Sunday, 9 February 2014

A More Assertive German Foreign Policy

:A More Assertive German Foreign Policy 
Stratfor 04-Feb-14 

By George Friedman and Marc Lanthemann 
The Ukrainian crisis is important in itself, but the behavior it has elicited from Germany is perhaps more important. Berlin directly challenged Ukraine's elected president for refusing to tighten relations with the European Union and for mistreating Ukrainians who protested his decision. In challenging President Viktor Yanukovich, Berlin also challenged Russia, a reflection of Germany's recent brazen foreign policy. 
Since the end of World War II, Germany has pursued a relatively tame foreign policy. But over the past week, Berlin appeared to have acknowledged the need for a fairly dramatic change. German leaders, including the chancellor, the president, the foreign minister and the defense minister, have called for a new framework that contravenes the restraint Germany has practiced for so long. They want Germany to assume a greater international role by becoming more involved outside its borders politically and militarily. 
For Berlin, the announcement of this high-level strategic shift comes amid a maelstrom of geopolitical currents. As the de facto leader of the European Union, Germany has to contend with and correct the slow failure of the European project. It has to adjust to the U.S. policy of global disengagement, and it must manage a complex, necessary and dangerous relationship with Russia. A meek foreign policy is not well suited to confront the situation in which Germany now finds itself. If Germany doesn't act, then who will? And if someone else does, will it be in Germany's interest? The latter is perhaps the more intriguing question. 
Setting Boundaries 
Such a reconfiguration shows that Germany has its own national interests that may differ from those of its alliance partners. For most countries, this would seem self-evident. But for Germany, it is a radical position, given its experience in World War II. It has refrained from asserting a strong foreign policy and from promoting its national interest lest it revive fears of German aggression and German nationalism. The Germans may have decided that this position is no longer tenable -- and that promoting their national interests does not carry the risk it once did. 
The timing of the announcement, as Ukraine's strategic position between Russia and Europe continues to make headlines, was not coincidental. While the timing benefited Germany, it would be a mistake to ascribe too much importance to Ukraine itself, particularly from the German perspective. That is not to say Ukraine should be discounted entirely. As a borderland between the European Peninsula and Russia, its future potentially matters to Germany -- if not now then perhaps in the future, when unexpected regional realities might show themselves. 
Ukraine is an indispensable borderland for Russia, but it has little value for any modern power that has no designs against Russia. It is one of the gateways into the heart of Russia. A hostile power occupying Ukraine would threaten Russian national security. But the reverse is not true: Ukraine is not a primary route from Russia into Europe (World War II is a notable exception) because the Carpathian Mountains discourage invasion. So unless the Germans are planning a new war with Russia -- and they aren't -- Ukraine matters little to Europe or the Germans. 
The same is true in the economic realm. Ukraine is important to Russia, particularly for transporting energy to Europe. But outside of energy transport, Ukraine is not that important to Europe. Indeed, for all that has been said about Ukraine's relationship to the European Union, it has never been clear why the bloc has made it such a contentious issue. The European Union is tottering under the weight of Southern Europe's enormously high unemployment rate, Eastern Europe's uncertainty about the value of being part of Europe's banking system and currency union, and a growing policy rift between France and Germany. The chances that the Europeans would add Ukraine to an organization that already boasts Greece, Cyprus and other crippled economies are so slim that considerations to the contrary would be irrational. The fact that Ukraine is not getting into the bloc makes German policy even harder to fathom. 
Of course, some European countries have more of an interest in Ukraine than others, particularly those formerly in the Soviet sphere of influence. For Poland and the Baltic states, Russia remains the major geopolitical foe in a way that Western Europe cannot fully comprehend. These relatively small and new members cannot compel the EU heavyweights to commit to a plan of action that would go too far in provoking Russia, but they can still push their peers to take a more measured action. 
During the Orange Revolution, U.S.-led Western powers openly funded opposition groups in the former Soviet states, threatening Russia's strategic interests to the point that it had to eventually invade Georgia to show the consequences of Western meddling. Over the past month, Germany has been behaving similarly, albeit to a smaller degree: opening partisan ties and giving relatively low-cost financial and rhetorical support to opposition groups that can irritate Russia without actually causing an immediate break with Moscow. 
For the past decade, Germany could not afford to alienate Russia, which Berlin thought could be the answers to some of Germany's problems. It could reliably supply relatively cheap energy, it was a potential source of low-cost labor, and it was a potential destination market for German exporters looking for alternatives to stagnating EU markets. 
Diplomatically, Moscow could have become a close ally and strategic partner as erstwhile allies appeared to be growing increasingly hostile to Germany. Relations with the United States were tense ever since Berlin refused to participate in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, and Chancellor Angela Merkel's support for EU-wide austerity measures strained Germany's ties with Southern Europe and France. 
