Massenbach-Letter. NEWS 01.09.17

Massenbach-Letter. News

  • WSJ: Stabbings in Russia Claimed by ISIS Raise Terror Concerns
  • Asia Times: China – Party push for influence stirs fear among foreign firms in China
  • Haaretz: Washington, Riyadh Urge Syrian Opposition to Accept Assad Role
  • BDI: Für eine moderne Sicherheitspolitik: Handlungsempfehlungen der deutschen Industrie
  • IISS_IRIS_RUSI: Brexit and the European arms industry
  • Die Presse, Wien: China treibt ein schändliches Doppelspiel in der Nordkorea-Krise

Massenbach*China:Party push for influence stirs fear among foreign firms in China

Executives from more than a dozen top European companies in China recently met to discuss concerns about Communist Party interference, say sources

Late last month, executives from more than a dozen top European companies in China met in Beijing to discuss their concerns about the growing role of the ruling Communist Party in the local operations of foreign firms, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.

President Xi Jinping’s efforts to strengthen the party’s role throughout Chinese society have reached the China operations of foreign companies, and executives at some of these entities don’t like the demands they are facing as a result.

The party’s presence has long been a fact of doing business in China, where party organizations exist in nearly 70% of some 1.86 million privately-owned companies, as enumerated by the official China Daily last month.

Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule long regarded by many executives as symbolic rather than anything to worry about.

One senior executive whose company was represented at the meeting told Reuters some companies were under “political pressure” to revise the terms of their joint ventures with state-owned partners to allow the party final say over business operations and investment decisions.

  • Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule long regarded by many executives as symbolic rather than anything to worry about

He said the company’s joint venture partner was pushing to amend their agreement to include language mandating party personnel be “brought into the business management organization,” that “party organisation overhead expenses shall be included in the company budget,” and that board chairman and party secretary posts be held by the same person. Changing joint venture agreement terms is the main concern, the executive said, noting that his company had thus far resisted.

“Once it is part of the governance, they have direct rights,” he said.

The State Council Information Office (SCIO), which doubles as “spokesman” for the party, told Reuters in a faxed statement that there was no interference by party organizations in the normal operating activities of joint venture or foreign-invested companies.

However, it added, “company party organizations generally carry out activities that revolve around operations management, can help companies promptly understand relevant national guiding principles and policies, coordinate all parties’ interests, resolve internal disputes, introduce and develop talent, guide the corporate culture, and build harmonious labour relations.”

“They are widely welcomed within companies,” the SCIO said.

Major decisions

Of the 13 executives, all from different foreign companies, interviewed by Reuters, eight expressed concerns about increasing demands from the party or noted increased activity from party groups. They all spoke on the condition that they and their companies not be identified given the sensitivity of discussing relations with the party.

Just two of 20 major multinationals queried by Reuters – South Korea’s Samsung and Nokia, of Finland – confirmed having party units in their China operations. Most did not respond to questions on the subject. Only the German chemicals giant Bayer AG acknowledged participating in the meeting, organised by the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, but declined to comment on what was discussed.

Carl Hayward, general manager and director of communications at the European Chamber’s Beijing chapter, acknowledged the meeting was held to “understand from our members if party structures are being formally introduced into the governance of joint ventures.”

He said: “We have not noted any formal change of policy that reflects this. This is as we would expect since such a change would act as a deterrent to foreign investment in China.”

Real muscle

Under Xi, the party has sought to address the “weakening, watering down, hollowing out and marginalization” of party leadership at state enterprises, the party’s official People’s Daily wrote in June. The paper cited an official with state-owned oil giant Sinopec as saying the company had demanded all its foreign joint venture partners “specify the requirement for party-building work” in their articles of association.

While plans to expand party organizations in foreign companies have been a quiet concern for several decades, only under Xi has “some real muscle” been put behind the goal, said Jude Blanchette, who studies the party at The Conference Board’s China Center for Economics and Business in Beijing.

A significant number of major foreign companies operate in China through joint ventures with state enterprises. Foreign business groups have complained that their members are forced to allow Chinese partners access to their technology or risk losing market access.

Many Chinese state enterprises listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange have this year altered their articles of association to give an explicit role to internal party committees.

