Connect with us

Defense

President Trump, NATO and the trade war with China

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

The last Summit of the Atlantic Alliance saw, at least initially, a clear divergence between the United States and NATO’s European allies.

For President Trump, who is above all a businessman, budgets and investments count, rather than strategic doctrines, about which there was very little talk.

The US President, who arrived at the Summit with premeditated and carefully-considered delay, polemicized especially with Germany, saying that its low spending for defence makes it “prisoner” of Russia.

President Trump cannot get over and deal with the NORDSTREAM pipeline, headed by Mathias Warnig, former director of STASI in Dresden where,at the time, Vladimir Putin worked for the KGB, the intelligence service that was the “master” of STASI.

He wants Europeans to buy the North American shale gas and oil – but it is a very difficult goal to reach.

Europe is disputed by two energy oligopolists.

Furthermore, President Trump ignored the long and irrelevant discussions about Afghanistan and Georgia, where the EU counts less than nothing, and warned   NATO’s European members that if they did not increase their defence budget up to 2% of the GDP as from January 1, 2019, the USA would do on its own, by actually walking out of the Atlantic Alliance.

After some initial disconcertment, the NATO Secretary General organized a confidential meeting between the European members of the Atlantic Alliance, which made no concessions to the US requests.

Let us analyse, however, the data on defence spending within NATO.

As to the USA, by far the largest contributor to the Atlantic Alliance, the 2017 defence budget was equal to 686 billion US dollars, equivalent to 3.6% of GDP.

Again in 2017 the total defence spending of all the other NATO members amounted to 271 billion US dollars.

Only nine members of the Atlantic Alliance, except for the United States, spend over 10 billion US dollars per year, namely Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Turkey, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands.

Moreover, the United States must control other regions, such as the Pacific and South America, which are of no interest to NATO’s European members.

Currently three European countries already exceed the 2% target, namely Great Britain, Greece and Estonia.

Romania, Lithuania and Latvia are very close to this 2% target and miss it by just 0.3%.

Hence if all the Atlantic Alliance’s members spent 2% of their GDP in defence, we would have additional 114 billion US dollars available.

However, how much would be needed to make the European Armed Forces really efficient?

As to Germany, the very recent Bartels report informs us that – after years of budget cuts and total neglect on the part of politicians -the German soldiers have no sufficient protective devices, winter clothes, tents, etc.

In late 2017 for the German Armed Forces there were no submarines available for operations and none of the 14 large transport aircraft was ready for flight, considering that the entire sea and air fleet was under repair.

Lack of spare parts and technological backwardness are widespread in the German Army, both for jets and ships, as well as for tanks.

21,000 posts of German officers are vacant – with obvious effects and repercussions on soldiers.

In fact, in 2017 Germany spent just 1.2% of GDP in defence and the results and consequences are before us to be seen.

There is still the complex of the defeated country. If all goes well, it will take decades to go back to the situation when the German General and military theorist, Erwin Rommel, wanted to engrave on a basalt plate in the Tunisian desert the following sentence: “The German soldier amazed the world, the Italian soldier amazed the German soldier”.

The German Armed Forces (but this holds true also for the Italian ones) were designed for the first clash with the Warsaw Pact, so as to later give way to the nuclear attack, and still bear the brunt of the old strategy not permitting any defence of the now global German international interest.

As to France, its military system is much more efficient than the German one.

But the recent vote in favour of Article 14, which enables the Minister for Economy and Finance to veto the spending proposed by the Minister for Defence, as well as to impose a ceiling on all State spending for the current year (106 billion euros),undermines the necessary renewal of the French military system.

The veto permitted under Article 14 comes just when France has become a member of the Permanent Structured Cooperation, i.e. the group of 25 European countries that is organizing an integrated and autonomous EU defence.

To replace NATO? To have an autonomous foreign policy from the USA? And what would be the current European foreign policy?

Italy, the third European Armed Force, has an almost perfect system of projection outside borders, not only in terms of empty peacekeeping, but a military system that is probably inadequate to defend the whole Italian territory from external attacks. And this applies to all European countries’ Armed Forces.

