Messages In This Digest (14 Messages)
- 1.
- NATO Chief Calls For Continent-Wide Missile Shield In IHT/NYT From: Rick Rozoff
- 2.
- 400 Automatic Weapons Found In Mafia Arms Cache Seized In Italy From: Rick Rozoff
- 3.
- One Killed, Eight Injured In Explosion Aboard NATO Helicopter From: Rick Rozoff
- 4.
- Japan Mulls U.S. Global Hawks For Missile Interception From: Rick Rozoff
- 5.
- U.S., Russia Doomed To Remain Potential Enemies From: Rick Rozoff
- 6.
- 20% Of GDP: NATO Partner Azerbaijan To Again Double Military Spendin From: Rick Rozoff
- 7.
- NATO Soldier Killed, Four Injured In Afghan Attacks From: Rick Rozoff
- 8.
- New "Cold War" In The Warming Arctic? From: Rick Rozoff
- 9.
- Editorial: World Must Be Wary Of Cold War Policies From: Rick Rozoff
- 10.
- Italy Deploys New Helicopters For Afghan War Escalation From: Rick Rozoff
- 11.
- Pakistan: NATO Helicopters Violate Airspace In Balochistan From: Rick Rozoff
- 12.
- Viewpoint: Pakistan Must End Collaboration With U.S., NATO War From: Rick Rozoff
- 13.
- Afghan War Expansion: U.S. Plans To Seize Pakistan's Nuclear Arms From: Rick Rozoff
- 14.
- Report: Russia Denies NATO Route For Military Supplies From: Rick Rozoff
Messages
- 1.
-
NATO Chief Calls For Continent-Wide Missile Shield In IHT/NYT
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:13 am (PDT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/opinion/13iht-edrasmussen.html
International Herald Tribune/New York Times
October 12, 2010
NATO Needs a Missile Defense
By ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN
To most people in Europe, the threat of missile attack is rarely on their radar. Of those who do think about it, some wonder about the cost; or about whether there really is a threat; or about whether missile defense actually works.
But next month, NATO’s leaders will meet in Lisbon and decide whether the alliance should build a missile defense for Europe. They will make that important decision based on the answers to some fundamental questions.
•Is there a threat?
In a word: yes. Missiles pose an increasing threat to our populations, territory and deployed forces. Over 30 countries have or are acquiring missiles that could be used to carry not just conventional warheads, but also weapons of mass destruction. Some of those missiles can already reach European cities, and the problem will only get worse.
The proliferation of these capabilities does not necessarily mean there is an immediate intent to attack us. It does mean, however, that we have a responsibility to be able to protect our populations. We cannot afford to have even one of our cities hit. Nor can we afford to be held hostage by the threat of an attack.
•Will missile defense work?
Building effective missile defense is challenging, but it can be done. We are now able to field mature systems that have been successfully tested. More-over, NATO has long experience in the development and operation of integrated air defense systems. We are already working to provide missile defense for the protection of our troops deployed on operations. By expanding this program and connecting it with the United States’ missile defenses, NATO would be able to defend European populations and territory from missile attack as well.
•How much will it cost?
Missile defense won’t be cheap, but neither will it break the bank. The current NATO program to provide a NATO missile defense system for troops deployed on operations is costing €800 million spread over 14 years, and shared by all allies. For less than €200 million more from our common budget, over 10 years, this program could be expanded to enable NATO to defend European populations and territory.
At a time of budgetary constraint, this is a lot of defense at an affordable price. With a relatively small investment, all the allies could plug into the multi-billion-dollar United States system, share the benefits of increased security, and demonstrate a shared commitment to our mutual defense. That is an attractive return on investment.
•What are the benefits?
In military terms, an integrated missile defense system would offer far greater overall capability than that offered by the individual national systems. By sharing data across the whole system, we would have a common picture of what is happening in our airspace. By linking together the systems, we would get multiple, coordinated opportunities to stop an incoming missile, rather than individual nations going it alone.
The political benefits are equally significant. It would be a clear demonstration of allied solidarity and burden-sharing in the face of a common threat. And it would offer opportunities for genuine cooperation with Russia. NATO-Russia cooperation on missile defense would finally, and firmly, herald a genuinely new era of cooperation under a common Euro-Atlantic security roof.
My conclusion is clear. We need to protect our populations and territories from the threat posed by the proliferation of missiles. NATO can do it, and at an affordable cost. The Lisbon summit should be the occasion for NATO to make the decision to expand the capability to protect our populations and territories — and, at the same time, reach out to Russia to cooperate with us and share the benefits.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the secretary general of NATO.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 2.
-
400 Automatic Weapons Found In Mafia Arms Cache Seized In Italy
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:13 am (PDT)
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.1.1094099241
ADN Kronos International
October 12, 2010
Italy: Police uncover Nato arms cache in south
Reggio Calabria: Police in the southern Italian city of Reggio Calabria on Tuesday uncovered 400 automatic weapons marked "Nato" that were among a suspected mafia arms cache that included police pistol cartridges and gunpowder.
Police said the weapons were retrieved during searches of the Calabrian capital over the past few days following recent threats to the city's prosecutors.
