DTN News - UKRAINE NEWS: Ukraine-European Union Ratify A Landmark Political And Free Trade Deal Agreement

DTN News - UKRAINE NEWS: Ukraine-European Union Ratify A Landmark Political And Free Trade Deal Agreement

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by K. V. Seth from reliable sources European Parliament / News
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - September 16, 2014: Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko shows a document about the ratification of a Ukraine-EU agreement after it was signed by him in the Ukrainian Parliament in Kiev, Ukraine, 16 September 2014. 

The parliaments of Ukraine and the European Union were set 16 September to ratify a landmark political and free trade deal, but some lawmakers expressed displeasure over a delay in the agreement. 

The political and trade deal ratified by parliaments in Ukraine and the European Union were the first step towards membership in the bloc, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said. 

The European Parliament gave its consent to the EU-Ukraine Association agreement, which includes a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA), on Tuesday in Strasbourg. At the same time, the Agreement was also ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament in Kiev. The deal will establish a deep political association and economic integration between the EU and Ukraine and provide for mutual free market access.

MEPs backed the agreement with 535 votes in favour, 127 against and 35 abstentions.

"Through this ratification, Ukraine's European choice will be institutionalized and will bind the futures of the EU and Ukraine together. Ukrainian society has paid the highest price for its European aspirations, grieving the deaths of numerous people, suffering territorial occupation by Russia and experiencing deteriorating economic conditions. With this ratification, the EU gives Ukraine the strongest sign of support, despite the regrettable proposal to delay implementation of the agreement" said rapporteur Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (EPP, PL) before the vote.

He added that the agreement was "not a definitive goal of EU-Ukraine relations" and stressed that the common future of the EU and Ukraine must now be protected from Russian aggression by introducing "increasingly heavy sanctions until the cost for Russia will be too high to sustain its policy".

"This is an historic moment", said EP President Martin Schulz in his address to MPs in the Strasbourg and Kiev chambers via a video link. "The two parliaments freely determined to vote today at the same time on this agreement. This is free democracy, the opposite of directed democracy. The European Parliament has always defended the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and will continue to do so", he added.

Just before the Ukraine Parliament ratified the deal, President Poroshenko said "The Ukrainians have reversed the express-train going East, and I hope that also today's vote will confirm that. Our synchronised ratifications will be a feast, not just for Ukraine but also for Europe because without Ukraine there is no united Europe. I would like to thank Europe for the support it has given us in these difficult times. At the same time I would like to address our government - the EU only asks for one thing in return from us - the reforms. I urge you not to delay them in any way".

What does the deal involve?

The deal provides both for a political association and for free trade. The political provisions take Ukraine one step closer to the EU, by opening new channels for political dialogue and establishing ground rules for cooperation in areas such as energy, transport, and education. It requires Ukraine to implement reforms and respect democratic principles, human rights and the rule of law.

Among other rules, the deal provides for greater movement of workers, sets targets for establishing a visa-free travel regime and aligning the two sides’ regulatory systems by laying down detailed timetables for Ukraine to transpose parts of the EU acquis legislation into its national laws and put them into effect.

The Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement part substantially integrates the EU and Ukraine markets, by dismantling import duties and banning other trade restrictions, albeit with specific limitations and transitional periods in “sensitive” areas, such as trade in agricultural products. It will also partially integrate public procurement markets.

When will it take effect?

As a result of today's votes both in the EU and Ukrainian Parliament, the deal will be applied provisionally but the date still needs to be confirmed by the Council. To take full legal effect, the deal has to be ratified by the 28 EU member states. So far, it has been ratified in six member states,, but several years may elapse before the process is completed in all member states.

It was planned to apply the trade rules from 1 November this year, but last Friday 12 September the EU, Ukraine and Russia agreed in talks to delay the provisional entry into effect of the trade rules until 31 December 2015.


The EU Commission says that it will continue to apply EU “autonomous trade preferences” to Ukraine, which in effect opens the EU market to Ukraine unilaterally. A decision to prolong these preferences later would need the backing of the European Parliament.

