experts became familiar with Georgian air defence capabilities. The experts held meetings with the top brass of the JS [Joint Staff] of MoD and inspected military facilities. On the next stage they will start working on a doctrine to foster further development and improvement of the Georgian air defence potential. At the final phase comes the writing of doctrine and development of an action plan.
The U.S. and Georgia agreement provides cooperation in the area of air defence, defensive combat engineering and utility helicopter aviation, all of which are of crucial importance for the national security. This cooperation will include training, education, advice and military equipment sales.
Execution of the 6-point agreement will significantly contribute to the enhancement of security and stability in Georgia. More exactly, Georgia will be protected from all directions-from air (operational air surveillance/
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Ministry of Defence of Georgia
September 21, 2012
US Group of Experts visits MoD
A group of experts from the United States paid an official visit to Georgia.
The goal of the visit is to launch the implementation of a 6-point plan reached in the defence field between Georgia and USA. In the context of the agreement, the U.S.-Georgia partnership moves to the next phase of defence collaboration. In the beginning, the U.S. experts will provide advice and assistance to the Georgian side in strengthening air defence capabilities.
The visit aimed at providing a close study of air-defence potential on the ground and to analyze the existing environment while considering potential threats.
Within the 3-day visit in Georgia, the U.S. panel of experts became familiar with Georgian air defence capabilities. The experts held meetings with the top brass of the JS [Joint Staff] of MoD and inspected military facilities. On the next stage they will start working on a doctrine to foster further development and improvement of the Georgian air defence potential. At the final phase comes the writing of doctrine and development of an action plan.
The U.S. and Georgia agreement provides cooperation in the area of air defence, defensive combat engineering and utility helicopter aviation, all of which are of crucial importance for the national security. This cooperation will include training, education, advice and military equipment sales.
Execution of the 6-point agreement will significantly contribute to the enhancement of security and stability in Georgia. More exactly, Georgia will be protected from all directions-from air (operational air surveillance/
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:56 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.mod.
Ministry of Defence of Georgia
September 21, 2012
Lieutenant-General Charles Kayonga Chief of Defence Staff of Rwanda visits MoD
Today, the minister of defence of Georgia has received the Chief of Defence Staff of the Republic of Rwanda Lieutenant-General Charles Kayonga. The goal of the Rwanda delegation`s visit is to become familiar with the structure and capabilities of the Georgian armed forces, as well as with the Georgian military industry.
At the meeting Dimitri Shashkini briefed the Rwanda`s top military official on the MoD priorities and defence reforms including those ones underway in military educational and industrial spheres. Minister of Defence also presented the 3T Concept of MoD to Rwanda delegation.
Within the framework of the visit, Mr. Kayonga also met with his Georgian colleague Chief of the Joint Staff of GAF Lieutenant-General Devi Chankotadze.
The visit of the delegation of the Republic of Rwanda in Georgia is due to end on October 24.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Ministry of Defence of Georgia
September 21, 2012
Lieutenant-General Charles Kayonga Chief of Defence Staff of Rwanda visits MoD
Today, the minister of defence of Georgia has received the Chief of Defence Staff of the Republic of Rwanda Lieutenant-General Charles Kayonga. The goal of the Rwanda delegation`s visit is to become familiar with the structure and capabilities of the Georgian armed forces, as well as with the Georgian military industry.
At the meeting Dimitri Shashkini briefed the Rwanda`s top military official on the MoD priorities and defence reforms including those ones underway in military educational and industrial spheres. Minister of Defence also presented the 3T Concept of MoD to Rwanda delegation.
Within the framework of the visit, Mr. Kayonga also met with his Georgian colleague Chief of the Joint Staff of GAF Lieutenant-General Devi Chankotadze.
The visit of the delegation of the Republic of Rwanda in Georgia is due to end on October 24.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:32 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.state.
U.S. Department of State
September 10, 2012
Growing Global Cooperation on Ballistic Missile Defense
Remarks by Frank A. Rose
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
Berlin, Germany
Edited by RR
====
Phase One gained its first operational elements in 2011 with the start of a sustained deployment of an Aegis BMD-capable multi-role ship to the Mediterranean in March 2011 and the deployment of an AN/TPY-2 radar in Turkey, which became operational in December 2011. Spain has also agreed to host four U.S. Aegis destroyers at the existing naval facility at Rota.
