World News: May 27, 2010

Don’t cut your defence budget too deeply, Nato chief warns Britain

Nato’s Secretary-General warned Britain yesterday not to cut defence spending too deeply as it grapples with its budget deficit.

In an interview with The Times, Anders Fogh Rasmussen advised all cash-strapped Nato members to use the tough economic climate as an opportunity to make their armed forces more efficient to tackle the unpredictable nature of modern warfare. “All governments are faced with budgetary constraints,” Mr Rasmussen, the former Danish Prime Minister, said.

“It is very hard for governments to argue that they make deep cuts in social programmes, educational programmes, and pensions but not in defence budgets. So, obviously, defence budgets will be affected by the economic crisis.”

He noted, however, that investment in a country’s defence and security involves much more than just money. “All governments should be aware of the long-term impact of too deep cuts in defence budgets because we know from experience that economic growth is very much dependent on a secure international environment. We know that instability and insecurity hamper economic growth. So if we make too deep cuts in defence budgets it might have a long-term negative impact on economic growth.”

Referring to the budgetary choices faced by George Osborne, the Chancellor, and Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, he said: “I would give the advice to strike the right balance.”

David Cameron has pledged to keep the defence budget safe this financial year but most analysts expect painful cuts thereafter as the Government concludes a Strategic Defence and Security Review that will signal the shape and size of the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

Experts predict that personnel numbers will shrink, while a number of big-ticket procurement projects, such as two new aircraft carriers, scores of fast jets, transporter planes and a fleet of armoured vehicles, are also under threat.

Mr Rasmussen, speaking at Nato’s headquarters in Brussels, said it was important to implement constructive reforms. “If cuts are made primarily within the more stationary parts of our military and if new investments are directed towards more flexible and more mobile and more modern armed forces, then budgetary constraints could be turned into something positive,” he said.

He declined to specify what areas should be axed but suggested that Nato members share equipment. Asked what Britain’s particular strength was within the alliance, Mr Rasmussen said: “Britain, alongside the US, has a capacity to deploy troops out of area and other allies could get inspiration from that.” It was important for the British military to retain that skill, he added. As for whether a slimmer budget would diminish Britain’s Nato role, Mr Rasmussen said: “Britain will remain one of the very important allies.”

Turning to Afghanistan, where Nato faces its biggest challenge, the Secretary-General agreed that there was a need to present tangible results this year to ensure ongoing support.

“It would be the light at the end of the tunnel if we could hand over the lead responsibility for security in some provinces and some major cities,” he said. As its first important campaign outside Europe, success in Afghanistan is hugely important for the future of Nato, particularly as critics question its relevance in the post-Cold War era and with the United States increasingly looking across the Pacific rather than at Russia.

“Nato is about much more than just Afghanistan, but Afghanistan is a test case as to whether Nato is capable to address the new security challenges of the 21st century,” Mr Rasmussen said.

He argued that there had never been more of a need for the alliance, with member states facing ever evolving threats from cyber attacks and Islamist terrorism to Iranian missiles and nuclear proliferation. He is due to present a new strategic concept for Nato to be agreed by all members at an annual conference in November.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7137676.ece

Where was U.S. 'defensive shield'?

By IVAN BRACKIN

Kagoshima

Regarding Yoon Young Kwan's May 19 article, "North Korea gambles once again": After almost two months, it has been determined that the explosion that sunk the South Korean warship Cheonan in international waters, killing 46 crewmen, was caused by a North Korean torpedo. Apart from the political motives, this leaves a number of unanswered questions:

1. How could a North Korean submarine roam undetected in international waters?

2. How could the sub get within firing range of a South Korean war vessel without any warning? It seems as if the South Korean ship was a sitting duck.

3. If America is providing a "defensive shield" for its Asian allies, what happened to its much vaunted electronic surveillance umbrella in this case?

4. If the sub was detected, why wasn't that mentioned in the press and why all the conjecture?

5. Unless the captain of the sub was acting under his own volition, he must have been in communication with his North Korean superiors and received orders to fire. Why weren't any of these electronic messages intercepted?

The whole affair smacks of an attempted coverup of another military screwup. America's most effective "defensive shield" appears to be in the newsrooms.

The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Japan Times.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/rc20100527a2.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+japantimes+%28The+Japan+Times%3A+All+Stories%29

Three G8 countries at “high risk” to natural disasters

Three G8 countries- France, Italy and the United States- are considered to be at “high risk” to natural disasters, claims the Natural Disasters Risk Index (NDRI).

The same index, released on Thursday, lists Bangladesh, Iran and Indonesia as the countries which are most vulnerable to natural calamities, whereas Asian giants India and China, rated 11th and 12th respectively, are part of the same “extreme risk” category which has 15 countries out of a total of 229.