*Link for This article compiled by K. V. Seth from reliable sources European Parliament / News
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*Photograph: IPF (International Pool of Friends) + DTN News / otherwise source stated
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News: EU-US Summit 2014 Top Stories / Headlines News Dated March 26, 2014

DTN News: EU-US Summit 2014 Top Stories / Headlines News Dated March 26, 2014

 Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by K. V. Seth 

(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - March 26, 2014: Comprehensive daily news related to EU-US Summit 2014 Top Stories / Headlines News for the world of TODAY.

*Comprehensive daily news related to EU-US Summit 2014 Top Stories / Headlines News Top Stories / Headlines News for the world of TODAY

1. Next EU-U.S. summit on 26 March 2014 News prnewswire.com Business

   www.news.nom.co/next-eu-u-s-summit-on-26-march-2014-7809134-news   Cached
   

   The next EU-U.S. summit will be held in Brussels on Wednesday 26 March 2014, following an invitation by European Council President Herman Va, News from prnewswire.com ...

2. EU-U.S. Summit announced for March 26, 2014 » Delegation of the ...

   www.euintheus.org/.../eu-u-s-summit-announced-for-march-26-2014   Cached
   

   EU-U.S. Summit announced for March 26, 2014; ... will travel to Brussels on March 26 for a EU-U.S. Summit, ... newsletter to get updates and news in your mailbox ...

3. Next EU-U.S. summit on 26 March 2014 News Yahoo!News Politics

   www.news.nom.co/next-eu-u-s-summit-on-26-march-2014-7809701-news   Cached
   

   Related News about "Next EU-U.S. summit on 26 March 2014" news from other sites: (news similarity rate is shown on left.)

4. Next EU-U.S. summit on 26 March 2014 -- WASHINGTON, Jan. 21,2014 ...

   www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/next-eu-us-summit-on-26-march...   Cached
   

   WASHINGTON, Jan. 21, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Next EU-U.S. summit on 26March 2014.

5. Next EU-U.S. summit on 26 March 2014 | FinancialContent Business Page

   markets.financialcontent.com/stocks/news/read/26202314/Next_EU   Cached
   

   WASHINGTON, Jan. 21, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The next EU-U.S. summitwill be held in Brussels on Wednesday 26 March 2014, following an invitation ...

6. Next EU-U.S. summit on 26 March 2014 - Press Release - Digital Journal

   www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1692799   Cached
   

   Next EU-U.S. summit on 26 March 2014. PR Newswire. ... WASHINGTON, Jan. 21, 2014/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The next EU-U.S. summit will be held in Brussels on ...

7. Next EU-U.S. summit on 26 March 2014 - Local news, weather, sports ...

   www.wsav.com/story/24508073/next-eu-us-summit-on-26-march-2014
   

   WSAV is the NBC affiliate covering local news, weather, traffic, and sports for Savannah, Hilton Head, Beaufort, Bluffton, Richmond Hill, and Statesboro.

8. Next EU-U.S. Summit On 26 March 2014 - TheStreet

   www.thestreet.com/.../1/next-eu-us-summit-on-26-march-2014.html   Cached

   Next EU-U.S. Summit On 26 March 2014. BY PR ... 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The next EU-U.S. summit will be held in Brussels ... Alerts when market news affect ...

9. Next EU-U.S. summit on 26 March 2014 | Market Monitor | Nation's ...

   finance.nrn.com/nrn/news/read?GUID=26202314   Cached
   

   WASHINGTON, Jan. 21, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The next EU-U.S. summitwill be held in Brussels on Wednesday 26 March 2014, following an invitation by European 

*Link for This article compiled by K. V. Seth 
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*Photograph: IPF (International Pool of Friends) + DTN News / otherwise source stated
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - UKRAINIAN NEWS: Perspectives on the Ukrainian Protests

DTN News - UKRAINIAN NEWS: Perspectives on the Ukrainian Protests

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by K. V. Seth from reliable sources By George Friedman - Stratfor
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - January 28, 2014: A few months ago, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich was expected to sign some agreements that could eventually integrate Ukraine with the European Union economically. Ultimately, Yanukovich refused to sign the agreements, a decision thousands of his countrymen immediately protested. The demonstrations later evolved, as they often do. Protesters started calling for political change, and when Yanukovich resisted their calls, they demanded new elections.