Reggio Calabria's top government representative Luigi Varratta announced on 6 October he was requesting the deployment of soldiers to mafia strongholds in the city after a bazooka was sent to its chief prosecutor, Giuseppe Pignatone.
Pignatone, who earlier received bullets through the mail, and a senior judge who has also been targeted by suspected mafia threats, Salvatore Di Landro, backed Varratta's proposal.
A successful crackdown against the Calabrian mafia or 'Ndrangheta has sparked this year's campaign of intimidation, according to investigators.
The campaign began in January with a firebomb that damaged the entrance to Reggio Calabria's main courthouse.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 3.
-
One Killed, Eight Injured In Explosion Aboard NATO Helicopter
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:13 am (PDT)
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1590789.php/Explosion-aboard-NATO-chopper-kills-one-in-Afghanistan-1st-Lead
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
October 12, 2010
Explosion aboard NATO chopper kills one in Afghanistan
Kabul: One person was killed and eight others injured Tuesday in an explosion aboard a military helicopter in eastern Afghanistan, NATO said in a statement.
The military had earlier said that two people had been killed and 10 others injured.
'The helicopter was on the ground when an explosion of unknown origin occurred,' the International Security Assistance Force said.
'Initial reports indicate there were 26 people onboard the aircraft,' ISAF said. The landing site had been secured and an investigation was under way, the statement added.
NATO does not disclose the nationalities of the victims.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 4.
-
Japan Mulls U.S. Global Hawks For Missile Interception
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:13 am (PDT)
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/10/11/AW_10_11_2010_p31-260195.xml&headline=Japan%20To%20Decide%20On%20Global%20Hawk%20Order
Aviation Week
October 11, 2010
Japan To Decide On Global Hawk Order
By Bradley Perrett
Beijing and Guam: Japan is likely to decide by year-end whether to order Northrop Grumman RQ-4B Global Hawk surveillance aircraft that could later be upgraded to reinforce the country’s ballistic missile defenses.
The decision has been brewing for years and is now due to appear in the National Defense Program Guideline, which will set out future military policy when it is published this year, say program officials.
The joint staff office of the Japanese military is studying the possible order, reflecting its status as a national program. The officials say Japan is considering a force of four, enough to provide a continuous patrol, even with one in deep maintenance. The Kyodo wire service, quoting sources in the ministry and defense forces, says three could be bought. Even if only two were available, they could maintain a continuous patrol close to Japan.
The navy is arguing that Japan is not ready to deploy such unmanned aircraft and should therefore defer the decision. Doing so would open the possibility of buying the navy’s preferred version of the Global Hawk, the MQ-4C, which is still under development for the U.S. Navy as a maritime patroller.
The air force is pushing for an early move in which Japan would order the RQ-4B Block 30, the current U.S. Air Force production version....
Japanese industry could then take as much time as needed to develop sensors that would later be retrofitted to the RQ-4s, possibly replacing some original equipment. That approach is considered essential, since Japanese sensor development could be quite protracted.
That retrofit could eventually include the Japanese Airboss infrared missile detection and tracking system. The sensor was tested in December 2007 on a Japanese UP-3C, a converted maritime patrol aircraft.
....
In the missile defense role Japanese RQ-4s would operate purely as sensor aircraft, cueing the sensors of weapons-firing ships or aircraft, such as the General Atomics MQ-9 Predator.
....
The defense ministry’s budget request for the fiscal year beginning April 2011 includes funding for studies and research on unmanned aircraft. The money would pay for investigations into the foreign operation, sustainment and maintenance of high-altitude long-endurance drones.
Japan has been working on its own surveillance drone in that category since 2001 as part of a program called the Future Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study. That aircraft would fly higher than a Global Hawk, but the government’s serious evaluation of the need for an RQ-4 order indicates that the indigenous aircraft is progressing slowly, if at all. The ministry is now inclined toward “first importing the Global Hawk, given the aircraft’s advantages in performance and costs,” says Kyodo.
The U.S. Defense Department has argued against Japan building its own high-altitude surveillance drone.
Whichever way Japan moves, Global Hawks are already becoming a permanent feature of the Western Pacific. The first of a detachment of three RQ-4Bs to be deployed on Guam has arrived at the island’s Andersen AFB. More than four may eventually operate there, says Lt. Gen. Herbert Carlisle, commander of the 13th Air Force.
Since the U.S. Navy will operate MQ‑4Cs from Guam, there are opportunities to share ground support with the U.S. Air Force as part of an agreement between the two services to cooperate in using the aircraft. The services may also be able to extract more use from the aircraft by occasionally covering each other’s missions, suggests Carlisle.
He and Gen. Gary North, Pacific Air Forces commander, say the aircraft have not been deployed for operations against any particular country. But “people have a tendency to behave when other people are watching them,” adds Carlisle, without mentioning North Korea.
The two services can certainly share maintenance and logistics at Guam, says Carlisle, and the arrival of more aircraft should boost flexibility.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 5.
