NATO identifies China specifically as a foe

(December 4, 2019) The treaty that formed NATO in 1949 never singled out a single enemy for the alliance to counter but it was clear at the time that the Soviet Union was the main target. There have been numerous attempts since to add new enemies or new functions to NATO.

This was particularly true with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However of late Russia has regained its status as a target.

NATO

Wikipedia describes NATO briefly: "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO /ˈneɪtoʊ/; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord; OTAN), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance between 29 North American and European countries. The organization implements the North Atlantic Treaty that was signed on 4 April 1949.[3][4] NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party. NATO's Headquarters are located in Evere, Brussels, Belgium, while the headquarters of Allied Command Operations is near Mons, Belgium.Since its founding, the admission of new member states has increased the alliance from the original 12 countries to 29. ..An additional 21 countries participate in NATO's Partnership for Peace program, with 15 other countries involved in institutionalized dialogue programs. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the global total.[6] Members agreed that their aim is to reach or maintain the target defense spending of at least 2% of GDP by 2024[7][8]"

In spite of the title North Atlantic its was directed at defending European countries from the Soviet Union. Many European Countries belong to NATO. In Europe NATO has intervened in Bosnia and Herzegovina and also Kosovo. However many of its interventions such as in Afghanistan, and Iraq have no relation to either the North Atlantic or event the European area.

Some critics believe that NATO is to a considerable degree an instrument of US policy as claimed by Stephen Lendman: "The North Atlantic Alliance functions as an arm of US imperial policy – intended for offense, not defense, especially after Soviet Russia dissolved. World peace and stability are unattainable as long as this killing machine exists, waging endless wars of aggression, raping and destroying one country after another, responsible for countless millions of casualties and vast destruction.Washington controls NATO, defraying 75% of its budget, calling the shots, subservient alliance officials installed to serve its agenda.At a time when no alliance enemies exist, they’re invented to justify NATO’s existence, including ISIS and other terrorist groups Washington created and supports, along with all nations on America’s target list for regime change – notably Russia, considered public enemy number one despite threatening no one. " This may be exaggerated but nevertheless it does appear that the US is dominant in the organization and use NATO as much as it can to further its own goals. NATO often serves as a way of internationalizing US goals and obtains support for the US rather than forcing the country to go it alone.

The original text of the 1949 NATO agreement can be found here.

NATO targets China specifically

A recent article reports: "During this week’s NATO meeting, they are going to officially add a new nation to the list of “challenges,” in the form of China, with NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg saying NATO has to “tackle the issue” of China’s growing capabilities." This fits in well with US goals to prevent China from extending its power in Asia and with the US pivot to Asia which started under Obama but it is continuing under Trump.

For an alliance called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization it passing strange to classify as an enemy a nation that is as far as it could be from the North Atlantic. However, as an instrument of US policy NATO has taken on a function of its own in serving often as a help of the US in its role as global policeman. China is challenging the US role as global hegemon as does Russia. However, the US reacts to any challenge to its power as in support of the recent coup in Bolivia and its constant attempt to overthrow the Maduro regime in Venezuela.

NATO wants funds for new technological challenges

A recent article notes: "NATO will agree on a plan to respond to the new weapons and tactical threat posed by Russia and others when alliance leaders meet here on Dec. 4, British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said opening the NATO Engages think tank event in London."When‎ leaders meet tomorrow they will agree a plan for NATO's response to emerging and disruptive technology, recognizing two new operational domains in space and cyber, and develop plans to confront and deter hybrid tactics," Wallace told an international audience of defense analysts and policymakers.Emerging technologies like hypersonic missiles and quantum‎ computing are changing the threat landscape, the defense secretary said, urging that NATO must to understand the challenges and adapt accordingly."

Wallace had no response to the remark of French President Emmanuel Macron's sarcastic remark that NATO was "brain dead|"

NATO still uses the war on terror and its operations against terrorists as justification for its existence but it is clear there are increasing plans to confront Russia and now China. Such actions may increase the likelihood of extensive warfare if not a new global war in the future. NATO will consider to serve US goals as well.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US now to pay just 16 percent of NATO budget down from 22 percent

NATO has announced a change to its budgeting. The change will reduce the percentage of its central budget that will be paid by the US. The US contribution will be reduced from 22 percent of the budget to just 16 percent.

Germany's contribution will be raised to 16 percent the same percentage as that of the US.

NATO budget

NATO's annual budget is about $2.5 billion. The US will be saving $150 million each year as its contribution drops to $400 million. The drop begins in 2021. It will be interesting to see what German reaction will be to be paying the same amount as the US even though the US is a much larger economy and with a much larger population as well. The NATO move is widely seen as a concession toPresident Trump who has consistently complained that other nations are not paying their fair share of the NATO budget.

A recent article notes: "Mr. Trump regularly complains about defense spending by other NATO members, but other countries in the alliance have increased their military spending since the Russian annexation of Crimea five years ago by about $130 billion, a NATO diplomat said, a figure that Mr. Stoltenberg is expected to announce next week." Jens Stoltenberg is the Secretary General of NATO.