Some protesters wanted Ukraine to have a European orientation rather than a Russian one. Others felt that the government was corrupt and should thus be replaced. These kinds of demonstrations occur in many countries. Sometimes they're successful; sometimes they're not. In most cases, the outcome matters only to the country's citizens or to the citizens of neighboring states. But Ukraine is exceptional because it is enormously important. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has had to pursue a delicate balance between the tenuous promises of a liberal, wealthy and somewhat aloof Europe and the fact that its very existence and independence can be a source of strategic vulnerability for Russia.

Ukraine's Importance

Ukraine provides two things: strategic position and agricultural and mineral products. The latter are frequently important, but the former is universally important. Ukraine is central to Russia's defensibility. The two countries share a long border, and Moscow is located only some 480 kilometers (about 300 miles) from Ukrainian territory -- a stretch of land that is flat, easily traversed and thus difficult to defend. If some power were to block the Ukraine-Kazakh gap, Russia would be cut off from the Caucasus, its defensible southern border.

Moreover, Ukraine is home to two critical ports, Odessa and Sevastopol, which are even more important to Russia than the port of Novorossiysk. Losing commercial and military access to those ports would completely undermine Russia's influence in the Black Sea and cut off its access to the Mediterranean. Russia's only remaining ports would be blocked by the Greenland-Iceland-U.K. gap to the west, by ice to the northeast, by Denmark on the Baltic Sea, and by Japan in the east.

This explains why in 1917, when the Bolsheviks took power and sued for peace, the Germans demanded that Russia relinquish its control of most of Ukraine. The Germans wanted the food Ukraine produced and knew that if they had a presence there they could threaten Russia in perpetuity. In the end, it didn't matter: Germany lost Word War I, and Russia reclaimed Ukraine. During World War II, the Germans seized Ukraine in the first year of their attack on the Soviet Union, exploited its agriculture and used it as the base to attack Stalingrad, trying to sever Russia from its supply lines in Baku. Between the wars, Stalin had to build up his industrial plant. He sold Ukrainian food overseas and used it to feed factory workers in Russia. The Ukrainians were left to starve, but the industry they built eventually helped the Soviets defeat Hitler. After the Soviets drove the Germans back, they seized Romania and Hungary and drove to Vienna, using Ukraine as their base.

From the perspective of Europe, and particularly from the perspectives of former Soviet satellites, a Ukraine dominated by Russia would represent a potential threat from southern Poland to Romania. These countries already depend on Russian energy, fully aware that the Russians may eventually use that dependence as a lever to gain control over them. Russia's ability not simply to project military power but also to cause unrest along the border or use commercial initiatives to undermine autonomy is a real fear.

Thinking in military terms may seem more archaic to Westerners than it does to Russians and Central Europeans. For many Eastern Europeans, the Soviet withdrawal is a relatively recent memory, and they know that the Russians are capable of returning as suddenly as they left. For their part, the Russians know that NATO has no will to invade Russia, and war would be the last thing on the Germans' minds even if they were capable of waging one. The Russians also remember that for all the economic and military malaise in Germany in 1932, the Germans became the dominant power in Europe by 1939. By 1941, they were driving into the Russian heartland. The farther you move away from a borderland, the more fantastic the fears appear. But inside the borderland, the fears seem far less preposterous for both sides.

Russian Perspectives

From the Russian point of view, therefore, tighter Ukrainian-EU integration represented a potentially mortal threat to Russian national security. After the Orange Revolution, which brought a short-lived pro-EU administration to power in the mid-2000s, Russian President Vladimir Putin made clear that he regarded Ukraine as essential to Russian security, alleging that the nongovernmental organizations that were fomenting unrest there were fronts for the U.S. State Department, the CIA and MI6. Whether the charges were true or not, Putin believed the course in which Ukraine was headed would be disastrous for Russia, and so he used economic pressure and state intelligence services to prevent Ukraine from taking that course.

In my view, the 2008 Russo-Georgian War had as much to do with demonstrating to Kiev that Western guarantees were worthless, that the United States could not aid Georgia and that Russia had a capable military force as it did with Georgia itself. At the time, Georgia and Ukraine were seeking NATO and EU membership, and through its intervention in Georgia, Moscow succeeded in steering Ukraine away from these organizations. Today, the strategic threat to Russia is no less dire than it was 10 years ago, at least not in minds of the Russians, who would prefer a neutral Ukraine if not a pro-Russia Ukraine.

