Biodun Iginla, BBC News

Biodun Iginla, BBC News
Showing posts with label nato. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nato. Show all posts

Friday, November 8, 2019

ANALYSIS: Emmanuel Macron’s dismissal of NATO

by Elodie Bagnol and Biodun Iginla, The Economist Intelligence Unit News Analysts


Transatlantic ructions
Allies aghast at Emmanuel Macron’s dismissal of NATO

Even French security experts worry about their president’s claim that the alliance is becoming brain-dead
Europe

FOR MONTHS, NATO officials have fretted that a summit of alliance leaders in London on December 3rd might be soured by an impolitic remark by Donald Trump. They didn’t count on Emmanuel Macron. In an interview with The Economist published on November 7th, the president of France declared that NATO was experiencing “brain death”. He cast doubt on Article Five, the alliance’s collective-defence clause, and said he was not sure whether America would show up to defend Europe in a crisis.
Mr Macron was saying no more than has been murmured in chancelleries and think-tanks for years, particularly since the election of Mr Trump, who has called NATO “obsolete” and chastised allies for failing to spend enough on defence. But Mr Macron’s willingness to say it out loud worries NATO.
On the same morning as Mr Macron’s bombshell landed, Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s secretary-general, was giving a speech in Berlin. Though not intended as a riposte to the French president, it might as well have been. Mr Macron had boasted that the EU’s new defence schemes showed that “Europe has the capacity to defend itself”. Mr Stoltenberg welcomed those projects, but scoffed at the idea that they could substitute for America’s might, declaring: “The European Union cannot defend Europe.”
Mr Stoltenberg pointed out that once Britain left the bloc, 80% of NATO’s defence spending would come from non-EU allies. Germany would be left as the only EU member leading one of the alliance's four forward-deployed battlegroups in eastern Europe (France has sporadically contributed a handful of troops to the British-led deployment in Estonia). “European unity”, he concluded, “cannot replace transatlantic unity”.
Many countries in NATO agree. Eastern European allies are particularly suspicious about anything that might push America away—or worse, give Russia a whiff of Western weakness. Slawomir Debski, director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs, a think-tank close to the government, says that Mr Macron’s ambition for European defence “is seen in Warsaw as a dangerous mirage”. That view is widespread east of the Oder river. “Macron sees this as a last ditch effort by the EU to be a player in 21st-century geopolitics,” says Jamie Shea, who until last year was deputy assistant secretary-general at NATO. “But the idea of strategic autonomy has not yet taken off.”
Others share Mr Macron’s doubts, but believe that for a leader to express them publicly amounts to diplomatic malpractice. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor—who herself called on Europe to “take its destiny in its own hands” in 2017 and last year called for “a real, true European army”—admonished Mr Macron for his “drastic words” and “sweeping blow”. She insisted that NATO remained a cornerstone of German security.
Even many French observers sympathetic to Mr Macron have been taken aback. “NATO’s power rests not on tanks or bombs but on the notion that when crisis comes it will act as one. Raising doubt on Article Five is by itself pronouncing it dead,” says Fabrice Pothier, a former head of policy planning for Mr Stoltenberg, and a member of Mr Macron’s political party, La République en Marche. François Heisbourg, a former French defence official who advised Mr Macron’s presidential campaign on national security, says the remarks are “very disturbing”.
The kindest interpretation of Mr Macron’s comments is that, ahead of the NATO summit, he is seeking to deliver a “double wake-up call to both the US and to Europe”, as Mr Shea puts it: telling America to recommit itself to Europe’s defence and Europe to take its own security seriously. The danger is that it will merely push the two sides apart, and strengthen Mr Trump’s belief in “America first”. That could make for a rocky summit.
Dig Deeper
Cover leader (November 7th): “A continent in peril”
Briefing (November 7th): A president on a missionTranscript: Emmanuel Macron in his own words
The Intelligence podcast: “He talked about Europe in almost apocalyptic terms”— Macron's interview
Reuse this contentThe Trust Project

Monday, October 14, 2019

ANALYSIS: Turkey’s invasion: Things fall apart

by Nasra Ismail and Biodun Iginla, The Economist Intelligence Unit News Analysts, Beirut