NATO

Wikipedia describes NATO and its origins: "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance between 29 North American and European countries. The organization implements the North Atlantic Treaty that was signed on 4 April 1949.[3][4] NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party. NATO's Headquarters are located in Evere, Brussels, Belgium, while the headquarters of Allied Command Operations is near Mons, Belgium. Since its founding, the admission of new member states has increased the alliance from the original 12 countries to 29... An additional 21 countries participate in NATO's Partnership for Peace program, with 15 other countries involved in institutionalized dialogue programs. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the global total.[6] Members have expressed their aim to move towards the target defence spending of 2% of GDP by 2024."

Disagreements about the role of NATO

There are disagreements among members about what exactly NATO should be doing. Emmanuel Macron has been complaining that the alliance over-emphasizes how much it spends but has no emphasis on strategy. While many want NATO to be used to counter the influence of Russia and China, Macron believes that neither Russia nor China are necessarily enemies of NATO countries. Macron wants the emphasis of the alliance to be on fighting terrorism. However, many of NATO's deployments are aimed at Russia and there are talks of spending even more on deployments on the frontier with Russia. Such moves have angered Russia.

Stoltenberg argued that although there were differences among NATO he said that in uncertain times, strong multilateral institutions such as Nato were essential: “It’s no secret that there certainly are differences between allies.But the strength of Nato is that we have had the same kind of differences before, and every time we have been able to overcome them.”

NATO operated against Serbia and has participated in the occupation of Afghanistan. Returning NATO to anti-terror operations makes sense for France in that a great deal of their military budget goes to actions in Africa and the Middle East. Macron may believe he can persuade NATO to become involved in some of these actions to help with the costs of the operations.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

NATO demands Russia destroy all its 9k729 cruise missiles

(June 27) NATO demands that Russia destroy all of its 9k729 cruise missiles or face unspecified repercussions. Officials admit that they do not expect Russia to comply with NATO demands.

NATO says that the Russian missiles violate the INF treaty

A recent Reuter's article notes that the US insists that the Russian missiles would allow short-range nuclear attacks on Europe and violates the 1987 intermediate range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). However Russia has denied that the missiles violate the treaty insisting that they are shorter range than the treaty covered.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said: “We call on Russia to take the responsible path, but we have seen no indication that Russia intends to do so. We will need to respond."

US has given notice it will withdraw from the treaty

Russia is likely to pay no attention to the NATO announcement, given that the US has already suspended participation and will withdraw formally in August, if Russia does not destroy all the missiles the US considers violation of the treaty.

US ambassador Kay Hutchison said that all options are on the table to retaliate against Russia's refusal to destroy the missiles, but so far the US is considering only conventional systems and not a nuclear response.

Russia worries about NATO and US putting nuclear arms on Russian border

A recent article notes: "The underlying threat is that the US, or NATO in general, are going to put nuclear arms on the Russian border, which the INF wouldn’t have allowed, but which they are no longer abiding by. Russia has warned this would create a crisis on the level of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis."

The 1962 crisis came to an end thanks to cool-headed diplomacy. President Kennedy and Nikita Khruschev came to an agreement that saw the Soviet missiles in Cuba sent back to Russia.

There appears to be another arms race developing and tensions between Russia, the US and NATO are growing.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump says NATO made "great strides" in the "unfortunate and ridiculous" Aghan war

While Trump has repeatedly questioned the value of NATO and has demanded that members increase their defense spending he claimed yesterday that NATO had made great strides in Afghanistan while the war was also unfortunate and ridiculous.

	1 of 2

Trump says contradictory things about NATO and Afghan war

An article in antiwar.com put the matter concisely: "Whenever President Trump is dealing with NATO issues, there is always the question of whether Trump is going to praise NATO as the greatest thing since sliced bread, mock them as a relic of the past, or somehow manage to do both at once. "

In his recent meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Trump managed to do both at once with contradictory or at least contrasting statements. NATO is celebrating its 70th anniversary but Trump has often spoken as if the organization is of little value given his America First policy. He is often bitter about the fact that few members reach the alliance goal of contributing 2 percent of their GDP to finance NATO.

At one and the same time Trump claimed that NATO together with its allies had made "great strides in Afghanistan" but that the war itself was "unfortunate" and "ridiculous". The Trump administration has been seeking a peace deal with the Taliban who were ousted from power back in 2001 but have been fighting back ever since.

Stoltenberg Trump relations

Stoltenberg praises Trump ignoring negative aspects of Trump's behavior such as that in a NATO summit last July where he insulted members and made false claims. Stoltenberg applauded what he called Trump's strong leadership in "burden-sharing" in the alliance and said he had created a new sense of urgency in debating NATO's military budgets.

However, on Monday Stoltenberg pointed out that NATO members differed on many issues but that such disagreements were neither new or unusual in an alliance with democratic members. Trump has been pushing for countries who host US troops to pay more towards their upkeep even suggesting at one point a "Cost Plus 50" where governments would not only pay the full costs of US troops being hosted but a 50 percent premium as well.

