EU Defense Cooperation: Threat or Benefit for NATO? - by Markus Heinrich

Britain has always been a somewhat half-hearted member of the EU. The country has been reluctant to hand over competences to Brussels and principally opposed to “ever closer union” — even as it was eager to widen the EU’s membership.

Has the time come for the EU to say "bye-bye NATO" ?

As a reluctant (and soon to be ex) participant in European integration, the British worldview has been, and continues to be, Atlanticist rather than European.

As a firmly Altanticist nation, Britain has been vehemently opposed to any EU military structures. It deemed NATO as the one and only framework for providing security in the Euro-Atlantic area.

But with Britain set to leave the EU some time in 2019 – based on Theresa May’s announcement that Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty will be triggered in March 2017 and the assumption that a successful exit is negotiated within the two-year time limit – a major obstacle to EU defense cooperation will be removed in the foreseeable future.

Negotiating Brexit will be a difficult and complex process that will occupy politicians and diplomats on both sides of the English Channel for some time. Even so, there are signs that the EU is determined that this will not prevent its defense agenda from progressing.

France and Germany have been leading calls for enhanced European defense cooperation (such as a permanent EU military headquarters and the sharing of military assets).

The Franco-German proposals were outlined by French defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and his German counterpart Ursula von der Leyen in September 2016.

Von der Leyen called for a European defense union – initially comprised of a core group, but open to all EU members – comparing it to a “Schengen of defense.”

The recent EU summit in Bratislava – at which Britain was not represented – saw Franco-German proposals for defense cooperation generally well received by member states. The plan is therefore not just a Franco-German objective, but is likely to enjoy wider support in a 28-1 member EU.

A concrete example of how European defense collaboration could benefit from Brexit is the European Defence Agency (EDA).

The EDA was established in 2004 to “support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve European defense capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future.” Its three main missions are to:

1. Support the development of European defense capabilities and military cooperation

2. Stimulate defense research and technology to strengthen Europe’s defense industry

3. Act as a military interface to EU policies

An increase in the EDA’s meager budget has been vetoed in the past by Britain. With its veto gone post Brexit – and given the generally positive reception of the Franco-German proposals at the Bratislava summit – a future budget increase for the EDA is a distinct possibility. 


Read more: EU Defense Cooperation: Threat or Benefit for NATO? - The Globalist

The Netherlands - employment opportunities: Lack of qualified staff holding back Dutch companies

A  shortage of qualified staff is holding Dutch companies back as the economy recovers from the recession, according to new figures from the government statistics service. Statistics Netherlands said 7 per cent of businesses reported problems with understaffing because of a lack of suitable and experienced candidates. 

The figure is at its highest level since 2009. The problem was most acute in the IT sector, where one in six firms said there was a lack of qualified staff. In the service sector the proportion was one in 10. Overall businesses feel there are fewer obstacles to growth than in recent years, according to the survey, which recorded fewer complaints about financial restrictions or weak demand.

The number of businesses planning to take on more staff is at it highest level for years, with 8 per cent planning to add to their team in the second quarter of this year. The figure for the third quarter was 6 per cent. The total number of vacancies reported at the start of July was 155,000.

Read more: Lack of qualified staff holding back Dutch companies - DutchNews.nl

Propaganda: ′Divide Europe′: European lawmakers warn of Russian propaganda - what about propaganda from other sources?

The Russian government channels propaganda aimed at disrupting democratic values across Europe, targeting "specific journalists, politicians and individuals in the bloc," lawmakers of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee said in a resolution passed on Monday.

"The Russian government is aggressively employing a wide-range of tools and instruments, such as think tanks […], multilingual TV stations (i.e. Russia Today), pseudo-news agencies […], social media and internet trolls, to challenge democratic values, divide Europe, gather domestic support and create the perception of failed states in the EU's eastern neighborhood," the resolution said.

European lawmakers called on media representatives in the EU to compile facts on the "consumption of propaganda," worrying that "with the limited awareness amongst some of its member states, that they are audiences and arenas of propaganda and disinformation."

The resolution urged European authorities to turn the EU's Strategic Communication Task Force, an initiative mandated by the European Council aimed at dispelling propaganda, into a "fully-fledged unit" within the bloc's diplomatic office, "with proper staffing and adequate budgetary resources."

MEP Anna Fotyga, the chief rapporteur for the resolution, told DW that more needs to be done to expose the "mechanism of propaganda" directed at the bloc's member states, and more broadly the EU and the West.

However, Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT (formerly Russia Today), told DW that the resolution, in effect, targets free speech in the 28-nation bloc.

"This a rather interesting interpretation of the much-touted western values, particularly that of the freedom of speech - which in action apparently means attacking a rare voice of dissent amongst literally thousands of European media outlets," Simonyan said in an emailed statement.

"If anything is eroding public confidence in European institutions, it's that," she added.

Note EU-Digest: Good move by EU lawmakers, but propaganda is coming to the EU citizens and politicians from a variety of sources and directions - countries and industry, and the question should not only be focused on one potential culprit, but other sources as well, including, the US, China, multi- nationals, etc. If the EU lawmakers don't approach the issue in a far more broader and objective way, it unfortunately does start to smell like censorship, and that, one can only hope is not the purpose of this exercise ?

Read more: ′Divide Europe′: European lawmakers warn of Russian propaganda | Europe | DW.COM | 11.10.2016

Britain: Scientist awarded Nobel prize slams Brexit - considering renouncing British Citizenship

One of the four British scientists awarded a Nobel prize this week has said he is considering renouncing his citizenship because of Brexit.

Two of the other new laureates, all of whom now work in the US, have joined him in criticising the decision to leave the EU, with one saying it may change his mind about returning to the UK.

Michael Kosterlitz told The Times that the vote “is a very stupid, narrow-minded decision and will have disastrous long-term effects on science in UK ... I feel strongly about Brexit and do not wish to be associated with a country which is so insular and narrow-minded.”

Professor Kosterlitz, now based at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said that even if he had not left the UK, “Brexit would have had me job-hunting immediately. The idea of not being able to travel and work freely in Europe is unthinkable to me. I have kept my UK passport for visiting Europe but if the UK does not change its mind, I will not renew it and may even renounce my British citizenship and just keep my US citizenship, because the British citizenship will not be worth anything useful to me.”

He shared the prize for his discoveries in condensed matter physics with two other British scientists, Duncan Haldane and David Thouless.

Professor Haldane, now at Princeton, also criticised the decision to leave the EU, which has been hugely unpopular among scientists. He said he had considered returning to the UK but was now unlikely to do so because of the loss of grants from the European Research Council. “I was seriously considering coming back a few years ago,” he told The Guardian. “It was suggested it might be possible to get one of these euros 5 million ERC grants. That’s much better support than I can get here.

“These grants are specifically aimed at bringing established people back. Without that, it makes it more difficult for people to come back.

“I wouldn’t be going back just to kill myself eating high table dinners at a college.”

Before the vote to leave the European Union, scientists argued that freedom of movement was crucial to their profession, with research increasingly done across borders. Sir Fraser Stoddart, who won the Nobel prize in chemistry on Wednesday and is originally from Edinburgh, said that the loss of immigrant scientists would be catastrophic.

“I am extremely worried about the consequences of Brexit,” he said. “My colleagues in the UK thrive on the free movement of young people back and forth between the UK and the other 27 EU nations. If the portcullis comes down then at one fell swoop we are cutting off the vast majority of talent.

“We would go from 500 million people to 65 million. This could have dire consequences for British science, it would be sheer disaster. I hope for the country’s sake that some group of people can put a massive spoke in this wheel and stop it.”

Read more: Nobel scientist slams Brexit

EU: It is high time we stand up for our Europe - "united we stand but divided we will fall"

Our Europe is in danger. 

Nationalism, xenophobia and insularity threaten its fundamental values.

Our Europe, the most impressive political construction of modern times, cannot stand by as national governments jeopardise its democratic, economic, social, cultural and environmental model.

They have shown inertia and distrust when faced first with economic crisis, then with refugees and most recently with terrorism. Each successive threat has been worsened by a lack of cooperation and coordination between European governments.

The time has surely come for Europe’s citizens to make our voices heard, to express our desire for ever stronger unity and solidarity, for deeper political union.

Europe is not the cause of our problems, but the solution. For too long, our fate has sat in the hands of national and foreign leaders and partially discredited European institutions.

Once a symbol of peace, openness and solidarity, Europe has become synonymous with insularity, exclusion and self-absorption. And where Europeans are increasingly struggling to see their values reflected.

Let us not consign ourselves to helplessness, to a lack of confidence, to doubts and fears, to images of refugees dying at our borders because of a lack of solidarity from member states and because our leaders do not have the courage to do the right thing.