Notably, Putin's strategy toward the Russian periphery differs from those of his Soviet and czarist predecessors, who took direct responsibility for the various territories subordinate to them. Putin considers this a flawed strategy. It drained Moscow's resources, even as the government could not hold the territories together.

Putin's strategy toward Ukraine, and indeed most of the former Soviet Union, entails less direct influence. He is not interested in governing Ukraine. He is not even all that interested in its foreign relationships. His goal is to have negative control, to prevent Ukraine from doing the things Russia doesn't want it to do. Ukraine can be sovereign except in matters of fundamental importance to Russia. As far as Russia was concerned, the Ukrainian regime is free to be as liberal and democratic as it wants to be. But even the idea of further EU integration was a clear provocation. It was the actions of the European Union and the Germans -- supporting opponents of Yanukovich openly, apart from interfering in the internal affairs of another country -- that were detrimental to Russian national interests.

European Perspectives

Ukraine is not quite as strategically significant to Europe as it is to Russia. Europe never wanted to add Ukraine to its ranks; it merely wanted to open the door to the possibility. The European Union is in shambles. Given the horrific economic problems of Southern Europe, the idea of adding a country as weak and disorganized as Ukraine to the bloc is preposterous. The European Union has a cultural imperative among its elite toward expansion, an imperative that led them to include countries such as Cyprus. Cultural imperatives are hard to change, and so an invitation went out with no serious intentions behind it.

For the Europeans, what the invitation really meant was that Ukraine could become European. It could have the constitutional democracy, liberalism and prosperity that every EU state is supposed to have. This is what appealed to most of the early demonstrators. However improbable full membership might be, the idea of becoming a modern European society is overwhelmingly appealing. Yanukovich's rejection made some protesters feel that their great opportunity had slipped away -- hence the initial demonstrations.

The Germans are playing a complex game. They understood that Ukrainian membership in the European Union was unlikely to happen anytime soon. They also had important dealings with Russia, with which they had mutual energy and investment interests. It was odd that Berlin would support the demonstrators so publicly. However, the Germans were also managing coalitions within the European Union. The Baltic states and Poland were eager to see Ukraine drawn out of the Russian camp, since that would provide a needed, if incomplete, buffer between them and Russia (Belarus is still inside Russia's sphere of influence). Therefore, the Germans had to choose between European partners, who cared about Ukraine, and Russia.

The Russians have remained relatively calm -- and quiet -- throughout Ukraine's protests. They understood that their power in Ukraine rested on more than simply one man or his party, so they allowed the crisis to stew. Given Russia's current strategy in Ukraine, the Russians didn't need to act, at least not publicly. Any government in Ukraine would face the same constraints as Yanukovich: little real hope of EU inclusion, a dependence on Moscow for energy and an integrated economy with Russia. Certainly, the Russians didn't want a confrontation just before Sochi.

The Russians also knew that the more tightly pro-Western forces controlled Kiev, the more fractious Ukraine could become. In general, eastern Ukraine is more oriented toward Russia: Its residents speak Russian, are Russian Orthodox and are loyal to the Moscow Patriarchy. Western Ukraine is oriented more toward Europe; its residents are Catholic or are loyal to the Kiev Patriarchy. These generalities belie a much more complex situation, of course. There are Moscow Orthodox members and Russian speakers in the west and Catholics and Kiev Orthodox in the east. Nevertheless, the tension between the regions is real, and heavy pro-EU pressure could split the country. If that were to happen, the bloc would find itself operating in chaos, but then the European Union did not have the wherewithal to operate meaningfully in Ukraine in the first place. The pro-EU government would encounter conflict and paralysis. For the time being that would suit the Russians, as unlikely as such a scenario might be.

U.S. Perspectives

As in most matters, it is important to understand where the United States fits in, if at all. Washington strongly supported the Orange Revolution, creating a major rift with Russia. The current policy of avoiding unnecessary involvement in Eurasian conflicts would suggest that the United States would stay out of Ukraine. But Russian behavior in the Snowden affair has angered Washington and opened the possibility that the United States might be happy to create some problems for Moscow ahead of the Sochi Olympics. The U.S. government may not be supporting nongovernmental organizations as much as its counterparts in Europe are, but it is still involved somewhat. In fact, Washington may even have enjoyed putting Russia on the defensive after having been put on the defensive by Russia in recent months.

