Overblog
Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
25 septembre 2014 4 25 /09 /septembre /2014 09:50
GB: Cameron rappelle le Parlement en vue de s'associer aux frappes aériennes en Irak

 

24 septembre 2014 Romandie.com(AFP)

 

Londres - Le Premier ministre britannique David Cameron a annoncé mercredi sur son compte Twitter avoir obtenu le rappel du parlement vendredi, afin de débattre de la demande d'aide irakienne de frappes aériennes contre les djihadistes de l'Etat Islamique.

 

J'ai demandé que le parlement soit rappelé pour débattre de la réponse britannique à la demande du gouvernement irakien de soutien contre le groupe Etat islamique, a-t-il twitté, après avoir rencontré son homologue irakien Haidar Al-Abadi, en marge de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies à New York.

 

Le Speaker (président de la chambre des Communes) a accepté ma demande de rappeler le parlement vendredi, a déclaré le Premier ministre dans un second message sur son compte officiel Twitter.

 

La Chambre des Communes se réunira vendredi pour un débat sur une motion de fond, a précisé un porte-parole de Downing Street, les services du Premier ministre.

 

Le Premier ministre ouvrira les débats et le Vice-Premier ministre (Nick Clegg: NDLR) les conclura, a-t-il également précisé, ajoutant que David Cameron présidera une réunion du cabinet ministériel jeudi à 13H00 (12H00 GMT).

Partager cet article
Repost0
2 septembre 2014 2 02 /09 /septembre /2014 16:50
Obama, Cameron call for greater European defence spending ahead of NATO summit

 

09/01/2014 Defence IQ News

 

Barack Obama and David Cameron are set to lead calls for European leaders to increase defence spending at this week’s NATO summit in Wales. NATO demands member states spend over 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) on defence but few other than the UK adhere to these criteria. Following a turbulent 2014 that saw Russia annex Crimea, increased violence in Gaza and the renewed militant threat in Iraq and Syria, Obama and Cameron will use the NATO summit as a platform to ask members to take security more seriously.

 

According to last year’s World Bank figures, the UK spends 2.3% of GDP on defence while France also hits the 2% threshold with military spending at 2.2% of GDP. Germany (1.3%), Netherlands (1.3%), Spain (0.9%), Italy (1.6%) and Denmark (1.4%) all fall short of the NATO requirement.

 

Lord Dannatt, a former head of the Army, decried Europe’s unwilling to invest in its security and defence capabilities.

 

“The sad fact is that with the exception of a small number of European Nato member states — which include the UK and France principally — the vast majority of the armed forces of other European states lack real usable capability and their governments often lack the political will to fund their armed forces properly,” Dannatt said in The Telegraph.

Partager cet article
Repost0
30 octobre 2013 3 30 /10 /octobre /2013 08:30
Angela Merkel, piégée par son Blackberry. Pas le cas de Netanyahou

 

26.10.2013 Dan Assayah (Tel Aviv) - israelvalley.com

 

La rumeur le dit. Bibi Netanyahou est très méfiant vis à vis des services d’espionage américains qui l’ont ciblé depuis ses années d’études à Boston dans les années 70. Il ne parle avec son portable “sécurisé” que pour transmettre aux Américains, Chinois, Russes des fausses informations. Le monde de l’intelligence le sait : tout portable est un mouchard en puissance. Vladimir Poutine n’a pas de portable. Et ce n’est pas du tout par hasard.

 

Netanyahou doit rire de bon coeur sur les déboires de Merkel, espionnée par les services secrets américains, lui, qui se méfie comme de la peste de son portable, a lu comme tout le monde les détails de l’affaire Merkel.

 

Selon Slate : " Selon le Spiegel, le téléphone portable ultra-sécurisé de la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel aurait été espionné par les services secrets américains. La chancelière allemande, accro aux SMS, communique essentiellement via son BlackBerry avec son équipe et ses ministres (elle n’a pas d’ordinateur portable). « Avec son portable, elle dirige le pays », a un jour écrit le quotidien populaire Bild. Ultra-sécurisé, ce smartphone marche avec une carte de sécurité cryptée à 2.618 euros. En le surveillant, la NSA a probablement récolté une mine d’informations sur ses décisions politiques.

