Read more at:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/256927
The Future Is Here Today
Where Business, Nature and Leisure Provide An Ideal Setting For Living
December 31, 2018
December 29, 2018
Turkey - Netherlands relations: Turkey recalls Rotterdam consulate employee who beat-up Kurdish visitor to consulate
http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/61e50cd5-2d82-42bb-a0fe-db1439602ea2
December 28, 2018
Alternative Energy: California launches no cost solar power program
Read more at:
https://www.energybillcruncher.com/pa/?tg_ref=asodtm22&camp_id=004b431fa7ecd4b5e9b1c2a8d322b7f2a7&keyword=%24%7Bregion%7D%24+Launches+No+Cost+Solar+Program+in+%24%7Bcity%7D%24&sub2=Guardian+%28Guardian+News+%26+Media+Ltd%29_Guardian+-+World&csg_ref=pagen&pag_ref=gen_na
December 27, 2018
Indonesia: Flights ordered to stay clear from Anak Krakatau volcano
"Indonesia orders flights to steer clear of erupting Anak Krakatau volcano" -
Read more at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-tsunami/indonesia-orders-flights-to-steer-clear-of-erupting-anak-krakatau-volcano-idUSKCN1OQ05R
December 24, 2018
Indonesia: Tsunami kills at least 222 in Indonesia after Eruption Krakkatau
"Tsunami kills at least 222 in Indonesia after Krakatau eruption" -
Read more at: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-tsunami/tsunami-kills-at-least-222-in-indonesia-after-krakatau-eruption-idUSKCN1OL0P2
December 20, 2018
SYRIA: Trump shocks allies and advisors with plan to pull troops out of Syria
Trump shocks allies and advisers with plan to pull US troops out of Syria
Read more at
December 18, 2018
Britain and the Brexit Impasse: A national government or “no deal” - by Brendan Donelly
In a recent article for the New York Times, the distinguished
historian of the Conservative Party, Professor Tim Bale, argued that the
“will to power” of the Conservative Party would enable it in the long
term to reconstruct its inner cohesion, currently compromised by the
Brexit debate. Professor Bale’s argument is controversial but, even if
accurate from a historical perspective, it is highly unlikely to be
reflected in the functioning of the Party over the crucial next three
months. Last Wednesday’s ballot of Conservative MPs was at best a
Pyrrhic victory for the Prime Minister. The 117 votes recorded against
her probably if anything understated the degree of opposition to her
proposed texts for the Withdrawal Agreement from the EU and its
accompanying Political Declaration. It is clear she cannot possibly rely
on her Parliamentary Party to steer these proposals through the House
of Commons against the opposition of the Labour Party and others.
But there is no conceivable majority among Conservative MPs for any other course of action either. A divided and dysfunctional Conservative Party is generating a divided and dysfunctional Conservative government. There is no reason at all to believe that this division can be overcome by any sudden outbreak of unity before 29 March 2019. The true lesson of the past tumultuous week in British politics is that no Conservative government is capable of adopting, much less implementing, a coherent alternative position to that of the United Kingdom’s leaving the EU by automatic operation of Article 50 on 29 March 2019. If in three months there is still a Conservative government, then “crashing out” of the EU without a negotiated withdrawal will have become inevitable. That important minority in the Conservative Parliamentary party favourable to this outcome need only persevere in their current obstructionist tactics to gain their goal through the asymmetric workings of Article 50. Under Article 50 “no deal” emphatically means “no deal.”
There has been much talk in recent days of Parliament’s “taking back control of Brexit.” Amber Rudd has specified cross-party discussions to explore the possibility of a “soft Brexit” involving British membership of the EEA. This particular suggestion seems to rest on a number of questionable assumptions. The issue of British membership of the EEA is not one that in any circumstances can be resolved between now and 29 March 2019. If the EEA option is one the UK wishes to pursue after Brexit, it will need to be painstakingly negotiated with the EU during the “transition period.” The most that the EU might be willing to accept in this connection over the next three months would be changes to the wording of the non-binding Political Declaration, pointing towards future British membership of the EEA. It is more than doubtful however whether such marginal changes would be sufficient to guarantee or even make more likely a Parliamentary majority for the Prime Minister’s “deal.” Some Labour MPs either favour or could accept an EEA-like arrangement, but the majority do not, including Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Keir Starmer, both of whom for different reasons would have difficulties in accepting the Freedom of Movement at the heart of the EEA. Most importantly, if the EU were to be persuaded at this late stage to make changes to the Political Declaration, it could only be at the pressing and well-grounded request of the sitting British government. No present or future present Conservative government could ever accept favourable references in the Political Declaration to the EEA and Freedom of Movement. Most pressure on the government from the Conservative Party during the Brexit negotiations has come from precisely the opposite direction, seeking to reduce rather than maintain ties with the EU after Brexit. The EEA can provide no solution to the Conservative government’s present impasse.
