Redaktionen

Krever at Stoltenberg møter i Stortinget: – En katastrofe, dagbladet.no

av

Jens Stoltenberg er den eneste som kan gi svar på hva som skjedde da Norge besluttet å bombe i Libya, mener Rødt-leder Bjørnar Moxnes.

– Det er helt avgjørende å få Jens Stoltenberg til Stortinget for å få fakta på bordet om hva den norske regjeringen visste da de gikk til bombekrig mot Libya. Det var Stoltenberg som var pådriveren for krigen, sier Rødt-leder Bjørnar Moxnes til Dagbladet.

4. februar skal utenriks- og forsvarskomiteen på Stortinget avholde høring om Norges deltakelse i Libya-krigen våren og sommeren 2011. Der bør nåværende generalsekretær i Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, altså møte, ifølge Rødt-lederen. […]

Det er spesielt tre svar Moxnes krever Stoltenberg svarer på:

  • Stoltenberg sa i Stortinget 29. mars 2011 at «Norge er i folkerettslig forstand ikke i krig». Forsvarsdepartementet konkluderte noen få dager tidligere med at Norge faktisk var i krig i Libya
  • Stoltenberg-regjeringen sa 9. mai til Stortinget at intervensjonen I Libya « ikke omfatter regimeendring påført utenfra». Moxnes mener det raskt var åpenbart at sannheten var stikk motsatt.
  • Stoltenberg må svare på om han visste at bakkeoffensiven mot Tripoli, som Norge og Nato støttet fra luften, ble ledet av en kjent al-Qaida-kommandant. Läs artikel

Økt ubåtaktivitet ved norske havner, forsvaretsforum.no

av

Antallet atomubåter innom norske havner tredoblet, ifølge Direktoratet for strålevern og atomberedskap (DSA). Det viser et referat fra et styringsmøte i oktober som Aftenposten har fått innsyn i.
– Generelt kan vi si at fra 10-15 anløp i året for noen år siden, mottar Norge nå rundt 30-40 anløp i året av franske, britiske og amerikanske reaktordrevne ubåter, sier avdelingsdirektør Per Strand i DSA til avisen. Den økte aktiviteten har skapt spenninger mellom stormaktene. Läs artikel

Interview with Dr Hans Blix: The most important lesson in diplomacy is not to humiliate, europeanleadershipnetwork.org

av

Dr Blix, you are a respected figure with a wealth of expertise in the international field, particularly on nuclear issues and on the capacity of inspections. What are your thoughts on the current state of non-proliferation?

I think that the non-proliferation effort that started with Kennedy and the Soviets has been a success. We do not have dozens of nuclear weapon states. We have nine. And we don’t really see anyone around the corner at present. There has been success on that score but the Non-Proliferation Treaty has been a total failure on Article 6, where nuclear weapons states committed themselves to work toward and negotiate nuclear disarmament. These states talk about the step-by-step approach as being the only way forward. Well, we have the step-by-step process but it’s heading backwards.

For instance, look at the Ban Treaty. I think the reaction of NATO countries, in particular the United States, has been excessive; the technical objections they raise are strained. The real objection is that the Treaty bans the production, use, and handling of nuclear weapons without exception. The nuclear weapons states are attached to the Non-Proliferation Treaty because it legitimises the possession of their nuclear weapons. I am not saying that it is not valuable to commit States to non-proliferation. But the absolution, the toleration, the legitimatisation of nuclear weapons [that they believe NPT provides] is of value to them. It is desirable that we continue to delegitimise nuclear weapons. Even with the present possessors of weapons we need to maintain they are illegitimate and cannot be used.

You wrote for the European Leadership Network not long ago on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and said that many arguments made against it were tenuous. Given where we are currently with the US withdrawal, what are your thoughts on the debate surrounding Iran and the nuclear deal?