The Allies...welcomed the EPAA as the U.S. national contribution to the new NATO territorial missile defense capability, in support of our commitment to the collective self-defense of the Alliance under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
The AN/TPY-2 radar deployed in Turkey is now under NATO operational control. In addition, U.S. BMD-capable Aegis ships in Europe are also now able to operate under NATO operational control when threat conditions warrant.
In the Middle East, we are already cooperating with our key partners bilaterally and multilaterally through venues such as the recently established U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Security Cooperation Forum....Additional
[T]he United States and Japan already are working closely to develop jointly an advanced interceptor known as the SM-3 Blk IIA, and continue to work on enhancing interoperability between U.S. and Japanese forces. We are also continuing to discuss BMD bilaterally with the Republic of Korea and Australia and we recently had our annual meeting of the U.S.-Australia-
====
I would like to thank the Missile Defense Agency, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), and our German hosts for putting on this outstanding conference, which over the years has become a much anticipated annual event. It’s been a distinct honor to be invited to speak at this conference for three years running and my pleasure to once again represent the State Department this afternoon at this influential gathering of missile defense experts from more than twenty nations.
In June of this year, the United States conducted its second consecutive successful test of the SM-3 IB interceptor and the second generation Aegis BMD 4.0.1 weapon system. This success was a critical accomplishment for Phase Two of the EPAA, which will see SM-3 IBs deployed in Romania in the 2015 timeframe.
...
Implementation of the European Phased Adaptive Approach
At the State Department, I am responsible for overseeing a wide range of defense policy issues, including ballistic missile defense. For nearly three years, I have been focused on carrying out the vision articulated by the President when he announced in September 2009 that the EPAA would “provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's Allies,” while relying on “capabilities that are proven and cost-effective.” The EPAA will provide comprehensive protection for all of our NATO European Allies and augment the defense of the U.S. homeland.
As laid out in the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, “[t]he United States seeks to create an environment in which the development, acquisition, deployment, and use of ballistic missiles by regional adversaries can be deterred, principally by eliminating their confidence in the effectiveness of such attacks.”
Creating this new strategic environment depends on strong cooperation with our allies and partners. In order to make this vision a reality, President Obama has made international cooperation on missile defense a key priority, and we are pursuing a region-by-region approach based on the following three principles:
...
[R]ecognizing that our supply of BMD assets cannot meet the global demand we face, the United States is developing mobile capabilities that can be relocated to adapt to changing regional threats and provide surge defense capabilities where they are most needed.
In implementing this approach in Europe, we designed the EPAA to protect our deployed forces and Allies in Europe...
...
EPAA Phase One gained its first operational elements in 2011 with the start of a sustained deployment of an Aegis BMD-capable multi-role ship to the Mediterranean in March 2011 and the deployment of an AN/TPY-2 radar in Turkey, which became operational in December 2011. Spain has also agreed to host four U.S. Aegis destroyers at the existing naval facility at Rota. These multi-mission ships will support the EPAA as well as other EUCOM and NATO maritime missions.
For Phase Two of the EPAA, we have an agreement with Romania to host a U.S. land-based SM-3 interceptor site beginning in the 2015 timeframe...
We also have an agreement with Poland to place a similar land-based interceptor site there, including the SM-3 IIA, in the 2018 timeframe for Phase Three of the EPAA, which will extend BMD protection to all of NATO Europe.
[T]he Department of Defense has begun concept development of a more advanced interceptor, known as the SM-3 IIB, which will be deployed in EPAA Phase Four in the 2021 timeframe. The SM-3 IIB will provide an intercept capability against intermediate-
Cooperation with NATO Allies
...To better achieve this end, the Obama Administration is implementing the EPAA within the NATO context.