But the reality was otherwise. There is a fit between Germany and Russia, but it is at best an imperfect one. Russia never industrialized or modernized as Germany and many others had hoped as it reaped the profits of high commodity prices. Under President Vladimir Putin, Moscow became increasingly autocratic and went on the political and economic offensive in Central and Eastern Europe. 
This conflicts with Germany's strategic goals. Berlin's core imperative is to preserve its economic power, which is highly dependent on exports. The European economic crisis has caused consumption to falter in the European Union, leading Berlin to search for export markets further afield. While it has had some success in China and the United States for certain industries, it has not been able to shed its overwhelming dependence on European markets as a general destination for its goods. Thus, Germany's only possible course of action is preserving and eventually reinvigorating the free trade zone in Europe. 
Russia's resurgence in Central Europe has concerned EU members in that region. On the surface, the Germans were prepared to live with that resurgence even though it appeared to threaten to unravel the bloc. Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are indispensable components of the German industrial supply chain and a source of relatively cheap skilled labor. That they should remain in the German sphere of influence is a non-negotiable position for Berlin. 
These issues are not new, but until now Germany had been constrained in how it could establish firm boundaries with Moscow. Berlin believed its dependence on Russian energy was a vulnerability that Russia could exploit if it chose to. In addition, it was concerned about Russia's ability to wrest Central Europe from EU control. In a worst-case scenario, Germany would end up with a fragmented Europe, a distant United States and a hostile Russia. 
The fact that Germany actively supported opposition groups in Ukraine, particularly in the absence of a pressing strategic imperative to do so, is a sign that something has changed in Berlin's calculus toward Russia. It seems as though the German government has determined that Russia is facing major challenges at home; that its position in Europe is weaker than it appears; that the risk of energy cutoffs are minimal; and that there are no long-term economic benefits to an economic relationship with Russia that goes beyond energy trade. That last point cannot be overstated. Russia is poised to remain the most important supplier of energy to Europe, and while the dependency runs both ways -- Europe is Russia's largest customer -- Germany will make sure the flow of energy continues unimpeded. 
With the United States increasingly depending on a balance of power approach to its foreign policy, relying more heavily on regional actors to manage threats, the long-term U.S. security guarantees that had been the hallmark of European defense since 1945 can no longer be counted on in Berlin. As NATO continues to fray and the challenges posed by an increasingly volatile Russia loom, Germany seems to be taking the first step back into establishing a new national and regional security framework. 
A New Element 
Germany's talk of a new, more assertive foreign policy that relies more heavily on its military is, however, not solely linked to concerns over Russia or the United States. Germany has accepted that its only option is to rally Europe but as the past six years have shown, it has had limited success on the economic front. The European Union is an economic entity, but economics has turned from being the binding element to being a centripetal force. Either something new must be introduced into the European experiment, or it might come undone. 
Berlin believes that holding the European Union together requires adding another dimension that it heretofore has withheld in its dealing with the bloc: military-political relations. Standing up to a weakening Russia will appeal to Central European nations, and taking a more active role overseas would endear Berlin to Paris. Germany's allusions that it would expand its international military operations, particularly in Africa, is a clear nod to France, which has consistently expressed its desire for a deeper military and political partnership with Germany. 
Notably, the drive to bring Germany closer to France in the short term could create tensions between them in the long term. Last week's summit between British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande was a reminder that France and the United Kingdom may have extremely different views regarding the European Union but still see each other as a military partner and, more important, as a counterweight to Germany. 
Of course, Germany is in no position to take military action. It is in a position to posit the possibility in some vague way, thereby generating political forces that can temporarily hold things together. Berlin needs to buy time, particularly in Central Europe, where Hungary has embarked on an independent course and is being watched carefully by others. With the United States unwilling to become involved, Germany either becomes the counterweight or lives with the consequences. 
At first, Germany's actions seemed confusing and uncharacteristic. But they become more sensible when you consider that that Berlin is looking for other tools to hold the European Union together as it re-evaluates Russia. So far, Germany's announcement has been met positively, mainly outside Germany, but the tension that a stronger and more assertive Berlin exerts on the European continent and the global stage are sure to come to the fore again. For now, however, Merkel has no choice. 

