Germany, Government, NATO, Society, United States

Germany: How does it contribute to NATO?

GERMANY & NATO

German defence spending

U.S. Defence Secretary Jim Mattis (Right) welcomes German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (2nd Left) at the Pentagon in Arlington, U.S., February 10, 2017.

Intro: From Berlin to Washington, Germany’s role in the trans-Atlantic alliance has taken centre stage. But what does Germany actually do for NATO? An examination is given here of its strategic role amid a spat prompted by US President Donald Trump.

IN GERMANY, the question of defence spending has become a contentious topic ahead of key parliamentary elections in September, with officials of the ruling “grand coalition” backing differing views.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have vowed to increase defence spending and meet NATO’s target of 2 percent of GDP by 2024.

On the other side, Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel of the Social Democrats (SPD) has cast doubt on the prospect of increasing defence spending “in this form,” saying other factors should be included in determining how the target is assessed.

But CDU politician Norbert Röttgen has lashed out this week at Gabriel’s remarks, telling the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” that the SPD, and more so the foreign minister, “should not use this issue as a domestic election campaign theme, but rather be responsible for Germany.” The issue has divided the centre of German politics, but why now?

Trump’s ultimatum

The divisions stem from US President Donald Trump’s ultimatum that NATO member states meet the defence spending target of 2 percent of GDP. If they fail to do so, Washington has threatened to withdraw its full commitment to the alliance.

“America will meets its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defence,” US Defense Secretary James Mattis said after meeting NATO defence ministers in Brussels in February.

This created a tense situation across the trans-Atlantic alliance, and seemed to ignore the fact that NATO member states had already agreed in 2014 to meet the target by 2024. The commitment agreed upon in Wales that year stemmed from a pledge member states made in 2006 “to commit a minimum of 2 percent of their GDP to spending on defence.”

Tensions flared again in the wake of Merkel’s visit to Washington last week, with Trump tweeting that “Germany owes vast sums of money to NATO and the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defence it provides to Germany.”

German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen, who supports the 2-percent target, issued a statement earlier this week, saying: “There is no account where debts are registered with NATO.”

Responding to Mr Trump’s remarks, analysts have pointed out that the alliance doesn’t work in that way, and that no cash is in fact owed to the organisation for defence purposes or otherwise.

Berlin spends on alliance

US defence expenditure represents 72 percent of defence spending across the trans-Atlantic alliance, according to NATO.

“This does not mean that the United States covers 72 percent of the costs involved in the operation running of NATO as an organisation, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands,” NATO said in a description of defence spending across the alliance.

“But it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare,” it added.

While Washington is the largest contributor to “NATO common-funder budgets and programs,” funding 22 percent of them, Berlin comes in second, paying for nearly 15 percent of the civil and military budgets and NATO’s security investment program for 2016 and 2017.

France and the UK, the third and fourth-largest contributors, trail behind Washington and Berlin, providing 10.6 and 9.8 percent of the cost-sharing budgets and programs, respectively.

Support: More than money

But Berlin has offered more than monetary resources to the alliance. “Germany is contributing some 4,700 personnel for ongoing operations for whom the security architecture of NATO, the EU, the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) form the frame,” according to NATO headquarters.

In February, 450 Bundeswehr soldiers and 30 tanks arrived in Lithuania as part of NATO’s “enhanced forward presence” in the Baltic region.

Last year, Germany provided the main support ship for NATO’s deployment to the Aegean Sea to “conduct reconnaissance, monitoring and surveillance of illegal crossings” in Greek and Turkish territorial waters at the height of the migration crisis.

Berlin has approximately 980 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan for NATO’s Resolute Support mission, which aims to “train, advise and assist the Afghan security forces and institutions” after the end of the decade-long International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission.

Germany also represents the second-largest contributor to NATO’s Kosovo force (KFOR) with 550 troops deployed to maintain a “safe and secure environment in Kosovo.”

The former West Germany officially joined the trans-Atlantic alliance in 1955 and integrated the former East Germany in 1990 during reunification.

Standard
Government, Politics, Society, United States

U.S. Finance Bill

UNITED STATES

Intro: President Trump unveils his first finance bill

DONALD TRUMP has promised a “new chapter of American greatness” as he unveiled plans to spend billions of dollars more on defence and building the wall with Mexico.

In his first finance plan, the U.S. President intends to ramp up security by slashing budgets on foreign aid, poverty programmes and the environment.

