The Combat Responsibility of Libya Mission to NATO..[ 2226 ]

U.S. Shifts Combat Responsibility of Libya Mission to NATO as Qaddafi Holds On

April 2: A Libyan rebel collects the charred remains of rebels who were allegedly killed in NATO coalition airstrike overnight, as others inspect the damaged vehicle along the front line near Brega, Libya. NATO said on Saturday that it was investigating Libyan rebel reports that a coalition warplane had struck a rebel position that was firing into the air near the eastern front line of the battle with Qaddafi's forces. (AP)

.

Published  Sunday ,April 03, 2011 / FoxNews.com

-

Two weeks after mostly U.S. missiles and bombs opened an international air assault on Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, America's naval and air forces are withdrawing from combat missions in the country, although its defiant leader still remains in power.

-

Starting Sunday, U.S. aircraft have ceased to fly Libyan strike missions, although NATO's on-scene commander can request them in the days ahead -- but they may have to be approved in Washington.

.

While the Libya mission remains incomplete, the U.S. is fulfilling a pledge to shift the combat burden to other NATO allies, Britain and France.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/02/ease-libya-mission-qaddafi-holds/#ixzz1ITFBCxBc

The IMF and Greece...[ 2225 ]

IMF wants Greece to restructure debt: report

BERLIN | Sat Apr 2, 2011 10:03am EDT
- 

(Reuters) - The International Monetary Fund is privately pushing Greece to restructure its debt soon, a German magazine said Saturday, but the Greek government and the European Commission insisted a restructuring would not be discussed.

Without citing any sources, Der Spiegel reported that the IMF had reversed its previous opposition to the idea of a Greek restructuring and now believed the country's fiscal burden was unsustainable.

It wrote that senior IMF officials were recommending this to European governments because Greece's debt mountain was now roughly one-and-a-half times its annual economic output.
-

Early in March, IMF European Director Antonio Borges told reporters he was "confident that Greek debt is sustainable," adding that the Greeks had made "quite a bit of progress on their banks" as well.

But since the IMF now believes current measures no longer suffice, it would like to see interest rates on Greek sovereign debt lowered, maturities extended or the amount of principal which Greece has to repay cut, Der Spiegel said.
,

European governments and the IMF are jointly contributing to and administering Greece's 110 billion euro ($155 billion) bailout, so a split between them on policy could be damaging to Greece's prospects for recovery.

Greek and European officials have long insisted that Greece can recover without restructuring its debt, and that even discussing a restructuring now would be counter-productive by damaging banks across Europe and causing panic in markets.

-

Greek Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou, speaking to Reuters at a conference in Italy Saturday, responded to the Der Spiegel report by saying: "There is absolutely no chance of a restructuring of Greek debt."

He added, "People (who talk about a restructuring) fail to understand that the costs would much outweigh the benefits."

-

European Commission spokesman Jens Mester said: "All support measures are in place, and there is no reason now to start thinking of this possibility of restructuring Greece's debt."

-

Although the IMF believes Greece should soon begin talks with creditors on a debt restructuring, it is still not willing to call for the move openly out of fear this could increase market pressure on Portugal, Der Spiegel said. Portuguese bond yields have soared in the last several weeks because investors think Lisbon may soon be forced to seek a bailout.

-

(Reporting by Christiaan Hetzner, Renee Maltezou, Valentina Za and Charlie Dunmore; Writing by Andrew Torchia; Editing by Ron Askew)

Related News

• IMF wants Greece to restructure debt - Der Spiegel
  6:52am EDT
• Fitch says Portugal needs bailout while S&P cuts Ireland
  Fri, Apr 1 2011
• Portugal pays heavily to borrow, S&P cuts Ireland
  Fri, Apr 1 2011
• S&P cuts Ireland; Fitch in downgrade threat
  Fri, Apr 1 2011
• Ireland says banks need further 24 billion euros
  Thu, Mar 31 2011

Testing new anti-piracy system [ 2224 ]

Caribbean ship testing new anti-piracy system

AP

April 1, 2011: Private security officers from the International Maritime Security Network company walk to U.S. cargo vessel Horizon Producer for an anti-piracy security demonstration in Puerto Rico.

