Category Archives: NATO

Britain, Defence, Government, NATO, Politics, Society, Uncategorized

NATO defence spending

DEFENCE

nato-funding

Intro: Mr Trump is right to ask serious questions about the budgetary imbalance

The visit by Theresa May last month to Washington won an important acknowledgement from President Donald Trump: ‘he was 100 per cent behind NATO’. This was perceived as something of a coup given Mr Trump’s apparent indifference towards the 70-year-old alliance. His principal objection was not so much its existence as to the disproportionate contribution being made by the United States to its upkeep. By some measures, America pays 75 per cent of the total of NATO spending, most of which provides for the defence of Europe.

Donald Trump’s view – and, also, that of President Obama before him – is that Europe should shoulder a bigger share of that burden. A NATO symposium in Cardiff a few years ago proposed a minimum standard: that all NATO members should spend two per cent of their GDP on defence. This suited the UK because we have been meeting are two per cent commitment. According to the Government and NATO we continue to do so. A think-tank report, however, has caused consternation in Whitehall by suggesting all is not as it seems.

According to The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), last year’s figure was put at 1.98 per cent, below the NATO standard. The report claims that in Europe, only Greece and Estonia met the 2 per cent target in 2016. It has been suggested that the UK fell slightly short of the target because the economy grew faster than expected. The cash shortfall equates to around £380million. The British Government has responded by denouncing the calculation as “wrong” and has pointed to official NATO statistics from last July which put the UK’s defence spending for 2016 at 2.21 per cent of GDP. The Ministry of Defence has blamed exchange rate fluctuations caused by the drop in the value of pound sterling for the IISS ‘miscalculation’.

But this argument is largely specious – superficially plausible, but actually wrong – because, what matters is not a smoke-and-mirrors-game played with national budgetary statistics, but the provision for an adequate defence of Europe (largely paid for by the countries of Europe). Mr Trump is right to ask serious questions about the budgetary imbalance. The recent revelations that the Royal Navy’s entire fleet of seven attack submarines was out of action indicates that this is more than just massaging budgets; what matters is having the military capability to defend the nation and contribute to the requirements of the alliance whenever necessary. The politics and intergovernmental wrangling are secondary to the provision of effective defence systems; and the UK – and many others in Europe – need to pay their proper share towards them.

Standard
European Union, Japan, NATO, North Korea, United Nations, United States

North Korea taunts the US with new missile launch

NORTH KOREA

north-korea-missile-test-wdp

On February 12, North Korea launched a Musudan Intermediate-Range Ballistic missile. The launch contravenes UN Security Council resolutions.

Intro: North Korea is believed to have at least 12 nuclear warheads with explosive power of up to 40 kilotonnes each – over twice that of the Hiroshima bomb. The Musudan ballistic missile can carry at least one of these devices.  

Following the firing of a ballistic missile by North Korea towards Japan on February 12, Donald Trump has given Japan his ‘100 per cent’ backing.

The weapon flew some 300 miles before landing in the Sea of Japan. The timing of the launch coincided with the U.S. President hosting Japanese premier Shinzo Abe at his Florida mansion.

At a hastily arranged press conference Mr Abe said the ballistic test was ‘absolutely intolerable’.

Mr Trump added: ‘I just want everybody to understand that the United States of America stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100 per cent.’

The two leaders said their countries would draw closer together.

The South Korean foreign ministry said in a statement that ‘North Korea’s repeated provocations show the Kim Jong-un regime’s nature of irrationality, maniacally obsessed in its nuclear and missile development’.

Seoul’s military said that it was probably an intermediate range Musudan class missile. The weapons are designed to travel up to 3000 miles – meaning Japan could be reached from North Korea. Yoshihide Suga, Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, said it was a clear provocation to his country.

NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said the continuing missile tests ‘undermined regional and international security’. He added: ‘North Korea must refrain from further provocations, halt all launches using ballistic missile technology and abandon once and for all its ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner, as required by the UN Security Council.’

Mr Abe said: ‘President Trump and I myself completely share the view that we are going to promote further cooperation between the two nations. And also, we are going to further reinforce our alliance.’

North Korea is barred under UN resolutions from any use of ballistic missile technology. But six sets of UN sanctions since Pyongyang’s first nuclear test in 2006 have failed to halt its drive for what it insists are defensive weapons.

It conducted two nuclear tests and numerous missile launches last year in its quest to develop a nuclear weapons system capable of hitting the US mainland. The European Union also joined the criticism of North Korea and said its ‘repeated disregard of its international obligations was provocative and unacceptable’.

