Home » Archives by category » World News (Page 1695)
The United States is considering imposing new sanctions on Russia over its support for Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, the White House representative for the South American nation said Wednesday. President Donald Trump’s administration has contin…
July 25, 2019Read More
Oli Scarff/GettyLONDON—Boris Johnson’s first act as British prime minister was to launch himself on a spectacular collision course with reality.Instead of pivoting towards conciliation as he stood on the steps of Downing Street, the new Conservative leader lashed out at the “doomsters” and “gloomsters” who have failed to extricate Britain safely from the European Union over three agonizing years of negotiation at home and abroad.Even before the Queen formally invited him to become Britain’s next prime minister, a raft of anti-Johnson Conservative lawmakers had quit the government in protest. The new PM chose to respond with a purge of his opponents in the most savage cabinet reshuffle in decades and the appointment of one of the most controversial bomb-throwers in Westminster as his senior adviser.Johnson, who led the Leave campaign during the Brexit referendum, claims he can solve the Brexit conundrum in just three months. It’s either a pledge of great bravery or colossal hubris. Either way it is very likely that it will lead to Johnson putting the keys to No. 10 on the line in an early general election.Boris Johnson Is Lazy and Will Be a Terrible Prime Minister, Say His Ex-ColleaguesTwice on Wednesday he repeated the campaign pledge made to Conservative Party members, who selected him to replace Theresa May, that he would have Brexit wrapped up by Halloween. He says he wants Britain to leave the European Union with a new deal, which means either convincing Europe to abandon the red lines it’s stuck to since 2016 or forcing the House of Commons to change its mind and approve a version of May’s deal that was brutally rejected by lawmakers on three occasions.The only other option is to take Britain out of the E.U. without a deal, which parliament also has voted against repeatedly. He could try and force a No-Deal Brexit through against the will of Parliament, but that would break with centuries of political precedent.Johnson finds himself in an almost impossible position. It’s going to take more than optimism to secure Britain’s exit from the E.U., but he made it clear that he would take personal responsibility for doing just that. “The buck stops here,” he said, as crowds of protesters booed and shouted over his first speech as prime minister.If Parliament won’t let him deliver what he has promised to deliver, he’s going to need a new Parliament—and that means an election.The big strategic question facing Johnson on the first night in the apartment above his new offices at No. 10 is whether to face up to reality before he crashes headfirst into the obstinacy of EU leaders and parliamentary opponents, or wait until after the damage has been done.If he spends the three months trying to negotiate a new deal with Europe and convince a skeptical parliament to accept it, he runs the risk of being forced into an election soon after October 31 when he has failed to deliver his trademark pledge. Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party is waiting in the wings and ready to crush the Conservatives just as they did in this year’s European elections.The alternative would be Johnson calling a snap election ahead of the deadline and asking the nation to back his vision by returning a more strongly pro-Brexit set of lawmakers to rubberstamp his approach.Either of those scenarios could leave him at risk of usurping George Canning, who was Britain’s shortest-serving prime minister—in office from April 1872 for 119 days until his premature death at the age of 57.Johnson’s best chance of avoiding that ignominy is to convince the current parliament to back whatever deal he can eke out of Brussels. Unfortunately for him, May has handed over a tiny working majority of just two lawmakers in the House of Commons, which means Johnson will be sweating over every vote.The parliamentary arithmetic makes Johnson’s cabinet reshuffle all the more surprising. By losing at least half of the cabinet of lawmakers he inherited from May, Johnson has created a whole host of new enemies.He fired Jeremy Hunt, his final opponent for the leadership, as well as Hunt’s backers Liam Fox and Penny Mordaunt, even though they were arch-Brexiteers. The Remain-leaning lawmakers have also been booted out of a cabinet that May had tried to balance between the rival factions.Johnson has disregarded that notion and appears to be rebuilding the Vote Leave organization inside No. 10.One outgoing minister