There are also differences in NATO as to how to deal with Russia. So far the alliance has agreed with Trump in blaming the Russians for the failure of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that in February Trump announced he would withdraw from. However, on Tuesd

Previously published in the Digital Journal

122 countries sign on to treaty to ban nuclear weapons at UN meeting

To loud cheers Elayne Gomez, president of the UN conference that has been negotiating the legally binding treaty announced that 122 nations had signed on to the ban while the Netherlands was opposed and Singapore abstained. Gomez said: "The world has been waiting for this legal norm for 70 years" the time period from when the first atomic bombs were dropped by the US on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in August of 1945. Gomez noted that this was the first multilateral nuclear disarmament treaty in more than 20 years. The treaty comes into effect 50 countries ratify it.

Last December UN member states voted overwhelmingly for a treaty that would ban nuclear weapons even though there was strong opposition from all the nations that have nuclear arms. Every one of them refused to even participate in the talks.All NATO members boycotted the negotiations except for the Netherlands which attended but voted against the resolution. The Netherlands has US nuclear weapons on its territory and parliament urged that a delegation be sent to the meetings.

Countries that ratify the treaty must "never under any circumstances to develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." The transfer of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices is also prohibited or even the threat to use nuclear weapons.

Richard Moyes, managing director of Article 36, a UK-based group that works to prevent harm from nuclear and other weapons, claimed that it was not plausible to believe that security could be secured by threatening to kill hundreds of thousands with nuclear weapons. He said we  know that there have been errors of judgment, accidents, and also a degree of instability in leadership in the world.

The nine countries that are known to or believed to possess nuclear weapons are: US, Russia, UK, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. None support the treaty or even sent delegates. The US and a number of other nuclear powers want to strengthen the nearly five-decade old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty(NPT). This of course retains the nuclear club as the only countries allowed to have nuclear weapons. Israel was able to develop nuclear weapons in spite of the treaty. Neither Israel, Pakistan, nor India have signed the treaty. North Korea withdrew from it in 2003.

The NPT wss originally intended to prevent the spread of nuclear arms from the five original countries that had such arms: US, Russia, China, UK, and France. The agreement included a provision that the five powers move towards nuclear disarmament and provisions that would allow non-nuclear states access to nuclear technology in order to produce energy.

US ambassador Nikki Haley said when the nuclear talks began in March that:"  "there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons, but we have to be realistic."She asked if anyone thought North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons, stressing that North Koreans would be "cheering" a nuclear ban treaty — and Americans and others would be at risk."Of course North Koreans may feel at risk because the US has nuclear weapons. It might very well give up nuclear weapons if was assured the US and others opposed to it did. Yet the US has pointed to the escalation of  North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes as a reason to retain its nuclear capability. One could argue that it is US nuclear capability that leads the North Koreans to believe that they also need to develop nuclear weapons in defense.

The UK did not attend the talks although it claims to support multilateral disarmament. Canada voted against the UN resolution to begin negotiations on the treaty. It did not send anyone to the negotiations. A leaked memo the US wrote to other NATO countries last year show why Canada and other NATO countries opposed the treaty and did not attend them except for the Netherlands. The memo said: "If negotiations do start, we ask allies and partners to refrain from joining them". Passage of the ban would increase pressure to meet disarmament obligations. The US and UK in particular are both planning to modernize their nuclear arsenals a move that is even against the old NPT.

1,000 US troops sent to north-eastern Poland

One thousand U.S. troops along with their vehicles are to be sent to north-eastern Poland in late March according to the US Army's Europe headquarter in Wiesbaden Germany.

Troops will be deployed to the town of Orzysz in northeastern Poland. The unit is part of a 4,000 U.S. troops that are being deployed in rotation as part of its "Atlantic Resolve" operation. Orzysz is 137 kilometers or 85 miles from the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad that is heavily armed. A recent Digital Journal article discusses Kaliningrad.

The announcement came at the same time as the Munich Security Conference at which Sergei Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister claimed that NATO was a relic of the Cold War. Operation Atlantic Resolve is a response to Russia's action in the Crimea and support for separatists in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine. In spite of Donald Trump's supposed friendship with Putin, the Trump regime is showing itself to be a strong supporter of NATO and of its operations against Russia. U.S. vice-president Mike Pence reassured Baltic and Black Sea countries including the Ukraine that they would continue to have U.S. support in spite of Trump's anti-NATO rhetoric prominent in Trump's campaign. He had called NATO "obsolete". He is still complaining that many member countries are not paying their fair share of two percent of their GDP to support NATO. This is certainly true. It seems now that the Trump administration is busy stressing its undying support for NATO. Mike Pence said that the US pledged unwavering support for NATO.

Dalia Grybauskaite President of Lithuania claimed that the country needed the support of the U.S. air defense systems for full protection. She also said that a quick decision-making process was needed. Both Poland and Romania are host to two U.S. missile interceptor stations that Russia considers a threat. In response, Russia deployed Iskander missiles into Kaliningrad. Russia feels that the west violated commitments it claims were made at the time of the fall of the Iron Curtain that NATO would not expand into eastern Europe. The issue is described in detail in this Der Spiegel article. The U.S. had a fit when Cuba became part of the Soviet orbit.