Published April 01, 2011

| Associated Press

.

There are cameras that capture images clear enough to distinguish between a fishing vessel and a boatload of pirates 10 miles away. There are cascades of water and noxious compounds to repel invaders. And there are shields to withstand a rocket-propelled grenade.

A container ship that steamed into a Puerto Rican port Friday was old by commercial shipping standards but it had the latest in security measures, upgrades that convert it into a floating fortress designed to be impregnable to piracy.

.

The 720-foot Horizon Producer was temporarily outfitted as a training exercise for the crew, a demonstration for officials from Panama and Belize — both with major global shipping registries — and as an informercial for journalists. It also offers a window into the shipping industry's debate about what measures to take amid a surge in pirate attacks.

.

There is no longer a major pirate threat in the Caribbean. But Bill Boyce, the Horizon Producer's captain, said his crew members travel and could find themselves on a ship off East Africa, where the International Maritime Organization says more than 100 crewmen were taken hostage in January alone.

.

"They come on with rocket propelled grenade launchers and AK-47s and all you have is a fire hose," said Boyce, describing conditions on many commercial ships. "You're responsible for 30 people's lives ... and you don't have the tools to really help them. That's a lot of weight on a captain's shoulders."

Which is where International Maritime Security Network, LLC sees a niche. The company, based in Wellsburg, West Virginia, is starting to market its Triton Shield Anti-Piracy System, which it was testing and refining on the Horizon Producer, a 37-year-old steam-powered container ship, on its regular haul from Jacksonville, Florida, to San Juan.

.

The strategy starts with cameras that scan the horizon and give captains time to determine whether an approaching boat is carrying men with fishing equipment or RPG's. That may allow the ship to speed up and evade the pursuers.

If that doesn't work, the system dispatches a "wall of water," from nozzles arrayed along the length of the vessel to prevent pirates from boarding with grappling hooks. A separate system sprays a noxious compound that makes people retch, vomit and pass out.

.

CEO Timothy Nease, who says he doesn't know what's in the compound but insists it's biodegradable. He says no one can withstand either the compound or the water system, spraying at 150 gallons per minute, especially when a ship is running full speed and throwing up a wake.

"The water alone is a big deterrent," Nease said. "That thing grounds you; it's like being waterboarded almost."

If the pirates do manage to get on board, they encounter armed guards, equipped with bullet-resistant body shields and M-4 carbines and perhaps a .50 caliber rifle.

.

"That M-50 up there will blow a pirate boat completely out of the water," Nease said. "They get one warning shot. If they were to penetrate this ... then we would use deadly force. But we would never use serious deadly force unless we were in fear of serious bodily injury or death."

.

And if all that fails, IMSN trains crews how to hunker down in an on-board safe room, known as a citadel, and what do if taken hostage.

The cost varies depending on the size of the vessel and how much of the system a shipping company wants to buy, but it will generally range from $12,000 to nearly $100,000 for just the equipment and installation, Nease said.

.

There are a growing number of companies in the business because of the rash of hijackings, particularly off lawless Somalia, in recent years, said Jeffrey Kline, a retired Navy captain and expert on piracy at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

.

In the past, many captains used makeshift security such as fire hoses to spray water over the stern or concertina wire along sides of the vessel. The use of armed security teams is a major debate in the industry, Kline said by telephone. Some shipping companies are reluctant to use them because guns could increase liability from accidents and escalate the violence with pirates. They are also banned on commercial vessels in some international ports.

.

Still, the firing of warning shots at pirates seems to be having the most success protecting ships. "Two things that deter them are speed and live fire," he said.

.