Note EU-Digest: Re: Brexit: Britain and Britain's political establishment seem to be "up the creek without a paddle", and the so-called Brexiteers are not to be heard from or seen. A wise lesson for European citizens not to vote for Populist, Nationalist or Ultra Right parties in local or the upcoming May 2019 EU parliamentary elections. It's all empty rhetoric what these parties are producing. Just look at Britain (Brexit) and the USA (Donald Trump) to underscore that point.
Read more at: Brexit: A national government or “no deal” | The Federal Trust
But there is no conceivable majority among Conservative MPs for any other course of action either. A divided and dysfunctional Conservative Party is generating a divided and dysfunctional Conservative government. There is no reason at all to believe that this division can be overcome by any sudden outbreak of unity before 29 March 2019. The true lesson of the past tumultuous week in British politics is that no Conservative government is capable of adopting, much less implementing, a coherent alternative position to that of the United Kingdom’s leaving the EU by automatic operation of Article 50 on 29 March 2019. If in three months there is still a Conservative government, then “crashing out” of the EU without a negotiated withdrawal will have become inevitable. That important minority in the Conservative Parliamentary party favourable to this outcome need only persevere in their current obstructionist tactics to gain their goal through the asymmetric workings of Article 50. Under Article 50 “no deal” emphatically means “no deal.”
There has been much talk in recent days of Parliament’s “taking back control of Brexit.” Amber Rudd has specified cross-party discussions to explore the possibility of a “soft Brexit” involving British membership of the EEA. This particular suggestion seems to rest on a number of questionable assumptions. The issue of British membership of the EEA is not one that in any circumstances can be resolved between now and 29 March 2019. If the EEA option is one the UK wishes to pursue after Brexit, it will need to be painstakingly negotiated with the EU during the “transition period.” The most that the EU might be willing to accept in this connection over the next three months would be changes to the wording of the non-binding Political Declaration, pointing towards future British membership of the EEA. It is more than doubtful however whether such marginal changes would be sufficient to guarantee or even make more likely a Parliamentary majority for the Prime Minister’s “deal.” Some Labour MPs either favour or could accept an EEA-like arrangement, but the majority do not, including Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Keir Starmer, both of whom for different reasons would have difficulties in accepting the Freedom of Movement at the heart of the EEA. Most importantly, if the EU were to be persuaded at this late stage to make changes to the Political Declaration, it could only be at the pressing and well-grounded request of the sitting British government. No present or future present Conservative government could ever accept favourable references in the Political Declaration to the EEA and Freedom of Movement. Most pressure on the government from the Conservative Party during the Brexit negotiations has come from precisely the opposite direction, seeking to reduce rather than maintain ties with the EU after Brexit. The EEA can provide no solution to the Conservative government’s present impasse.
Note EU-Digest: Re: Brexit: Britain and Britain's political establishment seem to be "up the creek without a paddle", and the so-called Brexiteers are not to be heard from or seen. A wise lesson for European citizens not to vote for Populist, Nationalist or Ultra Right parties in local or the upcoming May 2019 EU parliamentary elections. It's all empty rhetoric what these parties are producing. Just look at Britain (Brexit) and the USA (Donald Trump) to underscore that point.
Read more at: Brexit: A national government or “no deal” | The Federal Trust
Britain - Brexit: May sets January date for parliamentary Brexit vote
Theresa May sets January date for MPs' Brexit vote -
Read more at:
December 17, 2018
HUNGARY -Ddemonstrations - Labor Rule Protests: PM Victor Orban's rule becoming more and more dictatorial
Around 10,000 in Hungary protest, calling a new labor rule a ‘slave law’
Read more at:
December 16, 2018
United Nations - Poland - COP24: 200 Nations reach deal to implement the Paris Climate Accord
200 Nations today Saturday December 15 reached a deal to implement the
Paris climate goals, after all-night negotiations to hammer out a plan
to limit global temperature rises exposed a range of conflicts.