Just last weekend, Beata Szydio, Polish PM. welcomed a U.S. armored brigade that was to train with Polish forces. The brigade with 87 tanks and other vehicles had arrived in the port of Bremerhaven in western Germany in January. NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg stressed that the enhanced training was only defensive claiming: "We don't want to provoke a conflict. We want to prevent conflict and preserve the peace." What NATO is doing is provoking Russia and causing a huge arms buildup in the Baltic and other areas.

UN-brokered Libyan unity government asks training aid from NATO

NATO claims to have received a new detailed request from the UN-brokered Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA) to train and develop its military.

The GNA faces a threat from an attempted coup led by Khalifa al-Ghwell Prime Minister of the former Salvation Government that had more or less disintegrated after the GNA moved to Tripoli. Members of the former General National Congress associated with the Salvation Government had met, accepted the Libyan Political Agreement and dissolved the GNC and then met as the State High Council of the GNA. Many of the Libyan Presidential Guard that were supposed to protect the GNA defected to join al-Ghwell. The GNA depends upon militia for protection. The militia have their own agendas and often have turf and other battles among themselves. Some seem little more than criminal gangs out to fleece the public and engaging in kidnappings for ransom.

PM Fayez Serraj had made a request last year in May for help from NATO but it was seen as too broad. Security arrangements have been one among many failures of the GNA government. The GNA has had plans for unified Libyan security forces since coming to Tripoli in March. It appears to have made little or no progress. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said at a news conference: "We have said for some time that we are ready to help Libya, but any assistance has to be based on a request from the Libyan government. This is the request we received yesterday. Training local forces is one of the best weapons in the fight against terrorism and building stability." The GNA request asks NATO to develop a defense ministry with a chief of defense and intelligence gathering capacities. Stoltenberg stressed the importance of having a ministry of defence, a commander and chief of staff and claimed that such a framework was necessary to develop the armed forces and create stability. Stoltenberg said that NATO could work within or outside Libya. The EU already is training the Libyan coastguard in Italy and in international waters off the Libyan coast. There is no discussion of how eastern commander Khalifa Haftar would fit into this plan. At the present it would seem he has no place at all.

Serraj invited NATO forces to play a stronger role in preventing smuggling but military assistance on the ground in Libya was off the ground. Apparently this does not include training, unless Serraj insists the training take place outside of Libya. NATO has already been involved in counter-terror and anti-smuggling operations and is also involved with the EU in rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean. NATO was created in 1949 for collective security. Its present headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium. There are 28 member states.

There may be negative reaction to NATO involvement in establishing an armed force for the GNA. Many Libyans already see the GNA as a foreign imposition. An attempt by NATO to create an effective army for the GNA will be seen by Field Marshall Haftar as a threat to his own power.

NATO general agrees in part with Trump criticism of NATO

While North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) supporters predictably panned Trump's recent criticism of NATO as obsolete, some agreed with Trump including a top NATO general and the leader of the German opposition,

	1 of 2
Trump's criticism of NATO is not new nor is the support for his position. Criticism he made earlier last year got positive reviews from some experts who agreed with some of the points he made. This time around NATO General Denis Mercier said that some structures of the military alliance are obsolete and need to be brought up to date and there was also a need for adaptation.

Mercier felt that NATO was too much focused on sending troops abroad or expeditionary warfare. He singled out in particular the operation in Afghanistan. Mercier says that NATO's approach to fighting terrorism should be changed. In part, he said, the change should involve aiding countries under threat to develop their own long-term plans to fight terrorism. Gen. Mercier is France’s Air Force Chief of Staff as well as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Transformation.

The Supreme Allied Command Transformation (ACT) has as its function to focus on future threats. Its purpose is to modernize parts of NATO that are approaching obsolescence. It is not really all that surprising that Mercier would see significant parts of NATO that are obsolete and express some degree of agreement with Trump. However, his public agreement with Trump reveals a break with the leadership of NATO which wants to show that NATO is relevant and irreplaceable.

Sarah Wagenknecht of Die Linke the largest German opposition party urged the dissolution of NATO. Wagenknecht said to the media: "NATO must be dissolved and replaced by a collective security system including Russia." She claimed that Trump's comments "mercilessly reveal the mistakes and failures of the German federal government"

Trump says NATO is obsolete because it was designed many years ago. He also said that it had not defended against terrorist attacks. However, Trump also claimed that NATO was still very important to him. Trump complained that many NATO members were not paying their fair share for US protection: “A lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States. With that being said, NATO is very important to me. There’s five countries that are paying what they’re supposed to. Five. It’s not much." There are 28 member states across Europe and North America.

President Obama breaks promise on troop reduction in Afghanistan

Obama had pledged to reduce U.S. troop deployment in Afghanistan to 5,500 troops by the end of this year but instead he is withdrawing about 1,400.

This will leave 8,400 troops in Afghanistan until the end of his presidency, 2,900 more than he promised. Obama defended his decision saying:

“I strongly believe that it is in our national security interest, especially after all the blood and treasure we've invested in Afghanistan over the years, that we give our Afghan partners the very best opportunity to succeed. The decision I'm making today ensures that my successor has a solid foundation for continued progress in Afghanistan as well as the flexibility to address the threat of terrorism as it evolves.”