-
U.S., Russia Doomed To Remain Potential Enemies
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:13 am (PDT)
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20101011/160913783.html
Russian Information Agency Novosti
October 12, 2010
Russia, USA are doomed to remain potential enemies
The growing tensions between Russia and the United States in late 2008 that could have led to unpredictable consequences made both countries reconsider their relations by declaring a “reset” policy
RIA Novosti interview with Alexei Fenenko
-Russia is the only country that is technically capable of annihilating the United States; China does not yet have this capability. Russia is also the only country that can theoretically wage war against the United States using comparable types of weapons.
From this point of view, Russia and the United States are doomed to remain potential adversaries.
-[W]e have a set of precedents that add up to a system of forced disarmament of countries that are hostile to the United States. This does not suit Russia as a nuclear power with independent military capabilities, and could even be dangerous for it. We are aware of this threat, which is why we reject any radical revisions to the NPT.
-What we need now is a fundamental agreement limiting the number of interceptor missiles and their deployment areas. The Americans made it clear at the Washington summit that they would not agree to it in the next few years, which is why the reset policy is running into problems.
Dr. Alexei Fenenko, a leading researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute for International Security, in an interview with Samir Shakhbaz.
The cold war is long gone but its legacy however is having enormous influence on the present system of international relations. Although today’s global security is based on such restrictive factors as various international treaties and organizations, many experts believe that a decisive role still belongs to nuclear deterrence. The growing tensions between Russia and the United States in late 2008 that could have led to unpredictable consequences made both countries reconsider their relations by declaring a “reset” policy. Alexei Fenenko, leading research fellow at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of International Security, assesses its preliminary results and also speaks on the future of U.S.-Russian relations.
Samir Shakhbaz: Enough time has passed since the start of the U.S.-Russian reset policy to assess its preliminary results. Are they positive or not? Do you agree that the only visible result is cooperation on Iran?
Alexei Fenenko: Let’s agree on one point: It is more difficult for Russia to develop relations with the United States than with any other country. The material and technical aspects of their bilateral relationship depend on mutual nuclear deterrence. Like it or not, we have always looked at each other through the nuclear missile sights.
However, Russia is the only country that is technically capable of annihilating the United States; China does not yet have this capability. Russia is also the only country that can theoretically wage war against the United States using comparable types of weapons.
From this point of view, Russia and the United States are doomed to remain potential adversaries. It is with this in mind that both countries develop their respective military doctrines, and the U.S. National Security Council confirmed this once again in 2010.
The U.S. national security strategy outlined the following priorities in relations with Russia: reducing strategic nuclear weapons, overcoming disagreements on missile defense, and lastly, developing economic relations with Russia.
However, it will be difficult to achieve the final objective as long as the Jackson-Vanik Amendment stands.
So, the goal of the reset policy as formulated by Joe Biden in 2009 is primarily to lower the risk of military confrontation. There was a very high probability of a confrontation in late 2008, following the war with Georgia over South Ossetia and the conflict over U.S. plans for a missile defense shield in Europe. Russia resumed flights of its strategic aviation, further increasing tensions in the U.S.-Russian relationship.
The second goal is to preserve the system of arms control, and the third goal is to develop a code of conduct for a potential conflict between Russia or the United States and other countries, so that these countries, for example Georgia, do not embroil either of the world’s two biggest military powers in their conflicts.
In terms of these goals, the reset policy has so far been successful. We have reduced the risk of military confrontation, preserved the system of arms control by signing the News START treaty in Prague, and started talks on conflicts with other countries. If we do not set impossible goals for ourselves, but rather limit ourselves to these results, we can say that the reset policy is proceeding quite well.
S.S: Is Russia’s stance on Iran a result of the reset policy?
A.F: The situation with Iran is much more complicated. Why has Russia traditionally provided Iran “protection”, as we say? What is the essence of the Iranian problem?
In the last 15 years, the Americans have been talking about reforming the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). If Iran is prohibited from enriching uranium, this will amount to a revision of Article 4 of the NPT, which states that every non-nuclear state has the right to create a closed nuclear fuel cycle.
From here one can trace the chain of precedents, from the disarmament of Iraq, which turned out not to have weapons of mass destruction, to the prohibition of uranium enrichment in Iran.
Next on the agenda could be North Korea: the United States has proposed deactivating its nuclear facilities and destroying them under the supervision of the five-country commission.
Another target could be Pakistan, where the United States is working on plans to ensure external control of that country’s nuclear weapons and to give U.S. specialists access to them.
The vague U.S.-Indian maneuvers regarding a nuclear agreement are also quite alarming.
In short, we have a set of precedents that add up to a system of forced disarmament of countries that are hostile to the United States. This does not suit Russia as a nuclear power with independent military capabilities, and could even be dangerous for it. We are aware of this threat, which is why we reject any radical revisions to the NPT.
That being said, we have no illusions about Iran. During the past seven years of the standoff, we tried to act as an intermediary in talks between Iran and the IAEA twice, in 2005 and 2007, but each time Iran rejected our mediation offer after initially accepting it. This is why we are gradually stepping aside and essentially telling Iran that it can try to settle its problems with the United States on its own, while we gradually distance ourselves from this problem.