Read more at:
December 14, 2018
EU -Turkey-Russian Energy Cooperation: "Politics can make strange bedfellows" - Russia’s Gas Strategy Gets Help From Turkey - by Marc Pierini
 |
| Politics/Energy can make strange bedfellows |
For Ankara, the project is a symbol of
Turkey’s independent decisionmaking and of the country’s significance in
the wider region. Seen from Ankara, Turkish Stream serves a political
purpose. It celebrates the blossoming friendship between Turkey and Russia
and confirms Ankara’s ambition to be part of the solution to major
international issues—in this case, securing the gas needs for a large
part of the EU.
However, Turkish Stream will also increase Ankara’s dependence on Moscow for its energy needs.
The project’s second meaning is that Turkey is contributing to an essential element of Russia’s multi-pronged, long-term strategy of remaining Europe’s major gas supplier, while creating a “third gas corridor” in addition to the Ukrainian and Baltic Sea supply routes. This strategy is unfolding on several fronts: in Ukraine; in the Baltic Sea; and through future extensions of Turkish Stream to southern and central Europe (toward Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Slovakia, and to Greece and Italy.)
It is also worth noting that Turkish Stream is not part of the EU’s Energy Union plans since it does not contribute to diversification of supplies. In fact, it will rather reinforce Russia’s market predominance in both Turkey and the EU.
In Ukraine, the multi-pipeline network channeling Russian gas to Western Europe will remain a vital link.
But reducing its use could inflict massive losses in terms of transit
costs for authorities in Kiev, which is part of Russia’s strategy in
Ukraine.
Much will depend on negotiations for the
extension of the Russia-Ukraine commercial agreement, which will end in
2019. To help alleviate Kiev’s concerns, Germany has made the
continuation of transit via Ukraine an ingredient of a final agreement
on Nord Stream 2, the latter being the subject of controversies within the EU.
The Russian strategy is in no way limited
to selling Russian gas on the European continent. It extends much
further afield in the wider Eastern Mediterranean region.
Egypt is a case in point.
Following the massive discoveries in the so-called Zohr field to the north and east of the Nile River delta, Russia bought a 30 percent stake
from the Italian energy group ENI in 2016 with the consent of the
Italian government, which Moscow has had a long and close relationship
with. The official reason for the sale was the need for ENI to spread
the risk of its Egyptian operation.
Similarly, offshore gas discoveries in
Lebanese waters have attracted Russian interest— although drilling off
Lebanon is largely dominated by France’s TOTAL and Italy’s ENI, who have
a 40 percent share each. Russia’s NOVATEK has bought a 20 percent stake.
Russia has also made moves to control both the oil and gas sector in Syria,
despite the ongoing war. The actual effect of these recent maneuvers
will very much depend on the final political arrangement expected to end
the almost eight-year-old civil war. Many of Syria’s oil and gas fields
are located north and east of the Euphrates River, currently outside
the control of regime forces. In addition, for reasons linked to the
ongoing naval military activities, no offshore exploration has yet taken
place in Syrian waters.
In Iraq, Russia is involved in pipeline deals in the Kurdistan region
through a number of oil and gas companies, although the actual exports
would have to take place through Turkish territory or possibly even
through Syria in the distant future.
Such an ambitious Russia strategy is justified by Europe’s gas market fundamentals.
A stronger demand for gas in Europe is good for Russia. According to Oxford Energy,
gas demand in Europe (Turkey and non-EU Eastern Europe included, except
Serbia) has started rising again for three consecutive years—in 2015,
2016, and 2017—to reach a level of 548 billion cubic meters (bcm), due
to continued economic recovery, the impacts of climate change, and the
increased use of gas by the power sector. The trend seems to be
continuing in 2018.
According to the Finnish Institute for International Affairs,
Russia took advantage of several factors: economic recovery and
decreasing gas production in the EU, lower Russian selling prices, and
the current limited availability of non-Russian liquefied natural gas
(LNG) on the European market.