Obama said his national security advisers had recommended that he move away from his earlier pledge to reduce numbers to 5,500. Officials said the decision was based for the most part on assessments made by General John Nicholson Jr. who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Obama said the basic nature of the present mission to assist and advise local Afghan forces will not change but last month the White House approved giving U.S. commanders greater freedom to use air strikes whenever U.S. or Afghan troops were in danger. Obama said he will not let Afghanistan become a safe haven for terrorists to attack the U.S. The U.S. spends about $4 billion annually to fund the Afghan military. The U.S. is trying to get some NATO partners to share the burden as described in a recent article. This October, the US will have been in Afghanistan for 15 years. As of now, the Taliban control more territory than they have any time since 2001.

Many members of the U.S. Congress want the U.S. to send more troops. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mac Thornberry, said:“The precision of the president’s new Afghanistan troop cap would be comical were its consequences not so tragic for our mission and military readiness. It is time that the president level with the American people about what it will really take to achieve our goals in Afghanistan, and how much it will cost. The truth is that many thousands more Americans are performing military functions in Afghanistan than even the current troop cap authorizes."In spite of the fact that the combat role of the US in Afghanistan is over, 38 Americans including troops, contractors, and workers lost their lives last year.

The UK is to send 50 more troops to Afghanistan. With the 450 troops already there, the UK contingent will be 500 troops. The mission was to end this year but has been extended to 2017.

Australia has also extended its Afghan mission until at least mid-2017. It was to end at the end of this year. Australia also pleadged $100 million a year to fund the Afghan National Army and National Police until 2020. There are only 270 Australian troops in Afghanistan.

NATO allies promised the US they will contribute about $1 billion a year over the next three years to help fund the Afghan military. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stotlenberg said that there were more pledges to come. 12,000 NATO troops will stay in Afghanistan into 2017.

US wants to raise $15 billion to fund Afghan security forces through 2020

Last month it was reported that the United States would try to raise $15 billion to fund Afghan security forces through 2020, but without new conditions to ensure the money is not siphoned off before funding the programs it was meant to finance.

	1 of 2
The Washington Post reported in June that the demand will be made on July 9 at a NATO summit in Warsaw. About $10.5 billion is expected to be provided by the U.S. The funds would pay and clothe Afghan security forces while providing them with fuel, weapons and ammunition to fight the Taliban and now Islamic State insurgents..

Over the past 15 years billions of aid dollars have been wasted or even stolen. Major General Gordon Davis, commander of the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistna said NATO leaders will probably not link aid payments to new anti-corruption standards for the Afghan military. The U.S.-led coalition is still planning to fund 352,000 Afghan troops and police even though auditors have a number of times questioned whether there are actually that many. Davis said: “There was discussion last year about having some specific benchmarks before the Warsaw summit, but I think the allies felt it was impractical. There just wasn’t enough time.” He said NATO had confidence that Afghan president Ashraf Ghani would safeguard aid money. The U.S. political stance appears to be more hawkish. There appears little appetite for trying to impose stricter rules on providing aid for fear it might antagonize important U.S. political allies in Afghanistan.

Foreign ministers had agreed in May to extend their assistance past 2016. At the summit meeting in Warsaw on Friday and Saturday they are expected to confirm their support for Kabul as they see no alternative way to keep the country together and avoid having it fall into the hands of the Taliban. The conflict has been going on now for some 15 years. Ismail Aramaz, the senior NATO civilian representative in Afghanistan said: "These decisions are very much about demonstrating NATO's enduring and steadfast commitment to Afghanistan. Afghanistan will not stand alone."

The summit will happen just as President Obama must consider whether he will see US Afghan forces reduced from 9,800 to just 5,500 by the beginning of next year. Since the NATO international force ceased most combat operations at the end of 2014, the Taliban have made major territorial gains. They now control more territory than at any time since they were ousted from power in 2001.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has demanded that NATO should endorse concrete measures to ensure that civilians are protected during conflicts in Afghanistan. A letter to NATO said that the organization should press the Afghan government to stop abuses by its security forces, including attacks on health care facilities, recruitment of children and misuse of schools. The group recommended that NATO appoint a high-level envoy to deal with protection of civilians, and provide expert analysis and advice.

Brad Adams, Asia director of HRW said:“The Warsaw Summit is a crucial opportunity for NATO to commit to a more robust role in reducing Afghan civilian casualties. Despite NATO’s reduced military presence and redefined support mission, the alliance is well situated to make good on its pledges to help protect civilians...NATO is uniquely placed to improve protection for Afghan civilians due to its high-level engagement with those in a position to stop abuses, including the very officials who are personally responsible for abuses.NATO should deliver on its pledges and produce concrete measures to help protect Afghan civilians from armed conflict.”

UPDATE: "In a surprise statement Wednesday, Obama says security situation in Afghanistan warrants keeping 8,400 forces there when he leaves office".

GNA foreign minister meets with top NATO officials in Brussels

Mohamed Siala, foreign minister in the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), met today in Brussels with the head of NATO, and the EU policy chief to discuss how each organization could help improve security in Libya and on its borders.

NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, said he was encouraged by the progress being achieved by the GNA. He focused on how NATO could help in terms of defense and security. At the 2014 NATO summit in Wales NATO said it would help Libya build its defense and security capacity if it were asked by the GNA to do so and was in harmony with the EU and UN. No details of the discussions have been released although a statement noted that the meeting followed a recent conversation between Stoltenberg and the PM of the GNA, Faiez Serraj. as well as contacts between NATO and other GNA officials.

The meeting of Siala with Federika Mogherini, EU policy chief, concentrated on discussion of security on Libya's southern borders. Human trafficking is one concern but there is also arms smuggling through the borders as well as terrorists entering Libya from other countries, particularly some of the Sahel G5. One topic was how to prevent asylum seekers dying in the Sahara desert. The Sahel G5 are Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger. Mogherini said: “There is a shared concern with the Sahel over security and the management of borders with Libya. For us, supporting cooperation with border countries to the south of Libya – such as Chad, which has experiences to share – is fundamental.”

The naval operation Sophia was also discussed. The UN Security Council authorized the expansion of the operation to allow vessels to counter human trafficking and operate within Libyan waters. It will include stop and search operations. There were no details released about what was discussed on Sophia. The two were also to discuss training of the proposed presidential guard. The GNA is in dire need of armed forces of its own rather than having to rely on militia for security. Often the GNA is at the mercy of the militia. Power distribution in Tripoli is determined by different militias who insist power continue to be provided to areas they control. Recently 12 former Gadaffi soldiers were murdered on their release from jail. Militia may have been responsible for the killing.

Mr. Sala is acting as Minister of Foreign Affairs even though the GNA has yet to receive a vote of confidence from the House of Representatives(HoR) as required by the Libya Political Agreement (LPA). Another meeting is scheduled on Monday but earlier meetings have either lacked a quorum or in two cases been disrupted. A meeting scheduled for last Monday lacked a quorum. In spite of Stoltenberg's praise of the GNA's progress Libyans in Tripoli and elsewhere are facing crippling power shortages, lack of cash, and recently in Tripoli a lack of water.

US could keep up to 10,000 troops in Afghanistan through 2016

Although the Afghan war was supposedly "ended" as far as foreign combat troops were concerned a couple of years ago, almost 10,000 US troops still remain.

+ Add Image

After recent deliberations among officials, the present plans include options that would leave thousands of troops in Afghanistan through 2016. Plans for successive withdrawals may be scrapped in the face of a continuing Taliban threat and with the Islamic State also trying to gain a foothold in Afghanistan. The Taliban claims there will be no peace agreement as long as foreign troops remain in Afghanistan.

Proponents of keeping more U.S. troops in place argue that the Afghan forces are simply not capable of beating back the Taliban on their own. The Taliban have gained ground over this year in several areas. The U.S. has already been in Afghanistan for 14 years.

The top international commander in Afghanistan, US General John Campbell, has sent five separate recommendations to both the Pentagon and NATO each with its own risk assessment. Among the options is one that would keep the U.S. presence at near 10,000 troops. At the other end of the scale would be a minimal force of just several hundred troops.

As the officials consider the alternatives, many point to what happened in Iraq after the U.S. left. Opposition to the government grew and the Islamic State was able to take advantage of a weak military. While the emphasis will no doubt remain on training and advising, with counter-terrorism missions as well, many in the military worry that any force reduction could result in a failed mission. The Afghan government itself wants foreign troops to remain.

Current plans call for all US remaining bases to be handed over to Afghan control by the end of 2016 and just a few hundred troops to remain in Kabul by the end of his term of office. Obama already agreed to keep 9,800 troops in Afghanistan to the end of this year at the request of the Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, even though Obama had planned to reduce the level to 5,500.

Other NATO members also may keep more troops in Afghanistan than planned. Some officials insist that continued financial support is also crucial in keeping the Taliban and Islamic State at bay. The total NATO and US forces in Afghanistan at present are about 13,000. NATO will be closely monitoring any US decision on troop levels. One NATO official said: "There are 30-plus countries ready to contribute; the question is how big the U.S. will be...Enablers give others confidence that if they get in a real pinch, the U.S. will be able to help them out. Will the U.S. provide the backbone around which NATO brings 30 more countries?"

Greece and Israel sign status of forces agreement

Greece and Israel signed a status of forces agreement in Tel Aviv that offers legal defense to the forces of each country while training in the other's country.

+ Add Image

The accord was signed by Greek Defense Minister Panos Kammenos and Moshe Ya'alon, his Israeli counterpart. The only other country with which Israel has signed such an accord is the U.S. The two also discussed continuing defense ties between Israel and Greece. Ya'alon said:“We very much appreciate your visit here during a difficult period for Greece. This underlines the importance of relations between the countries. We wish the Greek people and Greece itself success in its effort to overcome the economic challenge. We pray for that since we believe Greece is a very important country, with a history and a contribution to the history of humanity.”