The Italian Armed Forces, however, are better trained and equipped than those of many other NATO’s European allies/competitors.

The Carabinieri Special Forces known as GIS  trained the Navy Seals, the Sayeret 13 of the Israeli Army and the Japanese SAT.

Hence President Trump’s requests are made against the background of a largely obsolete European military system that is the primary victim of the various government’s “budget cuts”. Certainly the US President has got a point there.

Nevertheless without good defence, there is no political and strategic credibility and probably not even commercial credibility.

Moreover, in private meetings, President Trump asked the European allies to rise not only to 2%, but even to 4% as a new ceiling.

In this case, the US defence spending would amount to  762 billion dollars and all the other NATO European countries should spend 735 billion dollars.

For President Trump, however, it all hangs and fits together from the fiscal and economic viewpoints: while travelling back from Brussels, he said that the European allies spend too little – hence, in his mind, there is an obvious connection with the issue of EU’s trade surplus. Europeans spend too little because they behave like pirates in international trade.

The core of the issue is mainly the German surplus which, coincidentally, is combined with an almost ridiculous military spending.

Meanwhile, China has decided to increase its military spending by 8.1% in 2019, which is – in volume – slightly lower than the US one.

It amounted to 151 billion US dollars in 2017. Nevertheless the Chinese budget must be studied carefully.

Many resources of Ministries such as the Transport, Education and Communications Ministries are closely connected with the People’s Liberation Army.

Moreover President Xi Jinping has recently established a new “Central Commission for Integrated Military and Civilian Development” – a clear sign of the strong permeation and interpenetration between these two sectors.

This will probably be the policy line that will enable  NATO’s European countries to spend what is needed for defence, even with a significant impact on “civilian” spending.

The Russian Federation is spending 1.35 billion US dollars for the current year, with an 8% increase compared to the previous forecasts for the same year.

The 2% target of desirable military spending by NATO’s European countries dates back to long time ago. It was first discussed at the NATO Summit held in Prague in 2002, but it was only a gentleman’s agreement.

At the meeting of NATO’s Defence Ministers held in 2006, mention was still made of the “willingness” to spend “at least” 2% of the State’s yearly budget. But it was only lip service. Just hollow words, as usual.

At the NATO Summit held in Wales in 2014 the Heads of State and Government raised again the issue of spending at least 2% of public budgets for defence.

As already noted, only four Western countries spend 2%, namely USA, Greece, Great Britain and Estonia. Greece, however, spends most of its military budget on salaries and pensions.

Ukraine is the only country exceeding 2% and reaching a “US-style” rate of 3.57%, while Georgia and Poland are just below the 2% level.

With specific reference to equipment, NATO’s “policy line” requires at least 20% of defence budget spending. Currently we are at a much lower level.

Within the Atlantic Alliance, only 3.11 of the 28 NATO members do spend 20% on equipment. Germany, the country that in 2019 should lead the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, invests only 14% of its defence budget in materials and equipment.

Conversely, three nations of the former Warsaw Pact spend according to the target set by NATO’s policy line, namely Romania, Lithuania and Bulgaria.

Slovenia and Belgium are at the bottom of the list, with only 4-5% of spending on equipment.

Russia, however, has already increased its defence budget for  2018 by 95 trillion roubles, equivalent to 51.53 billion US dollars, while its military spending, as share of Russian GDP,is slowly decreasing, according to the plans adopted by President Putin in 2015. If the GDP increases, everything will work well.

Obviously the problem raised by President Trump is only quantitative and not qualitative.

In fact, so far NATO has carried out many peacekeeping operations – a sort of strategic refrigerator that preserves  regional tensions for  long time – or has supported the weak and fragile democracies resulting from Eastern Europe and the former Warsaw Pact.

Moreover Europeans cannot afford to arm and train the Rapid Reaction Force led by the EU – initially by France and Great Britain with 60,000 soldiers – which will be hard to put together, but always for peacekeeping and peace enforcement purposes and for humanitarian missions.

Currently Eurofor is composed of forces from France, Italy, Spain and Portugal. According to plans, there are  60,000 soldiers available, but readiness is to be verified.

So far it has carried out operations in Albania, Macedonia, Chad and the Central African Republic.