In addition, preexisting disputes between the EU and Russia (including an antitrust investigation against Gazprom, and a Russian complaint at the WTO) have been resolved, signaling that commercial interests on both sides have prevailed, despite a less-than-optimal political climate.
In such an environment, Russia is in a strong position to keep dominating gas supplies to the EU,
which amounted to 40 percent of extra-EU imports in 2016—although
new developments could upset the current situation, such as a rapid
development of LNG exports to Europe from other sources.
LNG imports amounted to only 14 percent of total extra-EU gas imports in 2017, with the main supplies coming from Qatar (41 percent), Nigeria (19 percent), and Algeria (17 percent).
LNG imports amounted to only 14 percent of total extra-EU gas imports in 2017, with the main supplies coming from Qatar (41 percent), Nigeria (19 percent), and Algeria (17 percent).
In this wider context, and seen from Brussels, Turkish Stream—with
a final projected capacity to deliver 31.5 bcm/y, of which 15.75 bcm/y
would go to Europe —is a relatively small component of the wider gas
supply chain to the EU. In fact, it would represent just over 6 percent
of the EU’s imports at 2017 levels.
Yet, seen from Moscow, the pipeline is
potentially a significant addition to Russia’s capabilities to export
gas to Europe (Turkey included). Assuming that Turkish Stream’s second
phase will be completed and operational, it would represent between 16
and 19 percent of Russian sales to the EU and Turkey (at 2017 levels and
all other factors remaining unchanged).
In that sense, the ceremony on November 19
in Istanbul was more than just another photo opportunity. It was a
symbol of the success of Russia’s objectives in the wider Western
European area, with Turkey’s help.
Together with Russia’s S-400 missile
deal with Turkey, it was a symbol of how efficiently Moscow has been
using Ankara’s relative diplomatic isolation to its advantage. For
Ankara, this was another way of telling the world: Turkey matters.
December 12, 2018
Engeland: Populisten hebben met het doordrukken van Brexit Engeland's ekonomie in grote moeilijkheden gebracht
Het moet toch hopenlijk in de EU tot de ingezetenen en politici van de
bij de EU aangesloten lidstaten zijn doorgedrongen dat eenheid macht
betekend en verdeeltheid catastrofe.
Vooral als we zien hoe de "moedige" Theresa May nu langs de Europese lidstaten loopt te bedelen om "water bij de wijn te doen", wat betreft de Brexit overeenkomst met de EU.
Notabene het Brexit drama, die de Engelsen zich door ,nationalistische populisten, zoals Nigel Farage en Boris Johnson hebben laten inluizen en die nu in geen velden of wegen te bekennen zijn terwijl Engeland ten onder gaat.
Een duidelijk omschreven 2e referendum is waarschijnlijk de enige redding voor Engeland.
Hopenlijk laten de ingezetenen van de EU zich voor en tijdens de Europese Parlements verkiezingen in mei 2019 niet om de tuin leiden door nationalistische en populistische politici en andere onrust kraaiers.
We hebben zeer zeker geen nieuwe dramas als Brexit meer nodig.
Almere-Digest
Vooral als we zien hoe de "moedige" Theresa May nu langs de Europese lidstaten loopt te bedelen om "water bij de wijn te doen", wat betreft de Brexit overeenkomst met de EU.
Notabene het Brexit drama, die de Engelsen zich door ,nationalistische populisten, zoals Nigel Farage en Boris Johnson hebben laten inluizen en die nu in geen velden of wegen te bekennen zijn terwijl Engeland ten onder gaat.
Een duidelijk omschreven 2e referendum is waarschijnlijk de enige redding voor Engeland.
Hopenlijk laten de ingezetenen van de EU zich voor en tijdens de Europese Parlements verkiezingen in mei 2019 niet om de tuin leiden door nationalistische en populistische politici en andere onrust kraaiers.
We hebben zeer zeker geen nieuwe dramas als Brexit meer nodig.
Almere-Digest
Time Magazine Person of the year Award: : Khashoggi,murdered by Saudi Arabia and jailed journalists named Time's 'Person of the Year'
Time magazine on Tuesday named a group of journalists, including a
slain Saudi Arabian writer and a pair of Reuters journalists imprisoned
by Myanmar’s government, as its “Person of the Year,” in a cover story
headlined “The Guardians and the War on Truth.”