It is now urgent for us to move beyond the strictly national arena and to construct a truly European political foundation to take on the challenges of globalisation, modernity and a revived democracy through the direct elections of EU leaders and a progressive independent foreign policy which is not tied to any destructive foreign nation's policy.

Our sense of belonging to a European people, to a community of values, is too often thwarted by our inability to translate this desire into politics.  We need to continuously send messages to our political leaders, stating that Europe is our nation and that it can have no future without political union and the construction of a firm shell around a united European state with its own foreign policy.

“If we cannot dream of a better Europe, we will never construct a better Europe” Václav Havel, former President of the Czech Republic once said.. Let us show our desire for Europe to step forward.

Let us fly Europe’s flag – our flag – on our social network profiles, our web pages, our houses, our cars and bikes, everywhere!

This call is supported, among others, by VOXEurope, Fabien Cazenave, Pietro De Matteis (Federalist Party), Bernard Guetta (France Inter), Eric Jozsef (Libération), Ovidiu Nahoi (Dilema Veche, RFI Romania), Wojciech Przybylski (Eurozine), José Ignacio Torreblanca (El País), Anne Tréca, Nicolas Vadot (Le Vif), Francesco Belluscio, Mario Benvenuto, Esther Cordero, Luca Feltrin, Sabrina Paglierani, Davide Pozzo, EU-Digest

EU-Digest

Syria: The Mother Of All US Humanitarian and Foreign Policy disasters

David T. Jones writes in the Epoch Times; "The proverbial “law of holes” states, “When you find yourself in one—stop digging.”

So far as Syria is concerned, we seem unwilling to learn this lesson.

And, brutal as is the reality, the West has lost the war in Syria. Whatever our kaleidoscope of objectives has been, ranging from removal of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad to support of “democratic” rebels to creation of an Aleppo ceasefire, we have failed.

There is no reason to believe al-Assad will cease military action in Syria until he has eliminated opposition—whether it be Daesh (aka ISIS/ISIL/IS) or assorted “rebel” groups of whatever political philosophy. As long as al-Assad has Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah assistance, he will prevail.

Nor is Aleppo’s ongoing humanitarian disaster going to cause a twinge by those conducting it. The fighting has continued since July 2012; various estimates suggest 30,000 dead with several hundred thousand civilians and combatants remaining in the besieged portion of the city.

However, remembering Russian casualties during World War II, e.g., siege of Leningrad (900 days; one million civilians and 300,000 military died) or Stalingrad (1.1 million total casualties; 478,000 killed), Putin may well conclude Aleppo’s losses are inconsequential—and the Western whiners are trying to play a human rights card in a military reality poker game.

Indeed, Western leaders have misplayed their opportunities from the beginning. We apparently believed the Arab Spring, starting in 2010, which swept away creaky dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, as well as forcing political change throughout the Middle East, would also evict al-Assad.

After all, al-Assad looks like a gawky ophthalmologist (his academic training) rather than presenting the visage of an iron-fisted dictator. Implicitly, we thought he would decamp with lovely wife, family, and uncounted fortune to comfortable retirement in some dictator-accepting/friendly country. But there was steel where we expected Jello; his Army stayed loyal, fought hard, and beat down various rebel groups. Al-Assad “channeled” his father who never caviled at massacring opponents.

Western leaders declined to put “boots on the ground”—removing al-Assad wasn’t initially believed to be worth body bags coming home—or even bomb his airfields and destroy his Air Force, his trump card in combating rebels. So fighting continued, and we lost the easy course of action. President Obama backed away from his personal “line in the sand” demanding al-Assad remove chemical weapons; then the Russians were able to arrange such a removal/elimination and, concurrently, seize a principal position in the struggle.

Consequently, Syrians have fled by millions. Statistics on the tragedy are politicized, but one estimate has 4.8 million refugees plus 6.6 million displaced within the country from a population of 17 million. Most refugees are in neighboring Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.

But the exodus has also disoriented Europe, which in a misplaced burst of humanitarianism opened its doors to more than a million refugees."

 The proverbial “law of holes” states, “When you find yourself in one—stop digging.”

So far as Syria is concerned, we seem unwilling to learn this lesson.

And, brutal as is the reality, the West has lost the war in Syria. Whatever our kaleidoscope of objectives has been, ranging from removal of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad to support of “democratic” rebels to creation of an Aleppo ceasefire, we have failed.

