Given the proliferation of armed conflicts in the Middle East, NGOs are sounding the alarm on arms exports: three NGOs have called for Tuesday, April 5 better control of the route of arms sold abroad by France. Members should begin on Tuesday examining the draft law on control of exports and imports of conventional weapons, for a vote April 12.
Amnesty International France, CCFD Earth and Oxfam Solidarity France, "MPs have a duty to ensure that French law contains provisions to prevent binding of the French arms are sold when there is a risk that they involved in violations of human rights, international humanitarian law, or hinder the economic and social development of peoples.
"The situation changed"
The three NGOs demand and tighter control of "end use and end-user" of weapons and materials purchased, sometimes re-exported to countries politically "sensitive". This is especially necessary that "the situation has fundamentally changed the traditional customers of France, the regimes in North Africa and the Middle East, can no longer be described as stable," said Nicolas Verken, Oxfam France, during a press briefing. If France "requires importing countries to issue export certificates," it is not enough, "said Zoheb Behalal, CCFD.
NGOs say they have documented cases of diversion of exported used equipment for which it had been sold in Israel, Chad, Pakistan. Field of transparency, "the public must know what has been regularly exported and what was forbidden to export," demanded Nicolas Verken. He said the argument that the specific publication and "read" such information could encourage competitors to the French arms industry does not, because "the UK's leading exporter of weapons," published regularly the list of export licenses granted and denied.
BAD RISK ASSESSED
These comments came at a time when British MPs published a report highlighting that "the current government, like its predecessor, have misjudged the risk that weapons are allowed to export to some countries in North Africa and the Middle East can be used in repression in these countries, "wrote the Commission of the House of Commons on the control of arms exports.
The Commission welcomes that 156 export licenses have been canceled since the uprisings in Libya, Bahrain, Egypt and Tunisia. But the number of revocations "shows how policy in this area has been misjudged," said Chairman of the Commission, John Stanley. "The government must say how they will reconcile the potential conflict of interest between the focus more often on the promotion of export of arms and his fervent defense of human rights," the report .
It cites in particular the licenses that were granted last year for export to Libya of ammunition for small arms, weapons and riot control tear gas. Bulletproof vests and binoculars infrared have been exported to Yemen, ammunition for small arms to Syria, sniper rifles to Saudi Arabia, the report said.
Lucas
mercredi 6 avril 2011
dimanche 20 mars 2011
The two Iranian warships in the Mediterranean came to Syria
Two Iranian warships, the first of its kind to enter the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal since 1979, landed in Syria Thursday, February 24 at the port of Latakia, according to Iranian sources in Damascus. Entered Tuesday in the Mediterranean, both buildings have prompted the Israeli navy to raise its alert level, the United States urging them to comply with international laws.
"The Zionist regime may have concerns (...), but we will continue our plans without worrying about the plan and in coordination with the [country] friends in the region," said Admiral Sayari cited by Iranian agency IRNA. "The visit of our warships in Syrian port of Latakia is an ordinary visit and carries a message of peace and friendship," said the admiral was quoted as saying on his arrival in Damascus on Wednesday night to Thursday.
Admiral Sayari has denied reports that Iranian ships will conduct military exercises. "A number of Iranian naval cadets are present and it is a long journey of training at sea," he said. Survey of ships in Syria is "routine" and is "short", said Sunday an Iranian diplomatic source. They "remain a few days in the Syrian ports. The goal is to make training," he added, highlighting the "strategic relations" between Syria and Iran.
ISRAEL DOES NOT "TAKE ANY INITIATIVE
According to the official news agency Fars, the buildings in question are the Kharg, a supply ship and support of 33 000 tonnes and Alvand, a patrol frigate, both of British construction. The Kharg has a crew of 250 people and can accommodate up to three helicopters. The Alvand is armed with torpedoes and antiship missiles.
Israel does not "take any action" against the Iranian ships, but there will be "an immediate Israeli response" to any change of route considered provocative, warned Tuesday a senior Israeli security under cover of anonymity.
"The Zionist regime may have concerns (...), but we will continue our plans without worrying about the plan and in coordination with the [country] friends in the region," said Admiral Sayari cited by Iranian agency IRNA. "The visit of our warships in Syrian port of Latakia is an ordinary visit and carries a message of peace and friendship," said the admiral was quoted as saying on his arrival in Damascus on Wednesday night to Thursday.
Admiral Sayari has denied reports that Iranian ships will conduct military exercises. "A number of Iranian naval cadets are present and it is a long journey of training at sea," he said. Survey of ships in Syria is "routine" and is "short", said Sunday an Iranian diplomatic source. They "remain a few days in the Syrian ports. The goal is to make training," he added, highlighting the "strategic relations" between Syria and Iran.
