Connect with us

Politics

US to pull about 12,000 troops from Germany, half to stay in Europe

Published

on

US to pull about 12000 troops
US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper

The US says it will withdraw about 12,000 of its troops from Germany and place them in other European countries to counter Russia.

Unveiled on Wednesday by US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper speaking from Pentagon, the plan has provoking bipartisan opposition in Congress and widespread dismay among other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

According to Esper, the number of US troops in Germany would be reduced by around 11,900, from some 36,000 to 24,000, which is even more than the 9,500 announced last month.

This comes as critics maintain that the plan will cost billions of dollars for the US and will weaken the country’s position in Europe vis a vis Russia. 

US to pull about 12000 troops

“The plan outlined by the administration today to remove thousands of US troops from Germany is a grave error,” US Republican Senator Mitt Romney said in a statement on Wednesday. 

“It is a slap in the face at a friend and ally when we should instead be drawing closer in our mutual commitment to deter Russian and Chinese aggression,” he added. 

Meanwhile, Norbert Roettgen, chairman of the German parliament’s foreign affairs committee and an ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, warned on Wednesday that Trump’s plan “will weaken the (NATO) alliance.”

However, US President Donald Trump defended the move, calling it as a punishment for Germany over failing to meet NATO’s defense spending target.

“We spend a lot of money on Germany, they take advantage of us on trade and they take advantage on the military, so we’re reducing the force,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday. 

“They’re there to protect Europe, they’re there to protect Germany, and Germany is supposed to pay for it,” he added. “We don’t want to be responsible anymore.”

The move is the latest twist in relations between Berlin and Washington, which have been strained since Trump announced his plan for withdrawal last month.

From the beginning of his presidency, Trump has pressed Germany to raise NATO spending and accused Berlin of being a “captive” of Russia due to its energy reliance.

About 17,000 US civilian employees support US troops in Germany. It is believed Washington also has nuclear warheads there.

Since World War II, the US military has considered Germany to be one of its most strategic locations overseas, and it serves as a critical logistics hub for troop movements.

US to pull about 12000 troops

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

US spy agencies identify suspected undeclared nuclear site near Saudi capital: Report

Published

on

nuclear site near Saudi capital
An image taken May 27 showing, top right, two square buildings that some analysts think could be a Saudi nuclear facility. It is located near the Solar Village, bottom left. (Photo by Maxar Technologies/Google Earth)

American intelligence agencies have reportedly spotted what appears to be an undeclared nuclear site near Saudi Arabia’s capital city of Riyadh, scrutinizing attempts by the kingdom to process uranium and move toward the development of atomic bombs.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the agencies had in recent weeks circulated a classified analysis about Saudi attempts to build up its ability to produce nuclear fuel that could potentially lead to the development of nuclear weapons.

The study shows “a newly completed structure near a solar-panel production area near Riyadh, the Saudi capital, that some government analysts and outside experts suspect could be one of a number of undeclared nuclear sites,” the report said.

The site is situated in a secluded desert area not too far from the Saudi town of al-Uyaynah, located 30 kilometers northwest of Riyadh, and its Solar Village.

“The analysis has raised alarms that there might be secret Saudi-Chinese efforts to process raw uranium into a form that could later be enriched into weapons fuel, according to American officials,” the report added.

A day earlier, an article in The Wall Street Journal said that Western officials were concerned about a desert site in northwestern Saudi Arabia just south of the town of al-Ula.

It was part of a program with the Chinese to extract uranium yellowcake from uranium ore, according to the article.

Frank Pabian, a former satellite image analyst at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, said the desert site appears to be a small mill for turning uranium ore into yellowcake as it has a checkpoint, high security fences, a large building about 150 feet on a side and ponds for the collection of uranium waste.

Last week, the US House Intelligence Committee included a provision in the intelligence budget authorization bill requiring the administration to submit a report about Saudi efforts since 2015 to develop a nuclear program.

The provision obliged the US government to include in its report an assessment of “the state of nuclear cooperation between Saudi Arabia and any other country other than the United States, such as the People’s Republic of China or the Russian Federation.”

The US State Department has not commented on the reported intelligence findings.

The US opposes “the spread of enrichment and reprocessing” and attaches “great importance” to continued compliance by the Saudis to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), it said in a statement to the New York Times.

The State Department also urged Riyadh to conclude an agreement with Washington “with strong nonproliferation protections that will enable Saudi and US nuclear industries to cooperate.”

Last year, a document, titled “Updates on Saudi National Atomic Energy Project” and posted by the Vienne-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), detailed a plan for building nuclear reactors as well as fueling them through the “localization” of uranium production.

The kingdom was looking for uranium deposits in more than 10,000 square miles of its territory and had teamed up with Jordan to make yellowcake, according to the report.

“The IAEA is unhappy with Saudi Arabia because they refuse to communicate about their existing program and where it is going,” said Robert Kelley, a former inspector for the UN nuclear watchdog.

