Category archive

Defence - page 10

Eu, immigration crisis: more funding to Triton operation

Defence/Europe di

European Council decided to triple Triton operation funding. But Northern countries, like Great Britain, have denied to accept asylum seekers.

€120m to support Triton and Poseidon operations. European Council have decided to increase funds to Mare Nostrum level on 23rd April. A choice which satisfied in half Italy because James Cameron, Angela Merkel and Francoise Hollande, in the previous summit, will render army assistance but will not receive asylum seekers. The Northern Europe leader have asserted that there is no common immigrant policy.

About a possible military operation in Libya, Merkel said it could based only on international law and United Nations resolutions. While European Council President Donald Tusk said leaders had asked EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini “to propose actions in order to capture and destroy the smugglers’ vessels before they can be used”.

After more than 800 died last Sunday ad several migrants who arrived to Italy from Libya, Europe lost the opportunity of a common immigration policy. Northern and Southern nations have different point of views.

Even about Mare Nostrum operation, ended last October, received different opinions. For some Eu members it was too expensive and stimulated more immigration. But Human Rights groups and Italian point of view are not in agreement because new Triton plan is “contributing to a dramatic increase in migrant and refugee deaths”.


Giacomo Pratali


Libya, immigration emergency: waiting for Eu solution

Defence/Europe/Middle East - Africa di

More than 21000 migrants could reach Italy in 2015, after more 1700 died this year. So Eu leaders will have a summit today to hold this humanitarian emergency. As Eu Foreign Ministers have already discussed last Monday, it’s necessary an european way to create “a possible security and defence policy operation to this effect, in accordance with international law”, Eu foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said.




Today European Council is working on 10 points plan. More financial resources and extension from Frontex to Triton’s operation area. Fingerprinting of all migrants and immediately deportation for all irregulars. Checking and peace keeping operation in countries bordering on Libyan. Deploying teams for processing of asylum applications. People allocation between European countries.


Furthermore, it’ll be told about a military operation in Tripoli’s harbours, where migrant boats depart to reach Italy. But Tripoli government, “irregular” on International Community point of view, has not accepted this armied solution. The “probably next agreement between two Libyan governments”, how Special Representative of Un Support Mission in Libya Bernardino Leon reported few days ago, could stop if Eu bombed Libyan coasts.



Giacomo Pratali



Nato, the Annual Cmx on the Libyan and Ukrainian backgrounds

Defence di

North Atlantic Council announced the Annual Crisis Management Exercise. The test will involve civilian and military staffs and will concern maritime security. Allies and other States will partecipate in drill.

Annual Crisis Management Exercise (Cmx15) will happen from 4th to 10th March 2015. Ambassadors on the North Atlantic Council (Nac) made this decision imagining a crisis between two non-Nato state at distance from Alliance territory. Test will occur in a ficticious scenario e will involve “civilian and military staffs in Allied capitals, at Nato headquarters and in both Operations and Transformation Strategic Commands. It contains a humanitarian and maritime dimension, with implications for the security of the Allies”, said North Atlantic public notice.

Allies rather than Australia, Finland, Japan, Sweden and Ukraine will take part in drill, while Georgia, New Zealand and South Korea will observe the exercise. The Eu and Un will exchange informations during the test.

This is the 19th Cmx since 1992. The maritime security could be related to Libyan crisis, especially after Stoltenberg’s reassumance to Italian Prime Minister Renzi to support Italy. Whereas the humanitarian aspect could be reffered to escalation of violence in Ukraine, where is growing a new hot “Cold War” between Usa and Russia.

Giacomo Pratali


Risk and Climate change

Defence/Policy di

Climate change is becoming a daily topic of discussion. What is notable is the importance that it has acquired in political debates and academic talks. First of all, is not a new that climate is changing. The new is how fast it is happening and, due to interconnections and interactions between societies and economies, how it is affecting entire regions, how its implications are spreading throughout the planet. What makes it so dangerous is the proportion of changes in time. We live in an incredible age of prosperity, opportunities and global growth that, despite the economic and financial crisis is with no doubts the biggest ever (in terms of quality, quantity, distribution, technology and assets). All this – that is as well bad connected and distributed – is a sign of how much every aspect of our live is dependent from another in terms of space and time.