Ya'alon also praised the joint training exercises between the Israel Defennse Force(IDF) and the Greek armed forces within Greece. The Israeli air force held joint military exercises with the Greek air force last April. The exercises took place in Greek airspace and lasted for several days.

Ya'alon also brought up the topic of the nuclear agreement with Iran: “We perceive Iran as a generator and central catalyst to regional insecurity through its support to terrorist elements in the Middle East, particularly Shi’ite terrorism, though not only Shi’ite. And of course, the Iranian ambition for regional hegemony leads the regime in Tehran to undermine the stability of [other] regimes, which creates a challenge for all of us."

Kammenos, a member of the Independent Greeks a right-wing nationalist party that is part of the Syrza-led coalition, said the “Greek people are very close to the people in Israel” and that military relations between the two countries are good. He also mentioned Iran as a threat: “If one Iranian missile makes its way to the Mediterranean, this could be the end of states in this region.". I am not aware that Iran has ever threatened Greece. That Syriza would appoint Kammenos rather than a leftist from Syriza as defense minister is rather surprising.

This close cooperation with Israel is not in keeping with parts of the Syriza platform which supports leaving NATO and not having any military relations with Israel:Disengagement from NATO, closure of NATO military bases, prevention of military cooperation with Israel, no Greek soldier in war fronts outside the country. SYRIZA Party Program Resolution, 2012.In 2012 part of Syriza's election program said the disengagement of Greece from NATO was a stable and unchanging position of the party. Yet Prime minister Tsipras said on May 15 2014: "I say, with all the strength of my voice, Greece is a country that belongs to the West, to the EU and to NATO. This is not under question."

Given actions such as these, it should not be surprising that Syriza signed a deal that went against everything that Syriza had ever stood for. There were other signs that Syriza was hardly the leftist party that it was portrayed as in the mass media, for example Syriza's attitude towards cuts in military spending: "One of the oddities of Greece’s bailout programme has been that, despite five years of punishing austerity, its military budget remains amongst the highest in the EU." Greek proposals to creditors suggested a military budget cut of 200 million euros. The creditors demanded a cut of double that but Syriza refused. What type of strange behaviour is this for a leftist party to be less willing to cut the military budget than its conservative creditors? Perhaps, Syriza wanted to defend Greece against Germany!

NATO angered by Russian treaty with South Ossetia

A new treaty between Russia and South Ossetia merges a portion of the South Ossetian armed forces with those of Russia and also increases the economic integration of the two countries 

Coat of Arms of  South Ossetia

South Ossetia was originally an autonomous part of the Georgian Soviet Republic. However, at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 it declared itself independent, angering newly independent Georgia which considers both it and another independent area Abkhazia as part of its sovereign territory. Georgia has continually attempted to enforce its rule and occupy South Ossetia.

In 2008 an attack on South Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers in the area resulted in a disastrous war for Georgia. Russia recognized South Osssetia and Abkhazia both as independent states after the war. Only Venezuela, Nicaragua and Nauru of UN members recognize the independence of South Ossetia. Nauru may have done so because of Russian foreign aid but Nauru denies this.

NATO claims the treaty violates international law but then it insists every treaty entered into by South Ossetia with anyone is against international law since it regards South Ossetia as part of Georgia. The signing of this treaty follows the signing of a similar treaty with Abkhazia last year. Both countries are subsidized by Russia. As well.as further integrating the South Ossetian economy with that of Russia, it will make it easier for South Ossetians to get Russian citizenship and will also raise salaries for South Ossetian civil servants and pensions within the country.

Not only NATO but also the US was angered by the agreement. Jen Psaki, US State Department spokesperson said: "The regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are integral parts of Georgia and we continue to support Georgia's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity,"

The treaty was signed after talks between Russian president Vladiimir  Putin and South Ossetian president Leonid Tibilov in Moscow on March 18. The treaty includes a pledge of collective security. Putin said the treaty improved the two countries' legal system and in coordination of economic development. Tibilov said: “We know the Russian Federation is the only guarantor for our people and for our republic.” South Ossetia has supported Russia in the annexation of the Crimea. There seems almost zero possibility of either Abkhazia or South Ossetia being reintegrated back into Georgia.

Sources:

http://news.yahoo.com/putin-signs-treaty-integrating-south-ossetia-russia-134209512.html

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-treaty-south-ossetia-breaks-international-law-nato-162225556.html

http://rt.com/politics/241929-russia-ossetia-treaty-alliance/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru

Leaders of several African countries are calling on the West to intervene in Libya in order to stop instability from spreading across the Sahel and threatening fragile governments in the region.

Some African leaders called on NATO to help stop the flow of weapons to armed groups in the region. The call ignores the fact that the armed groups receiving weapons include CIA-linked General Khalifa Haftar's militia which are now integrated with the Libyan National Army(LNA). This is no longer a fight between two umbrella groups of militia but of the Tobruk internationally recognized government and a host of anti-government militias including some radical Islamist militia. Ibrahim Keita, president of Mali, said that unless the problem was resolved in southern Libya there would be no peace in the region.