 

Au fait. Peut-être la Chancelière devrait-elle utiliser du matériel Français Bull : " Sphone est le premier téléphone mobile à sécurité matérielle native offrant une protection intégrée contre l’intrusion, le vol de données personnelles et le vol de terminal. Sphone sécurise de bout en bout les communications, qu’elles soient orales ou SMS, mais aussi les données locales, stockées dans le téléphone comme l’annuaire, le journal des appels ou la mémoire de masse ", explique le groupe Bull.

 

ISRAELVALLEY PLUS

 

1. Barack Obama. Après son élection en 2008, rapportait le New York Times en Janvier 2009, Barack Obama s’est battu avec son équipe pour ne pas avoir à rompre avec « une addiction »: son BlackBerry. Il a gagné la bataille, qui fut « vive », au prix de règles de sécurité très strictes. Seuls quelques hauts collaborateurs et un petit cercle d’amis ont obtenu ses coordonnées, après un briefing en règle avec les conseillers juridiques de la Maison-Blanche. Enfin, les messages du Président ont été conçus de telle sorte qu’ils ne peuvent pas être transférés.

 

2. François Hollande. Le Président socialiste a conservé son numéro de portable après son élection, qu’il utilise beaucoup pour communiquer avec ses ministres par SMS, selon Le Lab. D’après les confidences du président de l’Assemblée nationale Claude Bartolone à Canal Plus, son smartphone est « une armure pour éviter l’enfermement, pour casser la muraille de l’Elysée », un « lien direct, sans protocole, sans passer par les conseillers ».

 

3. David Cameron : le Premier ministre conservateur a interdit aux membres de son gouvernement l’utilisation de téléphones portables lors des conseils des ministres… mais s’est lui-même fait prendre au piège. Fan de son BlackBerry, il s’est fait brutalement interrompre par son joujou en pleine session de questions-réponses avec des étudiants à Dubaï, en Novembre 2012. La scène, évidemment, avait été filmée par la BBC ".

Partager cet article
Repost0
24 septembre 2013 2 24 /09 /septembre /2013 07:50
Group Disputes UK Defence Industry Claim

Sept. 23, 2013 defense-aerospace.com

(Source: UK National Defence Association; issued Sept. 22, 2013)

 

Where Is Britain Now In the Global Defence League?



Defence campaigners challenge David Cameron over his claim that the UK is the world’s fourth largest military power


The Prime Minister’s claim that Britain is a major global power with the world’s fourth largest defence budget is no more than “a shallow sound-bite”, according to the UK National Defence Association (UKNDA).

In a UKNDA Commentary entitled “The Defence Budget League Tables: False Comfort from Statistics”, co-authors Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon and Vice-Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham argue that “What matters is not what you spend but what you get for the money.”

They point out that, far from being the world’s fourth largest military power as Mr Cameron suggests, the United Kingdom is actually 31st in terms of armed forces manpower (including Reserves) and 64th in terms of “serious militarisation” when other factors such as proportion of GDP are taken into account.

Countries ranging from Israel to Singapore emerge as more serious military powers than the UK, while European nations, including France, Spain and Argentina, and even Sweden, are all ahead of Britain in the defence league table.

“Experienced, skilful and battle-hardened we may be, but we are just too few”, write ACM Graydon and Vice-Admiral Blackham, “too few in personnel, ships, aircraft and weapons.” Meanwhile, Russia and China are increasing their defence budgets and expanding their military forces, as are India, Japan, Brazil, and the Gulf States. “Why are they re-arming while we are disarming?” ask the authors of the UKNDA Commentary.

Britain’s “rudderless slide down the tables” puts our standing in the world at risk. “A nation whose armed forces are perceived as weak … cannot carry real conviction in the world.” Strategic thought has been abandoned for “short-term political expediency”. The Commentary poses the question: “How does all this affect our much-vaunted permanent place on the UN Security Council?”