The countries which are least at risk include Qatar, Andorra, San Marino, Bahrain, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Malta and The United Arab Emirates.

Compiled by Maplecroft, a risk advisory firm from Britain, the index takes into account the disasters that occurred during the thirty years from 1980 to this year. Several factors are taken into account, mainly the number and frequency of such disasters, the total lives that were lost and the lives lost as percentage of the population of the country affected. It includes disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, storms, droughts, floods, volcanic eruptions, landslides and epidemics.

Maplecroft’s environment analyst, Anna Moss said that poverty formed an important factor in countries where the frequency and effects of such natural calamities are severe. She added that sub-standard infrastructure and overpopulation of plains and other high risk areas like slopes and reclaimed land were instrumental in notching up a high number of casualties.

As per the NDRI’s figures, Bangladesh lost 191,000 lives during this period and Indonesia was almost equal, with most of the lives lost in the tsunami in December 2004. 74,000 lives were lost in Iran, most of them due to earthquakes.

141,000 lives were lost in India- 50,000 attributed to earthquakes, 23000 to storms, 40000 to floods and 15000 lives were lost to epidemics. China lost 148,000 lives- 87000 of those to an earthquake in Sichuan in 2008.

France was 17th in the rankings and Italy was at 18th position, mainly due to devastating heat waves in 2003 and 2006, and the United States was 37th, pounded by the hurricane Katrina in the year 2005.

http://www.globalcrisisnews.com/world/three-g8-countries-at-high-risk-to-natural-disasters/id=1632/

We can’t turn blind eye to North Korea, Clinton says

(Lee Sang-hak/Yonhap/AP)

South Korean soliders on alert near the demilitarised zone on the border

South Korean ships and North Korean submarines were playing a cat-and-mouse game in the Sea of Japan yesterday while Hillary Clinton called for retaliatory action in response to the North’s apparent sinking of a South Korean naval vessel.

Speaking in Seoul alongside the South Korean Foreign Minister, the US Secretary of State insisted that the world had to respond to hostility by Pyongyang, which is accused of causing the deaths of 46 sailors in an unprovoked attack on the corvette Cheonan in March. However, she failed to specify any concrete measures, underlining how few options short of full-scale war were available in dealing with the North, which said this week that it was severing all ties with Seoul.

“This was an unacceptable provocation by North Korea and the international community has a responsibility and a duty to respond,” Mrs Clinton said, after talks with her South Korean counterpart, Yu Myung Hwan. “We cannot turn a blind eye to belligerence and provocation. We will stand with you in this difficult hour and will stand with you always.”

She added: “We call on North Korea to halt its provocations and its policy of threats and belligerence towards its neighbours . . . The United States is also reviewing additional options and authorities to hold North Korea and its leaders accountable.”

Meanwhile, the South Korean Navy was attempting to track four North Korean submarines that disappeared from radar screens after leaving a base in the northeast of the country this week. According to the Yonhap news agency in Seoul, the 300-tonne Sang-O class submarines vanished after leaving Chaho naval base in the province of North Hamkyong, close to where North Korea tests its nuclear weapons.

The South Korean Defence Ministry said that the vessels appeared to be on a routine training exercise. Their disappearance added to tensions which have increased since Seoul’s announcement of the results of an international investigation which found that the Cheonan was sunk by a North Korean torpedo.

“It’s quite rare that a multiple number of North Korean submarines have left no traces for two straight days,” an unnamed defence official was quoted as telling Yonhap.

After the investigation South Korea announced the suspension of what little trade it had with Pyongyang, and the resumption of propaganda broadcasts across the demilitarised zone border. Yesterday the North threatened to retaliate by closing the last road link across the border and to bombard huge digital sign billboards which the South is threatening to erect.

It also expelled eight South Korean government officials from a joint industrial park in the North Korean border city of Kaesong.

The state-run Korean Central News Agency said: “The South Korean puppet warlike forces would be well advised to act with discretion, bearing deep in mind that such measures of the Korean People’s Army will not end in an empty talk.” Seoul has announced that it will take the issue to the United Nations Security Council but China and Russia, which have a veto, have already indicated a reluctance to agree to strong condemnation.

“When we are taking this to the Security Council, the most important thing is the facts,” Mr Yu said. “I believe we should let the facts lead everything. It may take some time but I believe China and Russia will not be able to deny the facts.”

The Kremlin announced yesterday that Russia would send a team of experts to South Korea to study the results of the investigation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7136810.ece

At the foot of the Alps Bergamo laments the end of the dolce vita

Among the many treasures in medieval Bergamo, with its piazzas and palazzos, is a 15th-century chapel containing the tomb of Bartolomeo Colleoni, a soldier of fortune who allegedly had three testicles. Its brass gates feature his coat of arms, which includes three orbs rendered bright and shiny by visitors who rub them for luck.