S.S: My point is that, based on what you’ve said, it seems that nuclear disarmament is not an attractive option for Russia.
A.F: No, that’s not the case. Nuclear disarmament is an attractive option for Russia for two reasons. First, nuclear weapons become obsolete every 15 or 20 years and need to be modernized. The Americans are in a better position to do this – they have access to uranium fields in Canada and Australia and also uranium reserves in their own country.
Russia’s situation is more complicated: its nuclear arsenal is based on plutonium and so we need to regenerate fissile materials more frequently, which is also more expensive. Therefore, any cuts in strategic nuclear weapons benefit Russia.
To put it bluntly, we agree to cut weapons created in the 1980s, and we are trying to ensure that we do this jointly with the United States.
Secondly, the strategic arms reduction treaties are intended to reduce the chance of a disarming nuclear strike. Modern nuclear war doctrines differ dramatically from the doctrines of the 1950s, which implied that a first nuclear strike must annihilate the adversary’s cities and infrastructure. The modern doctrines hold that the first nuclear strike must be disarming and aimed at the adversary’s launch systems, forcing the country to surrender.
S.S: Another achievement of the reset policy is a compromise on missile defense systems. But is this compromise practical, or is it a temporary move that benefits the United States?
A.F: I would say that it signifies the beginning of a crisis in the reset policy. Last spring, the Obama administration drafted a “minimum deterrence” concept, which calls for a 75% reduction in strategic nuclear weapons and the extensive development of missile defense systems.
There would be a high probability of a conflict under these circumstances, because a country that is stronger militarily will be tempted to exert military pressure. This is why we need to reach a compromise on missile defense.
President Dmitry Medvedev said in Helsinki last spring that all negotiations after the signing of a New START treaty will be based on a missile defense compromise. This was added to the Prague treaty, which in itself was a major achievement because we managed to link talks on defensive and offensive weapons.
That achievement was especially important in light of the fact that since 1989 the START talks had been based on the Wyoming compromise, according to which talks on defensive and strategic offensive weapons must be held separately.
The agreement to hold such talks simultaneously implies a partial revision of the Wyoming compromise, which benefits Russia. From the signing of the New START treaty in Prague and until the Obama-Medvedev summit in Washington in late June, we actively discussed a compromise solution to the missile defense problem.
I do not think the Washington summit was successful; it caused a crisis in the reset policy. Following the talks, the United States proposed signing a declaration on cooperation in the sphere of missile defense.
We responded that we have signed seven such declarations in the last 20 years. One of them was the Moscow Declaration of 2002, according to which the United States was to consult Russia on all questions related to the deployment of missile defense systems. Others include the RAMOS program (Russian-American Observation Satellite) and the 1997 Helsinki agreement.
In other words, we have done this before. What we need now is a fundamental agreement limiting the number of interceptor missiles and their deployment areas. The Americans made it clear at the Washington summit that they would not agree to it in the next few years, which is why the reset policy is running into problems.
We simply don’t know what the next step is. Even ratification of the Prague treaty could be put in question.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 6.
-
20% Of GDP: NATO Partner Azerbaijan To Again Double Military Spendin
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:09 am (PDT)
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4889552&c=EUR&s=TOP
Agence France-Presse
October 12, 2010
Azerbaijan To Nearly Double Defense Spending
-Locked in a long-simmering conflict with Armenia over Karabakh and awash in revenues from energy exports, the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan had already nearly doubled defense spending in the previous two years.
BAKU: Azerbaijan is to nearly double its defense spending next year, the finance minister said Oct. 12, amid rising tensions in its conflict with Armenia over the rebel Nagorny Karabakh region.
Finance Minister Samir Sharifov told parliament defense spending under the country's 2011 budget would rise 89.7 percent to 2.5 billion Azerbaijani manats ($3.1 billion).
"Defense spending in 2011 will account for 19.7 percent compared with 10.7 percent in 2010, so the share of defense spending in the budget will almost double," he told lawmakers considering next year's draft budget.
Nearly 1.1 billion manats ($1.4 billion) of the spending will be used to modernize the Azerbaijani military through the purchase of up-to-date equipment and weaponry, he said.
Sharifov said more money would also be allocated for the development of Azerbaijan's defense industry but did not elaborate.
Locked in a long-simmering conflict with Armenia over Karabakh and awash in revenues from energy exports, the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan had already nearly doubled defense spending in the previous two years.
....
Tensions over Karabakh have been increasing this year amid stalled peace talks, with the number of deadly skirmishes along a cease-fire line on the rise for months.
At least 18 soldiers on both sides have been reported killed in clashes this year, including eight soldiers killed last month alone.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 7.
-
NATO Soldier Killed, Four Injured In Afghan Attacks
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:09 am (PDT)
http://en.trend.az/regions/world/afghanistan/1765238.html
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
October 12, 2010
One ISAF soldier killed, four troops injured by roadside bombs
A soldier of the International Security Assistance Force was killed by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan and four US troops were injured in a northern province, the alliance said Tuesday, DPA reported.
The military did not release details of the first incident or the nationality of the soldier pending notification of next of kin.
