Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations on Friday, May 16. 2008
Observing Hermann has posted a revealing article that references the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) most recent survey on global arms transfers (HT: Joe Noory):
The survey says that the USA, Russia and Germany are the world’s leading weapons exporters, with Germany’s latest weapons export piece of the pie profits coming in at around $3.395 billion. Damn, just think of all the ploughshares you could buy with that.
Taking a look at the numbers more closely reveals some interesting facts:
 In 2007:
• The USA, Russia, and Germany held 31, 19, and 14 percent of global exports respectively
• France was the fourth largest arms exporter, with 11% of the global market
From 2006 to 2007:
• Russia’s market share dropped 25% to 19%
• Germany’s market share rose 11% to 14%
• France’s market share rose 6% to 11%
The chart above shows Germany's global arms exports have increased steadily over the past few years. This is interesting considering Germany's resistance to take on an active combat role in Afghanistan, instead preferring to focus on reconstruction projects. As Observing Hermann wryly states:
All I can say is that it’s good to know that all of these German weapons are being used for goodness and niceness and purely defensive purposes (did you know that Wehrmacht meant defensive force?), not like some other countries’ weapons out there, if you know what I’m sayin’. Otherwise a whole lot of people in this country wouldn’t be able to sleep well at night.
Related posts on Atlantic Review:
• Afghanistan: Merkel has “No Time” for Burden Sharing Proposals
• Afghanistan: NATO Crisis Gets Worse
• War for Dummies: Step 1, Fighting is Necessary
• Afghanistan: Fighting is Not Most Important
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Saturday, May 10. 2008
Tiny Georgia has become the front line in West-Russia tensions for the past month. It began at the NATO Bucharest Summit in early April, when NATO members rebuked immediate progress toward full NATO membership for Georgia, due largely to protests from Russia – while nonetheless promising future membership.
In the month since Bucharest, Russia-Georgia relations have spiraled quickly. Multiple Georgian unmanned aircraft are claimed to have been shot down over the breakaway region of Abkhazia, though disinformation (i.e. – blatant lies) coming from Russia, Georgia, Abkhazia, or all three, have blurred the facts. Russia has also deepened ties with Georgia’s separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and increased its number of “peace-keepers” there despite protests from the EU and NATO. At the same time, Russia is accusing Georgia of preparing an invasion into Abkhazia, and Georgia has pulled out of an air-defense treaty with Russia.
While both Russia and Georgia are contributing to escalating tensions, Russia undoubtedly initiated the latest downturn as a response to Georgia's bid for NATO membership.
Continue reading "Georgia Conflict: Should NATO Marry the Small Kid on the Playground?"
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Monday, April 28. 2008
France has signaled over the past few months that it may pursue reintegration into the NATO command structure, which President Charles de Gaulle fitfully left in 1966. A sympathetic member of the French National Assembly published an article in Newsweek arguing this move is, “no less than a revolution for NATO and transatlantic relations.” The article explains Sarkozy's proposed tradeoff:
By showing that France is America's trusted friend again, Sarkozy hopes to gain influence on American policy, and, in particular, on lifting the longtime U.S. veto on European defense.
This is an interesting proposal: France will rejoin NATO if it can pursue its own parallel EU military structures. Many in the US defense establishment have long been concerned that a more autonomous European Security and Defense Policy is intended to act as a counterweight to the United States, or that it will duplicate/detract from NATO programs and assets. As Soeren Kern of the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos states in World Politics Review:
… most of Sarkozy's proposals seem to be geared toward creating a rival European defense structure that over time will duplicate but not double NATO resources… Indeed, some of the more U.S.-leaning European states suspect that France's renewed interest in rejoining NATO is in fact a Trojan horse designed, ultimately, to destroy the Atlantic Alliance from within.
At the same time, the United States has been pushing Europe to build stronger military capabilities since the Alliance was born, based on a plea for "burden sharing." One common sentiment, although often expressed with reserve, is that “it doesn’t matter where the forces come from, so long as they come.” By rejoining NATO, Sarkozy may be able to strike a balance of confidences between what on the face appears to be double-think: convincing America of France’s commitment to Atlanticism, while concurrently pursuing greater European military autonomy.
However, Soeren Kern points out that even if Sarkozy’s intentions are Atlanticist in nature, they will probably not outlast his term of presidency:
For most of the French ruling elite (the anti-American Left and the nationalist Right), the United States is considered to be the main problem in international affairs because of its reluctance to share its power. The only solution, in their view, is a French-led EU superstate that can counterbalance America on the global stage. And a unified EU foreign and defense policy that is completely independent of NATO (i.e., the United States) is essential to achieve equal status. Until then, anti-Americanism will continue to be the preferred means to accelerate the process of loosening the transatlantic link.