At the 2010 Lisbon Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government approved a new Strategic Concept and took the historic decision to develop the capability to defend NATO European populations and territory against the increasing threat posed by ballistic missile proliferation. The Allies also welcomed the EPAA as the U.S. national contribution to the new NATO territorial missile defense capability, in support of our commitment to the collective self-defense of the Alliance under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
At the Lisbon Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government also decided to expand the scope of the NATO Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) program to serve as the command, control, and communications network to support this new capability. NATO Allies have committed to investing over $1 billion in ALTBMD to support NATO missile defense. NATO’s plan for missile defense is based on the principle that individual Allies will make voluntary national contributions of BMD sensors and interceptor systems, capabilities that will be integrated into the NATO ALTBMD command and control backbone. As with any national contribution, Allies are responsible for the costs associated with their own contributions.
On May 20-21 of this year, the NATO Heads of State and Government met in Chicago for the NATO Summit and announced that NATO had achieved an interim BMD capability. This means that the Alliance has an operationally meaningful standing peacetime BMD capability. NATO also agreed on the BMD-related command and control procedures, designated Supreme Allied Commander Europe as the commander for this mission, and demonstrated an interoperable command and control capability.
To support this interim BMD capability, the United States has offered EPAA assets to the Alliance as our voluntary national contributions to the BMD mission. The AN/TPY-2 radar deployed in Turkey is now under NATO operational control. In addition, U.S. BMD-capable Aegis ships in Europe are also now able to operate under NATO operational control...
...We believe that NATO BMD will be more effective should Allies provide sensors and interceptors to complement the U.S. EPAA contributions. Several NATO Allies already possess land- and sea-based sensors that could potentially be linked into the system, as well as lower tier systems that can be integrated and used to provide point defense such as PATRIOT. If Allies should decide to develop their own BMD capabilities, that would create significant opportunities for European industries, science, and technology. In short, there is absolutely no requirement or assumption that NATO missile defense will be “made in the USA.” The only requirement is that the systems contributed by Allies be interoperable with NATO ALTBMD.
Some of our NATO Allies already have begun to invest in assets that can be contributed to the NATO BMD mission, while others are continuing to study the issue. For example, the Netherlands has indicated that it will spend close to 250 million Euros to modify the SMART-L radars on its frigates to detect and track ballistic missiles at long ranges and has indicated it will contribute its Patriot BMD systems to the NATO missile defense mission. Allies also can contribute via pooling of BMD assets and joint development and procurement.
...
Missile Defense Developments in Other Regions
The United States, in consultation with our allies and partners, is continuing to bolster missile defenses in other key regions such as the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific.
...
In the Middle East, we are already cooperating with our key partners bilaterally and multilaterally through venues such as the recently established U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Security Cooperation Forum.
Several of our partners in the region have expressed an interest in buying missile defense systems, and some have already done so. For example, just last year the UAE contracted to buy two THAAD batteries that...The UAE also has contracted to purchase Patriot PAC-3 to provide a lower-layered, point defense of critical national assets. As Secretary Clinton said recently on a visit to Saudi Arabia, “we can do even more to defend the Gulf through cooperation on ballistic missile defense.” We look forward to advancing cooperation and interoperability with our GCC partners in the years ahead.
Additionally, we are continuing our long-standing and steadfast cooperation with Israel on missile defense on key systems such as Arrow 3, David’s Sling, and Iron Dome.
In the Asia-Pacific, we are continuing to cooperate through our bilateral alliances and key partnerships. For example, the United States and Japan already are working closely to develop jointly an advanced interceptor known as the SM-3 Blk IIA, and continue to work on enhancing interoperability between U.S. and Japanese forces. We are also continuing to discuss BMD bilaterally with the Republic of Korea and Australia and we recently had our annual meeting of the U.S.-Australia-
...
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
U.S. Department of State
September 10, 2012
Growing Global Cooperation on Ballistic Missile Defense
Remarks by Frank A. Rose
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
Berlin, Germany
Edited by RR
====
Phase One gained its first operational elements in 2011 with the start of a sustained deployment of an Aegis BMD-capable multi-role ship to the Mediterranean in March 2011 and the deployment of an AN/TPY-2 radar in Turkey, which became operational in December 2011. Spain has also agreed to host four U.S. Aegis destroyers at the existing naval facility at Rota.
The Allies...welcomed the EPAA as the U.S. national contribution to the new NATO territorial missile defense capability, in support of our commitment to the collective self-defense of the Alliance under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
The AN/TPY-2 radar deployed in Turkey is now under NATO operational control. In addition, U.S. BMD-capable Aegis ships in Europe are also now able to operate under NATO operational control when threat conditions warrant.