One country head at a major European manufacturer with a southern China joint venture said that late last year it allowed a party unit to meet on company premises – after hours. The party unit asked for overtime pay to hold the meeting, which the company rebuffed. But then it also demanded the company hire more party members, and even tried to weigh in on investment decisions.

“That’s when we said this is a no-go zone. We didn’t anticipate that they would discuss investment decisions,” the manager told Reuters.

A sales and marketing head in China for a major US consumer goods firm said its party cell had recently become more active, and had pushed for locating a new facility in a district where the local government was promoting investment, a move the company made.

Still, several executives with foreign companies in China said the role of party units was benign and could help to resolve issues with officials. A party member at a US-based Fortune 500 company in Shanghai said her firm’s unit was not involved in business matters and instead engaged in activities such as planting trees and sponsoring children.

“They will give you some tickets to see movies together. When the State Council has a meeting and there’s some news they will send bullet points by email,” she said.


From our Russian News Desk. (The views expressed are the author‘s own.)

  • How to Tame the Cyber Beast?
  • The Western Guide to Understanding the Russian Mind
  • IAEA Low Enriched Uranium Bank Launches in Kazakhstan
  • Why do March 8 parties want Lebanon to join the Iranian-Syrian axis?
  • Is a “Convergence of Necessity” behind Iranian Chief of Staff’s Visit to Turkey?
  • Alternative Alliances -Why Is Hamas Seeking Stronger Relations with Iran?
  • "The Terrorism of the Possible" sweeping Europe


Wall Street Journal:*** Stabbings in Russia Claimed by ISIS Raise Terror Concerns ***

  • Killing of police officer is latest incident trumpeted by Islamic State; investigators can be slow to label attacks –

Russian officers stand by the body of a man who was shot by police after stabbing people in Surgut on Aug. 19.

MOSCOW—A knife attack on police officers in the Russian republic of Dagestan left one officer dead, following a stabbing spree in Siberia this month, adding to worries here about the spread of improvised terrorist attacks like those that have been claimed by Islamic State in Europe.

On Monday, two unidentified attackers struck police officers with knives at a filling station in the city of Kaspiisk, the local branch of the federal Investigative Committee said. One officer was killed and the other was wounded before a third shot and killed the attackers.

Video footage from the scene showed a black jihadist banner said to have been found on the attackers, and Islamic State claimed responsibility, according to SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors extremist activity.

The Investigative Committee, a federal agency charged with probing high-profile crimes, didn’t describe the incident as a terrorist attack, and said a criminal investigation was under way.

The incident came days after a man roamed the streets of the Siberian city of Surgut with a knife, slashing seven bystanders before he was killed by police. The attack was also claimed by Islamic State.

Russian authorities declined to label the Aug. 19 incident as terrorism, but said terrorism wasn’t being ruled out by investigators. Authorities initially described the attacker as mentally ill.

Following the attack, Islamic State released a video describing the man as a holy warrior and showing a masked man identified by the nom de guerre “Masud of Surgut,” seated next to a hatchet and an Islamic State flag, vowing to attack nonbelievers.

“Soon blood will flow like the sea,” a voice chants in the video.

While Islamic State has declared itself to be behind numerous attacks that investigators also attributed to the group, ISIS has a record of falsely claiming responsibility, and it remains unclear if the group had any operational link to the latest incidents in Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded with force to some past terrorist attacks. He came to power on a promise to wipe out militants in the north Caucasus region, and he launched a military campaign in Syria in 2015 that he described as an effort to defeat Islamic State.

But Russian officials have on occasion been cautious about playing up terrorism threats. When a passenger plane flying to St. Petersburg went down over Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula in 2015, killing all 224 people on board, Russian officials initially dismissed an Islamic State claim and reports that a bomb brought down the plane.

It took Moscow over two weeks to say they had evidence it was a terrorist attack.

The response by authorities in playing down the possibility of terrorism in the Aug. 19 attack in Surgut indicated worries about public perception, said Alexey Malashenko, a Moscow-based researcher.

“If they admit it’s a terrorist act, then you have to ask the question of what the authorities are doing” to combat it, he said. “It’s convenient to describe it as a criminal act.”