There is no reason to believe al-Assad will cease military action in Syria until he has eliminated opposition—whether it be Daesh (aka ISIS/ISIL/IS) or assorted “rebel” groups of whatever political philosophy. As long as al-Assad has Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah assistance, he will prevail.

Nor is Aleppo’s ongoing humanitarian disaster going to cause a twinge by those conducting it. The fighting has continued since July 2012; various estimates suggest 30,000 dead with several hundred thousand civilians and combatants remaining in the besieged portion of the city.

However, remembering Russian casualties during World War II, e.g., siege of Leningrad (900 days; one million civilians and 300,000 military died) or Stalingrad (1.1 million total casualties; 478,000 killed), Putin may well conclude Aleppo’s losses are inconsequential—and the Western whiners are trying to play a human rights card in a military reality poker game.

Aleppo - Syria

Indeed, Western leaders have misplayed their opportunities from the beginning. We apparently believed the Arab Spring, starting in 2010, which swept away creaky dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, as well as forcing political change throughout the Middle East, would also evict al-Assad.

After all, al-Assad looks like a gawky ophthalmologist (his academic training) rather than presenting the visage of an iron-fisted dictator. Implicitly, we thought he would decamp with lovely wife, family, and uncounted fortune to comfortable retirement in some dictator-accepting/friendly country. But there was steel where we expected Jello; his Army stayed loyal, fought hard, and beat down various rebel groups. Al-Assad “channeled” his father who never caviled at massacring opponents.

Western leaders declined to put “boots on the ground”—removing al-Assad wasn’t initially believed to be worth body bags coming home—or even bomb his airfields and destroy his Air Force, his trump card in combating rebels. So fighting continued, and we lost the easy course of action. President Obama backed away from his personal “line in the sand” demanding al-Assad remove chemical weapons; then the Russians were able to arrange such a removal/elimination and, concurrently, seize a principal position in the struggle.

Consequently, Syrians have fled by millions. Statistics on the tragedy are politicized, but one estimate has 4.8 million refugees plus 6.6 million displaced within the country from a population of 17 million. Most refugees are in neighboring Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.

But the exodus has also disoriented Europe, which in a misplaced burst of humanitarianism opened its doors to more than a million refugees. "

Bottom line: Syria has become the mother of all US failed humanitarian and foreign policy disasters.

The question that Europe must answer, rather sooner than later is, can it continue to blindly walk in "lockstep" with the US, when it comes to their totally failed Middle East policies, or develop its own independent and more constructive foreign policy objectives?

EU-Digest

Income Inequality: The Reason Why Forbes Rich List Does NOT Include The Richest Families In The World

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” This is a House of Rothschilds maxim, widely attributed to banking tycoon Mayer Amschel Rothschild in 1838 and said to be a founding principle for the highly corrupt banking and political system we have today.

Along with the Rockefellers, the Rothschild dynasty is estimated to be worth well over a trillion dollars. How are these powerful families linked to the ongoing crisis of global wealth inequality, why are so many people unaware of their existence, and why doesn't Forbes ever mention them in their annual list of the world's wealthiest people?

In January 2014, Oxfam announced that the richest 85 people on the planet share a combined wealth of $110 trillion. The figure was based on Forbes's rich list 2013, and it equates to 65 times the total wealth of the entire bottom half (3.5 billion) of the world's population. While some deluded commentators welcomed this as “fantastic news,” the rest of us were disgusted. Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's executive director, said at the time: “It is staggering that in the 21st Century, half of the world's population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all fit comfortably on a double-decker bus.” Two months later, following Oxfam's calculation and having published the new 2014 rich list, Forbes journalist Kasia Morena did some fact-checking.

She found that the number of billionaires owning the same as the poorest 3.5 billion had dropped from 85 to 67: which demonstrates an enormous widening of the global inequality gap in just one year. Fast-forward to 2015, and another Oxfam investigation. The anti-poverty charity warned in January that if nothing is done to tackle global wealth inequality- by forcing corporations to pay their taxes and closing off-shore tax havens, for example - the richest 1% will own more than everybody else in the world combined by 2016.

In a paper called Wealth: Having it all and wanting more, Oxfam outlined how the richest 1 percent have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014, and will likely surpass 50% in 2016. Winnie Byanyima again warned that the explosion in inequality is holding back the fight against global poverty at a time when one in nine people do not have enough to eat, and more than a billion people still live on less than $1.25 a day.