Eurofor has also an intelligence service provided only by the United States.

The EU battlegroups, military units that each EU country provides, are financed only with ATHENA funds – a pool of funds already allocated by European countries. Will they be enough?

What happens, however, if – with specific reference to the use and deployment of Eurofor and EU battlegroups – there are differences between EU countries on foreign policy?

Furthermore, President Trump’s request to European countries for more defence investment actually means only one thing.

According to the United States, currently European countries are too heavy a burden to bear. The EU -initially supported by the United States during the Cold War – has become a troublesome economic competitor and, with its Euro, a dangerous rival for the dollar.

If the United States reaches a sort of “cold peace” with  Putin’s Russia – which wants to rebalance power in  peripheral regions, but also in Europe – the EU will have no longer meaning for the USA.

Indeed, the European Union could become a competitor or even an enemy.

It would be possibly better to share it out with Russia and put an end to NATO as a collective security organization.

President Trump thinks that, if they wish so, Europeans can continue their wars of the buttons in the Balkans or in countries that apparently need the cosmetic exercise called peacekeeping.

In the future, however, without the NATO umbrella mostly paid by the United States.

If the agreement with the Russian Federation goes on, President Trump will claim for the United States not just a part of the EU, but a political stake in all EU countries, i.e. by buying a traditionally Atlantic political region which is currently vaguely and vocally pro-European.

President Putin will take possession and control of the so-called “anti-establishment” or “nationalist” parties, which will undermine the EU mechanisms. The United States will enjoy the spoils, without having to bear any longer the huge cost for NATO defence to the benefit of economic competitors, as well as for very harsh European tariffs and duties, and finally for the Euro.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr. Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “International World Group”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France. “

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

Beating The Drums Of War Against Iran And Pakistan

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

As countries continue their squabbles, their home the earth is going to hell in a handbasket.  A new review paper in Biological Conservation reports 40 percent of insect species are threatened with extinction.  Guess who pollinates our plants where we get our food?

All of which is of little concern to President Trump, who disdains science and experts of any kind.  His vice president has been at the Munich Security Conference where an awkward silence prevailed as he conveyed greetings from Trump and waited for the customary applause.  His speech, focused on hounding Iran, met with polite, muted applause.

Angela Merkel in contrast defended the Iran agreement (which the US has unilaterally abrogated) and talked of maintaining lines of communication without giving up gains already achieved.  Her ambit included Russia and Mr. Putin, and her critique of Trump and his policies received thunderous applause in what was seen as a striking rebuke to ‘America First’.  Some said it was one of her best and thoughtful speeches.

In India, it’s Kashmir again.  Poor Kashmiris.  They tried trusting Nehru and waited … and waited for the promised vote for self-determination; of course Pakistan’s headstrong responses did not help.  They tried peaceful demonstrations and received blinding and sometimes fatal shotgun pellets — not for them just tear gas or the famed Israeli rubber bullets.  What’s left but militancy for which Mr. Modi blames Pakistan his convenient scapegoat.  All too convenient with elections round the corner, he has the country awash in jingoism.  Communal assault often follows in this his tried-and-true election tactic.

Rahul Gandhi the jejune opposition leader is out of his depth as usual.  His only hope is for Mr. Modi to overplay his hand.  All of this despite a general dissatisfaction because the promised economic benefits for the majority have not materialized, and as cell phones multiply, people can actually see the extravagances of the rich.

Mr. Modi threatens to isolate Pakistan and Muhammad bin Salman signs projects and loans worth $20 billion — at the beginning of his visit to Pakistan, the figure touted was $10 billion.  As Theodore Roosevelt used to say, ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick’ not the reverse.

A rational answer to the Indian subcontinent is a loose confederation of independent states in a cooperative scenario, accruing the benefits of free trade and the particular resources of individual members — not the copycat US ‘most favored nation status’ to be yanked like a toy from a recalcitrant child.  All this when Pakistan has just introduced the very short range Nasr low-yield nuclear-tipped missile designed to decimate a cold start attack.

Instead of the frenetic jumping up and down and undiplomatic meaningless threats, how about a calm and rational peace?