In any case, the stakes are high in Ukraine. The Russians are involved in a game they cannot afford to lose. There are several ways for them to win it. They only need to make the EU opening untenable for the Ukrainians, something Ukraine's economic and social conditions facilitate. The Europeans are not going to be surging into Ukraine anytime soon, and while Poland would prefer that Ukraine remain neutral, Warsaw does not necessarily need a pro-Western Ukraine. The United States is interested in Ukraine as an irritant to Russia but is unwilling to take serious risks.

A lot of countries have an interest in Ukraine, none more so than Russia. But for all the noise in Kiev and other cities, the outcome is unlikely to generate a definitive geopolitical shift in Ukraine. It does, however, provide an excellent example of how political unrest in a strategically critical country can affect the international system as a whole.

In most countries, the events in Kiev would not have generated global interest. When you are a country like Ukraine, even nominal instability generates not only interest but also pressure and even intervention from all directions. This has been the historical problem of Ukraine. It is a country in an important location, and the pressures on it tend to magnify any internal conflicts until they destabilize the country in excess of the significance of the internal issues. Germany and the United States may continue to pursue goals that will further irritate Russia, but as Stratfor indicated in our 2014 annual forecast, they will avoid actions that would risk harming Moscow's ties with Washington and Berlin. Russian influence in Ukraine is currently being limited by the proximity of the Olympics and the escalation in protests on the ground, but the fundamental geopolitical reality is that no country has a higher stake in Ukraine than Russia, nor a better ability to shape its fate.

*Link for This article compiled by K. V. Seth from reliable sources By George Friedman - Stratfor
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*Photograph: IPF (International Pool of Friends) + DTN News / otherwise source stated
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - SPECIAL REPORT: Germany Warns UK Against EU Budget Veto

DTN News - SPECIAL REPORT: Germany Warns UK Against EU Budget Veto

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources Press TV
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - October 22, 2012: Germany is warning Britain that its threat to veto the European Union’s new budget will force Berlin to cancel next month’s EU budget summit.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has threatened to veto any agreement on the EU’s new seven-year budget other than a complete spending freeze. 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reportedly decided that holding talks on the 2014-2020 budget while Britain is almost certain to veto it is pointless, The Financial Times reported. 

A veto will further outrage EU members after Cameron also vetoed an EU-wide financial agreement to help the eurozone crisis back in December and forced the other 26 nations to sign the pact without Britain. 

EU officials are now warning that the second veto can seriously damage diplomatic ties between the 27-member bloc and Britain. 

Merkel has reportedly raised the subject in a telephone conversation with Cameron last Monday. 

Cameron openly said earlier this month that “If there isn’t a deal that’s good for Britain, there won’t be a deal.” 

However, Merkel is apparently trying to persuade him to back her government’s proposal for the EU spending to be capped at one percent of European gross domestic product. 

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources Press TV
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: Harmonizing European Defense Efforts

DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: Harmonizing European Defense Efforts
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Robert K. Ackerman, SIGNAL Magazine
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - May 6, 2012: The European Union is trying to bring the defense programs of its 27 member nations into synchronicity before the budget boom is lowered on military spending. This harmonization has been a goal for several years, but now it has assumed greater urgency in a time of both greater limitations and more diverse missions.

With the United States the world’s undisputed military superpower and NATO the prevailing defense alliance, the European Union (EU) is striving to develop a military force among member nations that is both effective and efficient. It has participated in several multinational operations, some of which are ongoing. However, the EU force has yet to achieve a satisfactory complementary role with NATO, and the budgetary pressures that are affecting democracies around the world threaten to derail EU efforts to build a distinct military force with its own identity in the global security realm.

So, that force is working to improve its functionality in a time of rising demand and declining resources. Solutions for the two issues may go hand-in-hand as the continent grapples with achieving its long-term goals.

Gen. Håkan Syrén, SWN, is the chairman of the European Union Military Committee (EUMC). He states that solving most of the challenges facing the European Union may require the effective pooling and sharing of defense efforts, which will allow the European Union to attain greater operational effect without increases in spending. This approach would not entail all EU members engaging in the same activity; rather, it would involve clusters of nations cooperating in complementary ways. Areas where this approach would bear fruit quickly include training and exercising, procurement and surveillance, the general points out.