Defence will receive a 10 per cent increase of some £44billion – the biggest since Ronald Reagan’s boost in the 1980s.

Officials say the money would be used to “accelerate the defeat” of Islamic State and ensure U.S. troops were the “most ready forces in the world”.

Homeland Security will also see its budget rise by 7 per cent, assigning £2.3billion for building the border wall.

The Environmental Protection Agency will be cut by 31 per cent, the State Department by 28 per cent, and Health and Human Services by 17.9 per cent.

Climate change research is to be axed completely, along with smaller agencies financing the arts, public service broadcasting, and legal aid for the poor.

Standard
Arts, China, Japan, North Korea, Society, South Korea, United Nations, United States

Are we inching towards nuclear war?

NORTH KOREA

NK2

Intro: North Korea’s continued use of missiles threatens a new global flashpoint which could suck in South Korea, China, Japan and the United States.

AT 8.30 in the morning, rush hour is in full swing in the South Korean capital of Seoul, home to some 25 million people.

Those commuters crammed into the underground system are the lucky ones – initially, at least. When the missile hits, they are protected from the blinding light of the 20-kiloton detonation.

But above ground, in the area centred on the Yeouido financial district, all is destruction. Buildings up to a mile from Ground Zero have been vaporised or reduced to rubble. Some 70,000 people are dead, killed by the heat and the blast wave. Many more will succumb to radiation burns and radioactive fall-out over coming days.

The nuclear nightmare that has long bedevilled South Korea – America’s key ally in the region and one of the world’s most dynamic economies – has become a reality.

North Korea, most rogue of rogue nations, has struck. The nuclear explosion, similar in size to that which levelled Hiroshima, signalled the start of a blitzkrieg-style ground invasion intended to swiftly overwhelm its richer, more advanced neighbour.

A second atomic warhead, inbound on a crude Rodong rocket, has been successfully intercepted by America’s THAAD (Thermal High-Altitude Area Defence) anti-ballistic missile system. But Seoul’s torment is only beginning as hundreds of North Korean heavy guns rain down shells on the capital, many containing Sarin nerve gas.

The city, bunched up against the North-South border, is hopelessly vulnerable to a mass sneak attack of the kind now taking place, as hundreds of thousands of North Korean troops, and thousands of tanks, pour out of innumerable underground bunkers built within miles of the Demilitarised Zone between the two countries.

The rest of the world watches as the horror is relayed via 24-hour rolling news and social media. And waits for the next move …

****

COULD such a scenario ever come to pass? Will Kim Jong-un, latest incarnation of the cult dynasty that has ruled the Communist northern half of Korea since 1948, exchange bluff for action and, one day, deploy his small but lethal nuclear arsenal?

That terrifying possibility moved a step nearer this month when, without warning, Kim Jong-un ordered a salvo of missiles to be fired towards his other nervous neighbour, Japan.

The latest in a series of escalating acts of provocation by the North Korean dictator this year saw three (non-nuclear) missiles land in Japanese waters. North Korea media, which released photographs of the launch ‘supervised’ by a delighted Kim Jong-un, said the missiles had been aimed at American bases in Japan.

International condemnation was swift and wide-ranging, with the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, describing the launch as a ‘new level’ of threat. The U.S. appears to be losing patience.

In the last few days, the U.S. has ratchetted-up the pressure further with the deployment to Korean waters of the super-carrier USS Carl Vinson. The 100,000-ton Nimitz-class carrier, with 40-plus F-18 fighters on board, and a powerful escort of cruisers and destroyers, is the ultimate ‘big stick’ expression of American military power – and a provocation to paranoid minds in the North Korean capital, Pyongyang.

Sources in South Korea are claiming the heightened military presence – which includes moving in ‘Grey Eagle’ attack drones – is part of a U.S. plan to ‘decapitate’ the North Korean leadership and by demolishing key military facilities.

Ostensibly, Vinson is there to take part in the annual U.S.-South Korean joint military exercises – codenamed ‘Foal Eagle’ and ‘Key Resolve’ – involving 300,000 South Korean personnel and 20,000 Americans.

This act of allied solidarity was met, as usual, with blood-curdling threats from Pyongyang. It warned of ‘merciless ultra-precision strikes from ground, air, sea and underwater’ in retaliation.

As the Vinson berthed in the South Korean port of Busan, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, on a tour of the region, warned that the ‘diplomatic and other efforts of the past 20 years to bring North Korea to a point of denuclearisation have failed’.