In the Middle East, we are already cooperating with our key partners bilaterally and multilaterally through venues such as the recently established U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Security Cooperation Forum....Additional
[T]he United States and Japan already are working closely to develop jointly an advanced interceptor known as the SM-3 Blk IIA, and continue to work on enhancing interoperability between U.S. and Japanese forces. We are also continuing to discuss BMD bilaterally with the Republic of Korea and Australia and we recently had our annual meeting of the U.S.-Australia-
====
I would like to thank the Missile Defense Agency, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), and our German hosts for putting on this outstanding conference, which over the years has become a much anticipated annual event. It’s been a distinct honor to be invited to speak at this conference for three years running and my pleasure to once again represent the State Department this afternoon at this influential gathering of missile defense experts from more than twenty nations.
In June of this year, the United States conducted its second consecutive successful test of the SM-3 IB interceptor and the second generation Aegis BMD 4.0.1 weapon system. This success was a critical accomplishment for Phase Two of the EPAA, which will see SM-3 IBs deployed in Romania in the 2015 timeframe.
...
Implementation of the European Phased Adaptive Approach
At the State Department, I am responsible for overseeing a wide range of defense policy issues, including ballistic missile defense. For nearly three years, I have been focused on carrying out the vision articulated by the President when he announced in September 2009 that the EPAA would “provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's Allies,” while relying on “capabilities that are proven and cost-effective.” The EPAA will provide comprehensive protection for all of our NATO European Allies and augment the defense of the U.S. homeland.
As laid out in the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, “[t]he United States seeks to create an environment in which the development, acquisition, deployment, and use of ballistic missiles by regional adversaries can be deterred, principally by eliminating their confidence in the effectiveness of such attacks.”
Creating this new strategic environment depends on strong cooperation with our allies and partners. In order to make this vision a reality, President Obama has made international cooperation on missile defense a key priority, and we are pursuing a region-by-region approach based on the following three principles:
...
[R]ecognizing that our supply of BMD assets cannot meet the global demand we face, the United States is developing mobile capabilities that can be relocated to adapt to changing regional threats and provide surge defense capabilities where they are most needed.
In implementing this approach in Europe, we designed the EPAA to protect our deployed forces and Allies in Europe...
...
EPAA Phase One gained its first operational elements in 2011 with the start of a sustained deployment of an Aegis BMD-capable multi-role ship to the Mediterranean in March 2011 and the deployment of an AN/TPY-2 radar in Turkey, which became operational in December 2011. Spain has also agreed to host four U.S. Aegis destroyers at the existing naval facility at Rota. These multi-mission ships will support the EPAA as well as other EUCOM and NATO maritime missions.
For Phase Two of the EPAA, we have an agreement with Romania to host a U.S. land-based SM-3 interceptor site beginning in the 2015 timeframe...
We also have an agreement with Poland to place a similar land-based interceptor site there, including the SM-3 IIA, in the 2018 timeframe for Phase Three of the EPAA, which will extend BMD protection to all of NATO Europe.
[T]he Department of Defense has begun concept development of a more advanced interceptor, known as the SM-3 IIB, which will be deployed in EPAA Phase Four in the 2021 timeframe. The SM-3 IIB will provide an intercept capability against intermediate-
Cooperation with NATO Allies
...To better achieve this end, the Obama Administration is implementing the EPAA within the NATO context.
At the 2010 Lisbon Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government approved a new Strategic Concept and took the historic decision to develop the capability to defend NATO European populations and territory against the increasing threat posed by ballistic missile proliferation. The Allies also welcomed the EPAA as the U.S. national contribution to the new NATO territorial missile defense capability, in support of our commitment to the collective self-defense of the Alliance under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
At the Lisbon Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government also decided to expand the scope of the NATO Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) program to serve as the command, control, and communications network to support this new capability. NATO Allies have committed to investing over $1 billion in ALTBMD to support NATO missile defense. NATO’s plan for missile defense is based on the principle that individual Allies will make voluntary national contributions of BMD sensors and interceptor systems, capabilities that will be integrated into the NATO ALTBMD command and control backbone. As with any national contribution, Allies are responsible for the costs associated with their own contributions.