Continue Reading

Defense

A lie about an allegation of the IRGC’s support for terrorism

Sajad Abedi

Published

on

Recent attacks on the Revolutionary Guards can be viewed from two perspectives. The first perspective is historically and the second, in terms of the behavioral model of regional and sub-regional actors in the current pattern of Western-Asian regional order.

It seems that recent pressures on the Revolutionary Guards as a revolutionary entity are rooted in the fears of Washington and its allies from a revolutionary force. A force whose members go beyond the military equations or even beyond the logic of power in the region to survive the ideals of the revolution and defend oppressed nations.

History has clearly shown that Washington is afraid of IRGC. The force that presents figures such as the martyr Hojaji and a picture of him, while willingly and resolutely prepared for martyrdom, affects the world.

In the past three decades since the Revolutionary Guards have lived, the West has always been afraid of a force that has been inspired by soft power along with its hard power. It is the same force that can bring nations and quickly become a native force in different countries.

The White House knows well that if Hezbollah-Lebanon, Ansarullah-Yemen and many other popular forces were formed on the regional level, they all had the power to influence the pattern of the Revolutionary Guards. The dependence of the classical armies in different countries on the national government does not allow them to operate with flexibility at all times and places, and even if these operations are carried out people in other countries do not welcome the presence of an army that is alien to it.

Territorial frontiers, in terms of modern Islamic civilization, defend the borders of the Islamic Revolution, which are Islamic ideals. It is inevitable that, in the soft power, the IRGC has the power to help not only the oppressed people in Iraq and Syria, but also to meet the people in these countries.

Accordingly, over the past years, Washington has repeatedly tried to use various methods to weaken the popular position of the Revolutionary Guards and to prevent its increasing popularity in the region and beyond.

Soft power strategists in the United States who are well aware that the concept of power in the new age is not only the result of hard power and the soft power of the countries, have so far been attempting to deal with psychological or media methods To disrupt the Revolutionary Guards and scare the peoples of the region from the influence of the Revolutionary Guards. The propaganda included a Shia-based pseudo-propaganda, a lie about the IRGC’s anti-Semitic tendencies, an allegation of the IRGC’s support for terrorism, an illusion about the role of the IRGC in the development of the Persian Empire, and sometimes with numerous contradictory propositions. For example, while the Revolutionary Guards are falsely accused of stirring up ethnic or religious disputes and are being reduced to an ideological force, this rumor is spreading that the Iranian people’s budget is spending on the other people! At the same time, that is an allegation the IRGC want to expand and increase its dominance over Western Asia.

These media never tell their audience that the IRGC is finally the source of Iran’s resources to other countries, or vice versa, seeking to use other countries for the benefit of the Iranian people. In fact, they are not obliged to explain to themselves the obvious fact that unless a powerful force such as the Revolutionary Guards is acting simultaneously in the language of its nation, it is also considering developing the power of this nation.

But along with the historical roots of the Revolutionary Guard, regional realities must also be taken into account. Today, under the circumstances, the Revolutionary Guards are accused of developing ballistic missiles and supporting terrorism, in which Western-backed terrorists have been in the weakest position in the last decade. Unlike a decade ago, the United States is now forced to withdraw its troops from the region. London’s policies have failed to fill the United States in the region due to domestic problems, including the clashes with the European Union, and the Arab-American allies-Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The result of Iran’s resilience to its positions in the region, which is nothing but serious support for the oppressed nations, has caused Iranian regional rivals like Riyadh to seek to modify their behavior towards our country and to improve the areas for improving relations to provide with Iran. Under such circumstances, the Donald Trump administration has concluded that it has lost all its winning leaves to pressure the Revolutionary Guard, and now it cannot impose its power on the Revolutionary Guards even in the Persian-Gulf tensions.

Therefore, the government of Trump tries to launch a wave of economic pressure against this revolutionary institution along with negative propaganda against the IRGC and use this method to weaken the IRGC. However, the principle of the self-sufficiency of the Revolutionary Guards and the lack of dependence of this force on global capitalism has made any sanctions on the Revolutionary Guards ineffective and a scenario for compelling the IRGC to negotiate and retreat has failed.