The honor went to a series of journalists including Reuters journalists Wa Lone, 32, and Kyaw Soe Oo, 28, who the government of Myanmar convicted on Sept. 3 under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act in a case seen as a test of democratic freedoms in Myanmar.
Also honored was Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a critic of Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Khashoggi was killed two months ago at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul when he went there to collect documents for his forthcoming marriage.
The 95-year-old magazine also honored Maria Ressa, the founder of the Philippine news site Rappler that has been a frequent critic of that nation’s President Rodrigo Duterte, and the staff of the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, where a gunman shot and killed five people in June.
Time said it chose to honor journalism at time when the practice critical democracy is under threat both from governments and technological advances. Its annual distinction is intended to recognize the person, group, thing or idea that had the greatest influence on world events that year.
Read more: Khashoggi, jailed journalists named Time's 'Person of the Year'
The honor went to a series of journalists including Reuters journalists Wa Lone, 32, and Kyaw Soe Oo, 28, who the government of Myanmar convicted on Sept. 3 under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act in a case seen as a test of democratic freedoms in Myanmar.
Also honored was Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a critic of Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Khashoggi was killed two months ago at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul when he went there to collect documents for his forthcoming marriage.
The 95-year-old magazine also honored Maria Ressa, the founder of the Philippine news site Rappler that has been a frequent critic of that nation’s President Rodrigo Duterte, and the staff of the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, where a gunman shot and killed five people in June.
Time said it chose to honor journalism at time when the practice critical democracy is under threat both from governments and technological advances. Its annual distinction is intended to recognize the person, group, thing or idea that had the greatest influence on world events that year.
Read more: Khashoggi, jailed journalists named Time's 'Person of the Year'
December 11, 2018
Britain: British PM delays vote on Brexit
British PM Theresa May delays parliament vote on Brexit
Read more at:
December 10, 2018
Global warming:USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait block key climate study at the COP24 meeting
U.S., Russia, Kuwait and Saudis block key climate study at COP24
Read more at:
December 9, 2018
France: French Protests fueled by populists and Russian backed internet bloggers as extremists put centrism to the torch - by Max Boot
 |
| France: Extreme Right-Wing Populists cheered on by the Kremlin |
On Dec. 3, amid pictures of burning cars and tear gas in Paris, I woke up to find incessant Twitter criticism of an article I’d written. This was hardly shocking; I’m attacked online all the time. What surprised me was that I was being attacked for a Commentary article published 18 months earlier, shortly after Macron’s election. I posted it on Twitter on June 15, 2017, with the headline: “To defeat populism, America needs its own Macron — a charismatic leader who can make centrism cool.”
This tweet has now earned me a torrent of online abuse. Sean Davis, the co-founder of a pro-Trump website, tweeted: “This 2017 column is a riot.” The right-wing actor James Woods retweeted the article with the gloating tag line: “Twitter is beautiful.” Left-wing journalist Glenn Greenwald apparently thought my article was so ridiculous he retweeted it without any comment at all. Breitbart’s former London editor wrote: “This aged well, didn’t it, @maxboot?”
I asked the information warfare expert Molly McKew what was going on. She replied: “Major Russian info campaign on the Yellow Jackets/Vests protests, so you just kicked the wrong hornets. Over the weekend all the ‘Syria’ accounts were tweeting about how French had snipers on the rooftops to shoot the demonstrators.” The Hamilton 68 website, which tracks Russian disinformation online, confirmed that two of the top Russian hashtags were “giletsjaune” and “France.” Among the Russians cheerleading the protests online is the notorious fascist and pro-Putin ideologue Alexander Dugin. Meanwhile, Russian state media outlets such as RT were hyping chaos in Paris as if it were a “color” revolution.
BuzzFeed reports that the “yellow vests” emerged out of “Anger Groups” that popped up on Facebook to channel the grievances of “fed up” rural, working-class French people — the Gallic version of President Trump’s deplorables or the tea party. Just as in the United States, their online propaganda included a great deal of misinformation. Activists circulated a picture of cars stranded on a highway, claiming it showed German motorists who had abandoned their cars to protest fuel taxes. In fact, the picture was likely of a traffic jam in China. Another popular meme claimed that a 2016 government decree had invalidated the French constitution and that everything that has happened since, including the gas tax, is illegitimate.
