Diplomacy & Crisis News

Underscoring that millions of refugees around the world face food insecurity and the risk of malnutrition, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called today for stronger response to ensure that refugees are able to meet their food and nutrition needs.

In collaboration with partners, the United Nations has launched a mobile application to provide a global forum for industry, governments and individual citizens to collectively realise the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Condemning recent violence in Ndomete and Kaga Bandoro in Central African Republic (CAR), the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the country (MINUSCA) called on local communities to remain calm and underlined its right to take appropriate measures to prevent destabilization of the situation.

The United Nations and humanitarian agencies in Libya today issued an urgent appeal for $10.7 million to meet life-saving emergency assistance for close to 80,000 people located within the Libyan city of Sirte until the end of the year.

Speaking at the opening of the United Nations Summit for Refugees and Migrants, a number of senior UN officials stressed on the importance of the Summit and called on world leaders for collective action to address the global crisis.

In his address to the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, the agency’s Director-General, highlighted work in various areas, including nuclear applications, nuclear safety and security, safeguards and technical cooperation, and modernizing a new pest control facility to tackle vector-brome diseases such as Zika.

Globally acclaimed Danish actor Nikolaj Coster-Waldau has kicked off his role as Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to support the 17 Global Goals known as the UN Sustainable Development Goals, agreed last year by world leaders to tackle our planet’s toughest challenges by 2030.

U.S. and Israeli representatives signed a memorandum of understanding in Washington on September 14. (Reuters)

This week, Israel and the US signed a $38 billion military aid package, the largest of its kind in U.S. history.

The two allies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will cover fiscal years 2019-2028, taking over when the current $30 billion MOU, signed in 2007, expires.

President Obama stated: “Prime Minister Netanyahu and I are confident that the new MOU will make a significant contribution to Israel’s security in what remains a dangerous neighborhood.”

Because it involves money and military aid going to Israel, it is controversial. But not for the normal reasons. Many in Israel, including former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, former Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and former head of IDF military intelligence Amos Yadlin, believe that Israel should have received additional funds from the U.S.

From adversaries to appreciative partners

Netanyahu and former Ambassador to the U.S. and current Deputy Minister for Diplomacy Michael Oren have both told critics of the deal that they are being ungrateful.

Netanyahu said critics of the deal were “showing ingratitude… to our greatest and best friend, the United States.”

Oren went further:

“There are those who when they hear the discourse here are likely to recall well-known depictions and libels against the Jews. Put yourself in the place of the Americans and ask yourself how the debate here sounds in the USA. We received a very good and very respectable package. We should say, ‘Thank you very much,’ and keep our mouths shut. Instead, it sounds like the Israelis got nearly $40 billion but there are still all kinds of people who are claiming, ‘We could have got more out of the Americans and got more money.’ This public debate is damaging to us. We look like people who don’t recognize a favor.”

It is bizarre, on so many levels, that Netanyahu and Oren are outright defending President Obama for giving Israel massive amounts of aid. If nothing else, these two Israeli leaders haven’t always been so appreciative of President Obama’s attitude towards Israel and the Middle East.

A few recent highlights of their contentious relationship:

• Last year Netanyahu was invited by House Republicans to speak to congress in opposition to the President’s deal with Iran. He didn’t even give the White House the courtesy of advance notice.
• Netanyahu was perceived by the Obama administration as “campaigning on behalf of Mitt Romney” during the president’s reelection in 2012.
• Michael Oren released a book just last year that many deemed to be psychoanalyzing the President, determining from a great distance that Obama wanted to “bring Washington closer to the Arab and Muslim world,” due to his “childhood experiences having been abandoned by Muslim father figures.”

While these two men might be right about the deal that Israel accepted, they are also imperfect defenders of it. Senior Labor Party MK Shelly Yachimovich said as much when she sarcastically tweeted: “The funniest thing is that Netanyahu is sternly rebuking his critics on the failures of the aid agreement over their ‘ingratitude’ toward the Americans. Teach us more, prime minister.”

None of the above is particularly shocking. After all, all politics is local, everyone in power has a short memory and as with any political establishment, the parties approach each other with a zero-sum attitude.

Because we’re talking money, military and Israel, Senator Lindsey Graham weighs in

Here is the part that did shock me. While he did not necessarily agree with anyone in Israel, and he certainly does not agree with the President, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is furious at Netanyahu for accepting the deal.