ISRAEL DOES NOT "TAKE ANY INITIATIVE
According to the official news agency Fars, the buildings in question are the Kharg, a supply ship and support of 33 000 tonnes and Alvand, a patrol frigate, both of British construction. The Kharg has a crew of 250 people and can accommodate up to three helicopters. The Alvand is armed with torpedoes and antiship missiles.
Israel does not "take any action" against the Iranian ships, but there will be "an immediate Israeli response" to any change of route considered provocative, warned Tuesday a senior Israeli security under cover of anonymity.
samedi 19 mars 2011
The U.S. military has sought to use military psychologists to influence elected officials on Afghanistan
The U.S. military has sought to illegally use the services of military psychologists to influence parliamentarians and senior foreign officials, hoping to get more troops and money for Afghanistan, said Thursday the magazine Rolling Stone. The newspaper accused Gen. William Caldwell, in charge of training Afghan troops, have lobbied last year on a cell of "psy-ops", normally in charge of the military to influence the behavior of the enemy by through propaganda.
According to the magazine, the general requirement of this cell that it focuses on personalities coming to visit him in Afghanistan. Among these were, according to the newspaper, Senator John McCain, a former Republican candidate for president, and his colleagues Joe Lieberman, Jack Reed, Al Franken and Carl Levin. Rolling Stone also cites the names of the Chief of Joint Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, as interior minister German and Czech ambassador to Afghanistan.
The newspaper is based on statements by Colonel Michael Holmes, head of the cell in question, who explained that the law forbade his services to manipulate Americans. "My job as a 'psy-op is playing with people's brains, to bring the enemy to act as we wish. I am not allowed to do that to ours. If you ask me use these capabilities on senators or representatives, you cross the red line, "he said.
According to Colonel Holmes, his supervisor asked him to raise issues about its visitors to learn about "sensitive issues on which we could act to get more money." "How can we get these guys they send us more people and what do I push them in the skull?", Asked the General Caldwell. According to Rolling Stone, Colonel Holmes opened his prejudices from his superiors, but then the subject of an investigation into his personal conduct and received a "reprimand".
Lucas
According to the magazine, the general requirement of this cell that it focuses on personalities coming to visit him in Afghanistan. Among these were, according to the newspaper, Senator John McCain, a former Republican candidate for president, and his colleagues Joe Lieberman, Jack Reed, Al Franken and Carl Levin. Rolling Stone also cites the names of the Chief of Joint Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, as interior minister German and Czech ambassador to Afghanistan.
The newspaper is based on statements by Colonel Michael Holmes, head of the cell in question, who explained that the law forbade his services to manipulate Americans. "My job as a 'psy-op is playing with people's brains, to bring the enemy to act as we wish. I am not allowed to do that to ours. If you ask me use these capabilities on senators or representatives, you cross the red line, "he said.
According to Colonel Holmes, his supervisor asked him to raise issues about its visitors to learn about "sensitive issues on which we could act to get more money." "How can we get these guys they send us more people and what do I push them in the skull?", Asked the General Caldwell. According to Rolling Stone, Colonel Holmes opened his prejudices from his superiors, but then the subject of an investigation into his personal conduct and received a "reprimand".
Lucas
La Lybie une source de financement pour les pays Européens.
En effet, à peine vient-on d’apprendre que l’Union Européenne s’est mis d’accord pour utiliser une force de frappe aérienne contre la Lybie, celle-ci a immédiatement répondu en arrêtant tout traités commerciaux en cours avec les pays et en promettant de perturber le trafic maritime de la méditerranée.
De plus, les anciens dossiers ressortent. La France a par ailleurs participée à des relations commerciales dans le domaine de l’armement avec la Lybie. Il est plus particulièrement spécifié que depuis 1999 l’entreprise Française Thalès négociait avec la Lybie alors qu’elle était sous embargo.
Pour synthétiser nous stipulerons que plusieurs contrats ont été décroché dont un signé en 2007 pour la restauration de douze mirages s’élevant à un montant de 120 millions d’euros.
Gauthier.
vendredi 18 mars 2011
Armement et économie deux notions étroitement liées :
Le marché de l’armement a représenté un montant de 400 milliard de dollars en 2009. Les firmes de l’armement vont bien et la demande dans ce secteur ne cesse d’augmenter et ce notamment en raison du contexte mondial grandement bouleversé ces derniers temps.