Of late those balls have been caressed rather more than usual, Angela Fornini, the chapel’s custodian, said. With the eurozone in crisis and Italy slashing spending to prevent it from becoming another Greece, people are seeking any help they can. “For ordinary people, the good times — the dolce vita — is over,” Ms Fornini said.

From Mulhouse in eastern France we had travelled to Bergamo by train, changing in Basle and Milan.

The two cities are twinned but offer a study in contrasts. Mulhouse is an old industrial centre, Bergamo an ancient provincial capital in the foothills of the Alps, with expensive outdoor restaurants, boutiques, coffee bars (no Starbucks here) and stylish dressers.

The concerns of their citizens are different, too. While France and Germany are helping to finance the €750 billion (£640 billion) bailout of Greece and other profligate member states, the issue here is whether Italy will need to be a beneficiary of that rescue plan. Or put another way, should the acronym for those countries whose reckless spending has so endangered the euro be Pigs (Portugal, Irish Republic, Greece and Spain) — or Piigs?

There are as many opinions as there are Italians, but no shortage of Bergamaschi who fear that their country will be the next Greece.

“It’s just a question of time. Have you looked at the Italian economy? It’s terrible,” said Lorenzo Zilioli, 38, an insurance assessor. “We’re daily becoming more like Greece ... We should all emigrate,” Renato DiGiacomo, 28, a law graduate working in a supermarket, said.

Their pessimism is understandable. Italy’s national debt is 115 per cent of GDP, the highest in the eurozone. Silvio Berlusconi’s Government has belatedly announced plans to slash spending by €24 billion over two years, with pensions, public sector jobs, retirement ages, contributions to local government, fraudulent benefit claimants and tax evaders all targeted.

“Tough Measures to Save Ourselves” proclaims the front page of the newspaper Il Giorno. Italy must make “very heavy sacrifices to save ourselves from the Greek risk”, a top Berlusconi aide said. In another newspaper, L’Eco di Bergamo, a leading Italian bishop predicted a rise in suicides. Other Bergamaschi, however, take exception to Italy, a proud founder of the European Union and G8 member, being lumped with lowly Club Med states such as Greece and Portugal. “It’s not true. People who say that don’t know Italy ... It’s Pigs — just Ireland,” Franco Tentorio, the Mayor of Bergamo, said.

“It really annoys people. We want to be compared with Germany, France and the UK,” Francesca Belotti, the economics correspondent of L’Eco di Bergamo, said.

They argue that Italy is a leading industrial power, that its 5.3 per cent budget deficit is the lowest of any large EU state except Germany, that its conservative banks have little exposure to toxic funds and that Italians are savers.

“We are hard-working and honest,” said Mr Tentorio, before adding the qualifier “enough”.

The other interesting question is whether Italy will emerge intact from the looming years of austerity.

The hard-right Northern League, which dreams of creating an independent state called Padania, performed strongly in regional elections in March. With the popularity of Mr Berlusconi plunging it is an increasingly powerful player in the governing coalition. It whips up resentment at the way that the wealthy north subsidises the impoverished, Mafia-infested south, and is pressing for a “fiscal federalism” that would let the regions raise and spend their own revenues.

Critics say that would merely deepen the chasm dividing Italy. Giorgio Bonassoli, a senior Northern League official in Bergamo, said that it would help the south by removing Rome’s bureaucratic dead hand, weaning it off subsidies and making its regional governments more efficient and accountable. Freed from the south, the north would be the engine that powers Italy’s recovery. “We need federalism to overcome the economic crisis ... Before it was just a theory but now it’s a necessity,” he said. In tough times that argument could prove seductive.

Either way the celebrations next year to mark the 150th anniversary of Italy’s unification — an achievement that the 174 Bergomaschi in the army of Giuseppe Gari-baldi helped to seal — will be muted.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7137541.ece

Poll: Majority of Russians view US as world “aggressor”

A new poll conducted throughout Russia by the independent Levada Center has revealed that the majority of the population views the U.S. as an “aggressor” nation which is seeking world domination.

The survey findings released on Wednedsay show that 73 per cent of respondents agreed that the United States was “an aggressor trying to take control” of all countries in the world. A meagre 8 per cent of Russians felt that the United States was “a defender of peace, democracy and order” with 19 per cent unsure.

Only 14 per cent of respondents felt that the Russian leaders should seek closer ties with the U.S. whereas those calling for more distant relations stood at 38 per cent.

The poll conducted by the Levada Center also revealed that only 3% of Russians would approve of Russia’s accession to NATO.

http://www.globalcrisisnews.com/russia/poll-majority-of-russians-view-us-as-world-aggressor/id=1496/