The four US troops were injured in the Chardarah district of Kunduz province on Monday when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb, district governor Abdul Wahid Omarkhel said.
Around 570 international soldiers have been killed in Afghan conflict so far in 2010, the deadliest year for the more than 150,000 US and NATO troops since the ouster of Taliban regime in late 2001.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 8.
-
New "Cold War" In The Warming Arctic?
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:09 am (PDT)
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/10/12/25564863.html
Voice of Russia
October 12, 2010
New ‘cold war’ in the warming Arctic?
Boris Volkhonsky
-[A[ factor that probably worries the senior NATO commander is the fact that vast mineral resources have been discovered in Greenland. Today, that territory belongs to Denmark and as such is part of NATO. But while the forthcoming independence of Greenland seems imminent sooner or later, no one can predict whether it will choose to remain within the alliance. So, Admiral Stavridis decided to launch a preemptive attack.
On Monday, ‘The Guardian’ published comments by one of the senior NATO commanders, US Admiral James G. Stavridis, Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, who warned that while Arctic ice is melting due to global warming, the whole Arctic region can become a scene of new confrontation in the global race for resources.
"For now, the disputes in the north have been dealt with peacefully, but climate change could alter the equilibrium over the coming years in the race of temptation for exploitation of more readily accessible natural resources," said Admiral Stavridis.
He also added that military forces have an important role to play in the area – mainly for specialist assistance around commercial and other interests.
These remarks came on the eve of a conference at the Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, which convenes on Wednesday. This NATO Advanced Research Workshop entitled “Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean” aims at creating a dialogue between all polar and sub-polar countries in order to avert a danger of a new cold war. The workshop will be attended by representatives from 16 countries including non-NATO members like Russia, Finland and Sweden.
There are several interesting points in Admiral Stavridis’ remarks.
First, the assumption that so-called global warming has made access to Arctic mineral resources easier, and that the situation is there to stay. Until now, there has not been a 100 percent proof that global warming is a long-lasting tendency. Academics are divided on the issue, and, for most part, all references to it are biased and motivated either by politics or a desire to extract grants from sponsors.
Second, the warning of a new confrontation pronounced by a senior NATO commander is not supported by any substantial evidence. On the contrary, recent events show that polar countries can find a common language and successfully resolve decades-old disputes, as was demonstrated by a Russian-Norwegian agreement on the border in the Barents Sea signed on September 15 this year.
Oh yes, there was a small thing in that agreement: it was concluded and signed without any participation of NATO structures however strong was the pressure from NATO to have a hand in it.
One more factor that probably worries the senior NATO commander is the fact that vast mineral resources have been discovered in Greenland. Today, that territory belongs to Denmark and as such is part of NATO. But while the forthcoming independence of Greenland seems imminent sooner or later, no one can predict whether it will choose to remain within the alliance. So, Admiral Stavridis decided to launch a preemptive attack.
What is important, though, is the fact that new technologies together with the warming in the Arctic region (whether it is a long-lasting tendency or a temporary one) do allow for more active exploration of mineral resources there. And therefore all five countries having direct access to the Arctic Ocean (besides Russia and Norway, they are the USA, Canada and Denmark), as well as countries regarded as sub-Arctic (Iceland, Sweden and Finland) show a natural interest in the exploration. But what gives the Admiral ground to treat natural and inevitable disputes as signs of a new ‘cold war’?
The answer can be clearly drawn from his comments, namely from his remark about the role of the military. As one of the bloggers commenting on the article in ‘The Guardian’ wrote, the Admiral’s words should be interpreted in the following way, “We want more money please. Yours, US Navy.”
Probably not only that, and Admiral Stavridis was not motivated by the task of getting additional funding from US lawmakers for the Navy. At least, not by that task alone. Actually, his remarks fall in line with often repeated western apprehensions that Russia is allegedly seeking dominance in the Arctic region.
But two weeks ago at the international Arctic forum in Moscow those apprehensions were clearly and unambiguously addressed by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin who said that it is our common responsibility to turn the Arctic into an area of peace and cooperation, thus excluding any possibility of a war – whether ‘cold’ or ‘hot’ – between the countries of the region.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 9.
-
Editorial: World Must Be Wary Of Cold War Policies
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:50 am (PDT)
http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-10/580989.html
Global Times
October 12, 2010
World should be wary of Cold War policies
-Since the military spending of the US is equal to the next largest 15 nations combined, it sets a bad example for others to follow.
US foreign policy triggers a vicious cycle. The war on terror is a good example, the more one country invests in it, the more it needs to protect against terrorists.
The world seems to be locked in an age of agitation. While globalization is bringing countries, big and small, closer, they are also alienated from each other due to distrust.
This mood is clearly being displayed at the ongoing defense ministers meeting for ASEAN countries in Hanoi.
When countries are on alert against each other, diplomacy between countries can be charged and even provocative, and a confrontation may even seem imminent.
When the current situation is put into perspective, staying guarded against each other may be seen as progress from the violence and wars from last century. The cost of building and paying for militaries is soaring; meanwhile, mutual trust and friendship are difficult to build. Staying wary has become a pragmatic choice of many countries.