The South Korean military said in a statement: ‘Our assessment is that it is part of a show of force and is in response to the new US administration’s hardline position against the North.’

Mr Trump has vowed to get tough with North Korea and has called its leader Kim Jung-un a maniac who butchered his family. At a rally in Iowa last January he said: ‘This guy doesn’t play games. And we can’t play games with him.’

He added: ‘The message we’re sending to the world right now is a message of strength and solidarity; we stand with Japan and we stand with our allies in the region to address the North Korean menace.’

north-korea-missiles

North Korean Missile ranges.

 

 

Standard
Britain, NATO, Russia, United States

US-UK relations on NATO and Russia

WASHINGTON-LONDON

trump-may-reaffirm-us-uk-special-relationship

Ties between the US and Britain have “never been stronger”, US President Donald Trump said as he welcomed British Prime Minister Theresa May to the White House.

President Donald Trump is 100 per cent behind NATO, Theresa May has declared.

Following their first talks in the White House, the Prime Minister has said that the U.S. and UK were united in their “unshakeable commitment” to the alliance, and that both leaders recognise NATO as the “bulwark of our collective defence”.

However, the pair are set for a collision course on how to handle Vladimir Putin after President Trump said he hoped to have a “fantastic relationship” with the Russian leader. The British Prime Minister said she strongly supported continuing sanctions against Russia, but Mr Trump’s newly assembled administration said the lifting of sanctions was on the table.

Earlier this month, the president caused alarm across Europe as he dismissed NATO as “obsolete” and expressed a desire for warmer ties with Mr Putin. During his election campaign Mr Trump even suggested he could withdraw the US from the military alliance if other European members did not spend more money on defence.

Mrs May has pledged to work in persuading other EU leaders to meet their NATO commitment of spending 2 per cent of national income on defence. She has said that member states need to make sure they are equipped to fight terrorism and cyber warfare, as well as combatting conventional forms of war.

But, there are clear differences between the US and UK on Russia. In comments that would have been alarming to No 10, the president said of Mr Putin: ‘I don’t know the gentleman. I hope we have a fantastic relationship. That’s possible and it’s also possible that we won’t. We will see what happens.’

President Trump, said: ‘I have had many times where I thought I would get along with people and I don’t like them at all… And I have had some where I didn’t think I was going to have much of a relationship and it turned out to be a great relationship.’

Mr Trump has also said that he hoped for a ‘great relationship’ with China.

Mrs May said the UK would not back down on Russian sanctions amid suggestions Mr Trump could agree to lift them.

The Prime Minister said: ‘As far as the UK is concerned on sanctions for Russia in relation to their activities in the Ukraine, we have been very clear that we want to see the Minsk agreement (aimed at resolving the conflict between Ukraine and pro-Russian rebels) fully implemented.

‘We believe the sanctions should continue until we see that Minsk agreement fully implemented, and we’ve been continuing to argue that inside the European Union.’

Mr Trump has not answered directly whether he would remove the measures. A senior adviser to the U.S. President said that US sanctions against Moscow, and other issues, would be on the table.

Barack Obama’s administration and the EU hit Moscow with sanctions for sending in troops and supporting pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine. Earlier this month Mr Trump suggested his administration could lift them in return for a nuclear arms deal – irrespective of whether Mr Putin withdrew troops from the Ukraine.

The comments have sparked fears that an emboldened Russia could launch a full-scale invasion in the Ukraine or Baltic States.

Responding to the possibility of sanctions being lifted, the former head of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said: ‘I would urge strong caution against reversing any sanctions on Russia without concrete concessions.

‘Easing sanctions will only embolden Russia’s aggression in the region, putting the security interests of Ukraine and the United States in jeopardy.’

The U.S. softens its stance on torture

Donald Trump has dropped his controversial threat to revive the use of torture. This follows a warning from Theresa May who said it would force Britain to curb intelligence sharing.

In what will be seen as a dramatic about-turn, the US President has indicated that he would not now order secret service interrogators to use torture despite maintaining “it works”. Mr Trump said he would defer to his security advisers who are overwhelmingly opposed to the use of torture.

Mr Trump sparked an angry backlash when he first spoke out in favour of waterboarding, saying the West had to “fight fire with fire” in the war on terrorism.

His comments sparked alarm in the British intelligence community, with sources warning rules banning intelligence sharing with states that use torture would prohibit vital co-operation with the US. The U.S. President said he was bowing to the advice given to him by his Defence Secretary, General James Mattis, who has seen active service in the Middle East and who is opposed to torture.

Protagonists argue that extreme interrogation methods should be used if it saves lives.

Standard