On May 20-21 of this year, the NATO Heads of State and Government met in Chicago for the NATO Summit and announced that NATO had achieved an interim BMD capability. This means that the Alliance has an operationally meaningful standing peacetime BMD capability. NATO also agreed on the BMD-related command and control procedures, designated Supreme Allied Commander Europe as the commander for this mission, and demonstrated an interoperable command and control capability.
To support this interim BMD capability, the United States has offered EPAA assets to the Alliance as our voluntary national contributions to the BMD mission. The AN/TPY-2 radar deployed in Turkey is now under NATO operational control. In addition, U.S. BMD-capable Aegis ships in Europe are also now able to operate under NATO operational control...
...We believe that NATO BMD will be more effective should Allies provide sensors and interceptors to complement the U.S. EPAA contributions. Several NATO Allies already possess land- and sea-based sensors that could potentially be linked into the system, as well as lower tier systems that can be integrated and used to provide point defense such as PATRIOT. If Allies should decide to develop their own BMD capabilities, that would create significant opportunities for European industries, science, and technology. In short, there is absolutely no requirement or assumption that NATO missile defense will be “made in the USA.” The only requirement is that the systems contributed by Allies be interoperable with NATO ALTBMD.
Some of our NATO Allies already have begun to invest in assets that can be contributed to the NATO BMD mission, while others are continuing to study the issue. For example, the Netherlands has indicated that it will spend close to 250 million Euros to modify the SMART-L radars on its frigates to detect and track ballistic missiles at long ranges and has indicated it will contribute its Patriot BMD systems to the NATO missile defense mission. Allies also can contribute via pooling of BMD assets and joint development and procurement.
...
Missile Defense Developments in Other Regions
The United States, in consultation with our allies and partners, is continuing to bolster missile defenses in other key regions such as the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific.
...
In the Middle East, we are already cooperating with our key partners bilaterally and multilaterally through venues such as the recently established U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Security Cooperation Forum.
Several of our partners in the region have expressed an interest in buying missile defense systems, and some have already done so. For example, just last year the UAE contracted to buy two THAAD batteries that...The UAE also has contracted to purchase Patriot PAC-3 to provide a lower-layered, point defense of critical national assets. As Secretary Clinton said recently on a visit to Saudi Arabia, “we can do even more to defend the Gulf through cooperation on ballistic missile defense.” We look forward to advancing cooperation and interoperability with our GCC partners in the years ahead.
Additionally, we are continuing our long-standing and steadfast cooperation with Israel on missile defense on key systems such as Arrow 3, David’s Sling, and Iron Dome.
In the Asia-Pacific, we are continuing to cooperate through our bilateral alliances and key partnerships. For example, the United States and Japan already are working closely to develop jointly an advanced interceptor known as the SM-3 Blk IIA, and continue to work on enhancing interoperability between U.S. and Japanese forces. We are also continuing to discuss BMD bilaterally with the Republic of Korea and Australia and we recently had our annual meeting of the U.S.-Australia-
...
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:40 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.taylor-
The Taylor Report
September 21, 2012
The Benghazi Thing
It is play-like time in the "indispensible nation"
From the Halls of Montezuma, take one:
Let's play-like we care about international law and respect for other peoples.
Libya has oil but we care only for humanity and progress; when trouble is reported we must apply our "indispensibleness"
A play-like "no-fly" zone is established from which we bomb Libya (a Lord of the Fly Zone, perhaps).
Let's play-like we have a neutral arms embargo and then arm the side we favor, to make havoc and death more efficient...
Let's play like we know what a "diplomat" is and deliver said diplomat into the rebel stronghold of a sovereign country. Supply him with armored vehicles and muscular commando types (great photo-ops); let's play-like he's a sage adviser to democratic aspirants.
When the mayhem ends we play-like we don't hear about the lynched Africans. We play-like they were mercenaries. Our play-like media practice their concerned expressions. We'll get back to that following the Hillary/Sarkozy triumphal dash.
In following scenes we play-like proper elections take place. In our play-like system the Saudi and Qatari absolute monarchies will finance the competing parties; guns and gangs will add local color. We play-like democracy depends on the money absolute monarchs. A woman will offer an ink-stained finger to the world. Uncle Indispensible was here.