The UKNDA Commentary warns that we should never again be “taken in by the politicians’ chant that all is well with the defence of the United Kingdom”.


Formed in 2007, the UKNDA is an independent group that seeks to stimulate public debate about the role of Britain’s armed forces and to provide accurate up-to-date information on the state of British military capabilities.


Click here for the full commentary (html format) on the UKNDA website.

Partager cet article
Repost0
3 septembre 2013 2 03 /09 /septembre /2013 07:50
Britain Says No Plans For New Syria Vote

Sep. 2, 2013 – Defense news (AFP)

 

LONDON — Britain’s government said on Monday that it had “no plans” to hold a second parliamentary vote on joining military action against Syria even if the US Congress approves air strikes next week.

 

Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote in the lower House of Commons on Thursday on the principle of taking action to punish Syria for alleged chemical weapons use, and pledged to respect parliament’s wishes.

 

But after US President Barack Obama announced on Saturday that he would ask Congress to authorize military action against Bashar al-Assad’s regime there has been pressure on Cameron to hold a fresh vote.

 

Cameron’s official spokesman said on Monday: “Parliament has spoken and that is why the government has absolutely no plans to go back to parliament.”

 

“The position we are in is that parliament has expressed its will and that is the basis on which we will proceed,” added the spokesman.

 

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, whose Liberal Democrats are in coalition with Cameron’s Conservatives, said meanwhile he could “not foresee any circumstances” under which the government would seek a second vote.

 

“We’re not going to keep asking the same question of parliament again and again,” Clegg said. “I can’t foresee any circumstances that we would go back to parliament on the same question, on the same issue.”

 

But the careful wording of the government’s statements left room for supporters of military action against Syria to keep pressing for a new vote once US lawmakers have decided.

 

Former international development minister Andrew Mitchell said nothing should be ruled out.

 

“It may be, after lengthy and careful consideration, (that) Congress affirms its support for the president’s plans and, in the light of that, our parliament may want to consider this matter further,” he told BBC radio.

 

The US Congress is to debate Obama’s decision to attack Syria during the week starting on September 9 when they return to work, its speaker said.

 

Obama cited the British vote when defending his decision to let US lawmakers vote.

 

Cameron suffered the most humiliating defeat of his three years in power when Conservative rebels joined the opposition Labour party in voting against military action by 285 to 272.

 

Labour leader Ed Miliband had called for “compelling” evidence that Assad’s regime had gassed its own people before launching an attack.

 

Cameron’s spokesman said the prime minister would keep pressing for a political solution to the Syria conflict at the G20 meeting of world leaders in Saint Petersburg later this week.

Partager cet article
Repost0
30 août 2013 5 30 /08 /août /2013 06:50
Cameron Loses War Vote In Parliament

Aug. 29, 2013 - By OREN DORELL and KIM HJELMGAARD – Defense News

 

LONDON — The British Parliament on Thursday narrowly voted against military action int Syria, possibly forcing the United States to go it alone to strike Syria over a recent chemical attack that killed hundreds of people.

 

Prime Minister David Cameron said it was clear the Parliament does not want action and “I will act accordingly,” according to the BBC.

 

The government motion requesting backing for a strike was defeated 285 to 272.

 

The votes came on a day that the Obama administration postponed disclosure of the intelligence that led it to conclude the regime of Bashar Assad was to blame for the Aug. 21 chemical attack that killed hundreds of people in a region north of Damascus. The British government released its intelligence findings Thursday.

 

The document released by Downing Street that sets out the government’s legal position says, “military intervention to strike specific targets” would be “legally justifiable.” Cameron, a Conservative Party member, had said earlier he could act without Parliament approval.

 

Meanwhile, a meeting of the U.N. Security Council’s permanent members ended quickly Thursday with no sign of progress on an agreement over Syria’s crisis. The meeting Thursday afternoon started breaking up after less than an hour, with the ambassadors of China, France, Britain, Russia and the United States walking out.

 

It was the second time in two days that the five Security Council powers came out of a meeting on Syria with no progress.