Mr. Malashenko said he believed the Surgut stabbing spree was terrorism. “It’s a repeat of what’s happened in Finland and Spain,” he said, referring to a knife attack in the Finnish city of Turku that is being investigated as terrorism, and vehicle attacks in Barcelona and the Spanish town of Cambrils.

Over the past two decades, Russia has seen a number of terrorist attacks led by Islamist militants, from a siege in a Moscow theater in 2002 to a horrific hostage-taking in a school in the southern Russian town of Beslan.

More recently, Russian authorities identified a man from the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan as the suicide bomber who caused a deadly subway-train blast in St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city.

The Caucasus Emirate, a militant group that pledged loyalty to Islamic State in 2015, continues to fight a low-level insurgency in the north Caucasus region. In a separate incident on Monday in Dagestan, a member of the security services was killed and two were wounded in a shootout with militants near the town of Khasavyurt, Russian news agencies reported.

Over 2000 miles away, Surgut, a city of 360,000 in Khanti-Mansy Autonomous Okrug and a major center for oil and gas production, has seen an influx of job-seeking migrants from Muslim-majority regions of Central Asia and the north Caucasus.

The arrival of migrant workers has raised tensions in cities in the region, according to a 2015 report by the Carnegie Moscow Center think tank.

Cities in the Khanti-Mansy region, the report added, “remain hotbeds of the Salafist movement,” shorthand for an austere brand of Islam that experts say isn’t traditional in the region. Russia has a substantial and diverse Muslim population, but authorities are wary of the rise of what they deem religious fundamentalism.

Arkady Dubnov, an expert on Central Asia, said local authorities needed to more responsive to possible terror incidents, making it clear to the public when they happen.

“You need to establish the diagnosis in order to prescribe the medicine,” he said.

Terrorism and Russia

Russia has seen numerous attacks in recent decades, including:

· July 1994: Terrorists seize a helicopter and take hostages in the southern city of Mineralnye Vody. During a rescue operation, 19 people are wounded and four are killed.

· June 1995: Separatists led by Chechen commander Shamil Basayev capture several buildings in the southern city of Budyonnovsk; 129 people are killed, 415 wounded.

· January 1996: A group of Chechen militants led by Salman Raduyev capture a hospital in Kizlyar, in the southern republic of Dagestan; hostages are taken to the village of Pervomayskoye. A total of 78 people are killed and several hundred are wounded in the hostage-taking and fighting.

· June-July 1996: Explosions on public transportation in Moscow kill and injure dozens.

· June 1997: An explosion on a train from Moscow to St. Petersburg kills five people.

· March 1999: An explosion at a market in Vladikavkaz, southern Russia, kills 64 people.

· September 1999: A series of apartment blocks are bombed in the cities of Moscow, Bunaiksk and Volgodonsk, killing around 300 people and setting off a national panic.

· August 2000: Explosion in the underpass at Moscow’s Pushkin square kills 13 people and wounds dozens more.

· March 2001: A series of car bombings in southern Russia kills 21 people and wounds 140.

· October 2002: Around 800 spectators, actors and musicians are held hostage at a theater in Moscow. During the siege, all the terrorists are killed and 130 hostages die.

· December 2002: A government building in Grozny is hit by a suicide bomber, killing 71 people and wounding several hundred.

· May 2003: A truck bomb is set off in the village of Znamenskoye in Chechnya, killing 52.

· July 2003: Suicide bombers attack a music festival in Moscow, killing 16 people and wounding 59.

· February 2004: An explosion in the Moscow subway kills 40 people and wounds 134.

· June 2004: Chechen militants attack government buildings in Nazran, Ingushetia, killing 98 people.

· August 2004: Two female suicide bombers board domestic flights and blow themselves up in midair, killing 90 people.

· September 2004: Terrorists capture a school in Beslan, North Ossetiya. A total of around 330 people are killed.

· October 2005: An attack on Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkariya, kills 35 law enforcement officers and 12 civilians.

· March 2010: An explosion in Moscow metro stations kills 40 and wounds 90.

· January 2011: A suicide bombing at Moscow’s Domodedovo airport kills 37 and wounds 172.