First, I feel it is important to say that the US is getting away with claiming they are withdrawing from an agreement – it was not an agreement. The Joint Plan of Action was not signed, nor termed a treaty or agreement because that could never be submitted to the US Senate. It was very deliberate. A deal was agreed between countries and given its legal binding force by the Security Council. Läs intervun

Multilateralt möte satte fokus på säkerhetssituationen i Östersjön, forsvarsmakten.se

av

Den 23-24 januari stod Försvarsmakten värd för ett kombinerat högnivåmöte med policy-direktörer från ländernas Försvarsdepartement och militära strategichefer från partnerländer i den brittisk-ledda Joint Expeditionary Force (Jef). Mötet ägde rum på Gotland vilket satte säkerhetssituationen i Östersjöregionen i fokus. Jef är en koalition av nio deltagande länder: Danmark, Estland, Finland, Lettland, Litauen, Nederländerna, Norge, Sverige och Storbritannien. Läs pressmeddelande

U.S. and Taliban Agree in Principle to Peace Framework, Envoy Says, nytimes.com

av

American and Taliban officials have agreed in principle to the framework of a deal in which the insurgents would guarantee to prevent Afghan territory from being used by terrorists, and that could lead to a full pullout of American troops in return for larger concessions from the Taliban, the chief United States negotiator said Monday.

Mr. Khalilzad said those concessions must include the Taliban’s agreeing to a cease-fire and to talk directly with the Afghan government, issues that the insurgents have doggedly opposed in the past.

“We have a draft of the framework that has to be fleshed out before it becomes an agreement,” the American envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, said in an interview with The New York Times in Kabul. “The Taliban have committed, to our satisfaction, to do what is necessary that would prevent Afghanistan from ever becoming a platform for international terrorist groups or individuals.”

He added: “We felt enough confidence that we said we need to get this fleshed out, and details need to be worked out.” Läs artikel

What the Evolution of NATO’s Missions Means for the Future, nationalinterest.org

av
Ted Galen Carpenter, senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute

Washington is pushing the Alliance to adopt an increasingly offensive focus, and the allies could be making a major, self-destructive blunder to follow its lead. […]

Unfortunately, post-Cold War NATO’s image as a collection of democracies pursuing defensive objectives corresponds less and less to reality. Robert W. Merry, former editor of Congressional Quarterly, the National Interest , and the American Conservative , aptly observes that instead of appreciating how the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union was a boon to the security of the West, U.S. and NATO leaders “turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own.” He concludes that NATO today is “a danger, not a guarantor of peace.”

Avoidance of offensive actions and objectives disappeared early in the post–Cold War era. The interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo emphatically transformed NATO from a defensive alliance designed to deter or repel an attack on its members into an organization with an offensive orientation. Läs artikel

 

Hultqvist vill fördjupa brittiskt samarbete, sverigesradio.se

av

Om Storbritannien lämnar EU behöver Sverige fördjupa det direkta försvars- och säkerhetspolitiska samarbetet mellan länderna, enligt borgerliga politiker. Försvarsminister Peter Hultqvist håller med.

– De har en avsevärd militär förmåga och det är en väldigt viktig nation som vi värderingsmässigt också ligger väldigt nära. Jag ser det som fullständigt naturligt och logiskt att det samarbetet fortsätter, och att det utvecklas och fördjupas, säger försvarsminister Peter Hultqvist.

I morse berättade Ekot att företrädare för Moderaterna och Liberalerna vill förstärka samarbetet med Storbritannien om landet lämnar EU.  En möjlighet är att utvidga solidaritetsförklaringen där Sverige lovar att hjälpa till om en katastrof eller ett angrep drabbar våra grannländer i Norden, eller andra EU-medlemmar till även omfatta ett Storbritannien utanför EU.

– Det ligger också i svenskt intresse att vi knyter dem närmare oss nu när en brexit hotar, säger Liberalernas försvarspolitiska talesperson Allan Widman. Läs artikel

NATO, Russia fail to agree over missile breach, U.S. to quit treaty, reuters.com

av

NATO and Russia failed on Friday to resolve a dispute over a new Russian missile that Western allies say is a threat to Europe, bringing closer Washington’s withdrawal from a landmark arms control treaty.

At a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council in Brussels, envoys from NATO’s 29 members renewed their call on Moscow’s deputy foreign minister to destroy a nuclear-capable cruise missile system before a Feb. 2 deadline. Without a breakthrough, the United States is set to start the six-month process of pulling out of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), having notified it would do so in early December and accusing Moscow of breaching it.