told The Daily Beast: “It’s the Brexiteers’ wet dream of a Cabinet. The test is whether securing, as they have, every office of state they can now deliver Brexit. Backs to the wall, Dunkirk spirit, underdog rhetoric won’t be enough. The clock is ticking and all hinges upon success—the prime minister, the government, the party, the country.”Perhaps the clearest sign that Johnson is planning a scorched earth policy rather than looking to build consensus is his choice of Dominic Cummings as senior adviser. Cummings was portrayed as the genius behind the Brexit referendum win—played by Benedict Cumberbatch in a recent HBO movie—but he is also known as one of the most abrasive characters in politics.Former Prime Minister David Cameron once reportedly described him as a “career psychopath.”Cummings has been scathing not just about his Brexit opponents but many of those on the same side. He attacked the group of hardline Brexiteers whom May struggled to control, saying they should be “treated like a metastasizing tumor and excised from the U.K. body politic.”He described the pro-Brexit lawmaker tasked with negotiating the May deal as “thick as mince and lazy as a toad.”Cummings is also renowned as an electoral strategist, raising the prospect that he has been appointed to help oversee an impending election, or perhaps even a second referendum, if that becomes the only option left on the table. Johnson has sidelined the party’s big beasts and surrounded himself with a cadre of political outsiders like Cummings and his new Home Secretary (interior minister) Priti Patel, who was forced out of May’s cabinet when it emerged that she had been holding secret meetings with the Israeli government behind the prime minister’s back.Johnson likes to ham up comparisons between himself and Winston Churchill, but after writing a biography of the leader who prevailed against Hitler in World War II he should know that Churchill’s over-ambitious and under-prepared early forays did not always end in success.In World War I, Churchill drew up a bold plan to open a second front by attacking the Ottoman Empire, but he was not granted the number of troops he requested. In a fit of blind optimism over reality, Churchill ordered an amphibious attack on what is now Turkey to go ahead anyway. The result was the notorious bloodbath at the Battle of Gallipoli.Additional reporting by Jamie Ross.Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
July 25, 2019Read More
Not good.Two incidents in late August 2018 involving Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force F-5F Tiger II fighter jets underscored the ongoing crisis in Iran’s air force.On Aug. 21, Iran unveiled what it described as a new, fourth-generation fighter jet. I…
July 25, 2019Read More
A trio of forces on the Israeli left — including former Prime Minister Ehud Barak — united Thursday ahead of the upcoming elections, looking to pose a powerful contrast to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s conservative ruling Likud party. In a joint…
July 25, 2019Read More
So who to believe? Occam’s razor says go with the simplest explanation, which is that the episode never happened.A Kuwaiti newspaper created a stir earlier this month when it reported that Israel’s new F-35 stealth fighters had flown over Iran.(Note: This first appeared in April of last year.)”The fighters crossed Syrian airspace into Iraqi airspace, including to Iran, where they carried out reconnaissance missions and targets in the areas of Bandar Abbas, Isfahan and Shiraz, flying at a high altitude over other sites suspected of a relationship with Iran’s nuclear program,” according to an “informed source” quoted by the newspaper Al-Jarida (Google Arabic translation here).The F-35s were allegedly not detected either by Iran or Russian radar based in Syria, according to the article.So did the incident really happen? First, if the incident were true, that would mean that operational missions are already being flown by the F-35I Adir (“Mighty”), the Israeli version of the Lockheed Martin fighter. Israel currently has only nine of them, and the first squadron was declared operational only late last year. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has a well-earned reputation for boldness, but there is a difference between being bold and foolhardy. IAF pilots and planners have barely had time to acclimate to a fifth-generation aircraft different from the fourth-generation F-15s and F-16s they currently operate. Even the U.S. military is struggling to fix numerous bugs in the F-35.
July 25, 2019Read More
The test of short-range missiles — one of which may be a new design — is seen as a pressure tactic on Washington as Pyongyang warns against a resumption of U.S.-South Korea military exercises.