There is no evidence that I have seen that Russia social media ignited the protests, but they certainly added fuel to the fire.
But Macron’s desire to curb global warming (the goal of the higher gas tax), his support for the European Union and NATO, his unabashed elitism (he once worked for the Rothschild investment bank, a bogeyman for anti-Semites), and his clashes with Trump have made him a target of the far right, too. Trump himself applauded the protests, falsely claiming they are chanting, “We want Trump.” The right would like to see Marine Le Pen take over; the left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon. The Kremlin would prefer either one to a centrist who will stymie its designs to divide Europe.
Read more: In France and online, extremists put centrism to the torch - The Washington Post
December 8, 2018
United Nations - "US and Israel get a black eye at the UN": In blow to U.S. administration and Israel, UN fails to pass anti-Hamas resolution - by Amir Tibon and Noa Landau
The resolution condemning Hamas, which was presented by the U.S. before the UN General Assembly on Thursday, fell short of the required two-thirds majority and failed to pass.
The resolution condemning Hamas, which was presented by the U.S. before the UN General Assembly on Thursday, fell short of the required two-thirds majority and failed to pass.
Read more: In blow to U.S. administration and Israel, UN fails to pass anti-Hamas resolution - U.S. News - Haaretz.com
The resolution condemning Hamas, which was presented by the U.S. before the UN General Assembly on Thursday, fell short of the required two-thirds majority and failed to pass.
Read more: In blow to U.S. administration and Israel, UN fails to pass anti-Hamas resolution - U.S. News - Haaretz.com
December 6, 2018
Saudi-US Relations: A Guide to Saudi Arabia’s Influence in Washington - by Emma Ashford
At this point,
the evidence that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman knew about—and
likely ordered—the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is compelling. After
CIA Director Gina Haspel’s presentation to Congress earlier this week, Senator
Bob Corker told reporters that a jury would find the prince guilty “in
thirty minutes.” The only holdout is the president, who continues to stand by
his statement that “we may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder
of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi.”
His support for Saudi leadership remains unwavering, even in the face of opposition from media, Congress and his own intelligence agencies.
Indeed, between special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation’s increasing focus on Gulf money, and Trump’s repeated support for the Saudis and Emiratis in regional and international affairs, you’d be forgiven for thinking that perhaps it’s these states—not Russia—who have undue influence over the president. While there is no suggestion so far of quid pro quo between the president and his friends in the Gulf, the shady connections built during and after the 2016 election have combined with a broader network of money, personal ties, and some genuine policy agreements to produce what is perhaps the most pro-Saudi administration in U.S. histor
The United States has long pursued a generally pro-Saudi policy in the Middle East, a legacy of the Cold War when the United States relied heavily on the Saudis to push back against Soviet influence. Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical importance–and its position as the world’s swing producer of oil–has often led U.S. policymakers to minimize criticism of Saudi Arabia. Even as fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were shown to be Saudi citizens, for example, the George W. Bush administration pushed to maintain the close U.S.-Saudi relationship while privately criticizing Saudi support for religious extremism. The Trump administration, however, has taken the United States’ selective vision on Saudi Arabia to new extremes.
In May 2018, The New York Times reported that the Mueller investigation into foreign influence in the 2016 election was looking at not just Russian, but possible Middle Eastern influence: Diplomats from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), it appeared, had facilitated meetings between Russian officials, mercenary-for-hire Erik Prince, and members of the Trump transition team. The lens quickly widened to include adviser to the Emirati government George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman who helped to set up meetings at Trump Tower with an envoy for Saudi and Emirati leaders, and key officials including Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner.
In addition, the special counsel is apparently interested in Nader’s work on behalf of Saudi and Emirati leaders, funneling at least $2.5 million in Gulf money to Republican donor Elliott Broidy. Some of it appears to have been used for anti-Qatar lobbying following the blockade of that country in June 2017: A separate New York Times report in May 2018 pointed to two Washington, D.C., conferences featuring anti-Qatar views held by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the Hudson Institute.