Ces chiffres proviennent d’une ONG Suédoise nommée SIPRI (SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) et recense en l’occurrence toutes les ventes d’armes qu’elle soit sur les marchés de l’exportation ou internes. Par la même occasion cette ONG a dégagé un classement des 10 entreprises les plus actives dans ce secteur auquel on retrouve en première position l’entreprise américaine (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics). La deuxième place est détenue par les Britanniques représenté par BAE System qui soit dit en passant a permis en 2006 l’intégration de Airbus dans le groupe EADS en 2006 (suite à une cession de 20% du capital de cette société).
Enfin pour en venir à notre entreprise de référence concernant notre étude EADS se retrouve en 7ème position alors cette entreprise ne réalise que 28% de son chiffre d’affaire dans l’armement (avec un chiffre d’affaire de 42milliard d’euros en 2009 cela représente une participation de 11.8 milliard d’euros sur le marché de l’armement mondial).
Pour ce qui concerne nos sociétés françaises l’on constate que Thalès se retrouve en 11ème position, suivi du groupe SAFRAN en 13ème position, de DCNS en 22ème position pour enfin retrouver Dassault en 55ème position après une perte de 19 places dans le classement.
Enfin pour mieux situer ces flux financiers basée sur l’armement il est intéressant de constater que 45 sociétés du top 100 des productions et de vente d’armement représente 61% des 400 milliard de dollars généré, mais également que ces 45 sociétés sont implantés aux Etats-Unis. Autrement dit 244 milliard de dollars a été brassé en 2009 par les Etats-Unis.
Le marché Européen représente quant à lui 31% des ventes d’armement soit 124 milliard de dollars essentiellement répartit entre l’Allemagne, la France, l’Italie et le Royaume-Uni.
Votre reporter aux sources, Gauthier.
Libya's military intervention in matters
Following the adoption by the Security Council of the UN resolution providing for a foreign intervention in Libya, the first air strikes should intervene Friday, March 18. This decision is not without raising a number of issues.
* Why this decision comes it now?
The changing situation on the ground was no longer wait. For nearly two weeks, the balance of power between the insurgents and the army loyal to Muammar Gaddafi has been reversed, the latter returning the land to the east, which was part of the insurgency. Thursday, March 17, the forces of "guide" Libya were located around Ajdabiya, key city located 160 miles from Benghazi, the "rebel capital." In an interview Wednesday, March 16 at Euro News, Saif al-Islam, a son of Gaddafi, had been particularly threatening: "In forty-eight hours, everything will be finished. Our forces are almost in Benghazi."
Why, in this case have long awaited? The West was largely divided on the question of military intervention. France and the United Kingdom actively campaigned for the establishment of a no-fly zone, while Russia, Germany or China saw no welcome a foreign action in Libya, considered as interference in domestic affairs.
Discussions were actually conducted in two stages. Monday 14, the foreign ministers of the G8 countries met in Paris to discuss the situation. No results. "For now, I did not believe," regretted the next day, Alain Juppe, the microphone of Europe 1, before resuming negotiations with his counterparts. In the evening the leader's speech to French diplomats wanted more optimistic: "We agree to ask the Security Council to increase its pressure on Colonel Gaddafi," he said, although no armed intervention n 'was then being discussed.
The discussions then moved to the United Nations. In order to validate the principle of military intervention by the Security Council without fear of Russian or Chinese veto, France and Great Britain had to weigh every word of their draft resolution.
* What does the resolution?
The decision Thursday, March 17 at night is, in its provisions, focusing on protection of civilians, which is a consensus among the major powers, not on the fall of Gaddafi, to avoid giving a political turn to the text.
Section 4 of the resolution and authorizes "member states (...) to take all necessary measures to protect civilian populations and areas at risk of attack (...), while excluding the deployment of a force foreign occupation in any form whatsoever.
In practice, this amounts to neutralize some military sites strategically important to the Libyan regime, as the military airport of Sirte. In the case where the army on the ground continue to advance, targeted strikes could take place in barracks, or even directly on the armor available to Gaddafi.
The no-fly zone, long discussed, was incorporated into the resolution. Specifically, such a device is to preclude the overflight of the country. The aircraft wishing to leave the territory of Libya should ask permission before taking off. Without authorization, they would be treated as enemy planes and could be slaughtered.
For Great Britain and France, joined by the United States, it was also essential that military intervention is not perceived as an action of the West in an Arab country. The Arab states were encouraged to take part in the offensive.
* Who will participate in the intervention?
On this question, we can distinguish three different positions.
Some countries have decided to participate directly in the implementation of the no-fly zone and strikes in Libya. This is the case of France, Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Belgium and Norway. As for Arab countries, Qatar and the UAE should also provide military means, and Saudi Arabia could join them.