He blasted Netanyahu for “pulling the rug” from under Israel’s friends in Congress.

The gist of Graham’s objection is this: no one can protect Israel except for the U.S. Congress. And now Netanyahu signed a massive deal with President Obama making it impossible for Congress to continue to defend Israel.

This anger stems from the fact that, under the MOU, Israel is no longer permitted to solicit or accept additional funding from Congress. Graham’s take: “I don’t think it’s appropriate to have an agreement which shuts the next president and the next Congress out. I don’t think that it’s appropriate to have an agreement which shuts out me out and my colleagues.” He continued, “at the end of the day, I would tell our friends in Israel: Congress is your friend. Don’t pull the rug from under us.”

Graham is basically furious that Israel is making decisions relating to its own security, which sounds like the very type of right that we would normally hear him passionately defending.

But strangely that is not the full extent of his argument. He went on a tweet storm, which is not something he often does.

[Quick note: The other primary component of the MOU angering Graham is that Israel will no longer be permitted to appropriate US aid money to its own defense industry and will have to funnel that money back into American-made weapons.]

He seems to be upset not just that Israel will lack the agency to do anything it wants with the funding, but rather that the U.S. is going to be missing out on “Israeli advancements” that help to protect “Americans wearing the uniform of our nation.”

Think about that. The U.S. can still work with Israel, fund their military programs, and procure new technology and innovations stemming from Israel. But Graham is upset that this agreement ends the prior arrangement allowing Israel to spend part of the aid purchasing directly from Israeli companies (which would directly benefit the U.S. due to the required information sharing stipulated by the previous agreement).

What does this say about Graham, who is rarely met a conflict he did not think could be solved with American boots on the ground, and his trust in the American military program? He seems to literally be saying the only way America can protect our troops is through Israeli innovation.

Israel has pioneered numerous military advancements that the U.S. is smart to utilize. But let’s not pretend that the U.S. has not done well in this category itself.

If this analysis sounds hyperbolic, I refer you back to his final tweet: “I do fear it will be Americans wearing the uniform of our nation who will pay the price for this short-sighted change in policy.”

Could the deal have been better for Israel?

Chemi Shalev does an excellent job in Haaretz of laying out how this deal could have better negotiated by an Israel ally who had not spent the last eight years undermining his American counterpart. It is worth a read.

Follow me on Twitter @jlemonsk.

The post Unexpected Responses to a Massive Aid Program appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“A woman of firsts,”is perhaps only a summary description of Dame Margaret Anstee, the first woman to serve as a United Nations Under-Secretary-General.

Libyan militia watch over explosives and shells left behind by Islamic State soldiers in the battle over the city of Surt, Libya on Sept. 9, 2016. The Islamic State is believed to have been driven out of Surt, a strategically-placed coastal city. (REUTERS/Stringer)

Many inside and outside of Libya had hoped that the overthrow of dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011 would herald a new era of stable and open government. Yet the five years since have been dominated by civil war and power struggles. Multiple governments claim authority, no one really knows who is in charge, and stability remains a long-off goal, not even close to a reality. Recent hostilities indicate how violence and uncertainty remain the norm.

The Islamic State has maintained a presence in Libya for some time. But in August 2016 some progress was made to reduce their influence. A Libyan militia, under the auspices of the UN-backed government in Tripoli (presumably- more on this in a moment) and with American air support, took control of the coastal city of Surt (written in some sources as Sitre).

But the victory may be short-lived. The militia who took the city came from the city of Misurata. According to Rod Nordland and Nour Youssef of the New York Times, they are only “nominally” affiliated with the Government of National Accord (GNA), a newly formed body created with the support of the UN and recently acquiring backing from the Arab League and African Union. It is, worryingly, unclear whether the Misurata militia will continue to take orders from the GNA. A Libyan military official, Ahmed ed-Mesmari, stated that “We don’t think anyone can control these forces. They are anarchists and extremists…They would be very hard to tame.”