China no doubt is watching the US closely, a result of being constantly on the radar screen of the US. The uncertainty between the world's top two economies also instills a certain mood of suspicion among other Asian countries.
This mistrust might last for a long time. Though better than the times of violence and the Cold War, there is no guarantee the countries involved can be assured of victory. If one listens to the clamor of US politicians against China, there are plenty of reasons to worry about the world returning to the dark days of the Cold War.
Is mutual trust a viable goal? The ups and downs of the Sino-US relationship may suggest no, but relationships among some European nations offer some hope.
Mutual trust is the key words of politicians of both China and the US, though they are also busy figuring out how to gain the upper hand in a military conflict should it arise.
War among major powers is unlikely to happen in the age of nuclear weapons, but no country is willing take any chances when it comes to national safety and sovereignty. Since the military spending of the US is equal to the next largest 15 nations combined, it sets a bad example for others to follow.
US foreign policy triggers a vicious cycle. The war on terror is a good example, the more one country invests in it, the more it needs to protect against terrorists.
The question remains of how to prevent the world from slipping back into darker times. It is not easy. In an anarchical world, the existing powers naturally tend to secure advantages by unfair means, limiting room for the new power to grow.
Rational judgment shows that moving toward mutual trust costs less than going back to the Cold War.
China is pledging to rise peacefully; perhaps the US can make a similar peaceful declaration.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 10.
-
Italy Deploys New Helicopters For Afghan War Escalation
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:50 am (PDT)
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1121662&pagina_chiamante=index.php
AvioNews
World Aeronautical Press Agency
October 11, 2010
Afghanistan. Italian Navy sends new EH-101 helicopters
Rome, Italy: The transfer of three EH-101 helicopters of the Italian Navy (MMI) has begun last October 4 and will continue until next 13 by a C-17 airplane of the USAF. The choppers will operate in Afghanistan to support of the NATO operations, named ISAF (International Security and Assistance Force).
The mission, that will last a year, is to support he Italian commander of West sector, in Herat....The MMI's aircraft are to perform surveillance tasks, patrolling, support for...movement [of] staff, medical evacuation, etc.
The staff and means of the MMI to constitute a Task Group in Afghanistan, named "Shark", composed of three medium-sized EH-101 helicopters with particular systems, from a group of 67 military men with crews skilled for night flight, from a technical team for the machines' maintenance, from a small centre with tasks in the operating, administrative/logistic and medical support's sector and from a team of riflemen of the "San Marco" Regiment with tasks of protection and safety.
The sending of the EH-101 helicopters, already planned, gives execution wanted by Defense Minister, La Russa, to equip the Italian unit in Afghanistan with major mobility and safety, in order to reduce the transport by road. It's the first mission in theatre for this kind of aircraft, but the Air Forces of the Navy have already operate in Afghanistan.
The choppers and the most part of the staff come from 1st Helicopters Group, based in Luni Sarzana (La Spezia).
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 11.
-
Pakistan: NATO Helicopters Violate Airspace In Balochistan
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:08 pm (PDT)
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/nato-copters-violate-airspace-in-balochistan-300
Dawn News
October 13, 2010
Nato copters violate airspace in Balochistan
Saleem Shahid
QUETTA: Nato helicopters violated Pakistan’s airspace near the Pak-Afghan border in Chaman on Tuesday morning.
“Two Nato helicopters crossed 200 yards into our territory and went back after a moment,” an officer said.
The helicopters were seen over Killi Luqman area, he said. He also said that Nato officials deployed in Afghanistan were informed and a protest was lodged against the violation.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 12.
-
Viewpoint: Pakistan Must End Collaboration With U.S., NATO War
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:08 pm (PDT)
http://thedawn.com.pk/2010/10/12/ending-collaboration-with-the-us-on-the-war-on-pakistan/
The Dawn
October 12, 2010
Ending Collaboration with the US on the war on Pakistan
By Shireen M Mazari
-Even more threatening, unless we change course now, we will have lost the battle to retain our nuclear assets because that is where the NATO-US trail is eventually leading to. Only recently, conservative historian Arthur Herman wrote that if the government was destabilised in Pakistan then US troops would have to move in to “save” Pakistan’s nukes! It is this mindset that we are battling against and the only way out is to restructure our policies vis-Ã -vis the US – which incidentally has increased its military targeting of Pakistanis with 22 drone attacks in September this year alone and increasing CIA-led covert ground operations inside Pakistan.
It is time we formulated a cohesive policy to deal with the threats that are now becoming all too apparent. Of course, since internal and external policies are always interlinked, cohesive action on one front will have its positive fallout on the other. Since we have become practically a vassal state of the US post-9/11, unless we deal with this issue first, there can be little meaningful change on any front – within the country or in our external relations.
After all, we are unable to deal with our terrorism threat internally because we are following US diktat and using a military-centric policy which is simply creating more space for militants within the country.
The drone attacks, killing more civilians than militants, are one glaring case in point. The free-wheeling access to US covert military and intelligence operatives, both officials and private contractors, is another destabilising factor that we seem to be unable or unwilling to check. And now there are the NATO incursions into our territory and targeting of even our military personnel, which shows how servile a state we are living in at present.