· May 2012: An attack involving a suicide car bomb in Makhachkala, Dagestan, kills 13 and wounds 100.

· October 2013: A female suicide bomber detonates on a bus, killing seven.

· December 2014: An attack by insurgents in the capital of Chechnya kills 14 policemen and 1 civilian. A total of 11 insurgents are killed.

· October 2015: A Russian passenger jet crashes in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, killing 224. Islamic State affiliate claims responsibility for planting a bomb on board.

· April 2017: A suicide bomber detonates on a St. Petersburg subway train, killing at least 14.


Policy= res publica



China treibt ein schändliches Doppelspiel in der Nordkorea-Krise

Anstatt Nordkoreas Diktator energisch unter Druck zu setzen, macht Peking seinem Verbündeten im Zweifel immer die Mauer.

Christian Ultsch
29.08.2017 um 18:04

Es hätte schlimmer kommen können. Das nordkoreanische Regime kalkuliert seine Provokationen kühl. Es dosiert den Wahnsinn. Hätte Machthaber Kim Jong-un, wie vor ein paar Wochen angedroht, eine Rakete in Richtung der US-Pazifikinsel abgefeuert, wäre die Welt vor einem neuen Krieg gestanden. Denn dann wäre dem US-Präsidenten, Donald Trump, fast nichts anderes übrig geblieben, als seinen martialischen Drohungen erste Taten folgen zu lassen. Doch die Nordkoreaner ballerten ihre Hwasong-12 nicht gen Guam im Südosten, sondern über die im Nordosten gelegene japanische Insel Hokkaido hinweg. Das Geschoss landete nach 2700 Kilometern Flug im Pazifik; das amerikanische Eiland Guam ist 3000 Kilometer von Nordkorea entfernt, nicht viel weiter also.

Auch wenn die Richtung nicht stimmte: Adressat der Raketengrüße aus Pjöngjang war einmal mehr Washington. Der nordkoreanische Diktator verfolgt ein klares Ziel mit seiner verhaltensauffälligen Außenpolitik. Er will von den USA auf Augenhöhe als Herrscher einer Atommacht anerkannt werden. Diplomatische Schützenhilfe erhielt Kim Jong-un von seinen zunehmend entnervten chinesischen Verbündeten. Anstatt den Raketentest ohne Wenn und Aber zu verurteilen, hatte die Sprecherin des chinesischen Außenministeriums für die USA und deren Alliierte einen kleinen pädagogischen Tipp für den Umgang mit dem nordkoreanischen Dr. Seltsam parat: „Druck, Sanktionen und Drohungen“ seien nicht hilfreich gewesen, um das Problem zu lösen. Entspannen lasse sich die Situation nur durch eine Rückkehr an den Verhandlungstisch.

Das Gespräch zu suchen kann nie verkehrt sein. Doch kriegslustiges Verhalten postwendend zu belohnen ist eine zweifelhafte Strategie, um einem Aggressor beizukommen. Abschreckung ist die einzige Methode, um das nordkoreanische Regime zumindest einzudämmen. Andernfalls wird sich der nordkoreanische Despot ermuntert fühlen, der internationalen Gemeinschaft die Atombombe an die Brust zu setzen und ein Zugeständnis nach dem anderen abzupressen. Wer nicht zögert, eine Rakete über die Köpfe von Millionen Japanern abzufeuern, wird auch künftig wenig Skrupel zeigen, um Gegner einzuschüchtern und sich Vorteile zu verschaffen.

Über kurz oder lang wird Nordkorea das militärische Gleichgewicht in dieser für die Weltwirtschaft so wichtigen Region durcheinanderschütteln. Der Rüstungswettlauf hat schon begonnen. Vor nicht allzu langer Zeit hat ein Präsidentschaftskandidat namens Donald Trump laut darüber nachgedacht, ob sich demnächst nicht auch Japan und Südkorea Atomwaffen zulegen sollten. In Seoul wird darüber bereits debattiert. Und Tokio erwägt, die militärische Zurückhaltung aufzugeben und die Pazifismusklausel aus der Verfassung zu tilgen. Gleichzeitig bekräftigen beide Staaten vehement ihre Militärallianz mit den USA. Für China, das seinen Einfluss in Asien ausweiten will, kommen die nordkoreanischen Spielchen mit dem Feuer ganz und gar ungelegen. Dennoch ist die Führung in Peking nicht in der Lage, den ungestümen Genossen in Pjöngjang in Zaum zu halten. Der nordkoreanische Zauberlehrling tanzt auch der chinesischen Supermacht auf der Nase herum.