Despite the involvement of international organizations, the GNA has several challengers who claim to be Libya’s legitimate government:

• The government of the city of Bayda, which has its own parliament; it previously had some international allies but now relies on Egypt and Persian Gulf nations for support; suspicious of the loyalty of Misurata militias, and upset that the UN chose to back the GNA.
• Military forces controlled by General Khalifa Hifter; based in Benghazi, Hifter is considered the most powerful military figure in Libya and commander of the Libyan National Army, however he claims political recognition separate from the GNA.
• An Islamist militia group in Tripoli also has its own parliament and also refuses to legitimize the GNA.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Mesmari estimates there are up to 40 militias and gangs in Tripoli with constantly shifting allegiances. Further complicating matters, these groups are not just fighting for political power, but control of and access to Libya’s extensive oil reserves. Needless to say, the political and military situations in Libya are quite murky and ever-evolving.

The importance of oil in the power struggle became clear on September 11, 2016 when militia loyal Gen. Hifter attacked three major oil terminals. This July a three year embargo on oil exports from Libya, but this aggressive maneuver as well as political infighting and economic decline have put the country’s ability to capitalize on its oil in serious jeopardy.

However, some hope to restoring order and commerce emerged on September 18—one week after the seizure by Hifter’s forces—Eastern Libyan troops reclaimed two of the ports and expected normal operations to resume the next day. In fact an oil tanker was docked at one of the ports, the first ship to do so in Libya in the last two years. Libya’s national oil company expected its exports to reach 600,000 barrels per day one month from now, and 950,000 barrels per day by the end of the year.

Also on Sept. 18 the Misurata militia continued their campaign against Islamic State forces in Surt. The militia has been scouring the city neighborhood by neighborhood to root out enemy fighters. However, a spokesman for the militia acknowledges that some enemy soldiers may have escaped and are still at large.

While the support of international organizations to stabilize Libya could make worthy contributions, the driving force for consolidating power in a national body of government recognized by all Libyans must come from Libya. Despite the multitude of factions and tribes and political groups, continuing with a fragmented system is not sustainable. Leaders of these disparate groups must find a way to reach a workable agreement, perhaps a power-sharing arrangement that includes all major claimants to begin with.

Without commitment to reaching some acceptable compromise, stability in Libya will remain a long-off goal rather than a viable reality.

The post Stability in Libya Remains in Doubt appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Du Forum économique de Davos à la Silicon Valley en passant par les assemblées du mouvement Nuit debout en France, le revenu de base est sur toutes les lèvres depuis quelques mois. Mais, entre l'utopie émancipatrice que portent certains et la réforme limitée que veulent les autres, il y a un monde… / (...) / Europe, France, Capitalisme, Économie, État, Finance, Fiscalité, Inégalités, Parti politique, Pauvreté, Protection sociale, Travail, Chômage, Mouvement de libération - 2016/07

The latest round of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan threatens to add the 19th South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit, scheduled to be held in Islamabad, Pakistan, in November 2016, to the long list of failed attempts at cooperation in South Asia.

But there are enough signals suggesting that reasons apart from the historical animosity between the two nations are now pulling SAARC apart.

The Raging Fire

The Association, often accused as a stillborn by its various critics because of the lack of appreciable progress towards stitching together a South Asian Union (à la European Union) by means of trade, diplomacy, and infrastructure, has always been an unfortunate recipient of the tensions between its largest two member nations.

The current round of hostility between the two nuclear-armed neighbours began with the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) terrorist Burhan Wani by the Indian army in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).

The 21-year-old militant was a ‘self-proclaimed commander’ of HM, designated as a terrorist organisation by India, the European Union, and the U.S. He was the poster boy for anti-India people and groups in the Kashmir valley of J&K, and openly defied and challenged the Indian state for war, via social media.

Wani’s killing led to widespread protests in the Indian Kashmir. Adding to the temperature was Pakistan’s open and steadfast support to the slain terrorist. Prime Minister of Pakistan Mr. Nawaz Sharif “expressed shock” at the killing of Wani, and called him ‘martyr’ and a ‘Kashmiri leader’. Pakistan even observed a ‘black day’ on July 19 in solidarity with the victims of violence in Kashmir.

India, predictably, responded quickly and sharply, asking Pakistan to stop “glorifying terrorists”, saying that it makes it abundantly clear where Pakistan’s sympathies lie.

But neither Pakistan’s official support nor the angry protests in India’s Kashmir valley saw any abating even after a month of Wani’s killing. For weeks, the belligerent crowd made up of angry local youth pelted stones at Indian security forces. In response, the men in uniform used pellet guns, causing over 50 deaths and countless injuries among the protestors.

