Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations on Friday, May 16. 2008
Observing Hermann has posted a revealing article that references the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) most recent survey on global arms transfers (HT: Joe Noory):
The survey says that the USA, Russia and Germany are the world’s leading weapons exporters, with Germany’s latest weapons export piece of the pie profits coming in at around $3.395 billion. Damn, just think of all the ploughshares you could buy with that.
Taking a look at the numbers more closely reveals some interesting facts:
 In 2007:
• The USA, Russia, and Germany held 31, 19, and 14 percent of global exports respectively
• France was the fourth largest arms exporter, with 11% of the global market
From 2006 to 2007:
• Russia’s market share dropped 25% to 19%
• Germany’s market share rose 11% to 14%
• France’s market share rose 6% to 11%
The chart above shows Germany's global arms exports have increased steadily over the past few years. This is interesting considering Germany's resistance to take on an active combat role in Afghanistan, instead preferring to focus on reconstruction projects. As Observing Hermann wryly states:
All I can say is that it’s good to know that all of these German weapons are being used for goodness and niceness and purely defensive purposes (did you know that Wehrmacht meant defensive force?), not like some other countries’ weapons out there, if you know what I’m sayin’. Otherwise a whole lot of people in this country wouldn’t be able to sleep well at night.
Related posts on Atlantic Review:
• Afghanistan: Merkel has “No Time” for Burden Sharing Proposals
• Afghanistan: NATO Crisis Gets Worse
• War for Dummies: Step 1, Fighting is Necessary
• Afghanistan: Fighting is Not Most Important
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Saturday, May 10. 2008
Tiny Georgia has become the front line in West-Russia tensions for the past month. It began at the NATO Bucharest Summit in early April, when NATO members rebuked immediate progress toward full NATO membership for Georgia, due largely to protests from Russia – while nonetheless promising future membership.
In the month since Bucharest, Russia-Georgia relations have spiraled quickly. Multiple Georgian unmanned aircraft are claimed to have been shot down over the breakaway region of Abkhazia, though disinformation (i.e. – blatant lies) coming from Russia, Georgia, Abkhazia, or all three, have blurred the facts. Russia has also deepened ties with Georgia’s separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and increased its number of “peace-keepers” there despite protests from the EU and NATO. At the same time, Russia is accusing Georgia of preparing an invasion into Abkhazia, and Georgia has pulled out of an air-defense treaty with Russia.
While both Russia and Georgia are contributing to escalating tensions, Russia undoubtedly initiated the latest downturn as a response to Georgia's bid for NATO membership.
Continue reading "Georgia Conflict: Should NATO Marry the Small Kid on the Playground?"
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Saturday, May 3. 2008
Due to a shortfall in contributions from NATO allies, the Pentagon is considering sending as many as 7,000 more US troops to Afghanistan, write Steven Lee Myers and Thom Shanker in the New York Times:
[Senior Bush administration officials] said the step would push the number of American forces there to roughly 40,000, the highest level since the war began more than six years ago, and would require at least a modest reduction in troops from Iraq.
The planning began in recent weeks, reflecting a growing resignation to the fact that NATO is unable or unwilling to contribute more troops despite public pledges of an intensified effort in Afghanistan from the presidents and prime ministers who attended an alliance summit meeting in Bucharest, Romania, last month.
Related posts on Atlantic Review:
• Bumper Stickers Slogans: What is the Purpose of NATO?
• Afghanistan: Merkel Has "No Time" for Burden Sharing Proposals
• Rupert Murdoch: Alliance Based on Shared Values, not Geography
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Monday, April 28. 2008
France has signaled over the past few months that it may pursue reintegration into the NATO command structure, which President Charles de Gaulle fitfully left in 1966. A sympathetic member of the French National Assembly published an article in Newsweek arguing this move is, “no less than a revolution for NATO and transatlantic relations.” The article explains Sarkozy's proposed tradeoff:
By showing that France is America's trusted friend again, Sarkozy hopes to gain influence on American policy, and, in particular, on lifting the longtime U.S. veto on European defense.