 

The wrangling comes as Russia insisted no action could take place without U.N. approval, and it dispatched two warships to the Mediterranean where at least three U.S. warships have been positioned for days in case of an order to attack. Iran also announced it would coordinate its efforts with Russia to stop any attack.

 

Britain’s government said earlier that the legal conditions have been clearly met for taking action against Syria for allegedly launching a chemical attack against its people.

 

Defense Secretary Philip Hammond had said that the leader of the Labor party was giving “succour” to Assad.

 

“Anything that stops us from giving a clear united view of the British Parliament tonight will give some succour to the regime,” he told Channel 4 News.

 

The opposition Labor Party had said it wants to see “compelling evidence” of the Syrian regime’s guilt before siding with Cameron’s governing coalition in a parliamentary vote. Labor Party leader Ed Miliband said he was “determined we learn the lessons of the past, including (on) Iraq,” where much ballyhooed evidence of weapons of mass destruction was subsequently deemed to be false.

 

The potential roadblock to war comes as Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee concluded that it is “highly likely” that Assad’s regime was responsible for the alleged chemical attack. A document released by the JLC forms the British government’s first published evidence indicating culpability for the attack.

 

The independent Doctors Without Borders group says at least 355 people died in the attack. Syria’s regime has denied using chemical weapons.

 

Meanwhile, Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin by telephone and was quoted by Iranian state TV as saying that “military action will bring great costs for the region” and “it is necessary to apply all efforts to prevent it.”

 

According to state TV, Rouhani said both Iran and Russia would work in “extensive cooperation” to prevent any military action against Syria. The Iranian president also called such military action an “open violation” of international laws.

 

Britain can go to war without the express consent or backing of Parliament but in the wake of the Iraq War in 2003 there have been calls for the government to always seek the approval of Parliament.

 

On Wednesday, Cameron reversed an earlier to decision to hold a single formal parliamentary vote that would specifically seek authorization for British action. He bowed to opposition demands that a second vote by Parliament be required, but only after U.N. investigators conclude their findings. That is supposed to happen Saturday, according to the U.N.

 

Meanwhile, the Syrian government had sent a letter to the British government asking for talks.

 

“We implore you to communicate through civilized dialogue rather than a monologue of blood and fire,” the letter said, according to the BBC, which obtained a copy. The open letter was sent by the Syrian parliament speaker who also invited British MPs to send a delegation to the Mideast nation.

 

President Obama said Wednesday he has concluded the Syrian regime is behind the attack.

 

A yet-to-be-released report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats — including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime’s chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use, according to two intelligence officials and two more U.S. officials, the Associated Press reported Thursday.

 

The officials, who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the intelligence report publicly, said intelligence linking Assad or his inner circle to the alleged chemical weapons attack is no “slam dunk.”

 

Dorell and Hjelmgaard write for USA Today.

Partager cet article
Repost0
29 août 2013 4 29 /08 /août /2013 23:14
Le Parlement britannique rejette toute action militaire en Syrie

29.08.2013 à 23h57 Le Monde.fr (AFP)

 

Les députés britanniques ont voté jeudi 29 août contre la motion gouvernementale présentée  par le premier ministre, David Cameron, qui défendait le principe d'une intervention militaire en Syrie en réponse aux lourds soupçons d'usage d'armes chimiques par Damas.

 

"Il est clair que le Parlement britannique ne veut pas d'intervention militaire britannique. Je prends note et le gouvernement agira en conséquence", a réagi David Cameron après ce vote, ajoutant qu'il était "attaché au respect de la volonté de la Chambre des Communes".

 

La motion, présentée en début d'après-midi à la Chambre des communes par David Cameron et soumise au vote dans la soirée, condamnait l'usage d'armes chimiques "par le régime de Bachar Al-Assad", et réclamait une intervention de la communauté internationale, "impliquant si nécessaire une action militaire légale et proportionnée". Lors de son allocution, David Cameron avait cependant reconnu qu'"il n'y a pas 100 % de certitude" sur la responsabilité de l'attaque présumée à l'arme chimique en Syrie, tout en redisant sa conviction qu'elle avait été menée par le régime syrien.