NASA Image of the day, Mar 31st ....[ 2223 ]

The latest NASA "Image of the Day" image.

Celestial Mountains

.

The Tien Shan mountain range is one of the largest continuous mountain ranges in the world, extending approximately 1,550 miles (2,500 kilometers) roughly east-west across Central Asia. 

 .

This image taken by the Expedition 27 crew aboard the International Space Station provides a view of the central Tien Shan, about 40 miles (64 kilometers) east of where the borders of China, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan meet. 

.

The uplift of the Tien Shan, which means celestial mountains in Chinese, like the Himalayas to the south, results from the ongoing collision between the Eurasian and Indian tectonic plates. 

.

The rugged topography of the range is the result of subsequent erosion by water, wind and, in the highest parts of the range, active glaciers. Two high peaks of the central Tien Shan are identifiable in the image. Xuelian Feng has a summit of 21,414 feet (6,527 meters) above sea level. To the east, the aptly-named Peak 6231 has a summit 6,231 meters, or 20,443 feet, above sea level. 

 

Image Credit: NASA

Πέμπτη, 31 Μάρτιος 2011 7:00:00 πμ

Presentation of the Greek summing Hague...[ 2222 ]

Presentation of the Greek summing Hague

Η Καθημερινή  -  Wednesday, March 30, 2011

 

The political and legal arguments of the Greek side, in which contradicted the positions of the FYROM, dynamically highlighted as relevant sources estimate before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the legal team of Greece in the second round of hearing on Greek summing completed Wednesday in the capital of Holland.


Key points of the arguments against the positions of the other side, developed at the meeting of March 28 (second round HEARING / Skopje presentation) were, according to the same sources, the following:

First: Lack of jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the application of FYROM that closely link the dispute to the name issue, the procedures of NATO and the resulting lack of practical feasibility of the decision.

Second: In terms of substance, no violation by Greece of Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Interim Agreement, since, among other things, was a collective decision, not our country, but the Alliance, based on the criteria for inclusion in it also due to the use of constitutional name in international organizations in terms of Macedonia gave our country the right to object.

Third: Invoking Article 22 of the Interim Agreement, which provides that the provisions of the latter do not conflict with pre-existing rights and obligations of the parties arising from other bilateral agreements and their participation in international organizations

Fourth: In any case, our country had every right, under special circumstances (FYROM unconventional behavior, as irredentist actions, etc.) to oppose the admission to NATO.
The presentation was made by summing Greek teachers - lawyers, Alain Pele, Michael Raisman, James and George Crawford, Abia Saamp. The introduction and the political background of the case put by the representative of Greece, the legal adviser M. Telalian. The representative of Greece, Honorary Ambassador, George Savvaidis completed the Greek presentation summarizing the legal arguments, setting the political situation and providing the Court with the demands of the Greek side on the verdict.

In particular, the Greek argument developed again in the following areas:
-
(A) Mrs Telalian developed that since the signing of the Interim Agreement had become clear that Macedonia would follow a dual approach to circumvent it, namely, phasing in the use of constitutional name in international organizations, and concentration the largest possible number of bilateral recognitions, the sole strategic objective of the de facto establishment of the name choice and undermine the negotiating process for the name, in violation of both the relevant decisions of the Security Council and the Interim Agreement itself.
Mrs. Telalian underlined the weight of the Interim Agreement on the normalization of relations between the two countries and the paramount importance that Greece attaches to a vehicle of friendship and cooperation, rather than another site promotion disputes and problems. This was the main reason why Greece has denounced the Interim Agreement, despite repeated violations by Macedonia and corresponding to that Greek inscriptions / complaints before international bodies.
-
(B) As to the question of jurisdiction of the ICJ, was repeated by Prof. Raisman, that the Court dispute concerns both direct and indirect, to resolve the central issue of the name, which is expressly excluded, under Article 5 paragraph 1 of the Interim Agreement, the Court's jurisdiction. In the event that the court would have done to judge the particular dispute, in fact accept jurisdiction over the aforementioned exception of the issue and, in doing so would undermine the actual content and objectives of the Interim Agreement and even anticipate and the result of ongoing negotiations under UN auspices.
-
(C) As regards Article 22 of the Interim Agreement, made by Professor Crawford, that is not designed to protect the rights of third countries in respect of provisions, but instead is to preserve and not to return to pre-existing rights and commitments of third parties both Contracting Parties to the Interim Agreement (ie, Greece and FYROM). Therefore, the provisions of the Interim Agreement, especially Article 11, are bent when it comes to respecting the criteria, conditions and obligations which must meet a state to join NATO.
Then, o Prof. Crawford has focused on the wording of the Decision 817 of the ADA and in reference to the other party's obligation to use only the temporary name for all purposes within international organizations, obligation grossly and systematically violated by FYROM. He stressed that the obligation to use the temporary name is constant and it binds Macedonia derives from binding decision of the Security Council under Article 25 of the Charter has not been received and legally binding form of integration with the Interim Agreement.