This is an interesting proposal: France will rejoin NATO if it can pursue its own parallel EU military structures. Many in the US defense establishment have long been concerned that a more autonomous European Security and Defense Policy is intended to act as a counterweight to the United States, or that it will duplicate/detract from NATO programs and assets. As Soeren Kern of the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos states in World Politics Review:
… most of Sarkozy's proposals seem to be geared toward creating a rival European defense structure that over time will duplicate but not double NATO resources… Indeed, some of the more U.S.-leaning European states suspect that France's renewed interest in rejoining NATO is in fact a Trojan horse designed, ultimately, to destroy the Atlantic Alliance from within.
At the same time, the United States has been pushing Europe to build stronger military capabilities since the Alliance was born, based on a plea for "burden sharing." One common sentiment, although often expressed with reserve, is that “it doesn’t matter where the forces come from, so long as they come.” By rejoining NATO, Sarkozy may be able to strike a balance of confidences between what on the face appears to be double-think: convincing America of France’s commitment to Atlanticism, while concurrently pursuing greater European military autonomy.
However, Soeren Kern points out that even if Sarkozy’s intentions are Atlanticist in nature, they will probably not outlast his term of presidency:
For most of the French ruling elite (the anti-American Left and the nationalist Right), the United States is considered to be the main problem in international affairs because of its reluctance to share its power. The only solution, in their view, is a French-led EU superstate that can counterbalance America on the global stage. And a unified EU foreign and defense policy that is completely independent of NATO (i.e., the United States) is essential to achieve equal status. Until then, anti-Americanism will continue to be the preferred means to accelerate the process of loosening the transatlantic link.
Related posts on Atlantic Review:
• Europeans View China as the Biggest Threat to Global Security
• Europe is a Threat to the United States
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
Transatlantic Relations on Wednesday, April 23. 2008
Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp., wrote about Alliance enlargement in his own newspaper this week, the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Murdoch argues that a proactive Alliance—one willing to take on new members who share and are willing to fight for Western values—is necessary to address the various threats faced by the West today.
According to Murdoch however, many Allies have not carried their own weight in NATO’s Afghanistan mission. To little surprise, Europe has been identified as the source of weakness in the Alliance:
We must face up to a painful truth: Europe no longer has either the political will or social culture to support military engagements in defense of itself and its allies. However strong NATO may be on paper, this fact makes NATO weak in practice. It also means that reform will not come from within.
In other words, a strong and successful Atlantic alliance will have to ground itself more on shared principles rather than accident of geography. And we need to show we are serious about defending those principles by standing with those who are standing up for them.
Continue reading "Rupert Murdoch: Alliance Based on Shared Values, not Geography"
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
German Politics, Transatlantic Relations on Saturday, February 23. 2008
 Chancellor Merkel attacked suggestions that Germany had taken the easy option in Afghanistan: "We're not just digging wells and building houses; we also have a military mission." Hugh Williamson reports in the Financial Times:
In her most outspoken comments on Afghanistan since Germany came under pressure this month to send more troops, the German chancellor said she had "absolutely no time" for proposals to redeploy Nato troops within Afghanistan.
According to Williamson she made those comments in a meeting with foreign correspondents in Berlin. It's bad diplomacy to tell the foreign press that she has no time to consider proposals for better burden sharing in Afghanistan. Usually, Merkel is more careful.
Continue reading "Afghanistan: Merkel Has "No Time" for Burden Sharing Proposals"
Posted by Nanne Zwagerman in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Tuesday, February 12. 2008
The escalating conflict between European countries and the United States over the level of commitment to Afghanistan has spurred a good deal of commentary. There are very different perspectives on who is to blame, but a consistent theme is that the conflict has deeper roots in what Europe and the US see as the future role of NATO.
In a long, complex argument - Cracks in the Foundation: NATO's New Troubles - the CATO Institute's Stanley Kober compares NATO's current troubles in Afghanistan to the long-forgotten SEATO. The South East Asian Treaty Organisation eventually dissolved in 1977 after failing to engage in Vietnam, a war the US fought on its own and eventually disengaged from. Although circumstances are different, he argues that a loss in Afghanistan might bring the alliance into an existential crisis.