At the same time more than 3,300 security personnel were injured, many seriously, in about 1000 incidents of violence. A few of them later succumbed to the injuries.

As a result, the entire Indian Kashmir valley region was put under curfew for over 50 days in the July-August period. After lifting it for a couple of days, curfew was re-imposed on many parts at the time of writing this report because of further violence.

India continuously accused Pakistan of fanning the trouble by sending financial, logistical, political, and armed support to the protesting crowds.

With Pakistan going all out to support the violent protestors, India, for the first time ever in its history, chose to officially respond in kind to Pakistan’s long-running commentary on the issue of self-right of Kashmiri people in India.

Addressing the nation on its Independence Day on August 15, India’s Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi mentioned the support and good wishes of people of Pakistan’s largest province Balochistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) areas of Kashmir. Balochistan, it may be noted, is home to many political and extremist groups that is demanding independence from Pakistan.

Pakistan was quick to call Mr. Modi’s speech as the vindication of its charges of an Indian hand in the violence in the restive province of Balochistan.

Both India and Pakistan have since upped the ante.

The Indian government approved a proposal to air programs in Balochi and Sindhi (the primary language of Pakistan’s second biggest province, Sindh, where, again, some groups demand an independent Sindhu Desh) via its official radio service.

Taking the clue, the Indian media is currently flush with news about and views from Balochi rebels sitting in the UK and elsewhere. Talks of political asylum to leaders fighting the ‘Balochistan Independence’ battle with Pakistan—in line with that to the Tibetan spiritual guru HH Dalai Lama—are heard with increased frequency in news outlets.

Beyond the talk, the Indian government also approved Rs. 2,000 Crore ($ 300 million) package for displaced people of Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan and PoK regions living in the country. 36,348 such families have been identified for distribution of the package.

To counter India’s communication blitzkrieg, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on August 27 nominated 22 parliamentarians as special envoys who will ‘highlight the Indian brutalities and human rights abuses in the occupied Kashmir’ in key parts of the world.

And there stands currently the ‘peacetime scenario’ in South Asia.

Can it change in the next 60 days for a fruitful SAARC summit in Islamabad? Well, 69 years of history doesn’t suggest it.

Note: This piece was written prior to a deadly terror attack on an Indian military facility on September 18, which killed 17 Indian army personnel. All the four killed terrorists belonged to the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad terror group.

To be continued…

The post The Tattered Mirage of a South Asian Union is Dying Fast – Pt. 1 appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

credit: http://en.alalam.ir

The global growth of social media has been so fast, and the effect of ‘trending’ so widespread, that even this observation is outdated. (That was 137 characters, so I could also tweet it.) But while we are living in real-time—and wanting to know now—let us take a few minutes, if this article can hold your attention, and examine some ways social media is now on the front lines of many international conflicts.

In a recent PBS Newshour interview, Nick Rasmussen, of the National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC) just outside Washington DC, explained how, in the context of searching for a terrorist threat, “increasingly what ‘connecting the dots’ means to me is dealing with the huge volume of publicly available information. The work we’re doing now often doesn’t involve really sensitive intelligence; it involves looking at Twitter, or some other social media platform, and trying to figure out who that individual is behind the screen name.”

Social media started out as a technological innovation but has become a social phenomenon. Since the early 2000s Facebook has become indispensable for families and friends to stay in touch, and people and organizations with large numbers of Twitter followers are able to carve out virtual mini-media empires. Clicks and ‘follows’ are the new version of voting with your feet. The more readers or followers one has, goes the logic, the more influence one wields.

To turn it around, people who actively use social media for every day, non-political reasons are also subject to being targeted.

One of the vulnerabilities (or advantages, to a combatant wishing to recruit people) is that social media accounts usually expose users to invasive scrutiny. Facebook and LinkedIn profiles can carry enough information that, shared with the wrong person, can be used to compromise that person or uncover confidential information about his/her job. Many countries’ military members are now routinely required to not specify their location or activities.

As the years passed of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, jihadi groups increasingly began to recruit through social media. Stories now abound of young adults of Middle Eastern heritage and origin, living in western Europe and the US, who have been contacted by Islamic State through social media and convinced to move to Raqqa, the Islamic State’s purported capital. Some 60 young women from the UK, aged 20 and below, are thought in the past several years to have traveled to Raqqa.