The Gulf states have been among the biggest spenders at Trump hotels and resorts since he was elected. In August of this year, the Trump hotel in New York finally reversed a two-year trend of falling revenues when Mohammed bin Salman’s extensive entourage paid premium prices for a last-minute stay. The Saudi government has also been among the biggest spenders at Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel, spending $270,000 in 2016 alone.
Though the Trump Organization has promised that all profits received from foreign governments at these properties will be donated to the Treasury, ethics experts dispute the methods used for calculating these profits, suggesting that the president continues to profit from foreign spending. Several of Trump’s most influential backers–such as Broidy or the investor Tom Barrack—also profit handsomely from business ties and interests in the Gulf States.
The secrecy surrounding Trump’s financial affairs makes it difficult to know exactly how extensive these ties are. During the firestorm following Khashoggi’s death, Trump tweeted that he had no financial interests in Saudi Arabia. As various journalists noted, the statement could be technically true—in other words, no investments physically located within the country’s boundaries—while still misleading, given the Trump hotels’ many Saudi customers. And as always, Trump’s family members further complicate the picture. Over the last few years, for example, the Kushner family’s attempts to refinance or sell their disastrous New York real estate holdings included a failed attempt to secure funding from Qatar–a fact that’s hard not to see as relevant when evaluating Kushner’s unusual hostility toward Doha.
Read more: A Guide to Saudi Arabia’s Influence in Washington | The New Republic
His support for Saudi leadership remains unwavering, even in the face of opposition from media, Congress and his own intelligence agencies.
Indeed, between special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation’s increasing focus on Gulf money, and Trump’s repeated support for the Saudis and Emiratis in regional and international affairs, you’d be forgiven for thinking that perhaps it’s these states—not Russia—who have undue influence over the president. While there is no suggestion so far of quid pro quo between the president and his friends in the Gulf, the shady connections built during and after the 2016 election have combined with a broader network of money, personal ties, and some genuine policy agreements to produce what is perhaps the most pro-Saudi administration in U.S. histor
The United States has long pursued a generally pro-Saudi policy in the Middle East, a legacy of the Cold War when the United States relied heavily on the Saudis to push back against Soviet influence. Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical importance–and its position as the world’s swing producer of oil–has often led U.S. policymakers to minimize criticism of Saudi Arabia. Even as fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were shown to be Saudi citizens, for example, the George W. Bush administration pushed to maintain the close U.S.-Saudi relationship while privately criticizing Saudi support for religious extremism. The Trump administration, however, has taken the United States’ selective vision on Saudi Arabia to new extremes.
In May 2018, The New York Times reported that the Mueller investigation into foreign influence in the 2016 election was looking at not just Russian, but possible Middle Eastern influence: Diplomats from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), it appeared, had facilitated meetings between Russian officials, mercenary-for-hire Erik Prince, and members of the Trump transition team. The lens quickly widened to include adviser to the Emirati government George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman who helped to set up meetings at Trump Tower with an envoy for Saudi and Emirati leaders, and key officials including Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner.
In addition, the special counsel is apparently interested in Nader’s work on behalf of Saudi and Emirati leaders, funneling at least $2.5 million in Gulf money to Republican donor Elliott Broidy. Some of it appears to have been used for anti-Qatar lobbying following the blockade of that country in June 2017: A separate New York Times report in May 2018 pointed to two Washington, D.C., conferences featuring anti-Qatar views held by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the Hudson Institute.
The Gulf states have been among the biggest spenders at Trump hotels and resorts since he was elected. In August of this year, the Trump hotel in New York finally reversed a two-year trend of falling revenues when Mohammed bin Salman’s extensive entourage paid premium prices for a last-minute stay. The Saudi government has also been among the biggest spenders at Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel, spending $270,000 in 2016 alone.
Though the Trump Organization has promised that all profits received from foreign governments at these properties will be donated to the Treasury, ethics experts dispute the methods used for calculating these profits, suggesting that the president continues to profit from foreign spending. Several of Trump’s most influential backers–such as Broidy or the investor Tom Barrack—also profit handsomely from business ties and interests in the Gulf States.
