Europe’s Jilted Lover Syndrome and I
2 hours ago – Europe’s Jilted Lover Syndrome and I. It is over. Over over over. Fini. Not because Uncle Sama wants to, wishes hard to or as in case of a much …
It is over. Over over over. Fini.
Not because Uncle Sama wants to, wishes hard to or as in case of a much macho man seek some peace (of mind) in Pacific, instead of Atlantic.
European (political pageantry) believes that such uncalled for dejection, when they need Uncle Sam‘s large, Oops, largesse to keep them alive makes it a sabotage.
“Take it or leave. Uncle ain’t interested in little pond politics. Pacific or bust,” says Uncle Sam.
Drop Israel bitch. Keep Europe Babe, I say.
…and I am Sid Harth@webworldismyoyster.com
ARTICLES BY JUDY DEMPSEY
June 25, 2012, Monday
European leaders feel uneasy with the United States’ frequent use of unmanned drones to target what it says are terrorism suspects, but many officials are reluctant to speak out about their doubts.
June 11, 2012, Monday
The chancellor faces the political repercussions of her decision to shut down Germany’s remaining 17 nuclear power plants after the nuclear disaster in Japan last year.
May 28, 2012, Monday
Azerbaijan, fueled by oil money and focused mostly on playing host to the Eurovision Song Contest, turns a blind eye to rights violations — as do its European neighbors.
April 28, 2012, Saturday
A lack of cohesion within Europe makes it difficult to decide how to respond to the U.S. shift toward the Asia-Pacific region, even as many on the Continent voice support for sharing security burdens.
April 17, 2012, Tuesday
For the first time, the European Union is considering pursuing Somali pirates onshore. But Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, recognizing how divisive this issue is, is playing for time.
April 03, 2012, Tuesday
The cozy relationships that existed between German politicians and businesspeople, journalists and lobbyists, are being severed thanks to the resignation of President Christian Wulff.
March 19, 2012, Monday
Europe’s extensive arms trade is at odds with the Union’s commitment to human rights, several reports show.
March 05, 2012, Monday
Europeans do not grasp how bad the trans-Atlantic relationship has become as Europe refuses to pick up more of the military burden and Washington makes a strategic shift from Europe to Asia.
February 07, 2012, Tuesday
Even though the Europeans have excluded the option of military action against Syria, there are measures they could take.
January 24, 2012, Tuesday
Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned energy giant, is once again negotiating with Ukraine over what it will charge for its energy. But this time Europeans are well prepared if supplies are shut off.
January 10, 2012, Tuesday
During the 2009 election campaign, the Free Democrats pledged to curb the state, but under their watch the government has only grown.
January 06, 2012, Friday
Even if the European Union survives the euro crisis reasonably intact, it will wake up to a world where its weight is much reduced because it is so ill equipped to deal with global issues.
December 20, 2011, Tuesday
Analysts fear that cash-strapped European governments will all too easily lose sight of their own interests, from defending human rights to protecting their own businesses, in seeking help from China.
November 22, 2011, Tuesday
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO chief, argues that the legitimacy of the alliance rests on “principles and power,” but that assumption is being put to the test as regards Syria.
November 08, 2011, Tuesday
SEARCH 600 ARTICLES BY JUDY DEMPSEY:
NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Information on Defence Expenditures
NATO publishes an annual compendium of financial, personnel and economic data for all member countries. Since 1963, this report has formed a consistent basis of comparison of the defence effort of Alliance members based on a common definition of defence expenditure. Through the links below, you can find data covering the years from 1949 to the present.
The figures represent payments actually made or to be made during the course of the fiscal year. They are based on the NATO definition of defence expenditure. In view of the differences between this and national definitions, the figures shown may diverge considerably from those which are quoted by national authorities or given in national budgets.
Each year, updated tables with nations’ defence expenditures are published on the NATO website in PDF and Excel format. The latest version of the compendium provides tables covering key indicators on the financial and economic aspects of NATO defence, including:
- Total defence expenditures
- Defence expenditure and GDP growth rates
- Defence expenditures as a percentage of GDP
- Defence expenditures and GDP per capita
- Defence expenditures by category
- Armed forces personnel strength
Archive of tables
Last updated: 13-Apr-2012 12:52
- Financial and Economic Data Relating to NATO Defence – Defence expenditures of NATO countries (1990-2010)10 Mar. 2011
- Experts debate credit crunch effects on NATO and new security environment18 Dec. 2009
- Defence statistics published19 Feb. 2009
- Defence statistics published20 Dec. 2007
- NATO-Russia defence expenditures available online09 Jun. 2005
Paying for NATO
Member countries make direct and indirect contributions to the costs of running NATO and implementing its policies and activities.
The greatest part of these contributions comes through participation in NATO-led operations and missions, and in efforts to ensure that national armed forces are interoperable with those of other member countries. Member countries incur the deployment costs involved whenever they volunteer forces to participate in NATO-led operations. With a few exceptions, member countries also pay for their own military forces and military capabilities.
Direct contributions to budgets managed by NATO are made by members in accordance with an agreed cost-sharing formula based on relative Gross National Income. These contributions represent a very small percentage of each member’s overall defence budget, and finance the expenditures of NATO’s integrated structures.
Direct contributions generally follow the principle of common funding, that is to say, member countries pool resources within a NATO framework. There are three budgets that come under common funding arrangements:
- the civil budget;
- the military budget, and;
- the NATO Security Investment Programme.