Studies affirm that in the last thirty years global warming rose much more, in comparison, than in the last 1400 years and in this period the biggest impact of pollution on temperature has been detected in the last 30 years. Researchers agree in defining climate change as a threats multiplier, an accelerant of instability and, most important, an influential ingredient able to exacerbate tension and make conflicts more likely. By acting directly on human essentials needs, it poses new concerns due to his intrinsic ability to stress society, economy, security and infrastructures.

We can divide the risks in two categories. A first risk is the direct one, meaning with this the classic and unfortunately continuous phenomenon like storms, extreme rainfalls, droughts, hurricanes, that have a direct impact on cities for example, causing direct damages to infrastructures. The other one is the indirect risk, the secondary one, or the so called collateral damage we may say. Not for this less dangerous than the first one. This type of risk is a dangerous and worrying one because of one main reason:  the more we rely upon technology, infrastructures and services of different nature to satisfy our needs, the more we have to be concerned of those threats that are able to undermine our security and protect assets and infrastructures. The reason why this two risks can be considered different and at the same time interconnected and dependent one from another is because of the interconnections between economies: society is now a vital asset itself. The interconnection in trade, transport of goods, people, informations as well as the financial system is the key element of our century and will be greater and greater in the next future. This considered, we can assume that a risk can spread its effects out its physical borders, being not more confined to national boundaries or local interest. Given that this has surely dangerous impacts, the point we all have to agree upon is on how much risk we decide to take; considering the inevitability of climate effects on the environment and societies and the absence of a zero risk policy we shall act differently in short time, medium time and long time by taking  necessary measures on the ground of what estimates say and how we want our future planet and lives to look like in the next future. This policies cannot be pushed back to a “to be defined” date.

The wisest decision is the one that is focused on cooperation and, of course, taking in consideration that there are changes that cannot be stopped, other can be measures and therefore faced with policies of sustainability, territory development and enhancement should be a priority. What is sure is that we shall respond to this changes, military shall and politicians too. One of the consequence experts consider to be likely is the increasing role of the army in society. What we are going to face (not to be pessimistic) is an increase of instability around the world both national and international that had to be summed with changes in society needs, economic crisis (or fluctuation), spread of globalization etc. In a world so interconnected, in which distant regions are influenced by different changes in politics, environmental disasters, economic stresses and conflicts, respond by taking a conservative policy is far from being the correct solution. Experts think that policies to mitigate or face this threats can still be set up. Build resilience measure is an important action against such change, also because it helps build cooperation between countries. In his study Mabey sustains that a large scale adaptation measure is needed even with aggressive measures, because climate has its own recovery time. Other studies affirm that even with the most aggressive mitigation measures and the stop of air pollution our planet will take decades to recovery. A scenario that is not exactly so reassuring. Mabey continues saying that some mitigation policies shall be considered as temperature rises and explains that mitigation scenarios diverges radically with different lower emissions policies. He continues affirming that a risk mitigation scenario should be considered for a rising in temperature of two degrees and, for every level he suggests defensive adaptation policies and mitigation. There is an interesting connection that this data shows between climate policies and government failure that has a strong value. Due to the impacts that climate will have on societies, the way government will figure out responsible policies will also be able to determine their degree of competition and, in the worst case, survival or collapse. The difference between successful or failed climate mitigation policies, in those nation where there are weak institutions will make the difference. Although his call to stay below the 2°C has been already crossed, he proposes three different approaches to the problem: despite the aim to stay below the rise of 2°C and set mitigation goals (for a rise that can be in this case manageable) and resilient regimes and policies with independent national assessments and frameworks, he considers the possibility of a further increase between 2°C and 4°C suggesting to adopt adaptation strategies for greater and several events (also interconnected), improve humanitarian intervention and international resource management framework. The last one is the worst, the case in which temperature will rise up to 7°C: the contingency plan will have to provide a framework planning for crash mitigation.

What we said about Mabey’s risk mitigation theory is, although sharable, an appropriate tool that can serve the investigation of those policies that will be surely common in the next future and are, indeed, an important point of discussion and friction between nations.

1 8 9 10
Francesco Danzi
Vai a Inizio
× Contattaci!