America, Kober argues, should not extent security guarantees when it is not absolutely certain that it can back up these guarantees. Therefore, instead of seeking to expand NATO even further, the US should consider the real possibility that it will not last, and he concludes:
Given the difficulties the alliance is confronting, it is not too early to begin discussions with our allies about what a post-NATO world would look like. They have put their trust in us, and we have an obligation to them, and to ourselves, to face the world honestly.
In the Los Angeles Times, Boston University international relations professor Andrew Bacevich has a similarly bleak piece called NATO at Twilight. Bacevich focuses on the degraded capacities of European countries, and the lower amount of solidarity the alliance can now command. His main criticism, however, is directed at the Bush administration, which, he states "is kidding itself if it thinks Europeans will save the day in Afghanistan." According to Bacevich, the only realistic remaining purpose of NATO is securing European integration.
Foreign affairs journalist Eric Margolis goes even further in his Edmonton Sun piece, Europeans can see what America cannot:
At this week's NATO conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, an angry U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates accused some Europeans of not being prepared to "fight and die" in Afghanistan in the battle against the Taliban.
The undiplomatic Gates is quite right. Most Europeans regard the Afghan conflict as a) wrong and immoral; b) America's war; c) all about oil; or d) probably lost.
Margolis himself seems to choose door 'd)', citing increasing attacks on supply lines in Pakistan, and a recent statement by ISAF commanding officer Dan Mcneill that a proper counterinsurgency campaign would require 400,000 troops. He also argues that by pushing this impopular, distant war, the United States is undermining its power in Europe, which is mostly provided through the alliance.
The role of NATO is understood on very different levels. It is alternatively seen as an institution furthering European integration; a possibly obsolete but also potentially overstretched check on Russia, and a tool for furthering American influence in Europe.
The US itself does have a clear policy spelling out what it wants from NATO: A more outward looking alliance that will support its global missions. Disagreement on whether that is something Europe wants NATO to do is perfectly valid, but European countries can only reach a compromise with the US when there is a European policy on NATO's role. Unlike the increasingly disaffected public, European government leaders still believe in the alliance. Quite what they want from it is less clear.
(hat-tip to the European Tribune for the Margolis piece and to reader Don S for the Bacevich piece)
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations on Friday, February 8. 2008
Ronald Asmus has a new “grand strategy” for the west: it should continue to expand eastward (see Foreign Affairs, subscription only):
The challenge of securing Europe’s eastern border from the Baltics to the Black Sea has been replaced by the need to extend peace and stability along the southern rim of the Euro-Atlantic community—from the Balkans across the Black Sea and further into Eurasia, a region that connects Europe, Russia, and the Middle East and involves core security interests, including a critical energy corridor. Working to consolidate democratic change and build stability in this area is as important for Western security today as consolidating democracy in central and eastern Europe was in the 1990s.
The west’s most important accomplishment following the Cold War has been its integration of central and eastern European countries that were previously part of the Soviet Union—countries that have undergone significant reforms to be accepted into NATO and the EU. It is interesting that despite the ubiquitous negative publicity NATO is receiving these days, due largely to a perceived lack of teamwork in Afghanistan, there are several countries that continue to fervently seek membership—take the 71 percent of Georgian’s who endorsed NATO membership in a January referendum for example (see Today’s Zaman).
Continue reading "Ronald Asmus' Strategy for the West: Expand East"
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Thursday, February 7. 2008
Hans-Ulrich Klose, vice-chair of the Bundestag's foreign affairs committee, supposedly told the Canwest News Service that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper should put more pressure on countries like Germany and France to station troops in the more dangerous southern parts of Afghanistan. Klose is a member of the Social Democratic Party, which is part of Chancellor Merkel's coalition government. And he wants the Canadians to pressure his own government... So crazy, it could be true. Well, to his credit, Klose has also been outspoken in the German press calling for German troop deployments to the South.