Common funding covers collective requirements such as the NATO command structure, NATO-wide air defence, command and control systems or Alliance-wide communications systems, which are not the responsibility of any single member.
Projects can also be jointly funded, which means that the participating countries can identify the requirements, the priorities and the funding arrangements, but NATO provides political and financial oversight.
Financial management of these different types of contributions is structured to ensure that the ultimate control of expenditure rests with the member countries supporting the cost of a defined activity, and is subject to consensus among them. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) approves NATO budgets and investments, and exercises oversight over NATO financial management. The Council takes into account resource considerations in its decision-making. The Resource Policy and Planning Board (RPPB) advises the Council on resource policy and allocation. For example, when the Council decided to undertake the Libya operation, it did so with the benefit of a full evaluation of the costs from Allied Command Operations and the RPPB. The Budget Committee and the Investment Committee, which report to the RPPB, also review and approve planned expenditures.
The NATO Office of Resources brings together all members of the NATO International Staff working on resource issues. The office provides integrated policy and technical advice to the NAC and the Secretary General, NATO resource committees, and other NATO bodies. The office facilitates agreements on resource matters among member countries.
Different forms of direct funding
Principle and practices of common funding at NATO
Management and control
Last updated: 23-Apr-2012 16:27
Letter from Europe
Obama or Romney, Europe Is In for Disappointment
By JUDY DEMPSEY
Published: July 9, 2012
BERLIN — When Barack Obama was elected U.S. president in 2008, Europeans were ecstatic. Somewhat naïvely, they believed he would end the bitter ideological disputes that bedeviled Europe’s relationship with the Bush administration and usher in a new trans-Atlantic era.
But when the Obama administration did just that, Europeans still weren’t satisfied. They were pleased with the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and — to be completed by 2014 — Afghanistan.
They were less happy when the White House shifted its foreign policy toward Asia to counter the growing influence of China, and when Washington publicly criticized Europe for failing to spend more on defense and for depending on the United States to compensate for NATO’s military shortfalls.
But now, because it is election time in the United States, Mr. Obama’s star is beginning to shine again in Europe. The reason is his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, whose ideas and policies have raised hackles in many European capitals. “Romney in the White House would be bad news for Europe,” said one high-ranking European diplomat who declined to be identified.
Mr. Romney, who in the 1960s spent two years in France as a Mormon missionary, has lambasted Europe during his campaign. He has harshly criticized Europe’s handling of the euro crisis and, unlike Mr. Obama, the role of the state in Europe, be it for the provision of health care, a fair tax structure or a social welfare system that protects the disadvantaged.
In stark contrast to Mr. Obama and almost all European leaders, Mr. Romney is also overtly pro-Israel and a close friend of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He plans to visit Israel in the coming weeks.
Republicans in Congress have also stated that they would fully fund the missile defense shield that the White House has cut back. They would impose much tougher sanctions on Iran. They would keep those accused of being terrorism combatants detained in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and try them in military, not civilian courts.
“We are a nation at war,” the party states in its “Pledge to America.” “We must confront the worldwide threat of terrorism and to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.”
Once Election Day is over, however, the differences between both contenders may turn out to be much less significant than Europeans now think. Two major factors will severely limit the scope of action of any future U.S. administration.
First, the ultralibertarian Tea Party movement is going to be a powerful force in the next Congress, putting a brake on new domestic initiatives as well as on any new intervention abroad. “Romney cannot ignore the Tea Party’s foreign policy,” said Stephen J. Flanagan, a security expert at the independent Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “The Tea Party is skeptical about foreign intervention and somewhat isolationist,” he added.
Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who is credited as a founder of the Tea Party, argued in 2010 that “a return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of active private engagement but government noninterventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health.” Indeed, the second factor restraining the next administration is the fiscal situation of the U.S. government, which is bound by the Budget Control Act of 2011 to implement painful savings starting next year.
The effect is that Europe, instead of worrying about U.S. interventionism, might soon become concerned about a revival in American isolationism. At the very least, no U.S. president will be willing to continue footing the bill for NATO’s military spending.
Curiously, Europe seems strangely unconcerned. “There has been no strategic thinking of any sort on this side of the Atlantic,” said Sven Biscop, a security expert at Egmont, the Royal Institute for International Affairs in Brussels. “No matter who wins the next U.S. election, Europe must understand that the trans-Atlantic relationship has changed fundamentally.”
Yet new avenues of cooperation are opening as Washington is, by choice or by necessity, limiting its ambitions as a world power. The U.S. State Department, for example, recently sent a confidential two-page note to Catherine Ashton, the E.U. foreign policy chief.
The note, called “Enhancing U.S.-E.U. Dialogue and Engagement on Asia-Pacific Issues,” proposes how the United States and Europe could work together in Asia on issues like human rights, good governance and development aid.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the European Union and the United States are working together with countries in the region to try and stabilize Mali, where an offshoot of Al Qaeda has seized control of northern areas.
Analysts suggest that both Europe and the United States will benefit if they choose to work on such issues together. “Maybe,” Mr. Flanagan said. “But whoever wins, Europe will be expected to take on more of the burden sharing on security. We still don’t see that happening.”
Judy Dempsey is editor in chief, Strategic Europe for Carnegie Europe. (www.carnegieeurope.eu )