The secrecy surrounding Trump’s financial affairs makes it difficult to know exactly how extensive these ties are. During the firestorm following Khashoggi’s death, Trump tweeted that he had no financial interests in Saudi Arabia. As various journalists noted, the statement could be technically true—in other words, no investments physically located within the country’s boundaries—while still misleading, given the Trump hotels’ many Saudi customers. And as always, Trump’s family members further complicate the picture. Over the last few years, for example, the Kushner family’s attempts to refinance or sell their disastrous New York real estate holdings included a failed attempt to secure funding from Qatar–a fact that’s hard not to see as relevant when evaluating Kushner’s unusual hostility toward Doha.
Read more: A Guide to Saudi Arabia’s Influence in Washington | The New Republic
China-US relations: Arrest Meng Wanzhou, executive of Huawei, not favorable to improving relations China - US
Huawei arrest: China demands release of Meng Wanzho
Note EU-Digest: Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Canada at the request of the US, who wants
her extradited to US because of business dealings Huawei has with Iran.
For those who might have forgotten - the US (Trump Administration)
unilattery broke off relations with Iran, when the Trump Administration
pulled out of the International Nuclear Agreement, signed between Iran
and many other nations around the world, including the EU and the US.
Hopefully Canada (Trudeau) will show some "backbone", by not extraditing
her to the US, specially since all the other co-signers of the
International Nuclear Agreement, including the EU and Canada, are still
respecting the agreement with Iran.
Saudi Arabia: Key Republicans say Saudi crown prince is guilty in Khashoggi murder following CIA Briefing - by Heather Timmons
Republican senators briefed by Central
Intelligence Agency director Gina Haspel about the death of journalist
Jamal Khashoggi Tuesday (Dec. 4) had an immediate reaction: Saudi crown
prince Mohammad bin Salman is guilty.
Lindsey
Graham, the South Carolina senator who has been a loyal supporter of
Donald Trump in recent months, told reporters on Capitol Hill there’s no
“smoking gun,” in the case, but a “smoking saw,”
a reference to the bone saw that the crown prince’s underlings
reportedly brought with them into the Istanbul embassy where Khashoggi
was killed on Oct. 2.
Bob Corker, the retiring Tennessee Republican, said a jury would find the crown prince guilty in minutes.
And Richard Shelby,
the Republican from Alabama, said “all evidence points to that all this
leads back to the crown prince.” Haspel briefed senators heading
committees related to national security; late last month she briefed
intelligence committees in the House and Senate about Khashoggi’s death.
Note EU-Digest: Talk is easy for these Republicans - but they should stop sitting on their hands and do something about it.
December 5, 2018
Britain - Brexit: Theresa May suffers three Brexit defeats in Commons
Ministers have agreed to publish the government's full legal advice
on the deal after MPs found them in contempt of Parliament for issuing a
summary.
And MPs backed calls for the Commons to have a direct say in what happens if her deal is rejected next Tuesday.
Mrs May said MPs had a duty to deliver on the 2016 Brexit vote and the deal on offer was an "honourable compromise".
Mrs May was addressing the Commons at the start of a five-day debate on her proposed agreement on the terms of the UK's withdrawal and future relations with the EU.
The agreement has been endorsed by EU leaders but must also be backed by the UK Parliament if it is to come into force. MPs will decide whether to reject or accept it on Tuesday 11 December.
Read more: Theresa May suffers three Brexit defeats in Commons - BBC News
And MPs backed calls for the Commons to have a direct say in what happens if her deal is rejected next Tuesday.
Mrs May said MPs had a duty to deliver on the 2016 Brexit vote and the deal on offer was an "honourable compromise".
Mrs May was addressing the Commons at the start of a five-day debate on her proposed agreement on the terms of the UK's withdrawal and future relations with the EU.
The agreement has been endorsed by EU leaders but must also be backed by the UK Parliament if it is to come into force. MPs will decide whether to reject or accept it on Tuesday 11 December.
Read more: Theresa May suffers three Brexit defeats in Commons - BBC News
December 4, 2018
Hungary: Central European University claims being forced out of Budapest
Without action on climate, civilization will collapse, David Attenborough warns
Read more at:
December 3, 2018
Israel: Netanyahu to be charged with bribery charges says police
Israeli PM Netanyahu should be charged with bribery - police -
Read more at:
December 2, 2018
USA: The noose is thightening around Trump his neck
'The noose is tightening': 5 takeaways from Michael Cohen's plea deal — and what it means for Trump
Read more at:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)