Turkey’s invasion has thrown a once-stable corner of Syria into chaos

Less than a week after America removed its troops, a Kurdish-run fief has collapsed
Middle East and Africa

ALL OF IT was foreseeable: the death and displacement, the atrocities, the flight of jihadists and the return of a brutal regime. But it has happened more quickly than almost anyone predicted. In the days since Turkey invaded north-east Syria on October 9th, scores of people have been killed and more than 100,000 displaced. A brief Syrian Kurdish experiment in self-rule has come to a crashing halt. Their entity, known as Rojava, is now a carcass to be picked over by the Turks and the regime of Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s dictator. Hundreds of Islamic State (IS) supporters, once held by the Kurds, have escaped into the desert scrub.
Small though it may seem, President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to withdraw some 100 troops from north-east Syria has reshaped the Levant. It cleared the way for a long-threatened Turkish invasion meant to dislodge the Kurdish-led militia in control of the region. Turkey views the group, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), as a mortal foe because of its ties to the militant Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has fought a long insurgency against the Turkish state.
With America gone the Turks, backed by Syrian rebels under their command (mostly Sunni Arabs), swept across the border and quickly seized a swathe of central Rojava. They control a stretch of the M4, the main east-west highway about 30km south of the border, allowing them to bisect the Kurdish enclave and cut the YPG’s supply lines. Advancing Syrian rebels have already been accused of atrocities. One gruesome video circulated on social media showed giddy militiamen executing a bound Kurdish prisoner on the battlefield. “Photograph me,” one rebel urges the cameraman, before he turns a sniper rifle on the captive.
Though known as fierce fighters, the Kurds lack armour or air power. Their light infantry stands little chance against a modern Turkish army. Instead of fighting to the death they have asked Mr Assad for protection. For years the YPG, perhaps hedging its bets, tried to avoid open conflict with the regime. And on October 13th the Kurds struck a deal to bring the regime back to the north-east. “If we have to choose between compromises and the genocide of our people, we will surely choose life,” the Kurdish commander, Mazloum Abdi, wrote in an op-ed for Foreign Policy, an American magazine. Mr Assad wasted little time. His troops are already fanning out into territory formerly under YPG control.
While his men moved in, America moved out. On October 13th the defence secretary, Mark Esper, said America would withdraw all 1,000 troops deployed across northern Syria, fearing they would be caught between the Turkish and Syrian armies. Hopeful Pentagon officials still think they might maintain a presence elsewhere. This is wishful thinking. It will be hard to protect and resupply troops. One group of American soldiers already had to flee under Turkish shelling. America does hope to maintain its outpost at Tanf, in the badlands of south-east Syria, which is meant (rather improbably) to constrain Iranian influence in the region. Even that may be impossible, too.
Faced with a crisis of its own making, a flailing superpower has turned to economic sanctions to pretend it is still relevant. Senators have drafted a bill that takes aim at Turkey’s leadership and its armed forces, with apparent support from the president. “There is great consensus on this,” Mr Trump tweeted. Set aside the hypocrisy of America punishing Turkey for an offensive that Mr Trump himself acquiesced to earlier this month. Sanctions will not compel Turkey to halt its invasion. Nor will condemnations from European powers, some of which have also restricted arms sales to Turkey, a fellow NATO member.
If anyone can stop the fighting, it is Vladimir Putin. The Russian president finds himself in an awkward spot. Mr Assad is a client, and Russia is happy for his regime to retake territory. On the other hand, Turkey is a valued friend, and part of a Russian-led effort to find a political agreement that ends Syria’s wider civil war. “Losing Turkey means losing a solution to the Syrian problem,” says a former Russian diplomat. Mr Putin will try to push both sides towards a modus vivendi. Having thrown away his last bit of leverage in Syria, Mr Trump will be a mere bystander. Eight years after Barack Obama called for Mr Assad to go, it is America that is ignominiously leaving Syria.
Reuse this contentThe Trust Project

Friday, July 12, 2019

ANALYSIS AND BREAKING: Russia delivers missile system to Turkey in challenge to NATO