The United States, said Tillerson, had provided $1.35 billion in assistance to Pyongyang to encourage it to abandon its nuclear programme, but to no effect. A ‘new approach’ was required – but what that might be, he has refused to say.

President Donald Trump has stated that ‘every option was on the table’ when it comes to North Korean aggression. While the phrase was meant to reassure, many Japanese and South Koreans worry that the Americans are contemplating pre-emptive strikes on North Korean military sites – which would indeed place them in the crosshairs of retaliatory attacks.

In unusually graphic language, China, North Korea’s reluctant patron, has warned that the communist state and the U.S. are like ‘two-accelerating trains’ speeding towards a head-on crash. The rhetoric may not be misplaced.

If World War III is to break out anywhere, then it would probably be in this febrile region. North Korea is intent on developing nuclear-tipped missiles that can hit the United States. Large areas of Japan and all of South Korea are already in range. Its nuclear arsenal numbers some 20 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs.

 

WHAT is not clear is if North Korea has the ability to marry these A-bombs to its missiles to create workable devices. But even the most cautious of analysts warns it is only a matter of time.

Kim Jong-un, irrational and unpredictable at the best of times, appears increasingly trigger-happy, revelling in his ability to make Western powers squirm. In February, North Korea launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile, superior to anything that had gone before.

Just days later came the brazen murder, by a hit squad using powerful VX nerve toxin of Kim Jong-un’s estranged half-brother, Kim Jong-nam. The manner of the killing, at Kuala Lumper airport in Malaysia, was intended to strike terror into the hearts of exiled opponents of the Kim regime. Interpol have now issued warrants for the arrest of four North Koreans in connection with the murder.

It is, however, the test-firing of four ballistic missiles towards Japan on March 5 (a fifth is thought to have failed) that most concerns the West.

The missiles themselves are not the most worrying feature. Unlike the one launched on February 12, these were not propelled by solid-fuel motors which allow for quick launches. Nor did they have intercontinental range.

Judging by the distance (600 miles) and height (160 miles) reached by the missiles, they were probably what experts call ‘extended-range’ Scuds, acquired in the Nineties after the fall of the Soviet Union.

What truly alarmed was the simultaneous, multiple-firing, which suggests advanced operational skill; the impact area of three of the missiles within 200 miles of Japan; and, the threats that followed.

North Korea’s UN ambassador claimed that the situation on the Korean Peninsula was ‘inching to the brink of a nuclear war’.

China’s intervention, calling on the U.S. and South Korea to halt military exercises in exchange for North Korea suspending tests seems, not surprisingly, to have fallen on deaf ears, as evidenced by the arrival of the USS Carl Vinson this week.

For the time being, the U.S. military response is defensive, bringing forward the long-planned installation of its anti-ballistic missile system, known as THAAD, on South Korean soil. The system, while not perfect, is designed to knock out Scud-type missiles.

China has called the installation of THAAD a provocative military escalation, a claim echoed too by Russia. Both nations fear that the system’s radar would allow the Americans to peer deep into their territory and monitor their missile tests.

China views every U.S. military development in its hemisphere as an attempt to thwart its ambitions for regional dominance. But America needs Chinese help in reigning in Pyongyang.

The best outcome for all in the region would be for China to use its leverage as North Korea’s biggest trading partner and main source of arms, food and energy to persuade Kim Jong-un to halt his nuclear ambitions.

China has, in fact, recently put pressure on its troublesome semi-ally, announcing last month that it was stopping imports of North Korean coal, a third of the poverty-stricken nation’s exports. However, Beijing has always been cautious about actions that could cause the collapse of the North Korean system, and with it a flood of refugees.

Before leaving office, Barack Obama warned Donald Trump that North Korea was the gravest security risk he would face as president. Every day that has passed since the inauguration confirms this assessment.

Perhaps the best hope for those living in the shadow of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions lies within Kim Jong-um himself. He loves the good things in life, yachts, cars, the best tobacco, even as his own people go hungry.

War with South Korea means instant war with the United States, and whatever mayhem North Korea can cause during its brief nuclear rampage, it cannot hope to prevail against the world’s only superpower.

In signing the order to attack South Korea, Kim would be signing his own death warrant. We must all hope Kim Jong-um is still sane enough to understand that.

Appendage:

USS Carl Vinson

The super-carrier, USS Carl Vinson, has been deployed to the Korean Peninsula following continued provocative actions by North Korea. Pyongyang’s insists that it is nearing the completion of an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching America.

 

Standard