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Saturday, February 2. 2008
The NATO mission in Afghanistan has been a big topic this week. While the German media was full of concern about providing 250 Bundeswehr soldiers for a Quick Reaction Force (No, I did not forget another zero.), US and Canadian politicians and think tanks sounded alarm over developments in Afghanistan.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has urged his German counterpart in a one-and-a-half-page-long letter to "send an additional 3,200 troops to Afghanistan," reports the Associated Press. The German press does not mention this number, which would be a doubling of the current German contingent. The media focuses on Gates' request for Germany to send combat troops to Southern Afghanistan. The answer from all German parties in the Bundestag is basically: "Njet. Forget it." The Bundestag's has only authorized the government to send up to 3,500 troops to Afghanistan. And that's the end of the story in most media outlets.
Continue reading "Afghanistan: NATO-Crisis Gets Worse"
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Friday, January 25. 2008
A group of European and American military leaders co-authored a report that was released last week, titled Toward a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World, Renewing Transatlantic Partnership (PDF version available from CSIS). The top brass – all with NATO experience – argue that the Alliance remains critical to both Europe and the US:
We are convinced that there is no security for Europe without the US, but we also dare to submit that there is no hope for the US to sustain its role as the world’s sole superpower without the Europeans as allies.
The manifesto begins by arguing that many current and future threats – such as terrorism, international crime, demographic shifts, energy security, climate change, etc. – cannot effectively be addressed by any single country on its own. Instead, NATO provides the best opportunity for western countries to address new threats because it "links together a group of countries that share the most important values and convictions and that took a decision to defend those values and convictions collectively."
Continue reading "Military Leaders Outline Plan for New Transatlantic Bargain"
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Tuesday, January 15. 2008
Another example for increasing tension within NATO: Karen DeYoung describes in the Washington Post how unnamed European and North American officials praise their troops' contributions and highlight their sacrifices in Afghanistan, while criticizing their NATO allies:
The United States supplies about half of the 54,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, they say, but the British, Canadians and Dutch are engaged in regular combat in the volatile south. "We have one-tenth of the troops and we do more fighting than you do," a Canadian official said of his country's 2,500 troops in Kandahar province. "So do the Dutch." The Canadian death rate, proportional to the overall size of its force, is higher than that of U.S. troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, a Canadian government analysis concluded last year. British officials note that the eastern region, where most U.S. forces are based, is far quieter than the Taliban-saturated center of British operations in Helmand, the country's top opium-producing province. The American rejoinder, spoken only in private with references to British operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, is that superior U.S. skills have made it so. (...)
U.S. and British forces have long derided each other's counterinsurgency tactics. (...) Britain, with a higher percentage of its forces deployed worldwide than the United States, is stretched thin in Afghanistan. Not only did the British have insufficient force strength to hold conquered territory, but the reconstruction and development assistance that was supposed to consolidate military gains did not arrive. "It's worth reminding the Americans that the entire British army is smaller than the U.S. Marine Corps," said one sympathetic former U.S. commander in Afghanistan.
J. Carter Wood recommended this interesting article (Thank you!) and points out in his blog Obscene Desserts that "someone at the Washington Post seems to think the German capital is still on the Rhine:"
Both President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have toned down their public pressure on allies. When German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Bush at his Texas ranch in November, U.S. and German officials said, she told him that while Bonn would step up its contribution in quiet northern Afghanistan, any change in Germany's noncombat role would spell political disaster for her conservative government.
|
or 
:
Latest Comments
I can agree to the observation that the younger generation is less forthcoming to [...]
African_Princess about Racism in Germany
Mar 21 2008, 3:09 pm I am half German, Half South African (White German dad and [...]
Zyme about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
I had a different reason to assume you wouldn´t like the idea. People who don´t know [...]
Joe Noory about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
If you're a law clerk (a lawyer or someone trained in law working for a judge), then [...]
Reid of America about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
The data from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) seems to be [...]
Joe Noory about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
do you think that "droits de l'homme" are so well respected there ? No, I [...]
Pat Patterson about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
Yeah, I was looking for a similar time span, two years seems too short to give any [...]
franchie about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
oh my gawd, misinterpretation