July 25, 2019Read More
The United Arab Emirates, one of the most powerful parties in Yemen’s war, has begun to draw down its forces, pulling out several thousand troops in a move that leaves the Saudi-led coalition there with a weakened ground presence and fewer tactical opt…
July 25, 2019Read More
(Bloomberg Opinion) — In his maiden speech as prime minister on Wednesday, Boris Johnson repeated that the U.K. will “come out of the European Union on October 31st, no ifs or buts.” Some may view this position as irresponsible — either for prematurely tying the country’s hands in what are likely to be tricky negotiations with the EU or for forcing Johnson to break a very public and oft-repeated promise less than 100 days after assuming office. Yet, in the game theory framework I set out last December to explain why the approach of his predecessor Theresa May risked getting stuck in the muddle-middle, Johnson’s approach may offer both the EU and the U.K. a way out of an impasse that is harming both sides.Unable to unite her Conservative Party, let alone secure a majority in Parliament, May ended up not having the political clout to shift negotiations with the EU out of a “no-war, no-peace” battle of attrition. As such, it was virtually inevitable that that the U.K. would end up forced to negotiate a series of deadline extensions with its European partners. The EU, for its part, was unable to impose an orderly Brexit on the U.K., let alone a return to the status quo ante (“remain”). Neither was it willing to force a hard Brexit.Some viewed this “slow Brexit” process as buying time for both sides and, therefore, maintaining the possibility of a better outcome down the road. But, as I argued, it came with notable and mounting costs for both sides. It undermined their ability to address structural impediments to high and more inclusive growth — not just in the U.K., where politics became hostage to a single issue, but also in Europe where the economy has been slowing significantly. It confronted companies with considerable uncertainty regarding the environment in which they would operate, paralyzing investment decisions. And it fed divisive forces in a climate of heightened sensitivity to cultural, identity and migration issues.By having run on a less ambiguous Brexit platform, and by having been elected leader of his party by an overwhelming majority, Johnson has put down a clear come-what-may marker for the EU. If he can also convey a sense of parliamentary unity behind his position, he should be able to force the EU into compromise — that is, the EU agreeing to a multi-stage process that combines a formal Brexit on Oct. 31 with various transitional agreements to minimize the risks of a disorderly exit process.While he is better placed than his predecessor, Johnson’s all-or-nothing approach is far from obstacle-free. Indeed, we need only look back at how last spring’s European Parliament elections — which neither side wished to contest while negotiations remained paralyzed — failed to force resolution. Also, the British Parliament remains divided, as does the nation. Perhaps the additional realization that the costs over time of a continued slow Brexit process could end up being higher than that associated with either a hard Brexit or a decision to pursue a second and potentially indeterminate U.K. referendum will provide that final element that tips both sides into a workable and durable compromise.To contact the author of this story: Mohamed A. El-Erian at [email protected] contact the editor responsible for this story: Nisid Hajari at [email protected] column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Mohamed A. El-Erian is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is the chief economic adviser at Allianz SE, the parent company of Pimco, where he served as CEO and co-CIO. He is president-elect of Queens’ College, Cambridge, senior adviser at Gramercy and professor of practice at Wharton. His books include “The Only Game in Town” and “When Markets Collide.”For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
July 25, 2019Read More
The Quds Force has been a constant thorn in the side of American interests in the Middle East, providing military aid and direct combat support to anti-US militants in such hotspots as Iraq and Afghanistan. No other branch of the Iranian military can c…
July 25, 2019Read More
North Korea’s national airline Air Koryo will resume direct flights from Pyongyang to the gambling enclave of Macau next week after a 15-year hiatus, the Chinese territory’s civil aviation authority said. With the relaunch of the route, Macau will bec…
July 25, 2019Read More