Saudi Arabia’s attempts to speed up its nuclear and missile projects have raised fears that it aims to acquire nuclear weapons. Observers believe that a nuclear Saudi Arabia — where warmongers are currently at the helm — could pose a serious security threat to the Middle East region.

Riyadh has so far turned a deaf ear to calls by the IAEA to implement proportionate safeguards and an inspection regime that would prevent possible deviation towards nukes.

In March 2018, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said Riyadh would quickly go for nuclear bomb Iran does so.

Iran has repeatedly enunciated its nuclear program as exclusively civilian, subject to the most intensive UN supervisions ever.

Tehran signed a nuclear agreement with six world countries, which forged close cooperation between Iran and the IAEA, but the US severely undermined the pact by abandoning it in May 2018.

nuclear site near Saudi capital

Continue Reading

Politics

Amnesty International condemns excessive use of force by US police against protesters

Published

on

Amnesty International condemns
Courtesy: ABC News

A prominent human rights organization has condemned the excessive use of force by the US police against demonstrators protesting racial injustice.

Amnesty International USA released a report on Tuesday documenting over 120 separate incidents of police violence against protesters, medics, journalists and legal observers in more than 40 states during May and June protests. 

Many observers maintain that the report, “The World is Watching: Mass Violations by US Police of Black Lives Matter Protesters’ Rights”, is the most comprehensive human rights analysis of police violence so far.

The researchers of the AIUSA have conducted more than 50 interviews over several weeks in June 2020, highlighting people’s experiences in the context of the protests.

Amnesty International condemns excessive use of force by US police

“The unnecessary and sometimes excessive use of force by police against protesters exhibits the very systemic racism and impunity they had taken to the streets to protest. The research shows that people who were simply exercising their human right to peacefully protest were met with such violence that they lost eyesight, survived brutal beatings, and suffered seizures and severe wounds,” said Ernest Coverson, AIUSA’s End Gun Violence campaign manager. 

“The Trump administration is now doubling down on military-style crackdowns against protesters, with Attorney General William Barr’s egregious defense of the use of federal troops in Portland and threats to deploy more agents to other cities. President Trump’s actions represent a slippery slope toward authoritarianism and must immediately stop. We need the country’s approach to the policing of protests to be changed from the ground up at the local, state, and federal levels,” said Justin Mazzola, a researcher at AIUSA.

The report comes as the US Attorney’s office in Portland announced on Tuesday that it has produced no evidence linking dozens who have been arrested in anti-racism protests to the antifa or anarchist movements.

“We have not alleged defendant affiliation with any specific groups or ideologies in our cases stemming from recent Portland protests,” said Kevin Sonoff, the spokesman for the US Attorney’s office. “Our cases focus purely on the criminal conduct alleged.”

US President Donald Trump and other officials, however, have repeatedly applied these labels to the Portland protesters.

“I think there are anarchists and far-left groups involved in the violence in Portland,” Attorney General William Barr said in testimony before Congress last week. “I think antifa is involved in Portland.”

Meanwhile, the US Congress announced on Tuesday that it has launched an investigation into the activities of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over its involvement in the crackdown on anti-racism protesters following reports of misuse and abuse of power. 

The US cities, including Portland, had seen more than two months of violent protests following the brutal murder of unarmed African American George Floyd during a May 25 arrest in Minneapolis.

In early July, Trump sent the federal agents to Portland to protect the federal courthouse, but, according to the local officials, their presence made things worse. Last week the federal agents pulled back.

Amnesty International condemns excessive use of force by US police

Continue Reading

Politics

Alleged war crimes by British Special Forces in Afghanistan set to have major repercussions

Published

on

Alleged war crimes by British
Members of the Special Air Service (pictured) and its sister unit, the Special Boat Service, were active in Afghanistan during the British military presence in the war-torn country

New evidence has come to light that British Special Forces in Afghanistan routinely committed war crimes by shooting dead unarmed civilians.

The fresh material follows an investigation by BBC Panorama which focuses on the concerns of the Special Forces top brass that the units under their command were routinely killing unarmed men and women as part of their operations.

At their height, the operations, dubbed the “night raids”, occurred on a virtually nightly basis and were ostensibly targeted at senior echelons of the Taliban militant movement.  

The new documents – held by the courts – were recently released to the solicitors Leigh Day as part of an active case at the High Court, which is set to rule on whether allegations of unlawful killing by British Special Forces were originally investigated properly.

The original complainant in the case is Afghan national, Saifullah Ghareb Yar, who claims four members of his family were “assassinated” by UK Special Forces in the early hours of February 16, 2011.

The case is of seminal importance especially in the light of the British government’s consistent refusal to properly investigate alleged war crimes committed by British troops – both regular and Special Forces – in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The situation has deteriorated to the point that the International Criminal Court (ICC) intervened back in November 2019 by stating its willingness to investigate the British military for the first time.

The ICC’s intervention has been widely interpreted as a major embarrassment to the British government and military alike.  

Alleged war crimes by British

Continue Reading

Trending