(D) Subsequently, Prof. Pele mentioned again in violation of the Interim Agreement on the part of Macedonia and related protests in our country during the period before the summit in Bucharest. Therefore, even if it were considered that our country has opposed the admission of Macedonia to NATO as opposed to the provisions of Article 11 of the Interim Agreement, that may be justified on the basis of the principle of non ekplirothentos Exchange, which governs the theory of counter to the law of international responsibility, and relating to the suspension of the circumstances provisions of the Vienna Convention of 1969 on the Law of Treaties.

(E) Then, Prof. Abby-Saamp summarized some key pillars of our legal arguments, emphasizing the protests of the Greek side in international organizations to use Macedonia's constitutional name. It also refuted the argument that FYROM the right to use the constitutional name is supported in a statement Mr. Nimetz in 1993, and this statement not to use the constitutional name of FYROM authorities.
-
Finally, the argument of FYROM that the Interim Agreement allows the use of Macedonia's constitutional name in international organizations in relations with Greece and, by extension, at the multilateral level, he replied that this is unfounded as (i) our country is still and bilaterally does not accept name but leaving stamp on the document for non-recognition of Macedonia and (ii) at the multilateral level, decision 817 (1993) Security Council does not provide a basis for such an interpretation. In conclusion, he stressed that a decision of any Court which would justify the FYROM will significantly impair the dispute surrounding the name.

(F) The representative of Greece, Honorary Ambassador Mr. Savvaidis, quoted in summary, the points highlighted and demonstrated the Greek arguments, namely that:
-The case is outside the jurisdiction of the ICJ, given that it "directly or indirectly" in the dispute about the name, which is expressly excluded from that jurisdiction, and also lacks the character and admissibility.
-The decision of the NATO Summit in Bucharest was a result of collective and long process of consultations in accordance with established practice in this case established the Alliance.
-In each case, however, the behavior of the other party and by then by the address of its obligations as deriving from the Interim Agreement (repeated violations), constitute sufficient justification for the lack of support towards the Greek form of FYROM to join NATO.
-Greece, in 1995, took the strategic decision to reach an agreed solution to the name through negotiations under UN auspices. And this decision has always insisted today.

In light of the foregoing, concluded Mr. Savvaidis, Greece seeks (i) to decline jurisdiction to hear the case before it and applied for a non-admissible and (ii) if the Court accepted authority and declare the claims admissible to dismiss on substantive grounds, ie as unfounded.

At the end of the session, Judge Mr Benouna (Morocco) submitted to the Greek side the following question: "What were the positions and views put forward by Greece in the consultation process that preceded it, but at the Bucharest Summit, NATO for Macedonia's request for membership.
The Court gave Greece a deadline of April 7 to submit its reply, and an additional seven days in the other party for its own commentary on the answer.

www.kathimerini.gr information from ANA-MPA