The organization also outlined how 20 percent of billionaires around the world have interests in the financial and insurance sectors, a group that saw their cash wealth increase by 11 percent in the last 12 months. Billionaires listed as having interests in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors saw their collective net worth increase by 47 percent, and the industry spent more than $500 million lobbying policy makers in Washington and Brussels in 2013 alone. “Do we really want to live in a world where the one percent own more than the rest of us combined?” Byanyima asked.

“The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering, and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast.” Meet The People Who Own 50% (And Counting) Of The World's Wealth Here is Forbes's (real-time) list of the 66 billionaires who (officially) own half of all global assets, and will soon own more than the rest of Earth's seven billion population combined. They range from CEOs of large corporations to oil and gas tycoons and Silicon valley entrepreneurs. The list details name, net worth, percentage change since the 2015 results, their age, industry and nationality.

Bill Gates is ranked first at $469 billion, and James Simons at #66 with the $14 billion he made from hedge funds.

But where are the world's Royal families? And more to the point, where are the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers? These two families have an unimaginable amount of wealth that surpasses the trillion mark - they are the only trillionaires in the world, and yet they are missing from Forbes's list every single year, along with the handful of other men commonly believed to own our politicians, our media, our corporations, our scientists, and even our money supply

Forbes's rich list doesn't include members of Royal families or dictators who hold their wealth through a position of power, or who control the riches of their country. In this way, the real people pulling the strings are able to work in absolute secrecy without any media attention at all (unless it is carefully-constructed positive propaganda, like this article on the philanthropy of the Rothschilds, of course).

Forbes's policy to exclude heads of state from the rich list explains why the Queen of England is absent, although nobody has the slightest idea of her wealth in any case: her shareholdings remain hidden behind Bank of England Nominee accounts. As the Guardian newspaper reported in May 2002: ‘The reason for the wild variations in valuations of her private wealth can be pinned on the secrecy over her portfolio of share investments…Her subjects have no way of knowing through a public register of interests where she, as their head of state, chooses to invest her money. Unlike [British politicians and Lords], the Queen does not have to annually declare her interests and as a result her subjects cannot question her or know about potential conflicts of interests…’

The same can be said for the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers, whose European forebears were richer than any Royal family at the time. The families are believed to have set up and own the Federal Reserve (G Edward Griffin's The Creature From Jekyll Island and this research by journalist Dean Henderson are recommended reading if you want to get deeper into this topic). Could this be why the families, whose power in manipulating global affairs for the past few hundred years cannot be underestimated, are protected by Forbes's ‘don't even go there’ policy? Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who's Who of the Global Elite, was apparently told in 1998 that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family was approx $11 trillion and the Rothschilds $100 trillion…what might that figure have reached 17 years later?

One can hardly begin to imagine, but maybe money isn't the most important thing to your average trillionaire, anyway… “The only problem with wealth is, what do you do with it?” was a rhetorical question posed by none other than John D. Rockefeller. Well, if Aaron Russo's testimony is to be believed, all the Rockefeller riches in the world certainly won't be used to benefit the human race.

Ashley Mote, a member of the European Parliament serving British independence party UKIP, asked the following question in Brussels, and retribution was swift: “Mr President, I wish to draw your attention to the Global Security Fund, set up in the early 1990s under the auspices of Jacob Rothschild.

This is a Brussels-based fund and it is no ordinary fund: it does not trade, it is not listed and it has a totally different purpose. It is being used for geopolitical engineering purposes, apparently under the guidance of the intelligence services. I have previously asked about the alleged involvement of the European Union’s own intelligence resources in the management of slush funds in offshore accounts, and I still await a reply.

To that question I now add another: what are the European Union's connections to the Global Security Fund and what relationship does it have with European Union institutions?” This is exactly the kind of question the European public would like an answer to. Yet Mote did not receive one. Instead, the 79 year old politician was sacked from his own party, and later arrested and sent to jail for allegedly claiming false expenses during his time as an MEP.

Mote claimed throughout his trial that he was ‘targeted for being anti-Europe’, and said the money he claimed was used to pay third-party whistleblowers in a quest to uncover corruption and fight for democracy and transparency in European politics. Like everything else relating to the people who really run the show, the truth is out there… but it's almost impossible to pin down. 

Read more: The Reason Why Forbes Rich List Does NOT Include The Richest Families In The World