Sunday protection in Europe: A binding agreement instead of simply election promises

Sunday protection in Europe: A binding agreement instead of simply election promises 
Europeinfos 00-Feb-14 

European Parliament Members and candidates pledge to support a work-free Sunday and decent working conditions in the new legislative period. 
In the presence of more than 120 representatives of trade unions, industry associations, national Sunday Alliances, youth organisations and sports associations as well as representatives of the press, the European Sunday Alliance (ESA) presented its new campaign for the 2014 European elections to MEPs at the European Parliament in Brussels on 21 January. 
Pledge for a work-free Sunday and decent work 
The ESA launched a Pledge for a work-free Sunday and decent work. These two demands are of “paramount importance for citizens and workers throughout Europe and are not necessarily in conflict with economic competitiveness. Especially in the present time of socio-economic crisis, the adoption of legislation extending working hours to late evenings, nights, bank holidays and Sundays has direct consequences for the working conditions of employees and for small and medium sized enterprises. Competitiveness needs innovation, innovation needs creativity and creativity needs recreation!” according to the Alliance. 
The campaign, which has been translated into all the official languages of the EU, is directed at Members of the European Parliament and candidates in the upcoming elections. The ESA calls upon them to make a commitment before the elections by signing the Pledge: 
    To ensure that all relevant EU-legislation both respects and promotes the protection of a common weekly day of rest for all EU citizens, which shall be in principle on a Sunday, in order to protect workers' health and promote a better balance between family and private life and work; 
    To promote EU-legislation guaranteeing sustainable working time patterns based on the principle of decent work benefiting society as well as the economy as a whole.” 
MEPs of different political groups signed the Pledge at the launch event on 21 January. Over the next few months, during the run-up to the European elections, the ESA member organisations will present the campaign to their MEPs and candidates in the Member States and collect further signatures. Detailed information about the campaign, including a list of the signatories, is available on the ESA website. 
High-level conference at the European Parliament in Brussels 
In addition to the official launch of the new campaign, the member organisations and supporting organisations of the ESA came to the European Parliament in Brussels to a conference hosted by the ESA jointly with two MEPs, Evelyn Regner (S&D) and Thomas Mann (EPP) – the European Conference on the Protection of a Work-free Sunday and Decent Work. There they discussed with MEPs the protection of Sunday and of workers, especially against the backdrop of increasing liberalisation of shop opening hours legislation and the working conditions in the Member States, particularly at a time of crisis. Manuela Ulandi, President of Confesercenti from the Italian province of Alessandria, an industry association which represents the interests of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), reported that these enterprises are being particularly hard hit by the liberalisation. They are simply unable to keep up with the bigger players. In Poland, reported Alfred Bujara of the Solidarnosc trade union, more and more flexibility is being demanded of workers in terms of the hours when they are to be available. 
Overcoming the crisis in Europe, job creation and economic competitiveness are the biggest challenges that Europe is facing. But competitiveness goes hand in hand with decent working conditions, including the shared weekly day of rest. As summed up by the ESA: “Rest is necessary in order to be creative, innovative and, ultimately, competitive.” We need an “economy at the service of people”, i.e. an economy in which the human being is at the centre, insisted Ludwig Schwarz, Bishop of Linz and spokesperson for the Austrian Sunday Alliance). 
Protecting health: Fixed rhythms instead of the treadmill 
Another subject at the conference was the balance between work and family and private life. Oscar Vargas of Eurofound presented the results of a study showing that 18% of workers suffer from a poor work-life balance. Susanne Breit-Kessler, Regional Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Munich and Upper Bavaria, highlighted the fact that human beings need stable social relationships for their mental and physical health. Families need a predictable amount of free time they can spend together just as much as single people do. Fixed rhythms, like a work-free Sunday, are indispensable. According to the Bishop, the “burnout” afflicting increasingly larger numbers of people is the result of a “treadmill” from which people are unable to escape. The representatives of sports associations and youth organisations emphasised the value of synchronised free time and a shared free day each week for citizens’ involvement and voluntary activities. 
The exchanging of experiences among conference participants from all over Europe showed that in all EU Member States there is a growing trend towards liberalisation – in some cases creeping, in other cases dramatically fast-moving. As Europeans, we should unanimously make it clear that a work-free Sunday and decent working conditions are a fundamental pillar of our European Social and Economic Model. All people in the European Union should have the right to benefit from a work-free Sunday and decent working conditions. 