In contrast, other countries chose not to intervene at all. China has expressed "serious reservations" about the UN resolution, saying he waived his veto because of the application for action made by the Arab League. "We oppose the use of force in international relations," said Jiang Yu, spokeswoman of Chinese Foreign Ministry, adding that the crisis in Libya should be resolved by "negotiation and other peaceful means ". Germany also expressed its skepticism on the subject, citing "considerable risks and dangers." Russia finally announced that its participation was "excluded". The Russian ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin said it was "regrettable" that "the passion for the use of force has prevailed."
In an intermediate position, Italy could not directly participate in strikes, but facilitate foreign intervention by providing its databases Birgi Trapani, Sicily, and Gioia del Colle, Puglia. A meeting of leaders in Italy on the Libyan crisis and a parliamentary hearing of the foreign ministers and defense are scheduled Friday in Rome to decide how Italy will participate in the implementation of the resolution.
Lucas
* Why this decision comes it now?
The changing situation on the ground was no longer wait. For nearly two weeks, the balance of power between the insurgents and the army loyal to Muammar Gaddafi has been reversed, the latter returning the land to the east, which was part of the insurgency. Thursday, March 17, the forces of "guide" Libya were located around Ajdabiya, key city located 160 miles from Benghazi, the "rebel capital." In an interview Wednesday, March 16 at Euro News, Saif al-Islam, a son of Gaddafi, had been particularly threatening: "In forty-eight hours, everything will be finished. Our forces are almost in Benghazi."
Why, in this case have long awaited? The West was largely divided on the question of military intervention. France and the United Kingdom actively campaigned for the establishment of a no-fly zone, while Russia, Germany or China saw no welcome a foreign action in Libya, considered as interference in domestic affairs.
Discussions were actually conducted in two stages. Monday 14, the foreign ministers of the G8 countries met in Paris to discuss the situation. No results. "For now, I did not believe," regretted the next day, Alain Juppe, the microphone of Europe 1, before resuming negotiations with his counterparts. In the evening the leader's speech to French diplomats wanted more optimistic: "We agree to ask the Security Council to increase its pressure on Colonel Gaddafi," he said, although no armed intervention n 'was then being discussed.
The discussions then moved to the United Nations. In order to validate the principle of military intervention by the Security Council without fear of Russian or Chinese veto, France and Great Britain had to weigh every word of their draft resolution.
* What does the resolution?
The decision Thursday, March 17 at night is, in its provisions, focusing on protection of civilians, which is a consensus among the major powers, not on the fall of Gaddafi, to avoid giving a political turn to the text.
Section 4 of the resolution and authorizes "member states (...) to take all necessary measures to protect civilian populations and areas at risk of attack (...), while excluding the deployment of a force foreign occupation in any form whatsoever.
In practice, this amounts to neutralize some military sites strategically important to the Libyan regime, as the military airport of Sirte. In the case where the army on the ground continue to advance, targeted strikes could take place in barracks, or even directly on the armor available to Gaddafi.
The no-fly zone, long discussed, was incorporated into the resolution. Specifically, such a device is to preclude the overflight of the country. The aircraft wishing to leave the territory of Libya should ask permission before taking off. Without authorization, they would be treated as enemy planes and could be slaughtered.
For Great Britain and France, joined by the United States, it was also essential that military intervention is not perceived as an action of the West in an Arab country. The Arab states were encouraged to take part in the offensive.
* Who will participate in the intervention?
On this question, we can distinguish three different positions.
Some countries have decided to participate directly in the implementation of the no-fly zone and strikes in Libya. This is the case of France, Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Belgium and Norway. As for Arab countries, Qatar and the UAE should also provide military means, and Saudi Arabia could join them.
In contrast, other countries chose not to intervene at all. China has expressed "serious reservations" about the UN resolution, saying he waived his veto because of the application for action made by the Arab League. "We oppose the use of force in international relations," said Jiang Yu, spokeswoman of Chinese Foreign Ministry, adding that the crisis in Libya should be resolved by "negotiation and other peaceful means ". Germany also expressed its skepticism on the subject, citing "considerable risks and dangers." Russia finally announced that its participation was "excluded". The Russian ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin said it was "regrettable" that "the passion for the use of force has prevailed."
In an intermediate position, Italy could not directly participate in strikes, but facilitate foreign intervention by providing its databases Birgi Trapani, Sicily, and Gioia del Colle, Puglia. A meeting of leaders in Italy on the Libyan crisis and a parliamentary hearing of the foreign ministers and defense are scheduled Friday in Rome to decide how Italy will participate in the implementation of the resolution.
Lucas
mercredi 23 février 2011
L'édito du Lundi
La super barre 4 qui débarque, mannigement vôtre bien sur, Lucas
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)