Peking hat sich zwar zuletzt überraschend harten Sanktionen gegen Nordkorea angeschlossen. Doch zu weit wollen es die Chinesen auch nicht treiben. Ein Sturz des Regimes in Pjöngjang kommt für sie nicht infrage: erstens aus Prinzip und zweitens, weil sich dann die Balance in der Region zugunsten des Westens verschieben könnte. China ist in einem strategischen Dilemma gefangen: Es lehnt die atomare Bewaffnung Nordkoreas ab, denn die Dauerkrise festigt Amerikas Asien-Bündnis. Gleichzeitig scheut China aus Angst vor Instabilität zurück, ernsthaft gegen Kim vorzugehen. Es wirft ihm immer wieder politische und wirtschaftliche Rettungsleinen zu.

Doch auch mit seinem Doppelspiel wird China den Status quo nicht ewig aufrechterhalten. Es muss seinen Beitrag leisten, um Nordkorea von Massenvernichtungswaffen abzuschrecken. Kim wird der Welt nicht den Gefallen tun, alle seine Raketen ins Meer zu schießen. Er hat mehr als 1000 davon.[rss-newsletter]&xt_at=19a3541173c1e954d8f29a4336100cf84f9f2ebb2143ab2a3163018858528438

****************************************************************************************************************** Politics: From Vision to Action

Barandat* IISS_IRIS_RUSI: Brexit and the European arms industry

A year after the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union, the consequences of Brexit for European defence have yet to take shape. A group of experts from France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom – including Bastian Giegerich, IISS Director of Defence and Military Analysis – have mapped what Brexit might mean for the European armament industry.

Their report covers issues such as British access to EU funds, the impact of Brexit on European institutions and bilateral and multilateral European defence programmes, and negotiations on UK-EU defence company agreements. It analyses how these issues might develop in a range of possible future scenarios.

Read this new report from the Armament Industry European Research Group. ( or see att.)


Middle East

Washington, Riyadh Urge Syrian Opposition to Accept Assad Role

As the Syrian regime makes military advances, Western and regional actors have ceased to call for Assad’s removal and instead seek mediation toward a ’new vision‘ that would include dictator.

As Damascus reverses military losses in much of the country’s strategically important west, and foreign states cut support for rebel forces, diplomats from Washington to Riyadh are asking representatives of Syria’s opposition to come to terms with President Bashar Assad’s political survival.

The country’s civil war has crossed the halfway point of its seventh year and Assad and his allies are now in control of Syria’s four largest cities and its Mediterranean coast. With the help of Russian air power and Iranian-sponsored militias, pro-government forces are marching steadily across the energy-rich Homs province to reach the Euphrates River valley.

Western and regional rebel patrons, currently more focused on advancing their own interests rather than accomplishing regime change in Damascus, are shifting their alliances and have ceased calls on Assad to step down.

"There is no conceivable military alignment that’s going to be able to remove him," said former U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, now a fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C. "Everyone, including the U.S., has recognized that Assad is staying."

The war has settled into a familiar, lower-intensity grind, with the Syrian government now in control of most of the populated west while Islamic State group militants and al-Qaida affiliates, U.S.-backed Kurds and Turkey-backed rebels hold on to remaining pockets in the north, east and south. Russia-sponsored so-called de-escalation zones have significantly reduced violence in rebel-held territory although fighting continues to rage in some areas.

With another round of U.N. mediated peace talks on the horizon in Geneva, the opposition’s chief representative group, the High Negotiations Committee, is being told by even its closest patrons it risks irrelevance if it does not adapt to the new realities.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, according to an interlocutor briefed on the matter, told the opposition it was time to formulate "a new vision."