(Bloomberg Opinion) — On Wednesday, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, the likely successor of Chancellor Angela Merkel, took over as Germany’s defense minister. In a speech to parliament outlining her priorities, AKK, as she is known, said she would “hold fast” to the goal of increasing the country’s defense spending to 2% of economic output – but that Germany would aim to attain military spending of 1.5% gross domestic product by 2024, when North Atlantic Treaty Organization member states agreed to hit the 2% target.She should be open about dropping the goal, even though Merkel agreed to it in 2014. The targets set at NATO’s Wales summit – 2% of GDP on defense and 20% of defense expenditure on major new equipment – are irrelevant to the alliance’s usefulness, and obsessing over them, as U.S. President Donald Trump does, is a distraction from forming a coherent NATO strategy. For Germany, too, it makes much more sense to discuss the military’s specific needs than an arbitrary spending threshold.Last month, Anthony Cordesman of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies laid out the arguments against the 2% target in a concise presentation, which Wolfgang Ischinger, the chairman of the Munich Security Conference, tweeted on Wednesday, suggesting everyone should read it. “What passes for progress reporting is progress in meeting the percentage objectives regardless of whether this is the right priority for a given country or will strengthen the Alliance,” wrote Cordesman, a one-time aide to Senator John McCain. He continued:Country-by-country reviews take time, involve a great deal of detail, and involve military judgments that should come from NATO commanders. NATO stands or falls, however, on the extent to which each nation provides the right forces to deter and defend, and not on the basis of what percentages its defense expenditures are as a percent of GDP. Equipment expenditures have to focus on the right mission priorities, interoperability, and the balance between readiness, force strength, and modernization. The chance that this goal should be to eventually get to precisely 2% of GDP and 20% of annual defense expenditure in any given country in any given year is negligible.Most of the arguments are familiar. NATO Europe already outspends Russia, considered its biggest strategic threat, by a factor of 4.5 in 2019, and it’s not clear why more effective deterrence should be linked to more expenditure. After all, NATO Europe and Canada are already spending at Cold War levels.Despite paying out more than 2% of its economic output for defense purposes, the U.K., for example, has smaller military forces – with fewer personnel, main battle tanks and warships — than in 1989, and Cordesman calls them “a hollow army.” Most NATO members have already hit the 20% mark for spending on major new equipment, but it doesn’t really matter when tiny Luxembourg is the record holder with 44% and Germany, with its relatively large military, is at 16%. Though Cordesman doesn’t mention it, it’s worth pointing out that Turkey’s purchase of Russian-made S-400 antiaircraft missiles counts toward the 20% goal – even if it weakens rather than strengthens the alliance.Cordesman argues that, instead of focusing on the percentages, NATO – and the U.S. government – should shift focus from percentages to adequately funding certain NATO-wide strategic priorities, such as cyber defenses, forward deterrence, the interoperability of national forces, and the modernization of both conventional and nuclear forces. NATO’s centralized budget of is already focused on these goals – but it’s only about $1.8 billion this year, and much bigger national defense budgets aren’t coordinated in the same way. Instead of trying to bully its allies into spending more cash, the U.S. should lead in promoting such coordination – something that the EU is trying to do instead.In recent weeks, AKK mentioned several times that she backed the 2% goal – without saying she thought 1.5% would be fine by 2024. For that, she received criticism from the Social Democrats, who are part of Merkel’s governing coalition. They accused her of pandering to Trump. But on Wednesday, after AKK mentioned the reduced goal, SPD Secretary General Lars Klingbeil, who is a member of the parliament’s defense committee, tweeted that didn’t make him any happier:A 1.5% budget would mean neither overarming nor adequately arming but disarming. In that case, I was wrong in recent days – and that’s no good either.In other words, a number that Klingbeil would like to see lies somewhere between 1.5% and 2% of German GDP. But where exactly and why? That’s not a trivial question.If AKK really wants to leave her mark as defense minister rather than just spend a scandal-free two years in the job before she can run for chancellor, she should try to figure out what Germany really needs to spend to make NATO stronger and meet the country’s own defense needs. Her predecessor, Ursula von der Leyen, tried to do just that – and she’s in trouble for spending too much money on consultants. Perhaps AKK can get the answers she needs in other ways – by consulting with NATO commanders and with European allies such as France. She mentioned European defense cooperation as one of her priorities in the speech.As for the specific spending target, Germany is spending $10 billion more on defense this year, in constant 2015 prices, than it did in 2014. That’s 0.18 percentage points of GDP more, or 1.36%. It would have been honest of AKK to admit she doesn’t know what these numbers mean for Germany’s military capability and its commitment to NATO. It’s highly unlikely that anyone does – and that’s the real problem.To contact the author of this story: Leonid Bershidsky at [email protected] contact the editor responsible for this story: Tobin Harshaw at [email protected] column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Leonid Bershidsky is Bloomberg Opinion’s Europe columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion website Slon.ru.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
July 25, 2019Read More
Recent Comments