July 12, 2019  15H:02  GMT/ZULU
ISTANBUL - Russia began delivery of an advanced missile defense system to Turkey on Friday, a move expected to trigger U.S. sanctions against a NATO ally and drive a wedge into the heart of the Western military alliance.
The first parts of the S-400 air defense system were flown to a military air base near the capital Ankara, the Turkish Defense Ministry said, sealing Turkey’s deal with Russia which Washington had struggled for months to prevent.
The United States says the Russian military hardware is not compatible with NATO systems and that the acquisition may lead to Ankara’s expulsion from an F-35 fighter jet program.
Investors in Turkey have been unsettled by the deal. The Turkish lira weakened to 5.717 against the dollar from 5.683 before the ministry announced the arrival of the S-400 consignment to the Murted Air Base, northwest of Ankara.
“The delivery of parts belonging to the system will continue in the coming days,” Turkey’s Defense Industry Directorate said. “Once the system is completely ready, it will begin to be used in a way determined by the relevant authorities.”
At least two Russian Air Force AN-124 cargo planes flew to Turkey on Friday morning, data from plane tracking website Flightradar24 showed. Turkish broadcasters showed footage of one plane parked at airbase and a second one landing at around 12.30 pm (0930 GMT).
ADVERTISEMENT
Russia’s Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation confirmed on Friday it had started delivering the S-400 systems and that the deliveries would continue in accordance with an agreed schedule, the RIA news agency reported.
ERDOGAN-TRUMP TALKS
Turkey says the system is a strategic defense requirement, particularly to secure its southern borders with Syria and Iraq. It says that when it made the deal with Russia for the S-400s, the United States and Europe had not presented a viable alternative.
President Tayyip Erdogan said after meeting President Donald Trump at a G20 summit last month that the United States did not plan to impose sanctions on Ankara for buying the S-400s.
ADVERTISEMENT
Trump said Turkey had not been treated fairly but did not rule out sanctions. U.S. officials said last week the administration still plans to impose sanctions on Turkey.
Under legislation known as Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which targets purchases of military equipment from Russia, Trump should select five of 12 possible measures.
These range from banning visas and denying access to the U.S.-based Export-Import Bank, to the harsher options of blocking transactions with the U.S. financial system and denying export licenses.
Washington says the S-400s could compromise its Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter jets, an aircraft Turkey is helping to build and planning to buy.
FILE PHOTO: Russian servicemen sit in the cabins of S-400 missile air defense systems in Tverskaya Street before a rehearsal for the Victory Day parade, which marks the anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in World War Two, in central Moscow, Russia April 29, 2019. REUTERS/Tatyana Makeyeva/File Photo
Turkey could also face expulsion from the F-35 program under the sanctions. Erdogan has dismissed that possibility, but Washington has already started the process of removing Turkey from the program, halting training of Turkish pilots in the United States on the aircraft.
Investors in Turkey have been concerned about the impact of potential U.S. sanctions on an economy which fell into recession after a currency crisis last year.
The S-400 acquisition is one of several issues which have frayed ties between the two allies, including a dispute over strategy in Syria east of the Euphrates River, where the United States is allied with Kurdish forces that Turkey views as foes.
The detention of U.S. consular staff in Turkey has also strained relations, along with disagreements over Iran, Venezuela and Middle East policy. Turkey has long demanded Washington hand over a Muslim cleric which Ankara holds responsible for an attempted coup in 2016.
The Murted base was formerly known as Akinci Air Base and was used by putschist soldiers in the failed 2016 coup.

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Trump studying possibility of permanent US base in Poland


by Suzanne Gould and Biodun Iginla, France24, Washington


    © AFP | US President Donald Trump and Polish President Andrzej Duda in the Oval office at the White House, with Trump saying he was seriously considering the possibility of building a permanent US military base in Poland

    WASHINGTON  - 
    US President Donald Trump said Tuesday he is seriously considering building a permanent US military base in Poland.
    ?We?re looking at it very seriously,? Trump told reporters as he received Polish President Andrzej Duda in the Oval Office.
    ?Poland is willing to make a very major contribution to the United States to come in and have a presence in Poland,? he said.
    ?If they?re willing to do that, it?s something we will certainly talk about,? Trump added.
    Such a move would fuel tensions between NATO, of which Poland is a member, and Russia, which would see a new, permanent US base so close to its borders as a threatening military expansion.