Related posts on Atlantic Review:
• Europeans View China as the Biggest Threat to Global Security
• Europe is a Threat to the United States
Posted by Nanne Zwagerman in
European Issues on Friday, April 25. 2008
The Dutch intelligence agency AIVD has released its annual report, in which it warns of a resurgence in jihadist networks, and in industrial espionage. Radio Netherlands reports:
The AIVD describes the truly violent sector as "jihadist networks". In the Netherlands, "after a period of relative calm", these have become rather more active again, although the report says they don't represent any specific threat. This would seem to contradict the "increased threat" which AIVD head Gerard Bouman referred to during the presentation of the report.
Partly on the basis of AIVD information, the terrorist threat level was recently raised from "limited" to "substantial". This was due both to increased activity on the part of jihadist networks elsewhere in Europe (including foiled attacks) and the commotion surrounding the film Fitna made by Dutch MP Geert Wilders. The head of the AIVD praised the Dutch Muslim community for what he described as its "restrained reaction" to the film. The AIVD also claims to have extradited foreign spies from Russia and from China on multiple occassions. Russian spies were said to be most interested in the energy sector, and China is accused of more broadly enlisting Chinese immigrants for industrial espionage.
The thematic focus of the report itself (nl) is on cooperation between intelligence agencies. As the report explains, there are effective existing structures for cooperation between intelligence agencies and it is a misunderstanding to want to force cooperation through new institutions. Any new institution has to prove its added value. This scepticism of institutional fixes has become widespread in the Dutch government and bureaucracy.
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
European Issues, US Foreign Policy on Tuesday, April 22. 2008
Javier Solana, the EU's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and a Spanish Fulbright Alumnus, said according to AFP that he backed the new Pakistani government's moves to hold talks with Taliban militants, but ruled out any negotiations with Al-Qaeda.
This puts Europe at odds with the United States, not just with the Bush administration, but also with all remaining presidential candidates. Even Barack Obama, who is willing to meet with Iran's President Ahmadinejad, seems to be against negotiations with Taliban. He wrote in Foreign Affairs last summer:
Our strategy must also include sustained diplomacy to isolate the Taliban and more effective development programs that target aid to areas where the Taliban are making inroads.
I agree with Niklas Keller, who argued in the Atlantic Community that "negotiations with the Taliban may be the West's most effective tool to successfully 'divide and conquer' the Afghani insurgency."
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
European Issues on Saturday, March 15. 2008
French counterterrorism efforts have been praised by several analysts, but I am surprised to see that two scholars of the American Enterprise Institute argue that "France is the world's most sophisticated practitioner of counterterrorism. The U.S. can learn from her experience."
Reuel Marc Gerecht and Gary J. Schmitt write in The American:
Whereas September 11, 2001, was a shock to the American counterterrorist establishment, it wasn't a révolution des mentalités in Paris. Two waves of terrorist attacks, the first in the mid-1980s and the second in the mid-1990s, have made France acutely aware of both state-supported Middle Eastern terrorism and freelancing but organized Islamic extremists. In comparison, the security services in Great Britain and Germany were slow to awaken to the threat from homegrown radical Muslims. Britain's gamble was that its multicultural approach to immigrants was superior to France's forced-assimilation model. But with the discovery of one terrorist plot after another being planned by British Muslims, as well as the deadly transportation bombings that took place in London on July 7, 2005, the British have begun to question the wisdom of their "Londonistan" approach to Muslim immigration. And France does not even have a Guantanamo type prison. Or does it? In 2005, the European Council's commissioner for human rights has described the Paris prison "Palais de Justice" as a "dungeon" with "inhumane" conditions. See the Telegraph report cited in Davids Medienkritik. While there is criticism of US counterterrorism practices, US prisons in Guanatanamo and those for ordinary criminals on US soil, France does not get much media scrutiny.
UPDATE: The Palais de Justice was closed in June 2006. See comment by Axel.
Posted by Nanne Zwagerman in
European Issues on Thursday, March 6. 2008
If the Lisbon Treaty will enter into force, there is going to be a new position in the European Union - that of European Council President.
Currently there already are two presidents in the EU: the President of the European Parliament, and the President of the European Commission.
The European Council - a body constituted by national government leaders which meets 4 times a year - currently still has a rotating presidency, which is held by a different EU country every 6 months. This will be replaced with a single president chosen by national government leaders, for a period of two and a half years - renewable once.
It is completely unclear how this new post will develop. As the European Council is a powerful institution which often drives the EU agenda and makes critical decisions, the as of yet nonexistent position has already given rise to contention.
Continue reading "Contention About the New "EU President""
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues on Friday, February 22. 2008
The Moscow News Weekly has published an article on Kosovo's declaration of independence, which from its tone I assumed was in the "Comment/Opinions" section. However, it turns out it was actually in the "World News" section. Here is a snippet:
While burning KFOR checkpoints may not be the best of ways for Kosovo's ethnic Serbian minority to express its anxiety and anger over recent events, global democratic leaders should think twice before voting to award a chair to Kosovo on New York's East River. In the Basque country, Quebec, Belgium, northern Cyprus, Georgia and many other places across the globe, they have TV sets, too, and are watching. Telling them Kosovo is different and unique won't work. That's the price you pay for being a hypocrite, I guess.