Libya’s Cache of Toxic Arms All Destroyed

Libya’s Cache of Toxic Arms All Destroyed 
New York Times 02-Feb-14

Even as the international effort to destroy Syria’s vast chemical weapons stockpile lags behind schedule, a similar American-backed campaign carried out under a cloak of secrecy ended successfully last week in another strife-torn country, Libya. 
The United States and Libya in the past three months have discreetly destroyed what both sides say were the last remnants of Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi’s lethal arsenal of chemical arms. They used a transportable oven technology to destroy hundreds of bombs and artillery rounds filled with deadly mustard agent, which American officials had feared could fall into the hands of terrorists. The effort also helped inspire the use of the technology in the much bigger disposal plan in Syria. 
Since November, Libyan contractors trained in Germany and Sweden have worked in bulky hazmat suits at a tightly guarded site in a remote corner of the Libyan desert, 400 miles southeast of Tripoli, racing to destroy the weapons in a region where extremists linked to Al Qaeda are gaining greater influence. The last artillery shell was destroyed on Jan. 26, officials said. 
As Libya’s weak central government grapples with turmoil and unrest, and as kidnappings and assassinations of military and police officers accelerate in the country’s east, American and international weapons specialists hailed the destruction of the Libyan stockpile as a bright spot in an otherwise gloomy security environment. 
“It’s a big breakthrough,” said Paul F. Walker, an arms control expert with the environmental group Green Cross International who has helped in efforts to demilitarize the American and Russian chemical weapons stockpiles since the 1990s. “Even though Libya’s chemical stockpile was relatively small, the effort to destroy it was very difficult because of weather, geography and because it’s a dangerous area with warring tribes, increasing the risks of theft and diversion,” he said. 
Libya’s last two tons of chemical weapons were dwarfed by the 1,300 tons that Syria has agreed to destroy. But American and international arms experts say the need for easily transportable and efficient technology to wipe out the Libyan arms became a model for the Syria program now underway. 
For Libya’s fragile transitional government, such collaboration with the West on security matters is a delicate issue. It gives the country’s leaders desperately needed assistance to defuse internal threats, but also risks accusations of compromising national sovereignty. 
Asked about the American efforts to destroy the chemical weapons, Libyan security officials in Tripoli initially issued sweeping denials. One later briefly acknowledged the operation on the condition of anonymity, and then officials stopped returning phone calls. 
On Sunday, the White House said that it would ensure that the Syrian government complied with an accord to give up its chemical arsenal despite missed deadlines and delays in carrying out the deal. 
The White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation” that the deal was “not falling apart, but we would like to see it proceed much more quickly than it is.” 
The disposal of the last of Libya’s chemical weapons closes a chapter that Colonel Qaddafi began in early 2004, when his government turned over a vast cache of nuclear technology and chemical stockpiles to the United States, Britain and international nuclear inspectors. 
At that time, Libya declared for destruction 24.7 metric tons of sulfur mustard, a syrupy liquid that when loaded into bombs or artillery shells and exploded creates a toxic mist that penetrates clothing, burns and blisters exposed skin, and can kill with large doses or if left untreated. The chemical was used extensively in World War I. 