The huge growth in cell phone cameras and the ease of posting pictures to social media has also played a role in tracking and finding various targets. Of recent note, investigative organizations were able to track operatives and military equipment in eastern Ukraine primarily through personal pictures posted to social media and publically available imaging, including open source tracking of the apparent missile launcher used to destroy Malaysian Airlines flight 17 in 2014. This has also been a method to discover the location of various actors in the labyrinthine war in Syria.

Per the previously mentioned PBS Newshour article, many Islamic State fighters simply do not disable the geo-location feature on their phones, which allows those with the right technology to track them.

Intelligence agencies of major world powers now seem to appreciate the importance of social media and its role in ‘information operations,’ a military term that infers the ability of messaging to affect the viewpoints of a target population. Just looking through listings for ‘intelligence analyst’ on several Washington DC—based job boards, foreign language specialists are widely sought for social media and social networking positions.

Of course, it is not only parties to the worlds’ trouble regions that are looking to abuse social media to their advantage. For even a longer time, social engineers and hackers have tried to gather personal information by establishing links online.

If you are uncertain about that LinkedIn invitation you just got, try to verify the person through a known contact. If you are doubtful, ‘ignore’ or ‘delete’ works just fine. If he or she happens to be a colleague whom you meet at the next social, you can safely add them, and actually have a face-to-face conversation, something social media, unfortunately, seems to increasingly discourage.

The post Social Media Now on Conflicts’ Front Lines appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Découvrez la recension qui ouvre le dossier Lectures du numéro d’automne de Politique étrangère (n°3/2016). Jean Klein propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Justin Vaïsse, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Stratège de l’empire (Paris, Odile Jacob, 2015, 424 pages).

Ce livre procède d’une thèse d’habilitation à diriger des recherches et se présente comme un modèle de biographie politique. L’auteur a eu la bonne fortune de rencontrer Zbigniew Brzezinski à l’époque où il était directeur de recherche à la Brookings Institution de Washington, de 2007 à 2013. Les relations étroites qu’il a nouées avec lui et la possibilité d’accéder à ses archives personnelles l’ont incité à concrétiser son projet : mettre en évidence le rôle des personnalités universitaires qui ont incarné le renouvellement intellectuel, sociologique et politique de la diplomatie américaine pendant la guerre froide, et supplanté dans une certaine mesure les membres de l’establishment traditionnel.

Dans cette nouvelle élite, Henry Kissinger avait retenu l’attention par ses travaux sur les stratégies nucléaires dans le cadre du Center for International Affairs de Harvard, avant de devenir conseiller pour les affaires de sécurité de Richard Nixon, puis secrétaire d’État dans l’administration Ford. Son collègue Brzezinski, fils d’émigrés polonais, s’était imposé de son côté comme un analyste rigoureux du système soviétique, et se souciait également de peser sur les décisions de son pays d’adoption, notamment dans le domaine des relations Est-Ouest. Ainsi plaidera-t-il avec constance en faveur d’une « politique d’engagement pacifique » dont l’objectif était de créer les conditions d’un relâchement du contrôle de l’URSS sur les pays satellites et de favoriser ainsi leur émancipation à terme.

Mais Brzezinski ne s’est pas cantonné dans la défense d’une politique tendant à la libération des nations captives d’Europe centrale et orientale. Tout au long de sa carrière, il a nourri des ambitions plus vastes, et s’est attaché à l’élaboration d’une stratégie globale dont la visée était la préservation de la position dominante des États-Unis sur « le grand échiquier » du monde. À cet égard, le titre de « stratège de l’empire » que lui attribue Justin Vaïsse est parfaitement justifié. Il reste à se demander si Brzezinski a su faire prévaloir ses vues auprès des décideurs dont il était proche, et si sa vision d’un ordre mondial placé sous le double signe d’un « humanisme planétaire » et du « réalisme de la puissance » se reflète dans la politique menée par le président Carter à l’époque où il était son conseiller pour les affaires de sécurité.