“We must not just look at what we don’t have. We must also look at what we have,” Gen. Syrén declares. In this vein, the European Union is looking at overcapacities that can be altered to realize greater efficiencies.

The past year has seen progress in getting European nations to pool and share—to “work smarter,” the general says. However, that type of cultural and logistical change takes time, which is in short supply with severe budgetary pressures constraining member nations.

Gen. Syrén describes four strategic priorities for the short term. These include ongoing operations in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East as well as developing a more effective use of European military capabilities. Also on the list is the advancement of strategic partnerships with organizations such as the United Nations, the African Union, NATO and individual states outside of the European Union. And, the EUMC is pursuing a comprehensive approach to its operations. The general observes that the European Union’s operations in the Horn of Africa could serve as a testbed for the comprehensive approach, which is outlined in the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon that laid the foundation for a permanent European structured cooperation in defense.

For the long term, Gen. Syrén allows, the EUMC is facing a strategic change that is underway on the other side of the globe. “It is very clear that the center of gravity is going from this corner of the world to the Far East,” he says. Combined with the budget constraints, this shift is affecting Europe’s defense activities. The general recalls how former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in a farewell statement, called for Europe to shoulder more responsibility for its own defense.

Yet, as with all democracies’ militaries, the global financial crisis has hamstrung Europe’s defense efforts. Since the end of the Cold War, European nations intended to spend about 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. However, that goal has faded in recent years, and Gen. Syrén admits that some nations even come in as low as 0.7 percent of GDP for defense. “When you have 27 member states doing their defense budgets individually, it is difficult to have a holistic view of this. Member states are really losing their capacity to keep up a long-term perspective,” he observes, adding that it is difficult for the European Union to coordinate defense efforts in this environment.
  
An Airbus A400M lands on an unpaved airfield. Gen. Syrén cites strategic airlift as one area that needs modernization to improve Europe’s defense capabilities.

However, Gen. Syrén emphasizes that Europe is not out of money for defense spending. Its members spend a total of about $200 billion annually on defense. These nations must maximize their return on that investment.

Ironically, the budget crisis is a good argument for EU member states to cooperate on complementary military development. “I understand that 27 sovereign states must have 27 headquarters, but we have to look very carefully at how we are executing our business,” the general says. “Do we really need all the war colleges? Can we continue with many different logistical concepts? Do we need a dozen different manufacturers of armored personnel vehicles? Do we need more than a dozen naval shipyards? Do we really need four different fourth-generation combat aircraft?

“We have to look at how we are doing the business; and in this context, pooling and sharing can be both a useful tool and also a useful wakeup call that we can do business together,” he states.

The general continues that the European Union has developed a number of initiatives and proposals, but these represent just a first step. “If I compare the situation today with when we started this effort one and a half years ago—and I can count on my fingers what kind of savings this can give us against the budget cuts we have seen the past year and that we have ahead of us—the situation is getting worse. So, we have to take pooling and sharing to a completely different level.”

Part of the challenge is that many nations agree with the concept in principle, but then they cannot agree on how to implement it. Leaders come to view the next step in implementation as a threat to their nation’s sovereignty, the general allows. Some nations also view it as a threat to their defense industrial base, with resultant reductions in domestic employment. “This discussion must be taken to the highest political level to work out these very difficult questions,” he says. “We are at that stage.”

Many European nations have taken to forming bilateral or even trilateral military force alliances with their neighbors. These mini-alliances are a positive development, the general says, and the European Union can build on them. The battle group concept, in which regional forces group in clusters, also contributes to the building of a European defense force. Training and exercise in particular benefit from these agreements.

These local cooperative approaches might be a key to reaching the goal of an EU-wide complementary defense. “A bilateral or trilateral [approach] can be a good initiative or inspiration for other member states to join and make it better and wider,” the general suggests.

Not only does this approach break down barriers between countries, it also provides better cost-effectiveness, Gen. Syrén points out. “The driver is the pooling and sharing initiative, along with the understanding that we cannot continue to do business as we have done before. We have to do it differently while we are under these budget constraints.”