 

Suite de l’article

Partager cet article
Repost0
29 août 2013 4 29 /08 /août /2013 17:30
Syrie/attaque chimique: "pas 100% de certitude" (Cameron)

MOSCOU, 29 août - RIA Novosti

 

Le premier ministre britannique David Cameron a reconnu jeudi devant les députés ne pas avoir 100% de certitude quant à la responsabilité ou non du régime syrien dans l'usage d'armes chimiques dans une banlieue de Damas.

 

"Il n'y a pas, effectivement, 100% de certitude quant aux responsables de l'attaque chimique (près de Damas). Nous n'avons pas de preuves attestant l'absence d'armes chimiques chez l'opposition et la possession de telles armes par le régime (…). Cela ne suffit pas pour affirmer que le régime en est responsable et en répondra", a déclaré le chef du gouvernement.

 

M.Cameron a été contraint par l'opposition travailliste d'attendre le rapport des inspecteurs de l'Onu avant toute décision sur une intervention militaire en Syrie. Les travaillistes lui ont demandé des "preuves convaincantes" de la responsabilité du régime de Bachar el-Assad.   

 

Ainsi, le premier ministre, dont le gouvernement avait lancé les préparatifs militaires en début de semaine, a dû revenir sur son intention de soutenir une intervention militaire immédiate, notamment en raison des réticences de l'opposition travailliste et de parlementaires de son propre parti.

 

Certains pays occidentaux étudient la possibilité d'une opération militaire contre la Syrie en réponse à l'utilisation présumée d'armes chimiques par les troupes gouvernementales dans la région de Damas.

Participants possibles à une intervention militaire en Syrie - source Ria Novisti

Participants possibles à une intervention militaire en Syrie - source Ria Novisti

Partager cet article
Repost0
29 janvier 2013 2 29 /01 /janvier /2013 22:40

130114-mali-operation-serval-poursuite-du-deploiement-des-f

 

29 Jan 2013 By Tim Ross, James Kirkup - telegraph.co.uk

 

Britain risks being dragged into a drawn out Afghan-style conflict in Mali, MPs warned after David Cameron announced that more than 300 troops would be sent to north Africa in the fight against al-Qaeda.

 

In a significant escalation of Britain’s military commitment to the region, Downing Street said that up to 330 troops would go to Mali and neighbouring countries.

 

Up to 40 will be based in Mali, training government troops as they support the French-led intervention against the country’s al-Qaeda-linked rebels. Another 200 will be sent to train soldiers in other African countries so they can join the assault.

 

Britain will also share intelligence and offer a roll-on roll-off ferry to carry French equipment to Mali. A joint logistics headquarters could also be established with France.

 

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, conceded that there was a danger of “mission creep” in Mali but insisted that Britain had “an absolute duty” to intervene against terrorists.

 

Senior military figures and MPs from both sides of the Commons raised concerns of a lengthy conflict in north Africa resembling the wars in Afghanistan or Vietnam. In an urgent debate, Mr Hammond insisted that Britain’s role in the conflict was in the national interest, and promised an “efficient” result.

 

“The UK has a clear interest in the stability of Mali and ensuring its territory does not become an ungoverned space available for al-Qaeda and its associates to organise attacks on the West,” he said. “We have an absolute duty to intervene wherever there is a threat to Britain’s national security and the security of Britain’s interests around the world and this is exactly such a case.”

 

British troops will be authorised to open fire only in “self defence” , he said. No troops would provide “force protection” for the proposed European Union training mission in Mali and there was no “intention” to deploy front-line troops, he said. “We are very clear about the risks of mission creep. We have defined very carefully the support that we are willing to provide to the French and the Malian authorities.”

 

John Baron, a Conservative MP, warned Mr Hammond that Britain could be “drawn into ever deepening conflicts”. Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, said the public was “wary and weary of conflict” and Frank Dobson, the former Labour cabinet minister, suggested that Mali could become Britain’s “Vietnam”, a war which he said began with American troops “in a training capacity”.