"He didn’t explicitly say Bashar (Assad) is going to stay, but if you read between the lines, if you say there needs to be a new vision, what is the most contentious issue out there? It’s whether Bashar stays," said the interlocutor, who mediates between the opposition and state capitals and requested anonymity so as not to compromise his work.

It is a difficult pill to swallow for the opposition, which has been holding a series of meetings as part of a months-long stock-taking process in which its members are expected to narrow their aims and refresh their leadership.

However, at a two-day meeting in Riyadh this week that was meant to try and bridge differences between the three main political opposition groups and come up with a unified vision based on the new political and military reality, divisions were once again on full display.

The opposition’s chief representative group, the Saudi-based High Negotiations Committee (HNC), publicly held on to its position that Assad must step down before any political transition. In a statement, it said the opposition group known as the "Moscow Platform" insisted Assad’s departure must not be a precondition for talks.

"We refuse any role for Assad during a transitional period," insisted spokesman Ahmad Ramadan of the National Syrian Coalition, the leading bloc in the HNC, which has always staked out a maximalist position against Assad.

But internally, there is talk of restructuring the HNC to give weight to the more conciliatory voices among the opposition — representatives based in Cairo and Moscow that groups within the HNC have long derided as the "internal opposition" for their perceived cozy relations with Damascus.

It comes at the urging of the U.N.’s top Syria envoy, Staffan de Mistura, who spent much of the last Geneva talks trying to reconcile the HNC and the Cairo and Moscow groups.

De Mistura set expectations last week that those efforts would bear fruit. He said the opposition was in the midst of "intensive internal discussions" in order to come up with "a more inclusive and perhaps even more pragmatic approach" to negotiations, saying he hoped an outcome could materialize by October.

The shifts reflect the changing priorities of the opposition’s chief backers — the United States, Europe, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia — which are now more concerned with preserving their own, narrowly conceived strategic interests, than they are with unseating Assad.

For the U.S., that means focusing on fighting the Islamic State group and containing Iran’s influence in Syria, to protect its ally Israel. Saudi Arabia, too, wants to contain its regional archrival, Iran, as well as wrest influence away from Qatar, which is seen as a key backer to the HNC and some rebel groups on the ground. Ankara’s top priority is to contain the U.S.-backed Kurdish PYD party in northern Syria, which it fears will inspire Kurdish separatism in east Turkey.

Indeed, these nations have never seriously challenged Assad’s hegemony militarily, leaving Russia and Iran holding the cards.

Former President Barack Obama fastidiously avoided striking Assad’s forces, even after his administration concluded Damascus had trespassed the president’s "red line" against chemical warfare; U.S.Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is reported to have told the U.N.’s general secretary in July that President Donald Trump’s administration would leave Syria’s fate in Russia’s hands.

Syrian government forces have blocked aid agencies from delivering relief to several areas they have held under siege, and while the U.N. has condemned the tactic as "barbaric" and "medieval," it has been criticized for paying dividends to Damascus, which has seen these areas capitulate one by one. Russia’s own leverage over the opposition comes from negotiating cease-fires for besieged areas, which are otherwise pounded mercilessly by air strikes and artillery.

It’s not clear what the truces achieve in the long term. The same can be said about the opposition’s reorientation, if such a thing indeed happens.

At a rare public speech before Syrian diplomats in Damascus this week, a confident Assad derided the West and declared Syria will look east when it comes to political, economic and cultural relations.

"We will not give them (our enemies) in politics what they failed to take in war," he said.


*Massenbach’s Recommendation*

Für eine moderne Sicherheitspolitik: Handlungsempfehlungen der deutschen Industrie

Welt im Wandel: Globale Risiken

Die weltweiten Risiko-, Bedrohungs- und Konfliktszenarien haben sich in den vergangenen Jahren wieder einmal stark gewandelt, die Sicherheitslage hat sich deutlich erkennbar verschärft. Die Destabilisierung von Regionen, z. B. im Nahen und Mittleren Osten, der Konflikt zwischen Russland und der Ukraine, Migrationsbewegungen, internationaler Terrorismus, Wirtschaftsspionage, die Störung globaler Wertschöpfungsketten – all diese Faktoren haben unabhängig von ihrer geografischen Verortung unmittelbaren Einfluss auf die Sicherheit Deutschlands und auf die geschäftlichen Aktivitäten deutscher Unternehmen.

Diese Entwicklungen stellen altbekannte und neue Anforderungen an die deutsche Sicherheitspolitik. Sie erfordern ganzheitliche, ressortübergreifende und langfristige Antworten im Sinne eines „umfassenden Sicherheitsbegriffs“. Denn Sicherheit bildet in jeder Gesellschaft die Voraussetzung für Wohlstand sowie politische und soziale Stabilität. Sie gewährleistet die Rahmenbedingungen, in denen sich Kultur, Handel und Wirtschaft überhaupt erst entwickeln können Selbstverständnis und Interessen

Trotz seines wirtschaftlichen und politischen Gewichts hat Deutschland immer noch Schwierigkeiten, seine internationale Rolle zu definieren.

Für eine umfassende und strategische Sicherheitspolitik ist es an der Zeit, dass Deutschland seine Bedeutung im internationalen Gefüge anerkennt und ausfüllt. Es ist gerade das wirtschaftliche und politische Gewicht, welches Deutschland verpflichtet, gemeinsam mit Partnern, mehr Verantwortung für die Sicherheit und Stabilität Europas zu übernehmen.

Mit dem aktuellen Weißbuch 2016 formuliert die Bundesregierung die sicherheitspolitischen Herausforderungen und Ziele und stellt auch den Zusammenhang zwischen sicherheitspolitischen und wirtschaftlichen Interessen her. Nun gilt es die Handlungsabsichten zu konkretisieren und notwendige Folgemaßnahmen umzusetzen. Gemeinsame Sicherheitsinteressen und die Mittel zu ihrer Verfolgung müssen durch Politik, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft definiert und ausgestaltet werden.

Die Rolle der deutschen Industrie

Deutsche Industrieunternehmen quer durch alle Branchen können durch ihre internationale Vernetzung, ihre Expertise auf globalen Märkten und Ortskenntnisse einen wichtigen Beitrag für die Sicherheit leisten. Diese Stärken der deutschen Industrie sollten durch die Politik intensiver genutzt werden.

Technische Fähigkeiten und Produkte deutscher Unternehmen bilden einen unverzichtbaren Bestandteil für innere Sicherheit und damit auch für souveräne Handlungsfähigkeit nach außen. Die deutsche Industrie ermöglicht mit ihrem technologischen Know-how, hochwertigen Produkten und Dienstleistungen eine anforderungsgerechte Ausrüstung staatlicher Sicherheits-, Zivilschutz- und Streitkräfte. Sie entwickelt und produziert maßgeschneiderte Ausrüstungsgegenstände, Security- und Safety-Systeme für den Eigenschutz und sicheren Betrieb der Unternehmen und leistet damit einen strategischen Beitrag für die internationale Handlungsfähigkeit Deutschlands. …..

(for more see att.)


At last: Zum „Positionspapier des BDI "Für eine moderne Sicherheitspolitik" gibt es Anmerkungen, die in ihrer Deutlichkeit gern auf Nachfrage zur Verfügung gestellt werden.

Die Herausgeber sind sich einig, dass beide Papiere, sowohl das aus deutscher als auch aus britischer Herkunft, dem Zweck dienen wollen, an der Neuausrichtung der Militärausgaben

angemessen beteiligt zu werden. Ob die Intellektualität (insbesondere des BDI-Papieres) ausreichend ist, mag hier nicht diskutiert werden.

Für die Herausgeber: Udo von Massenbach, Berlin.



see our letter on:

*Herausgegeben von Udo von Massenbach, Bärbel Freudenberg-Pilster, Joerg Barandat*



08-17 BDI_Position_Fuer_eine_moderne_Sicherheitspolitik_2017.pdf

08-25-17 IRIS_IISS-Brexit and the European arms industry .pdf

08-29-17 How to tame the cyber beast – The Terrorism of the Possible sweeping Europe – IRAN_Lebanon -Western Guide to Understanding the Russian Mind – IAEA Low Enriched Uranium Bank Launches in Kazakhstan -.docx