 It is fair to say that the problem in southern Libya has never been resolved since the overthrow of Gadaffi. There is no reason to expect it will be solved soon. Establishing an anti-Islamist government with General Haftar as head of the armed forces is likely to make the situation worse, even if he is able to subdue some of the tribes in the south. As at the overthrow of Gadaffi, militants will simply migrate from Libya to surrounding countries making the situation even worse for neighbors. Mali's difficulties in the north will remain until the government provides the area with a degree of autonomy.

 Chadian President Idriss Deby told the security forum being held in Dakar, Senegal: "The solution to the crisis that is shaking this country is not in African hands, but in the hands of the West, notably NATO.Now Libya is fertile ground for terrorism and all sorts of criminals" I expect that this fondness for NATO intervention shows that Chad's present government needs support from NATO because it is still kept in power by western interests. Deby said that the West had an obligation to finish what it started. However what it started was the overthrow of the Gadaffi regime for various reasons, including a chance to obtain better contracts for oil and install a regime even more amenable to control by western capital. It was Gadaffi who claimed that he was fighting terrorists. Now that some of those same radical Islamists threaten the western-supported Tobruk government, and its anti-Islamist leader of the armed forces Haftar, all of a sudden there is a terrorist threat to the region.

 The radical Islamists were some of the fiercest opponents and fighters against Gadaffi since he had long imprisoned, tortured, and oppressed many of them. One radical Islamist jihadist leader was Abdelhakim Belhadj: Belhadj was arrested with his pregnant wife in 2004 at Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Malaysia.[8] Transferred on the same plane to Bangkok, he was then placed in the custody of the CIA, where he was retained at a secret prison at the airport.[4][8] Returned to Libya on the rendition aircraft N313P,[11] he was held at the Abu Salim prison for seven years. While Libya, Syria, and Egypt were all roundly criticized by the west for their human rights records, they were at the same time chosen by the CIA as destinations for the rendition of terror suspects, as proper places for interrogation and torture. Having done their job of overthrowing Gadaffi, these Islamists were supposed to disappear back into the woodwork just as were the jihadists who drove the troops of the USSR Evil Empire out of Afghanistan.

 President Macky Sall of Senegal said that the West needed to provide more support for the armed forces in the region who were poorly equipped. The French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said that problems in southern Libya depended upon a solution to Libyan's political crisis. France already has 3,200 troops in the Sahel region. Back on Sept. 9th, France had called for western intervention in Libya to counter the terrorist threat. Later on the 18th, a number of countries met and rejected foreign intervention: Libya's struggling elected government and representatives of 15 neighbouring nations have unanimously rejected the idea of military intervention as a way to restore stability in the oil-rich North African nation, which some say is on the brink of civil war. Now the pendulum is moving back towards intervention.

No doubt western countries are anxious that Libyan neighbors, or at least some of them, initiate this request as it will give any intervention a patina of legitimacy. There is already evidence of intervention by Egypt and the UAE among others on the side of General Haftar. The reaction of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) continues to be optimistic. The UNSMIL issued a statement saying in part: “The move by the parties to identify their respective delegations to the talks is a step in the right direction. In agreeing to take part in this dialogue, all the parties have clearly signaled their determination to spare no effort towards safeguarding Libya’s political transition and forging ahead with building a modern democratic state based on the rule of law and respect for human rights.” The statement claims that this move shows that all parties are committed to finding a peaceful political solution to the present military and political crisis in Libya. The Mission will continue consulting with the parties in order to finalize details such as the place and time of the next meeting.

Earlier talks in Ghadames in September achieved nothing. There is no reason to believe that these will be any more successful. The Tripoli government insists that its legitimacy must be recognized as a condition of dialogue. Prime minister Al-Thinni of the Tobruk government goes even further and demands that it be recognized as the sole legitimate government and that the Tripoli government in effect surrender:Thinni laid down new conditions for talks with the rival government, asking the Tripoli administration to recognize the elected parliament first, the website said. Armed groups such as Dawn also had to withdraw from the capital. The statement did recognize the obvious fact that there are ongoing battles between the government forces led by Khalifa Haftar and anti-government militias including battles for oil ports in the east. The statement said that the Mission was deeply alarmed by the escalation in fighting which it claims undermines the efforts to convene the dialogue. The dialogue has already been postponed from last week. The statement said:“All parties should desist from any action that obstructs the dialogue efforts and endangers the country’s economic lifeline. Libyan oil is a strategic asset that belongs to all the Libyan people, who deserve an opportunity for stability and prosperity.”

 Of course the statement fails to mention that these facilities are now guarded by the same militia and former rebels who had seized the ports and kept them out of production earlier for almost a year. They are now allied with the Tobruk government so everything is fine. The statement also says that "those threatening Libya's peace, stability, or security, could be subject to sanctions". This does not mean that the Tobruk government or General Haftar will be subject to sanctions. If anyone is sanctioned it could be those leading some of the anti-government militia or representatives of the Tripoli government. The UNSMIL statement made no mention of the Libyan Supreme Court decision that the June elections were unconstitutional and the Tobruk government should be dissolved. No doubt they are still studying the decision since it was made on November 6. The international community and the press, for the most part, also conveniently ignore the ruling, although even Voice of America reported briefly on the event when it happened.