Libya had destroyed about half of these stocks when civil war broke out in 2011. Western spy agencies closely monitored the destruction site in the Libyan desert to ensure the stockpiles were not pilfered by insurgents. 
When the new government took control in Tripoli that fall, it signaled its intent to finish the job. Libyan officials also surprised Western inspectors by announcing the discovery in November 2011 and February 2012 of two hidden caches of mustard, or nearly two tons, that had not been declared by Colonel Qaddafi’s government. That brought the total declared amount of chemical to 26.3 tons. 
Unlike the majority of Libya’s mustard agents, which were stored in large, bulky containers, the new caches were already armed and loaded into 517 artillery shells, 45 plastic sleeves for rocket launchings and eight 500-pound bombs. 
The new stockpiles immediately posed huge challenges for the fledgling Libyan government, which had no ability to destroy the combat-ready chemical weapons, as well as for its American and European allies called upon to help. 
The disposal site is deep in the desert, in an area where Islamist militants hostile to the West wield growing influence. It also sits on the front line of the struggle between Libya’s eastern and western provinces over political power and oil revenue. A defining issue in post-Qaddafi politics, the regional rivalry has often spilled out into armed blockades of the national highways and crucial oil-export terminals as well. 
Using $45 million from the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which has helped rid the former Soviet Union of thousands of nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, the Pentagon and its Defense Threat Reduction Agency tapped the Parsons Corporation, a construction firm based in Pasadena, Calif., to work with Libya to oversee the rebuilding and safeguarding of the Libyan disposal site, which had been ransacked during the civil war. 
Remarkably, the mustard agents stored in bulk containers at the site were untouched and their inspection seals unbroken, American and international officials said. These have all been destroyed, too. 
Canada donated $6 million to help restore water, sewage service and electricity to the site, and to build living quarters for Western and Libyan contractors. Germany agreed to fly international inspectors to the site. 
The project has relied on a custom-built device from Dynasafe, a Swedish company, to destroy the weapons. It is essentially a giant, high-tech oven called a static-detonation chamber. The munitions were fed through an automated loading system into a gas-tight chamber, where the toxic materials were vaporized at temperatures between 750 and 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Gases created in the process were scrubbed by special filters. 
“The destruction of these munitions was a major undertaking in arduous, technically challenging circumstances,” Ahmet Uzumcu, the director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, whose inspectors supervised the destruction of the chemical weapons, said in a written statement. 
Although American officials acknowledge that Libya is awash with conventional arms, they expressed confidence that the vast Libyan desert holds no other secret caches of unconventional arms for jihadis to exploit. 
Andrew C. Weber, assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs, said, “This is the culmination of a major international effort to eliminate weapons of mass destruction from Libya and to ensure that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.” 