And let's play-like a house in Benghazi is a consulate (or when excited say "embassy"). And when unknown armed men attack our play-like sort of official house... we can play-like we're surprised. And then we can sort out the locals as much as we want, and it won't be play-like.
To the Shores of Tripoli...A pirate's romance.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
The Taylor Report
September 21, 2012
The Benghazi Thing
It is play-like time in the "indispensible nation"
From the Halls of Montezuma, take one:
Let's play-like we care about international law and respect for other peoples.
Libya has oil but we care only for humanity and progress; when trouble is reported we must apply our "indispensibleness"
A play-like "no-fly" zone is established from which we bomb Libya (a Lord of the Fly Zone, perhaps).
Let's play-like we have a neutral arms embargo and then arm the side we favor, to make havoc and death more efficient...
Let's play like we know what a "diplomat" is and deliver said diplomat into the rebel stronghold of a sovereign country. Supply him with armored vehicles and muscular commando types (great photo-ops); let's play-like he's a sage adviser to democratic aspirants.
When the mayhem ends we play-like we don't hear about the lynched Africans. We play-like they were mercenaries. Our play-like media practice their concerned expressions. We'll get back to that following the Hillary/Sarkozy triumphal dash.
In following scenes we play-like proper elections take place. In our play-like system the Saudi and Qatari absolute monarchies will finance the competing parties; guns and gangs will add local color. We play-like democracy depends on the money absolute monarchs. A woman will offer an ink-stained finger to the world. Uncle Indispensible was here.
And let's play-like a house in Benghazi is a consulate (or when excited say "embassy"). And when unknown armed men attack our play-like sort of official house... we can play-like we're surprised. And then we can sort out the locals as much as we want, and it won't be play-like.
To the Shores of Tripoli...A pirate's romance.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:48 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.flonnet.
Frontline
September 22-October 5, 2012
Payback time
John Cherian
====
When President Barack Obama took office in 2008, there had been only around four such attacks. The “Green on Blue” killings leapfrogged after the President ordered his military surge in 2010 in tandem with the announcement of the 2014 withdrawal. Half the American military casualties occurred after the Pentagon implemented its counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan more than two years ago.
====
The United States government decided to suspend the training of Afghan security forces in the first week of September after a particularly nasty month in which many U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) soldiers lost their lives. Most of them died at the hands of Afghans who were being trained by them. Five U.S. Special Operations officers were killed in one week. Special Operations officers are in charge of training Afghan security personnel. The Barack Obama administration, which has announced its plans to end the occupation by 2014, wanted to leave behind a trained Afghan force capable of maintaining security. It had earmarked nearly $50 billion for training Afghan security forces.
From available indications, the local security forces’ loyalty to the NATO armies is only skin deep. Troops from all the participating Western countries, including small countries such as New Zealand and Georgia, have been targeted by the Afghan forces that they have been training. The U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, issued an order in August directing U.S. soldiers to carry loaded weapons at all times even in secure U.S. bases such as the Bagram air base. At the last count, the U.S. had around 400 bases, most of them small, in the country. The strength of the Afghan security forces has risen to 300,000 in the last five years. In 2007, the combined strength of the Afghan Army and the national police was less than 100,000.
In the first half of this year, 21 incidents involving the killing of 30 American and European trainers were reported. The attacks have escalated since, with reports of Afghan soldiers turning their guns on their Western trainers all over the country. The number of American soldiers killed thus has now crossed 2,000. More than a thousand soldiers from other NATO and allied countries have been killed since the occupation began in 2001.
Of course, it is the ordinary Afghan who has paid the highest price. Countless numbers of Afghans have perished after the American invasion. A recent report of Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) on the atrocities committed by the Afghan government and warlords from 1978 to 2011 said that more than a million people had been killed and another 1.3 million disabled. Many of the warlords responsible for the mayhem in that period were backed by the U.S. and are now playing an important role in the politics of the country. The U.S. embassy in Kabul had objected to the release of the report, saying that it would “reopen old wounds”. The U.S. had reasons to be wary about the AIHRC report, given the fact that its close allies, the warlords Mohammad Qasim Fahim, Karim Khalili and Rashid Dostum, occupy important positions of power today. Besides, the report also details the close relations Washington had with elements who are now with
Al Qaeda.