In such a situation, it seems that maintaining internal cohesion in support of the Revolutionary Guard is the only hope for the people of the region to be able to overcome the domination of foreigners with the help of the soft and hard power of Iran, and to make deep changes in the region.

Continue Reading

Defense

Nasr Missile and Deterrence Stability of South Asia

Published

on

Pakistan has conducted successful test of short range surface to surface ballistic missile ‘Nasr’ on January 24th, 28th and 31st respectively, as part of the Army Strategic Forces Command training exercise, which included quad salvo on 24 January and single shots on 28 & 31 January, 2019. Quad salvo means that the four missiles were fired together from AR1A/A100-E Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) to enhance the operational efficiency of Army Strategic force Command. While single shots means one missile was fired from the vehicle. The aimed of letter tests were for testing in flight maneuverability, including the end flight maneuverability. Nasr has shoot and scoot attributes which mean that the system has a capability of firing and moving away quickly to avoid counter targeting which would be contributing to the weapon’s survivability.The speed and low apogee of the Hatf-IX missile would make it difficult to intercept by all the Indian existing Ballistic Missile Defence system and could defeat S-400 air defence system which is in process.

As South Asia region is consider unstable because of ongoing hostility between India and Pakistan. Though hostility between both states is unending but nuclear weapons have brought stability to a great extent. As India decided to take the nuclear weapons route, Pakistan followed because through nuclear weapons Pakistan successfully neutralized Indian conventional superiority.

In South Asia, security competition between India and Pakistan has been characterised by an action-reaction spiral. Pakistan took the path of nuclear weapons development in order to create balance against militarily superior India. In 2004, India adopted aggressive military doctrine, Pakistan rationally responded by developing Short Range Ballistic Missile Nasr which further strengthen the existing deterrence equation of the region. As Pakistan is not able economically to compete India conventionally, so it always took necessitating reactionary steps to maintain deterrence stability of South Asia.

The purpose of the development of Nasr is defensive because Pakistan would use it to secure its border from Indian conventional aggression. Pakistan Short Range Ballistic Missile Nasr has been criticized by international community that it would increase arms race in South Asia.  But Pakistan developed Nasr to overcome the growing threats from the Indian offensive military doctrine. Cold Start Doctrine forces Pakistan to increase its dependence on nuclear arsenals. General Bipin acknowledged CSD in 2017, was followed by Pakistan’s Nasr test by improving its range from 60 to 70 km which puts cold water on Cold Start. Before official acknowledgement of CSD, Pakistan did not conduct any training tests of Nasr. Pakistan inducted the Nasr missile in its strategic arsenal in 2017and its first training launch was held in July 2017 after the official acknowledgment of CSD from Indian side,  shows that Pakistan developed Nasr only to deter India from initiating a conventional assault against Pakistan. Pakistan does not want to indulge in an arms race rather react to those Indian developments which are threatening its sovereignty. This weapon system has augmented Full Spectrum Deterrence in line with Credible Minimum Deterrence, which means that Pakistan would deter conventional forces (India) by employing nuclear deterrence. Pakistan adopted assertive command and control system on Nasr which means it is centrally controlled which minimize the chances of accidental or unauthorized use.

The latest series of Nasr training tests were response to General Bipin10th January 2019, statement, that the military is launching war games next month to test ‘structures geared towards sudden and swift offensives into enemy territory by Integrated Battle Groups (IBGs). These new structures will be “validated” in military exercises on the ground in May, 2019. As IBGs are the center of Indian offensive military doctrine, which involves initiating rapid military offence from multiple fronts by exploiting the element of surprise and leaving Pakistan with neither the time to respond nor the defensive resources to stop those multiple attacks. Nasr tests are in response to this Indian military announcement as Pakistan solely developed Short Range Ballistic Missile Nasr to deter India from initiating conventional conflict. The recent Nasr tests have frightened Indian commanders because of its capability to defeat all Indian existing Ballistic Missile Defence systems and S-400 air defence system. Hence, deterrence is often in the minds of adversary. As long as Indian leaders continue to be deterred by Nasr, it will continue to be effective.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy