Overblog
Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
29 janvier 2015 4 29 /01 /janvier /2015 08:45
Defence Review short-changed time-wise by Parliamentary committee

 

 

28 January 2015 by Kim Helfrich - defenceWeb

 

There does not appear to be any real urgency regarding the Defence Review and its need to progress through the Parliamentary process enabling at least a start to be made on reversing the downward spiral of the South African military.

 

The latest example of tardiness can be found in the programme of the Joint Standing Committee on Defence for the first part of the 2015 Parliamentary work year.

 

The Parliamentary Programme Framework provides for a committee period between January 27 and February 11 for Parliamentary committees, such as defence, to meet and conduct oversight visits.

 

In essence it boils down to the Framework making time available for the various Parliamentary committees to work.

 

“It means 10 days, spanning 80 hours, of meetings could have been scheduled for the Joint Standing Committee on Defence to consider aspects of the Defence Review, by agreement the committee’s top priority. Sadly, not a single meeting has been scheduled for the committee period,” said David Maynier, opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) party shadow defence and military veterans minister.

 

The Defence Review was completed at the request of then Defence Minister, Lindiwe Sisulu, by Roelf Meyer and his team for tabling in Parliament late in 2012. A change of Minister ensured this did not happen and when current Minister, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, eventually tabled the document in Parliament last July, its title was changed to reflect it as the 2014 Defence Review and not the 2012 Defence Review.

 

Among others, the Review stated the SANDF was “in a critical state of decline, characterised by force imbalance between capabilities; block obsolescence and unaffordability of many of its main operating systems; a disproportionate tooth-to-tail ratio; the inability to meet current standing defence commitments and the lack of critical mobility”.

 

Taking another excerpt from the Review (“even with an immediate intervention it could take at least five years to arrest the decline and another five to develop a limited and sustainable defence capability”) to illustrate the need to get on with the job as far as turning the SANDF around Maynier points out “there is an element of urgency”.

 

“Every day wasted talking about the Defence Review, rather the implementing it, accelerates the decline of the SANDF.”

 

He is not happy about the manner in which the Joint Standing Committee intends to deal with the Review.

 

“Its current rubberstamp programmes envisage dealing with the 344 page document, based on 435 stakeholder meetings and 76 public submissions at a cost of nearly R11 million to the taxpayer in three meetings. These meetings are set to last 10.5 hours and will take place between February 20 and March 5.”

 

He has proposed an alternative of 18 meetings including briefings on military preparedness, downsizing and rightsizing, acquisition priorities and affordability of Review proposals.

 

“In the end it is a disgrace that the SANDF is being held hostage by lazy and disinterested MPs serving on the Joint Standing Committee on Defence,” Maynier said this week.

Partager cet article
Repost0
2 septembre 2014 2 02 /09 /septembre /2014 11:50
Londres muscle son arsenal législatif antiterroriste

David Cameron propose la réintroduction de mesures de contrôle, abandonnées en 2012, permettant aux forces de l'ordre de déplacer et de restreindre la liberté de circulation de toute personne suspecte d'activités terroristes, sans décision de justice.

 

01/09/2014 Par Florentin Collomp – LeFigaro.fr

 

Privation de passeport, contrôle des déplacements, le gouvernement cherche à enrayer le phénomène des djihadistes.

 

Neuf ans après les attentats qui avaient tué 52 personnes dans les transports en commun de Londres, le Royaume-Uni repart à l'offensive contre le terrorisme. Le meurtre du journaliste américain James Foley, filmé il y a quinze jours entre les mains d'un djihadiste vraisemblablement britannique proférant des menaces contre l'Occident, a remis le sujet au premier plan. Vendredi, les services de sécurité ont relevé le niveau d'alerte terroriste d'un cran, de «substantielle» à «sévère». Cela signifie qu'une attaque sur le sol britannique est «hautement probable». «Certains de ces complots impliquent probablement des combattants étrangers, de Grande-Bretagne et d'Europe», a souligné la ministre de l'Intérieur, Theresa May. Et ce lundi, David Cameron a présenté au Parlement une série de mesures pour renforcer son arsenal législatif antiterroriste.

 

Suite de l'article

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
4 juillet 2013 4 04 /07 /juillet /2013 11:50
NSA Photo Jason Reed

NSA Photo Jason Reed

3/7/2013 EU source: European Commission-  Ref: SP13-074EN

 

Summary: 3 July 2013, Strasbourg - Speech by Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission, EU Commissioner for Justice, on "U.S. and EU Member State surveillance programmes: National security does not mean that anything goes" at a Plenary Session of the European Parliament

 

MAIN MESSAGES

 

1/ On the NSA spying allegations:

 

It is a matter of mutual trust and good practices in relations between friends and allies. It is clear that for negotiations on the trade agreement with the US to succeed, there needs to be confidence, transparency and clarity among the negotiating partners. This excludes spying on EU institutions.

 

2/ On the US PRISM programme:

 

The purpose [of the transatlantic working group] is to establish the facts and for the Commission to be able to assess the proportionality of the programmes with regard to the data protection of EU citizens.

 

The US appears to take our concerns regarding PRISM seriously. Attorney General Eric Holder committed, in a letter to me yesterday, to set up the expert group. We spoke yesterday evening on the phone and we agreed that the group will have its first meeting this month, and a second one in Washington in September. The Commission will report about the findings of the group to Parliament and Council in October.

 

3/ On the UK's TEMPORA programme:

 

The message is clear: the fact that the programmes are said to relate to national security does not mean that anything goes. A balance needs to be struck between the policy objective pursued and the impact on fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy. It is a question of proportionality.

 

As regards next steps, we will continue the discussion with the UK on the Tempora project.

 

4/ On the EU's data protection reform:

 

PRISM and Tempora are a wake-up call for us to advance on our data protection reform for both the private and the public sector. A strong framework for data protection is neither a constraint nor a luxury but a necessity.

 

Various elements of the reform are of particular relevance. It will clarify the territorial application of the law, including to companies operating in the EU. It will have a broad definition of personal data. It will clarify regime for international transfers. It will impose obligations and responsibilities on processors as well as controllers of data.

 

[I]t has become urgent to proceed on a solid piece of legislation. Any delay in the data protection reform only plays in the hands of those who do not share the objective of a high level of data protection.

 

SPEECH

 

The news over the past weeks and days has been deeply disturbing. Revelations, claims and counter-claims have been made at a dizzying speed. This debate is a useful opportunity to explain the different strands of the issue and to make sense of what the EU can do to address the situation.

 

I believe that we should carefully distinguish between two aspects to the problem. The first concerns international diplomatic relations. The second concerns the rights of EU citizens.

 

As regards the first matter of alleged spying on EU and EU Member States' diplomatic premises, the Commission has raised its serious concerns with the US. Yesterday, the President made a statement to this House in the context of the debate on the European Council Conclusions. The issue was also discussed by Vice-President Ashton directly with State Secretary Kerry. It is a matter of mutual trust and good practices in relations between friends and allies.

 

It is clear that for negotiations on the trade agreement with the US to succeed, there needs to be confidence, transparency and clarity among the negotiating partners. This excludes spying on EU institutions.

 

The second issue, related to the right of EU citizens, was debated here one month ago. I am happy to update you on latest developments.

 

In relation to the revelations on the PRISM programme and the Verizon case, I asked a series of questions in a letter to my US counterpart, Attorney-General Eric Holder, on 10 June. I have also spoken with him at the EU-US Justice Ministerial on 14 June in Dublin.

 

I raised our concerns regarding the impact of Verizon and PRISM on the fundamental rights of EU citizens. I asked for clarifications on the different levels of protection that apply to US and EU citizens. And I asked about the conflict companies can find themselves in when they are faced with competing obligations under US and EU law.

 

Some explanations for which I am awaiting written confirmation were given. But all questions have not been answered so far. This is why after the Ministerial I have written again, together with my colleague Cecilia Malmström, to our US counterpart asking for answers in particular on the volume of the data collected, the scope of the programmes and the judicial oversight for Europeans.

 

At the Ministerial in Dublin, we agreed with the US to set up a transatlantic group of experts to establish the facts surrounding these programmes. The purpose is to establish the facts and for the Commission to be able to assess the proportionality of the programmes with regard to the data protection of EU citizens.

 

The US appears to take our concerns regarding PRISM seriously. Attorney General Eric Holder committed, in a letter to me yesterday, to set up the expert group. We spoke yesterday evening on the phone and we agreed that the group will have its first meeting this month, and a second one in Washington in September. The Commission will report about the findings of the group to Parliament and Council in October.

 

At the EU-US Ministerial, I called once again for the conclusion of the negotiations for an EU-US Umbrella Agreement on data transfer for law enforcement purposes. An agreement that would guarantee equal treatment of EU and US citizens when their data is processed for law enforcement purposes. I urged my US counterpart to take the necessary steps to ensure real progress.

 

In response to media reports about the UK Tempora Programme, I have addressed a letter to Foreign Secretary William Hague and asked to clarify the scope of the programme, its proportionality and the extent of judicial oversight that applies.

 

The message is clear: the fact that the programmes are said to relate to national security does not mean that anything goes. A balance needs to be struck between the policy objective pursued and the impact on fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy. It is a question of proportionality.

 

As many of you said in our last debate in June, programmes such as PRISM and Tempora are a wake-up call for us to advance on our data protection reform for both the private and the public sector.

 

A strong framework for data protection is neither a constraint nor a luxury but a necessity. It will help reverse the trend of falling trust in the way in which data is handled by companies to which it is entrusted.

 

That's why our proposed reform is an important part of the answer. It will maintain the current high level of data protection in the EU by updating citizens' rights, guaranteeing they know when their privacy has been violated and making sure that when their consent is required, the consent is real.

 

Various elements of the reform are of particular relevance. It will clarify the territorial application of the law, including to companies operating in the EU. It will have a broad definition of personal data. It will clarify regime for international transfers. It will impose obligations and responsibilities on processors as well as controllers of data.

 

Only a strong data protection regime can bring this trust both for EU citizens and for businesses and contribute to stability and growth of the digital economy. And trust is also the basis for EU-US cooperation in the field of law enforcement.

 

As many of you said in June, it has become urgent to proceed on a solid piece of legislation. Any delay in the data protection reform only plays in the hands of those who do not share the objective of a high level of data protection.

 

The whole world is watching us on this. And the debate on PRISM and similar programmes only reinforces that we have a chance to set a gold standard for data protection.

 

As regards next steps, we will continue the discussion with theUKon the Tempora project.

 

Together with the Presidency, we have started the discussion on the transatlantic expert group which will include experts from Member States. Based on the information gathered, the Commission will report back to the European Parliament and to the Council in October.

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