Russia denies violating the terms of the treaty, which eliminated the medium-range missile arsenals of the world’s two biggest nuclear powers. […]

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the closed-door meeting that it was the United States that was breaching the treaty, alliance diplomats said. Ryabkov, who spoke in both Russian and English, cited the U.S.-built NATO missile defense system in Romania as a treaty breach. NATO says the shield is designed to shoot down rockets from Iran, not from Russia.

Separately, the Russian foreign ministry also accused the United States of reviving a Cold War-era plan to deploy a missile defense system in space. Läs artikel

President Sauli Niinistö om Finlands syn på kärnvapenförbud, presidentti.fi

av

Ambassador Seminar on 22 August 2017

[…] It is easy to understand the objectives of those who pushed for international negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons. The goal is a good one, but it is unclear whether this will pave the way to real nuclear disarmament. Nuclear-weapon states did not participate in the negotiations and they do not support the outcome. Finland, like most other EU states, did not participate in the negotiations. We are concerned that the process may actually do more to hinder than promote nuclear non-proliferation. In order to make progress in reducing nuclear weapons, we need the commitment and participation of nuclear-weapon states. The upcoming UN General Assembly is the next opportunity to find a path that would support both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. Finland will be an active participant in that discussion. Läs talet

Veckans citat

av

”This doesn’t mean that Assad has come through the war completely unscathed, able to impose his will without restraint. But in the absence of viable alternatives, and despite the brutal crimes he has committed with the direct support of Russia and Iran, he will necessarily have a role to play in Syria’s immediate future. Clearly, the more time and resources are invested in the wrong policy, such as regime change, the harder it becomes to abandon that policy. But there is no other choice. The West must pierce its illusions and sit down to negotiate more seriously – and at all levels – about Syria.”

Javier Solana, 24 januari i Project Syndicate

Gripenplan sattes in mot tre ryska militärplan som kränkte Sverige, dn.se

av

Sverige sände upp Gripen-plan i lördags när tre ryska militära plan kränkte svenskt luftrum söder om Blekinge. Det var ett ryskt signalspaningsplan som eskorterades av två stridsflygplan som kom in på svenskt område söder om Karlshamn. […]

Normalt flyger ryska signalspaningsplan ensamma i södra Östersjön. Den här gången eskorterades spaningsplanet av två stridsflygplan av typen Sukhoi 27 Flanker. Det är avancerade jaktflygplan med två motorer och kraftig beväpning.

Jämfört med SU-27 är de svenska Gripenplanen i underläge. De ryska jaktplanen är beväpnade med avancerade jaktrobotar som kan sättas in på avstånd. De svenska Gripenplanen är under incidentuppdrag i fred endast beväpnade med sin inbyggda automatkanon. Även Natos incidentberedskap i Östersjöområdet har alltid jaktrobotar under vingarna.  Läs artikel

Kan miste grepet i nord, klassekampen.no

av

Et svekket forsvar i nord vil etterlate et vakuum. Det vil «uten tvil bli fylt av andre», sier forsvarssjef Haakon Bruun-Hanssen.

Dersom Norge svekker Sjøforsvaret i Nordområdene, vil ikke de store havområdene forbli tomme. Det var forsvarssjef Haakon Bruun-Hanssens budskap i talen han holdt til Oslo Militære Samfund mandag denne uka.

«Vakuumet vi etterlater, vil uten tvil bli fylt av andre», sa han.

I dette intervjuet med Klassekampen utdyper Forsvarssjefen hva han tror vil skje dersom Norge skjærer ned Marinen i nord, slik regjeringen har planlagt:

– Vi kan jo håpe at det er allierte land som fyller tomrommet, som for eksempel USA eller Storbritannia, men det kan også være andre nasjoner. Det er klart at Russland har interesser i området og kunne tenke seg å fylle et vakuum som vi etterlater oss, sier han. […]

Det er en stabilitet som kan svekkes av at Norges allierte i Nato tar over for det norske forsvaret.

– Vårt nærvær og russisk nærvær er legitimt og akseptert av hverandre der oppe. Da unngår vi å skape økt spenning eller konfrontasjoner, sier han. Läs atikel