Pour répondre à ces questions, le livre de Justin Vaïsse est une source d’informations irremplaçable. L’auteur retrace avec minutie le parcours universitaire et politique de Brzezinski, et brosse de lui un portrait qui éclaire les multiples aspects de sa personnalité. Ainsi, son anticommunisme plonge ses racines dans le souvenir des épreuves subies par sa patrie pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, et ne pouvait que se perpétuer après l’assujettissement de la Pologne au pouvoir soviétique. Toutefois, ses préventions contre l’URSS et son appartenance au camp des « faucons » selon la terminologie de l’époque, ne l’ont pas détourné d’une approche pragmatique, dès lors qu’il s’agissait de pratiquer la coexistence pacifique avec l’adversaire idéologique et d’exploiter les ressources de la diplomatie pour mettre un terme à la guerre froide.

Enfin, Justin Vaïsse s’attache à donner une vue d’ensemble des contributions scientifiques de Brzezinski à l’analyse des relations internationales, et décrit les fluctuations de ses engagements politiques, en mettant l’accent sur le rôle qu’il a joué dans l’élaboration de la politique étrangère américaine. En conclusion il estime que le bilan de son action est positif, tout en prenant ses distances par rapport à certaines de ses initiatives et en ne dissimulant pas les controverses qu’elles ont suscitées dans les milieux intellectuels et politiques, aussi bien aux États-Unis que chez leurs alliés.

Si l’on se préoccupe de l’avenir des relations entre l’Europe et la Russie, on ne saurait ignorer les recommandations que Brzezinski formule dans son livre Le Grand Échiquier pour consolider « la victoire des États-Unis dans la guerre froide », et leur conférer une position dominante dans la zone eurasiatique, qualifiée jadis de « cœur du monde » par le géopoliticien Halford Mackinder. Il est clair que l’application d’un tel modèle ne serait pas de nature à faciliter la gestion de la crise ukrainienne et risquerait de compromettre l’instauration d’un nouvel ordre de sécurité sur le continent européen. C’est dire l’actualité du livre de Justin Vaïsse, dont on ne saurait trop recommander la lecture.

Jean Klein

S’abonner à Politique étrangère.

With more people forced to flee their homes than at any time since World War II, world leaders came together at the United Nations today to adopt the New York Declaration, which expresses their political will to protect the rights of refugees and migrants, to save lives and share responsibility for large movements on a global scale.

Expressing disappointment that humanitarian actors have not been able to reach eastern Aleppo in Syria, the United Nations humanitarian chief urged all parties to the conflict to facilitate regular and sustained access to the besieged and hard-to-reach areas across the country.

The United Nations nuclear energy agency has begun constructing a new laboratory that will enable it to better help countries use nuclear techniques, such as application of irradiation to sterilize insects, in the fight against pests, including mosquitoes that spread the Zika virus and other diseases.

(Own report) - The German Bundeswehr's concrete role in the widely criticized air attacks carried out by the anti-IS coalition and its members has not become clear, even after the coalition's air strikes on Syrian government forces near Deir al-Zor. The Bundeswehr is supporting air strikes on IS/DAESH not only by furnishing in-flight refueling - already more than 1,100 times - but also by supplying intelligence information. This information is passed on to all coalition members through the "information space" in the anti-IS coalition's Combined Air and Space Operations Center at the Al Udeid Air Base (Qatar), where several Bundeswehr officers are stationed. Observers assume that some of this intelligence, for example, can be used also by Turkey to prepare its operations against Kurdish units in Northern Syria. It is not clear, whether this data has played a role also in preparing attacks, resulting in civilian casualties, such as the anti-IS coalition's air strikes on Manbij in mid-July, wherein more than 100 people were killed. Last June, the Bundeswehr declared that it had already evaluated more than 11,000 reconnaissance photos and passed them on to its allies fighting the war against IS.

A greater place for science in international decision-making is essential to making real the blueprint for ending extreme poverty and averting the threat of runaway climate change set out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today.

Si la guerre a son droit et ses règles, la cyberguerre n'a pas de contours définis. Se pose alors la question : comment réguler un affrontement dont on peine à identifier les protagonistes, et qui se déroule sur un terrain civil, Internet ? / Géorgie, Iran, Israël, Russie, Armée, Conflit, Défense, (...) / Géorgie, Iran, Israël, Russie, Armée, Conflit, Défense, Droit international, État, Informatique, Sécurité, Internet, Mutation, Nucléaire civil, Relations internationales, Technologies de l'information, Infoguerre, Société civile - 2016/04