SodaStream Is a Factory, Not a Settlement

SodaStream Is a Factory, Not a Settlement 
Daily Alert summary from Yaacov Lozowick 03-Feb-14 

  In any other context, worldwide, a private company maintaining a factory in an underdeveloped country to take advantage of its lower labor costs would be regarded as a boon for the hosting country. 
    SodaStream, however, isn't paying hundreds of Palestinian workers what they'd get from a Palestinian employer. It's paying the Palestinian laborers Israeli wages, with the social benifits mandated by Israeli law. 
    Nobody lives in the SodaStream factory: it's a factory. 
    If ever there is peace between Israel and Palestine, Israeli-owned factories in Palestine employing Palestinians is precisely th e sort of thing everyone should be wishing for - for the quantifiable advantage of employment and foreign currency. 
    In any other context, this is called FDI (foreign direct investment) and is eagerly sought by politicians. 
    When it comes to Israel-Palestine, however, normal discourse goes silent. 
    The writer is Israel's Chief Archivist. 

United States. agrees to add 30 F-16s to United Arab Emirate's fleet of 60

.S. agrees to add 30 F-16s to United Arab Emirate's fleet of 60 
GeoStrategy direct w/e 05-Feb-14

The United States is proceeding on another F-16 multi-role fighter project for the United Arab Emirates. 
The administration of President Barack Obama has approved a UAE request for training, spare parts and logistics for 30 F-16 Block 61 aircraft, purchased directly from Lockheed Martin. The latest request, valued at $270 million, would also support the upgrade of the UAE's current fleet of nearly 60 F-16 Block 60 platforms. 
"The sale of additional F-16s to the UAE is consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives," the Defense Security Cooperation Agency said. "The UAE will have no difficulty absorbing this additional equipment and support into its armed forces." 
[In what could mark a related development, the administration also announced plans to sell 24 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters to Iraq. The administration has already notified Congress that six additional Apaches would be leased to the Iraq Army for training.] 
DSCA said it notified Congress of the UAE request on Jan. 23. The Pentagon agency said the equipment would include guns, night-vision, inertial navigation systems, joint mission planning and weapons integration. 
"The proposed sale will improve the UAE's capability to meet current and future regional threats," DSCA said. "The UAE continues host-nation support of vital U.S. forces stationed at Al Dhafra Air Base; plays a vital role in supporting U.S. regional interests; and has proven to be a valued partner and an active participant in overseas contingency operations." 
L-M was designated the prime contractor of the latest project. Officials said the project would not include offsets for Abu Dhabi. 
"Implementation of this sale will require the assignment of additional U.S. government or contractor representatives to the UAE," DSCA said on Jan. 24. "The actual number required to support the program will be determined in joint negotiations as the program proceeds through the development, production, and equipment installation phases." 
In October, 2013, the administration approved a UAE request valued at $4 billion for new precision strike munitions for the Block 60 aircraft. They were identified as the AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile, AGM-154C Joint Stand Off Weapon and GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb. 

Egypt: Cabinet Reshuffle To Include Defense Ministry

Stratfor 01-Feb-14 

Interim Egyptian Prime Minister Hazem el-Beblawi said Feb. 1 that an upcoming Cabinet reshuffle will include the Defense Ministry, a sign that Field Marshal Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi plans to run for president, Al-Arabiya and al-Masry al-Youm reported. Al-Sisi, the current defense minister, must step down from the post in order to run for president. In backing al-Sisi's political pursuits, the armed forces are attempting to create a new civilian ruling class led by generals.

Friday, 7 February 2014

4 Blood Moons in Bible Prophecy

Something is about to change the coming four blood moons prophetically a blood moon full lunar eclipse has proven to be a warning to Israel four successive blood moons is a rare astrological event. this event is known as a Tetrad


The coming Tetrad of blood moons with a solar eclipse beginning in April of 2014
Just as the Magi were moved by the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Regulus in 3 BC and traveled to Israel to pay homage to the new born King of the Jews, so we should be aware of the signs in the heavens and what they could mean for us.
Every believer should be excited as we approach the next appointed "feasts" of the Lord which are the feasts of TRUMPETS and TABERNACLES. This is because the fall feasts are the feasts of the gathering ! THE GATHERING, brothers and sisters.