When President Barack Obama took office in 2008, there had been only around four such attacks. The “Green on Blue” killings leapfrogged after the President ordered his military surge in 2010 in tandem with the announcement of the 2014 withdrawal. Half the American military casualties occurred after the Pentagon implemented its counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan more than two years ago.
A significant number of Afghan Army soldiers have deserted, taking their weapons with them, since the implementation of the COIN strategy. The prominent American commentator Tom Engelhardt has tried to draw comparisons of the brewing Afghan Army rebellion with that of the first 1857 mutiny in India when sepoys turned on their British officers. Obama has been quiet on the loss of American lives, but he has reiterated that American troops will be out of Afghanistan in 2014. The prognosis for Afghanistan is gloomy after 2014. The central government in Kabul is loathed by the people and not trusted by its American paymasters. The Taliban attacks are getting more brazen by the day.
Frontline
September 22-October 5, 2012
Payback time
John Cherian
====
When President Barack Obama took office in 2008, there had been only around four such attacks. The “Green on Blue” killings leapfrogged after the President ordered his military surge in 2010 in tandem with the announcement of the 2014 withdrawal. Half the American military casualties occurred after the Pentagon implemented its counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan more than two years ago.
====
The United States government decided to suspend the training of Afghan security forces in the first week of September after a particularly nasty month in which many U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) soldiers lost their lives. Most of them died at the hands of Afghans who were being trained by them. Five U.S. Special Operations officers were killed in one week. Special Operations officers are in charge of training Afghan security personnel. The Barack Obama administration, which has announced its plans to end the occupation by 2014, wanted to leave behind a trained Afghan force capable of maintaining security. It had earmarked nearly $50 billion for training Afghan security forces.
From available indications, the local security forces’ loyalty to the NATO armies is only skin deep. Troops from all the participating Western countries, including small countries such as New Zealand and Georgia, have been targeted by the Afghan forces that they have been training. The U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, issued an order in August directing U.S. soldiers to carry loaded weapons at all times even in secure U.S. bases such as the Bagram air base. At the last count, the U.S. had around 400 bases, most of them small, in the country. The strength of the Afghan security forces has risen to 300,000 in the last five years. In 2007, the combined strength of the Afghan Army and the national police was less than 100,000.
In the first half of this year, 21 incidents involving the killing of 30 American and European trainers were reported. The attacks have escalated since, with reports of Afghan soldiers turning their guns on their Western trainers all over the country. The number of American soldiers killed thus has now crossed 2,000. More than a thousand soldiers from other NATO and allied countries have been killed since the occupation began in 2001.
Of course, it is the ordinary Afghan who has paid the highest price. Countless numbers of Afghans have perished after the American invasion. A recent report of Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) on the atrocities committed by the Afghan government and warlords from 1978 to 2011 said that more than a million people had been killed and another 1.3 million disabled. Many of the warlords responsible for the mayhem in that period were backed by the U.S. and are now playing an important role in the politics of the country. The U.S. embassy in Kabul had objected to the release of the report, saying that it would “reopen old wounds”. The U.S. had reasons to be wary about the AIHRC report, given the fact that its close allies, the warlords Mohammad Qasim Fahim, Karim Khalili and Rashid Dostum, occupy important positions of power today. Besides, the report also details the close relations Washington had with elements who are now with
Al Qaeda.
When President Barack Obama took office in 2008, there had been only around four such attacks. The “Green on Blue” killings leapfrogged after the President ordered his military surge in 2010 in tandem with the announcement of the 2014 withdrawal. Half the American military casualties occurred after the Pentagon implemented its counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan more than two years ago.
A significant number of Afghan Army soldiers have deserted, taking their weapons with them, since the implementation of the COIN strategy. The prominent American commentator Tom Engelhardt has tried to draw comparisons of the brewing Afghan Army rebellion with that of the first 1857 mutiny in India when sepoys turned on their British officers. Obama has been quiet on the loss of American lives, but he has reiterated that American troops will be out of Afghanistan in 2014. The prognosis for Afghanistan is gloomy after 2014. The central government in Kabul is loathed by the people and not trusted by its American paymasters. The Taliban attacks are getting more brazen by the day.