 

As French troops swept into Timbuktu, the former head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, warned that nations involved in the country faced a “protracted guerrilla warfare”.

 

The troops being sent directly to Mali will join an EU-led training mission. The other 200 British troops being sent to the region will be deployed to English speaking countries, such as Nigeria and Ghana, which are contributing soldiers to support the Malian government.

 

Talks on the details of both missions were continuing last night. The Prime Minister’s spokesman disclosed that 70 British personnel were already based in Senegal operating a Sentinel spy plane to support the French, while 20 RAF crew were operating a C-17 transport, which will stay in Mali for three months.

 

The Government is also prepared to make British facilities available for “allies”, thought to include the US, to mount mid-air refuelling operations. It has refused to send drone aircraft to Mali because it cannot spare any from operations in Afghanistan.

 

The commitments so far will mean that up to 60 British personnel will be inside Mali, with about 270 elsewhere in the region.

 

Mr Cameron’s spokesman said: “It is in the international community’s interests to support the Malian government and the wider region in dealing with terrorist havens and that is exactly what we are doing.”

Partager cet article
Repost0
20 septembre 2011 2 20 /09 /septembre /2011 07:30

http://www.meretmarine.com/objets/500/36395.jpg

 

Puma et Caracal s'approchant d'un BPC de la Marine nationale

crédits : EMA

 

20/09/2011 MER et MARINE

 

On en sait un peu plus sur les moyens mis en oeuvre pour couvrir la visite de Nicolas Sarkozy et David Cameron en Libye le 15 septembre. En complément du service de protection mis en place par l'Elysée, la sécurité du président français et du premier ministre britannique a été assurée par les unités déployées dans le cadre de l'opération Harmattan, à commencer par les bâtiments de la Marine nationale intégrés à la Task Force 473. L'opération s'est déroulée en deux temps avec deux dispositifs parallèles, explique l'Etat-major des Armées. A l'aéroport de Tripoli tout d'abord, où le nouvel A330 présidentiel a atterri en milieu de matinée. Partis du bâtiment de projection et de commandement Tonnerre, qui croisait à quelques nautiques de la capitale libyenne, cinq hélicoptères de manoeuvre Caracal et Puma, appuyés par deux hélicoptères de combat Tigre, y attendaient les autorités, avec à leur bord des éléments de protection de l'armée de l'Air et du personnel médical. Leur mission a consisté à acheminer la délégation en toute sécurité vers le centre-ville, où Nicolas Sarkozy et David Cameron ont donné une conférence de presse commune. Une fois cette prise de parole terminée, ils ont effectué la manoeuvre inverse jusqu'à l'aéroport.


Puma devant l'avion présidentiel (© : EMA)

Un second BPC devant Benghazi

Le président de la République, le premier ministre britannique et leurs délégations ont ensuite gagné Benghazi par avion en début d'après-midi. La seconde phase de l'opération « Autorités » commençait pour les marins, terriens et aviateurs de la TF 473. Au large de Benghazi, c'est du BPC Mistral, cette fois, qu'un groupement d'hélicoptères a décollé pour être en mesure d'accueillir les autorités et leurs délégations à leur arrivée à l'aéroport, prendre en charge leurs déplacements et assurer leur protection.


Pendant toute la durée de l'opération, les deux frégates de la TF 473 ont accompagné chacune un BPC dans les eaux libyenne : le La Fayette aux côtés du Mistral et le Cassard près du Tonnerre. En parallèle, un important dispositif aérien était engagé par l'armée de l'Air et l'aéronautique navale. Des avions de combat, un drone Harfang et deux avions de patrouille maritime Atlantique 2 ont, ainsi, assuré dans le ciel l'étanchéité de la bulle de sécurité.




Puma au dessus du littoral libyen (© : EMA)


Puma accompagné de deux Tigre (© : EMA)

Partager cet article
Repost0

Présentation

  • : RP Defense
  • : Web review defence industry - Revue du web industrie de défense - company information - news in France, Europe and elsewhere ...
  • Contact

Recherche

Articles Récents

Categories