It is not comforting to know that our military, with its vast capabilities, has been frozen into a state of inaction and cannot defend our borders or our citizens.
Our elected representatives have been made ineffectual and Parliament totally sidelined when it comes to the US. That is why parliamentary resolutions demanding the end of drone strikes or the bringing down of NATO helicopters when they intrude into Pakistan have been ignored by the supposedly democratic government.
Instead, it has, along with the military leadership, continued to condone the killing of Pakistanis by US drones. Perhaps, that is why our politicians all seek to curry favour with US diplomats and other functionaries in the hope that another NRO-like dispensation may give them their moment of political glory. Even those who sense the public mood turning ugly against the US seem to feel that without US backing they are destined to remain outside the corridors of power.
Even on the economic front, because of IMF diktat and an erroneous policy of getting trapped in their loan trap, we are reducing the bulk of our population into living in darkness, without proper food, and diminishing access to state-funded higher education. In the long run, we know where that will leave our future generations.
....
[W]e have also been dragged into giving the US access to Balochistan from where it has been attempting to destabilise the Iranian regime through support for the terrorist group Jundullah. So, one does not have to look too far to see that unless we correct our US policy, we will not be able to bring about the desired change internally or in our external relations.
Even more threatening, unless we change course now, we will have lost the battle to retain our nuclear assets because that is where the NATO-US trail is eventually leading to. Only recently, conservative historian Arthur Herman wrote that if the government was destabilised in Pakistan then US troops would have to move in to “save” Pakistan’s nukes! It is this mindset that we are battling against and the only way out is to restructure our policies vis-Ã -vis the US – which incidentally has increased its military targeting of Pakistanis with 22 drone attacks in September this year alone and increasing CIA-led covert ground operations inside Pakistan.
A three-pronged start to redefining our policies is required, plus three immediate actions that would convey a clear message to the nation and the world.
First, within the strategy formulation, we need an extensive review of our external policy but one that does not see only the inside of a rubbish bin, as has happened in the past when extensive exercises have been conducted.
We need to review our relations with the US and put them on a more even keel with evenly balanced quid pro quos based on issue-specific cooperation. We need to realise that US strategic goals differ sharply from our interests.
For instance, for Pakistan closer ties with our neighbour Iran and China should be cornerstones of any external policy – but for the US destabilising Iran is a stated policy goal, as is containment of China in this region. Again, while the US sees India as its regional surrogate and the predominant power in this region, Pakistan has serious conflicts with India and needs to balance not bandwagon with this threatening eastern neighbour. In terms of West Asia also (the Middle East for the US and Europe), Pakistan is committed to the rights of the Palestinians.
These are just some examples. A policy review is bound to come up with more viable long-term alternatives to allying with the US – including the possibility of communities of power in the neighbourhood with states where commonality of social and cultural links exist and where economic and military potentials are combined to create integrative communities with an underlying economic and military base of power. A first step for a meaningful review of external policy and formulation of viable alternatives is to begin on the assumption that the US is becoming more of a threat and liability for Pakistan than an ally in any sense of the word.
Second, in terms of economic policy, we need to rid ourselves of the IMF excess baggage from personnel to policies and formulate indigenously sensitive policies ranging from a rational tax structure to subsidies for education and utilities to taxing agriculture on produce, rather than land holding while declaring it an industry, and so on. If corruption and nepotism is dealt with, the same nation that gives generously in charity will also give its dues in taxes.
Third, a strong political accountability system should be brought in place with no immunity for anyone. Here there is already hope that the new judicial independence will move forward in this direction. After all, only when all our leaders are subject to accountability and no one is above the law, rule of law will prevail in the country.
As for the three immediate actions: One, an immediate replacement of all key personnel in sensitive posts that have been placed there on US-IMF (in economic matters) command. This would include some politically-appointed diplomats, our Finance Minister and his buddy in the Planning Commission and so on. The names and faces are well known.
Two, curtailment of visas granted to US citizens. Under pressure from the US and supposedly “our” man in Washington, visas are being given with no proper scrutiny and with all normal procedures being abandoned. Nor is this reciprocal since Pakistanis are not being granted any such favours by the US! Alongside this, there should be an immediate thinning of US personnel already present on the ground in Pakistan; and, perhaps most critical, an immediate ban on private US security firms and military contractors with those already present given a week to leave the country.
Three, putting the Pakistan military on alert in terms of immediately responding to any incursions into Pakistan by any military force – including drones. The time has come to reverse this bizarre cooperative mode we have put our military into with the US. The Pakistan military needs to defend Pakistanis and Pakistan’s borders not flirt with US politics that kill our people.
The destructive US-dictated path should be abundantly clear to all Pakistanis. The time has come to move on to our indigenously-guided path decisively and without fear. Pakistan and Pakistanis cannot be sacrificed any more before US diktat and at the hands of its minions in this land of ours. Ridding ourselves of the US.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 13.