Not to say western newspapers are completely objective, but at least you can read multiple perspectives on a story on this side of the Urals, without worrying about whether your favorite columnist may mysteriously die one day.
Of course this is only one article in one newspaper; it may not be fair to judge the entire Russian media based on this article alone. To get a better idea of press freedom trends globally and by country, you can check out an annual report produced by Freedom House titled "Freedom of the Press." The 2007 version reported this for Russia:
Media freedom in Russia continued to be curtailed in 2006 as President Vladimir Putin’s government passed legislation restricting news reporting and journalists were subjected to physical violence and intimidation. Although the constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, authorities are able to use the legislative and judicial systems to harass and prosecute independent journalists.
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues on Wednesday, February 13. 2008
From Deutsche Welle:
The European Commission agreed to a plan to collect fingerprints and photographs from foreigners entering the EU, part of an effort to fortify the bloc's borders. The plan, which was presented on Wednesday, Feb. 13, could see EU funds used to develop surveillance equipment like cameras, sensors and pilot-less drones. Civil libertarians argue that the controversial measures infringe on people's privacy and won't fight crime. But proponents of the plan called the proposals "further building blocks in the often stated aim of the European Union to build a space of free and secure travel through collective responsibility and solidarity."
Yesterday’s Washington Post also had an interesting article on the topic:
If approved by the European Parliament, the measure would mean that precisely identifying information on tens of millions of citizens will be added in coming years to databases that could be shared by friendly governments around the world.
The United States already requires that foreigners be fingerprinted and photographed before they enter the country. So does Japan... The plan is part of a vast and growing trend on both sides of the Atlantic to collect and share data electronically to identify and track people in the name of national security and immigration control.
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations on Friday, February 8. 2008
Ronald Asmus has a new “grand strategy” for the west: it should continue to expand eastward (see Foreign Affairs, subscription only):
The challenge of securing Europe’s eastern border from the Baltics to the Black Sea has been replaced by the need to extend peace and stability along the southern rim of the Euro-Atlantic community—from the Balkans across the Black Sea and further into Eurasia, a region that connects Europe, Russia, and the Middle East and involves core security interests, including a critical energy corridor. Working to consolidate democratic change and build stability in this area is as important for Western security today as consolidating democracy in central and eastern Europe was in the 1990s.
The west’s most important accomplishment following the Cold War has been its integration of central and eastern European countries that were previously part of the Soviet Union—countries that have undergone significant reforms to be accepted into NATO and the EU. It is interesting that despite the ubiquitous negative publicity NATO is receiving these days, due largely to a perceived lack of teamwork in Afghanistan, there are several countries that continue to fervently seek membership—take the 71 percent of Georgian’s who endorsed NATO membership in a January referendum for example (see Today’s Zaman).
Continue reading "Ronald Asmus' Strategy for the West: Expand East"
Posted by Editors in
European Issues on Tuesday, February 5. 2008
The Atlantic Review is pleased to present a guest article by Professor Stefan Wolff, from the University of Nottingham.
Professor Wolff addresses the Serbian elections that took place over the weekend, and explains that while the pro-western candidate has won the elections, the future of Serbia is far from certain.
 For many voters and observers, there were two surprises in Sunday's second round of presidential elections in Serbia. The first one was that the current president, Boris Tadic of the Democratic Party, won, if only by the slightest of margins. Even among his supporters, this was far from a certain result, but they welcomed it all the more enthusiastically. The second, and perhaps greater surprise was equally welcome: Tadic's challenger, Tomislav Nikolic of the Serbian Radical Party (whose leader Vojislav Seselj is currently in The Hague being tried for war crimes committed during 1992-5 war in Bosnia) quickly accepted defeat and congratulated his victorious opponent.
With Tadic--pro-western and pro-democratic in orientation--confirmed in office for another term, all the signs should point clearly to Serbia catching up with its neighbours in the process of economic and democratic reform, as well as closer ties with the European Union, which, after all, was the central message of Tadic's campaign: "Together we'll conquer Europe." Yet, Serbia's future course is far from clear. Three predominant factors account for this continuing uncertainty:
Continue reading "Where Next for Serbia?"
|
or 
:
Latest Comments
I had a different reason to assume you wouldn´t like the idea. People who don´t know [...]
Joe Noory about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
If you're a law clerk (a lawyer or someone trained in law working for a judge), then [...]
Reid of America about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
The data from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) seems to be [...]
Joe Noory about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
do you think that "droits de l'homme" are so well respected there ? No, I [...]
Pat Patterson about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
Yeah, I was looking for a similar time span, two years seems too short to give any [...]
franchie about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
oh my gawd, misinterpretation
franchie about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
do you think that "droits de l'homme" are so well respected there ? I own an [...]
Zyme about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
Oh come on, if Peking wanted to destroy Taiwan they could do so either way. This has [...]