And, as with all modern militaries, Europe must modernize its force to respond to changes in the global security arena. The recent operation in support of the Libyan people rebelling against the government of Muammar Gaddafi illuminated several shortcomings in European defense capabilities. These included precision munitions, strategic airlift and intelligence. All of these must be addressed in the long term, Gen. Syrén points out.

“You can take any one of the conflicts [in which the EU has participated] and these [needs] have been asked for,” he relates.

The general adds helicopters, mid-air refueling, medical units and engineering to this list of military shortcomings that need remedying. In terms of capabilities, Gen. Syrén wants a single surveillance picture for maritime units.

New threats such as cyberwar and the consequences of climate change also are affecting defense planning for the European Union. These threats join weapons of mass destruction as concerns for the EUMC.

The European Union has not yet clearly defined its course of action for dealing with the cyberthreat, Gen. Syrén admits. A commission is expected to generate its first paper toward developing a framework for action shortly.

Climate change is an issue because the melting Arctic icecap is opening up new sea lanes. Many of the nations that border the Arctic now are looking at newly accessible regions in which the undersea shelf may hold vast natural resources such as oil and gas. The potential for competing claims makes this a geopolitical issue, and the military must stand ready if needed to contribute to resolution, the general observes.

Even though 21 of the European Union’s 27 member nations also belong to NATO, the relationship between the EU military and the Atlantic alliance remains unsettled. For example, some in NATO are concerned that a strong EU military will weaken NATO. Gen. Syrén describes the barriers between NATO and the European Union defense force as purely political. Accordingly, eliminating them will require action at the political level. “We in uniform cannot solve the problems alone; nor can the civilian authorities,” he says. Both the NATO secretary-general and the EU high representative have been clear about their efforts to resolve differences. “Willingness is not the problem,” Gen. Syrén allows. “Now, we have to wait for the result.”

The general notes that the two forces have cooperated well in operations such as Ocean Shield in the Gulf of Aden and in Afghanistan. The two organizations are able to work out important details when they cooperate in theater. He views his job as ensuring that no competition emerges between NATO and the EUMC, and he lauds the relationship he has with his counterpart in NATO. “We really can be complementary to NATO,” Gen. Syrén offers.

One way that the European Union can complement NATO is through civilian operations. These can include state-building measures such as economic assistance, food relief and establishing law and order mechanisms.


*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Robert K. Ackerman, SIGNAL Magazine
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - MYANMAR NEWS: British Prime Minister David Cameron In Myanmar - Support Suspending Sanctions

DTN News - MYANMAR NEWS: British Prime Minister David Cameron In Myanmar - Support Suspending Sanctions
*British PM calls for suspending Myanmar sanctions
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources AP
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - April 13, 2012: British Prime Minister David Cameron said Friday that he would support suspending the European Union's economic sanctions on Myanmar, which are to be reviewed by the end of the month.

Cameron spoke after meetings with the country's reform-minded president, Thein Sein, and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, a longtime political prisoner who was recently elected to parliament in Myanmar, a former British colony.

However, Cameron specified that he did not want to see an arms embargo on Myanmar be lifted as part of any easing of sanctions. The embargo, along with economic and political sanctions, was imposed during the repressive rule of the country's previous military government.

"We know there is still much, much more needed to be done, as the president himself has acknowledged, that there are more changes that need to be made," Cameron said at a news conference after meeting with Suu Kyi. "The right thing for the world to do is to encourage the change and to believe in the possibility of peaceful progress towards democracy."

By talking of suspending rather than lifting sanctions, Cameron was making clear the move would be a provisional one that could easily be withdrawn, if judged necessary.

Western nations have held out the prospect of easing sanctions if Thein Sein, a former general who retains close ties to the military, continues the political liberalization he began after taking office a year ago. Foreign investors as well as Myanmar entrepreneurs expect a business boom when restrictions are lifted.

Cameron, speaking with Suu Kyi by his side, told reporters that he had met with Thein Sein and concluded "there are prospects of change in Burma, and I think it is right for the rest of the world to respond to those changes. It is right to suspend the sanctions there are against Burma." He added that the suspension would "obviously" not include ending the arms embargo. Burma is the former name for Myanmar.