-
Afghan War Expansion: U.S. Plans To Seize Pakistan's Nuclear Arms
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:08 pm (PDT)
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/13-Oct-2010/Shifting-war-on-terror-to-Pakistan
The Nation
October 13, 2010
Shifting war on terror to Pakistan
A R Jerral
-[T]he ongoing war on terror in Afghanistan is aimed to take the operations into the Pakistani territory.
The real target is Pakistan’s nuclear potential; they have no plausible security threat from the ill-equipped Taliban or ragtag extremists.
The NATO forces attack on FC post in FATA has evoked “deep concern” from Pakistan, as the media reports indicate.
Our Foreign Minister has expressed this concern to NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at its headquarters in Brussels. One hoped that NATO would see the gravity of the reaction in Pakistan, but that was wishful thinking. Mr Rasmussen in the “good and open” discussion with our FM admitted that the attack was carried out “intentionally” - so much for our deep concern. The NATO boss thinks that by offering condolences and expressing regrets he has settled the incident.
In a previous article regarding America’s strategic objectives in Pakistan, I had opined that the ongoing war on terror in Afghanistan is aimed to take the operations into the Pakistani territory.
The real target is Pakistan’s nuclear potential; they have no plausible security threat from the ill-equipped Taliban or ragtag extremists.
Arthur Herman, an author and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has hinted at the real objective of the US. AEI is a think tank closely associated with the neoconservatives and is openly committed to Israel’s security. It supplies advisors to officials of the US administration and serves as “incubator for new policy ideas and is critical part of the web of power in Washington” (The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by Mearsheimer and Walt).
What Herman suggests in his write-up is in fact a policy direction to the US administration. He implies that the policy of sending drones and attacking militant hideouts in the Pakistan territory has not worked.
His line of argument is that Pakistan encourages drone attacks on those terrorists who pose a threat to them; they do not support attack on groups who target the Afghan government. His underlying thrust is obvious, he wants to tell the US and NATO forces to prop up the Afghan government against Pakistan.
One can understand now why President Hamid Karazai vents his anger on Pakistan from time to time. Herman suggests that if Pakistan's government is further destabilised “the only thing keeping the country’s nukes out of the hands of Al-Qaeda may have to be the US troops.”
So, the thrust is Pakistan’s nukes. It is a tacit way to tell the policymakers in Washington to keep the pressure on our country, which will weaken the Pakistani government’s standing, causing instability. That will provide the reason for the US troops to move in.
What is unknown to the public in Pakistan is that the pressure is escalating.
Herman quotes interesting figures of NATO excursions into the Pakistan's territory. In 2009, he lists 45 Predator drone attacks, in 2010 so far the attacks have tripled - 22 attacks in September alone.
We know about the drone attacks as these are reported in the media, but what we do not know and our media does not report is the fact that US-led NATO forces are launching crossborder raids into Pakistan to flush out the Taliban insurgents.
For this, CIA is operating Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams in Afghanistan.
These teams are regularly mounting ground raids into Pakistani territory.
Bob Woodward in his latest book, Obama’s Wars, claims that CIA boss Leon Panetta has demanded more powers and authority to wage a secret war inside Pakistan.
In this way, things are getting hot as far as the war on terror is concerned. Pakistan is moving to become centre stage in this war. Bruce Riedel, a former CIA and NSC official, has advised Mr Obama to shift the focus of war “from Afghanistan to Pakistan”; this is what we are witnessing in the shape of heightened war effort into the Pakistan territory.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
- 14.
-
Report: Russia Denies NATO Route For Military Supplies
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff
Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:14 pm (PDT)
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/13-Oct-2010/Russia-refuses-route-for-NATO-supplies
The Nation
October 13, 2010
Russia refuses route for NATO supplies
By Sikander Shaheen
ISLAMABAD: Russia has formally conveyed to NATO that it would not allow its soil to be used for transporting NATO military supplies to Afghanistan while it (Russia) can only allow transportation of the non-military consignments across the border.
Credible diplomatic sources confided to The Nation that after unknown miscreants had torched more than three dozens NATO oil tankers in Quetta last Thursday, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation had formally contacted the Russian Government to discuss the option of using Russian land as transit route for the transportation of NATO cargoes to Afghanistan.
Russia has reportedly conveyed to NATO that it would only allow the transportation of non-military items like food, medicines, tents and other related usable commodities and that there was not even a slightest possibility for the NATO to transport military consignments to Afghanistan via Russia.
Sources believe that Russia’s adamant stance towards NATO military cargo is embedded with mistrust that thoroughly revolves around the Russia-NATO relationship.
Russia has been accusing NATO of uncalled-for interference in Eastern Europe for a long time.
NATO’s presumed military aid to Georgia, Ukraine and Estonia is strongly opposed by Russia.
The Organisation is reportedly instrumental in flaring up Russia over a territorial row with Georgia as the Western military alliance backs Georgia over its claim on South Ossetia, a disputed territory between Georgia and Russia.
Back in 2008, Russian forces bombarded the Georgian [city of] Gori...over the same dispute.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Daily digest option available.
==============================
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
MARKETPLACE
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
No comments:
Post a Comment