Thein Sein's reforms are seen as being mainly driven by a desire for sanctions to be lifted, with those imposing them gradually easing restrictions in return for more reforms, which so far have included the freeing of many political prisoners and reconciliation with Suu Kyi's pro-democracy movement.

If the EU, which is scheduled to take up the issue on April 23, suspends sanctions, it will put pressure on the United States to do likewise, for competitive business reasons. Both the EU and the U.S. restrict investment and trade with Myanmar, along with a slew of more targeted measures aimed at Myanmar military figures involved with repression, and their families and business cronies.

Suu Kyi — who attended Oxford and whose late husband was British — endorsed Cameron's approach.

"I support the idea of suspension rather than the lifting of sanctions because this would be an acknowledgment of the role of the president and other reformers," she said. "This suspension would have taken place because of steps taken by the president and other reformers and it would also make it quite clear to those who are against reform that should they try to obstruct the way of the reformers, then sanctions could come back."

While the international community has applauded political liberalization in Myanmar, it remains concerned about conflict with ethnic rebel groups, who have long been seeking greater autonomy from the central government. The government has been negotiating cease-fires with many, but remains embroiled in a bitter, fitful struggle with the Kachin minority in the country's far north.

As long as such fighting continues, there is no chance the arms embargo will be lifted. However, the failure to do so will affect Myanmar very little, as it had gotten around the embargo for years by buying military items from other suppliers, including China, North Korea and Eastern European nations.

Cameron held talks with Thein Sein soon after arriving in Myanmar's capital, Naypyitaw, and later met separately with Suu Kyi at her home in Yangon during his one-day visit.

His visit is the first in memory by a British prime minister, and it may actually be the first by a serving British head of government since Myanmar obtained its independence from Britain in 1948, when it was called Burma.

Suu Kyi was under house arrest during most of the past two decades under military rule. But as part of her rapprochement with the government, her National League for Democracy party took part in April 1 by-elections to win 43 of the 44 parliamentary seats it contested.

She will head the opposition bloc in parliament when it convenes on April 23, though Suu Kyi's party has suggested that it may delay taking its seats because it finds the wording of the oath of office contrary to its principles. The oath talks of protecting the constitution, which has clauses the NLD considers undemocratic.

Cameron invited Suu Kyi to come to the United Kingdom in June to see her "beloved Oxford" and said that it would be a sign of progress if she were able to leave her country and then return to carry out her duties as a lawmaker. When she was at odds with the former ruling junta, she declined to leave for fear she would be barred from returning.

Suu Kyi replied that "two years ago I would have said 'thank you' for the invitation, 'but sorry.' But now I am able to say 'perhaps,' and that's great progress."

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources AP
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: Panetta Cites ‘Red Lines’ Iran Should Avoid

DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: Panetta Cites ‘Red Lines’ Iran Should Avoid
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Elaine Sanchez - American Forces Press Service
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - February 16, 2012:  The nation is open to reaching diplomatic solutions with Iran, but is keeping all options on the table in case clear-cut “red lines” are crossed, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said today.

Speaking to members of a House Appropriations subcommittee, Panetta said Iran is becoming increasingly isolated in the world.

“The international community has sent a very clear message,” he said. “We will not tolerate this. You’ve got to change your ways. You’ve got to come into the international community. You’ve got to abide by international laws, rules and regulations.”

The United States and the international community share the same concerns, Panetta noted. First, he said, “We will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.”

Panetta said intelligence reports clearly indicate that Iran continues to develop its enrichment capability; however, “intelligence does not show they’ve made the decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon.”

“That is the red line that would concern us and that would ensure the international community, hopefully together, would respond,” he said.

The international community also will not allow Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, the secretary said. The strait is the only sea passage to the open ocean for petroleum-producing nations in the Persian Gulf region. Iran recently threatened to cut off access to the strait if the United States continues to maintain an aircraft carrier presence there.

Other concerns include the spread of violence, the country’s support of terrorism and its attempts to undermine other nations, Panetta added.

“All of that has been made very clear,” he said.

The international community has implemented strong diplomatic and economic sanctions that are having “a very strong impact,” he said.

“We are open … to negotiations with them to try to find a diplomatic solution to these issues, but we do keep all options on the table in the event the red lines, I just made very clear, are crossed,” Panetta said.

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Elaine Sanchez - American Forces Press Service
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS