California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Could Solve the Gas Crisis Today by Taking Sanctions Off Russian Oil

by John Lawrence

Sanctions on Russian oil have been an abysmal failure. Russian oil profits are up 50% from last year! Just as American and British oil corporations have been scoring record profits, so has Russia. Oil prices are set on the world market and soaring prices result in record profits for Russia. If Putin had designed the sanctions himself, he couldn't have wreaked more havoc on the US and European economies. It's time for Biden to admit that his policy of sancti0ns against Russia has failed. They haven't deterred Russia from pursuing a war of attrition against Ukraine. They have demonstrated the abject failure of using US sanctions to control the actions of other countries. They are a total lost cause now and in the future. That's the lesson of the war in Ukraine for the west.

Bloomberg reported:

Russia’s oil revenues are up 50% this year even as trade restrictions following the invasion of Ukraine spurred many refiners to shun its supplies, the International Energy Agency said.

Moscow earned roughly $20 billion each month in 2022 from combined sales of crude and products amounting to about 8 million barrels a day, the Paris-based IEA said in its monthly market report. 

Russian shipments have continued to flow even as the European Union edges towards an import ban, and international oil majors such as Shell Plc and TotalEnergies SE pledge to cease purchases. Asia has remained a keen customer, with China and India picking up cargoes no longer wanted in Europe.

The IEA, which advises major economies, kept its outlook for world oil markets largely unchanged in the report. Global fuel markets are tight and may face further strain in the months ahead as Chinese demand rebounds following a spate of new Covid lockdowns, it said. 

Reduced flows of Russian refined products such as diesel, fuel oil and naphtha have aggravated tightness in global markets, the agency noted. Stockpiles have declined for seven consecutive quarters, with reserves of so-called middle distillates at their lowest since 2008.

But for all the disruption, Moscow has continued to enjoy a financial windfall compared with the first four months of 2021. Despite the EU’s public censure of the Kremlin’s aggression, total oil export revenues were up 50% this year. 

The bloc remained the largest market for Russian exports in April, taking 43% of the country’s exports, the IEA said.

So where is this "world market" that is setting the price of oil? Is it on Wall Street? I'd like to have a word with whoever is in charge of this "world market." Lord knows the US produces enough oil to supply all the US' gas needs so why not take US oil production off the world market and just sell it to the American people at a reasonable price? Oh, I guess that's not how capitalism works. Ironic, isn't it, that a formerly communist country like Russia is now profiting from capitalist markets! So even if the US, Canada and Europe are having record inflation with recessions predicted in the near future, Biden won't take the sanctions off of Russian oil, and basically this is all for spite, all because he hates Putin so much. Biden has staked American prestige on fighting a proxy war with Russia based on the almighty dollar and the power it supposedly possesses over every financial transaction going on in the world. Problem is that all the sanctions on Russia have only proven the weakness and futility of using sanctions to achieve policy goals. Russia has demonstrated that the sanctions just don't work. They haven't deterred Russia in the least. China and India have taken up the slack in Russian oil purchases.

Besides that, what Biden fails to understand is that like the US, Russia's currency, the ruble, is a fiat currency. That means that unlike China, it is not pegged to the US dollar. Russia's central bank can print as many rubles as it wants without asking US permission. The US can of course do the same thing - print as many dollars as it wants except the limiting factor is inflation. So the US can't print dollars right now, but Russia can still print rubles. That means that Russia controls Russian investment in Russia and Russian control of internal consumer markets. Imported products come mainly from China, and China is Russia's friend. Russia is demanding payment for its gas in rubles rather than dollars, and this supports the value of the ruble as a convertible currency just as Nixon's demand that the Saudis price their oil in dollars supported the value of the dollar and made the dollar the world's reserve currency.

All this boils down to the fact that Russia is in the driver's seat with respect to the war in Ukraine. It's hard to see how the unending supply of western weapons is sufficient to win the war for Ukraine now that the policy of sanctions has failed. Demonizing Putin is not a policy that is likely to have an effect on the war one way or other. Putin still has a lot of friends in the world and US inflation, while being primarily a function of sanctions on Russian oil, is also dependent on the supply chain of products coming from China, Russia's friend. Biden should be careful about whom he demonizes. After demonizing MBS, he's now about to get back in bed with him and the Saudis. Biden's Build Back Better policy could have helped the American people, and even now could fight inflation, but alas, after promising that it would be passed "in tandem" with the bipartisan infrastructure bill, it never was. What up with that?

Off the Top of My Head

Did Biden Shoot Himself in the Foot by Putting the Kibosh on Russian Oil?

by John Lawrence

If Putin wanted to ruin the US economy, he couldn't have done it more successfully than if he himself had refused deliveries of Russian oil. The US and European embargo on Russian oil has driven the price of oil on the world market sky high, and Putin is benefiting from the price increase! In fact he has made more money from the sale of oil this year than he did last year! No wonder Putin is smiling. He's laughing all the way to the bank as his war in Ukraine not only devastates Ukraine but drives inflation in the US, UK and the rest of Europe while US sanctions on Russia's economy does little or no damage. Do they really need imports from Europe or the US when China is the world's manufacturer of practically everything, and China is an ally of Russia? Not every financial transaction in the world involves the US dollar. Furthermore, Russia's blockade of Ukrainian grain is causing food prices to rise which makes for another increase in inflation. But even worse than that, countries that depend on that grain consumption will likely find their citizens going hungry further contributing to world political instability.

Biden's insane pandering to Saudi Arabia after declaring them a pariah country will not do much to lower the price of gas even if Saudi Arabia increases production to their limit. They don't have the ability to fully replace the potential supply of Russian oil. So win or lose the war in Ukraine, Putin is having a debilitating effect on the US economy while there is not that much of a debilitating effect on Russia's economy. Another reason this is so is that the Russian ruble is a fiat currency not pegged to the US dollar so the Russian central bank can spend as many rubles as necessary to keep consumers and businesses going. Even MacDonald's has been "Russianized" so that MacDonald's pull out has had little or no effect on the Russian preference for US fast food. Furthermore, Russia and China, among a few other nations, have been hard at work to limit the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) envisions a prosperous, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable Asia and the Pacific, while sustaining its efforts to eradicate extreme poverty in the region. China's Belt and Road initiative also is furthering the cause of dedollarization of the world economy. However, China's currency is pegged to the US dollar so China needs to hold dollars in its account at the Federal Reserve, but Russia's currency is fully convertible. That's how it can demand that Finland pay for its gas in rubles thus supporting that fully convertible currency. Russia, therefore, is not dependent on the US dollar. It just needs to import anything that it doesn't produce domestically and China can provide that.

Meanwhile, the US is dependent on the supply chain from China which has been disrupted lately causing more inflation. Dependency on China for most of its products while trying to cast China as an adversary is not a very good idea. The proposed Cold War with China is only pushing Russia and China closer together. Meanwhile the war in Ukraine is becoming a money pit for the US government which is spending billions and billions to give Ukraine a never ending supply of weapons. This is also inflationary because, whereas the product is shipped to Ukraine, the money is spent right into the US economy via the US weapons manufacturers. To fight inflation money needs to be extracted from the US economy hopefully by means of taxing the rich and not taxing anyone making less than $400,000 a year as Biden has proposed. Whatever the outcome of the war in Ukraine, Putin has proven that by withholding Russian oil from world markets, he can drive up the price of gas and cause inflation in car centric America.

Off the Top of My Head

Bush V Gore Set Precedent for Trump v Biden

by John Lawrence

Remember when George W Bush took over the Presidency because the Supreme Court sided with him in his lawsuit to get the vote counting stopped? If it had continued Gore would have won the Presidency in 2000. If Gore had become the rightful President, there probably would not have been the disastrous and illegal Iraq wars. As is evident now Saudi Arabia was more to blame for 9/11 than Iraq or Afghanistan, but Bush wanted to be a war time President. The US government, during the George W Bush administration, kept documents secret that would have implicated Saudi Arabia as the sponsor of the 9/11 attack that killed 3000 Americans. Families of the 9/11 victims have had to retrieve documents from the British government that implicate Saudi Arabia whom they now blame for 9/11 and are suing for compensation.

In 2000 conservative justices on the Supreme Court voted to stop the counting of votes in Florida overruling the Florida Supreme Court. Wikipedia reported:

"Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount of all undervotes, over 61,000 ballots that the vote tabulation machines had missed. The Bush campaign immediately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the decision and halt the recount. Justice Antonin Scalia, convinced that all the manual recounts being performed in Florida's counties were illegitimate, urged his colleagues to grant the stay immediately. On December 9, the five conservative justices on the Court granted the stay for Bush, with Scalia citing "irreparable harm" that could befall Bush, as the recounts would cast "a needless and unjustified cloud" over Bush's legitimacy. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm.""

Media organizations later analyzed the ballots and found that, under specified criteria, the originally pursued recount of undervotes of several large counties would have confirmed a Bush victory, whereas a statewide recount would have revealed a Gore victory. So Gore actually won the 2000 election. There would have been no illegal invasion of Iraq, and the US would have been well on the road to combating climate change because that was Gore's primary issue. How history might have been changed, if only ... So Trump probably figured, among his other plans to overturn the Biden victory in 2020, that the Supreme Court would probably be on his side in overturning the election since he had appointed 3 conservative justices to the Supreme Court, and the Court had essentially overturned the 2000 election in favor of George W Bush. However, Trump never got to the point of approaching the Supreme Court as Bush had done because Pence went ahead after the insurrection and presided over the vote count which assured that Biden had won the election. If the insurrectionists had sufficiently interrupted the proceedings on January 6, Trump's lawyers might then have petitioned the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Trump especially since the Court was overwhelmingly conservative, three of the Justices having been appointed by Trump himself. We'll never know, but what is clear is that Trump attempted a coup on January 6. It just didn't come off quite as he had planned.

Off the Top of My Head

Two Contradictions in the Narrative About the War

by John Lawrence

1) That Saudi Arabia is a good friend. Then why do they refuse to pump more oil to relieve the gas crisis? 2) That it's a war between democracy and autocracy. Then why is the world's largest democracy, India, on the side of Russia? Let's take #1 first. If Saudi Arabia is our great friend, they could end the gas crisis tomorrow simply by pumping more oil. This they refuse to do. So whose side are they on? For all the criticism of Putin as a butcher, we forget that Mohammed bin Salman, affectionately known as MBS, had Jamal Khasoggi butchered. Khashoggi, 59, was a Saudi citizen living in Northern Virginia and writing columns for The Washington Post that were often critical of the Saudi monarchy. He was killed during a visit to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2, 2018. His body was dismembered, and his remains have never been found. Then Donald Trump, defying Congress, proceeded to sell billions of dollars worth of weapons to the Saudis. Reuters reported:

"The Trump administration informed congressional committees that it will go ahead with 22 military sales to the Saudis, United Arab Emirates and Jordan, infuriating lawmakers by circumventing a long-standing precedent for congressional review of major weapons sales.

"Members of Congress had been blocking sales of offensive military equipment to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for months, angry about the huge civilian toll from their air campaign in Yemen, as well as human rights abuses such as the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at a Saudi consulate in Turkey."

I repeat whose side are they on, and what values do they and our vaunted "western values" have in common? But enough on the Saudis.

Let's take #2. India, I repeat, the world's largest democracy, is on the side of Russia. At least they have not sided with the US, NATO and the west even though they supposedly share our democratic values which are totally at odds with "autocratic values." The narrative that the war in Ukraine represents a war between democratic values and autocratic values is totally bogus. India has long been a purchaser of Russian military equipment and was an ally with Russian support in its war with Pakistan. India’s friendship with the then-Soviet Union became official in 1971, after the two countries signed a Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation. That year, the Soviets backed India in a war with Pakistan that ultimately led to the independence of Bangladesh. The US backed Pakistan. Now India is taking up the slack by buying more Russian oil, oil that isn't being sold to the western world which needs it badly to get gas prices back to normal. China is buying more Russian Ural crude oil as well.

As the world rallies to condemn Russia, India remains silent on the sideline. In addition to India some other countries siding with Russia or at least remaining neutral are China, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Algeria, South Africa, Angola, Morocco. Nearly half of all the countries that abstained from condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine at the U.N. General Assembly are in Africa, and many are reluctant to join sanctions against Russia. In fact, only 28 out of the 54 African countries (just over 51 percent) represented in the U.N. voted in favor of the resolution. So not all countries are willing to turn Putin into a pariah and Russia into a pariah state. Even South Africa, which has a parliamentary democracy and is a strategic partner of the United States, was not willing to condemn Putin.

However, the war ends, it is important for world peace and the fight against climate change, let alone globalized markets, that some sort of constructive alliance among all countries be enacted taking the security interests of all countries into account. The problem with NATO is that it didn't do that. In fact the expansion of NATO eastward rubbed Russia's nose in the fact that it had lost the Cold War. Some American leaders gloated over that fact. Instead Russia should have been accepted into the community of nations. If Finland right on Russia's border can remain nonaligned and neutral without threat of invasion, perhaps that would have been the best course for other nations on Russia's border as well.

 

O

While There is Increased Pain at the Pump, There is Increased Pleasure in the Corporate Board Rooms of Shell and Exxon

by John Lawrence

Biden's ban on Russian oil is largely symbolic as it will do nothing to decrease the price of gas. On the other hand as gas prices soar, so will corporate profits. Booming prices for oil and natural gas propelled Shell’s profit in the fourth quarter of 2021, lifting its adjusted earnings to $6.39 billion, up from $393 million a year earlier. On the other hand consider the price of gas in Saudi Arabia - less than a dollar a gallon in Riyadh. Also less then a dollar a gallon in Kuwait. It's 38 cents a gallon in Lagos, Nigeria! The US produces as much oil as it consumes. So why are we at the mercy of oil and gas corporations? Why isn't Biden demanding that Shell and Exxon donate their excessive corporate profits to average Americans in order to keep the price of a gallon of gas at a reasonable level? Why are American consumers at the mercy of the global oil market?

Shell's profits were $20 billion in 2021. Shell is not even an American owned corporation. "High oil and gas prices boosted forecast-beating 2021 profits for Shell and BP, and are expected to continue doing so this year, allowing both U.K. energy giants to strengthen their balance sheets for energy-transition investments." Make sense? Increased profits will allow them to transition to greener energy. Such a rationale! These energy giants are using their excessive profits to buy back their own stock. This is enriching shareholders as well as CEOs whose pay packages are based on stock values. Everyone in the corporate board room is happy while American consumers are taking it on the chin among other places. The New York Times reported:

"Shell, Europe’s largest energy company, also said that it would accelerate returns to shareholders, buying back $8.5 billion in shares in the first half of 2022 — a big increase on the total of $3.5 billion set aside for buybacks in 2021.

"Shell also said it would increase the dividend it pays to shareholders by 4 percent, to 25 cents per share for the first quarter.

"In the short term, at least, Shell is carrying out a strategy of using the proceeds from oil and gas to reward shareholders as well as invest in new businesses like hydrogen."

So now is the ideal time for the government to give incentives to convert to electric cars. Biden needs to get those charging stations installed pronto and give everyone a generous subsidy to go electric. It's the right thing to do. All this talk about combating global warming is only so much poppycock as long as oil rules the world which it seems to do as Europe is so dependent on Russian oil. As long as that's the case, Putin is in the driver's seat. The last thing Europe will sanction is Russian oil. At the present time the oil market is driving the world. Oil corporations are enjoying record profits and pain at the pump is only filling corporate board rooms with glee.

 

Off the Top of My Head

It's Not About Supporting Our Troops. It's About Not Supporting a Bloated Military Budget

by John Lawrence

Somehow they always say it's about supporting our troops. I support our troops. I just don't support the military budget which is larger than the next 10 closest nations combined (China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil). And it's really about supporting Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon, defense contractors which have managed to locate plants in all 435 Congressional districts so as to be sure that Congress will support their demands for more money. Recently, Trump bypassed Congress on a deal to sell Saudi Arabia $8.1 billion worth of weapons.

“There is no emergency to the United States or to UAE or to Saudi Arabia regarding the war in Yemen,” Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., who introduced the measure to stop the deal, said on the House floor before the 246-180 vote. “It is a horrific humanitarian problem. The Saudi-led coalition has killed countless civilians. But it is not an emergency that would justify weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and UAE that bypasses congressional procedure.” But Trump thinks it will maintain and support jobs, contribute to the economy regardless of the ethics or morality. Business is business even when it means more death and destruction.

CNN reported:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo refused to sit for an interview with the State Department inspector general's office as part of its probe into the administration's move to bypass Congress and expedite last year's $8 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia by declaring an emergency, a congressional aide told CNN Monday. ...

The allegation Pompeo declined to cooperate with the investigation came after House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Eliot Engel, claimed the State Department inspector general fired by President Donald Trump on Friday, Steve Linick, had nearly completed an investigation into Pompeo's controversial decision to fast-track the same arms sale.

"I have learned that there may be another reason for Mr. Linick's firing. His office was investigating — at my request — Trump's phony declaration of an emergency so he could send weapons to Saudi Arabia. We don't have the full picture yet, but it's troubling that Secretary Pompeo wanted Mr. Linick pushed out before this work could be completed," Engel, a Democrat from New York, said in a statement to CNN Monday.

In the spring of 2019, the Trump administration pushed through a plan for more than $8 billion in weapons sales, almost entirely to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It employed an emergency declaration that under the law supposedly allowed it to proceed without the statutorily required 30-day period during which Congress must be formally notified and has the option of voting to block the sale.

On May 20, 2017, U.S. President Trump and Saudi Arabia's Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud signed a series of letters of intent for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to purchase arms from the United States totaling US$110 billion immediately, and $350 billion over 10 years. So we not only have a bloated defense budget, but we support arms sales to countries around the world - whoever will buy them. This adds to our GDP and creates Trump's "great" economy. It doesn't matter whether the economy is based on solving problems or creating them as long as exports contribute to American GDP. The French export wine and cheese; America exports death and destruction.

These arms sales supported the American military-industrial complex, companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman among others. So the US not only is foolishly mucking around in wars in the Middle East itself contributing to 800,000 deaths there since George W Bush lied us into the war in Iraq, but is fueling even more war by arming Saudi Arabia to the teeth. The US has also made major contributions to the 70 million person refugee problem. Most of the refugees come from Syria and Afghanistan, countries in which the US has had major military activities. Although the Trump administration is doing nothing to help the refugee problem it helped to create, it is doing everything it can to help defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon.

 

Off the Top of My Head

In the Age of Pandemic Has War Become a Luxury?

by John Lawrence, April 12, 2020

Saudi Arabia and Yemen have declared a cease fire. Sailors are becoming infected on aircraft carriers. War planning requires groupings of military people. So has war become a luxury we can no longer afford? Are we really "all in this together"? Does the pandemic require cooperation among all nations since the pandemic doesn't respect national borders? Will the pandemic, when it's over, have changed the way human beings conduct their affairs in the world or will we get back to business as usual. If the pandemic engenders cooperation instead of rivalry among the nations of the world, does this mean that we will all be socialists or communists? Does it even matter?

If the pandemic makes us realize that war is a useless exercise with few benefits, will the US military-industrial complex be defunded. Will the money then go to health care workers, to Peace Corps and AmeriCorps workers who will attempt to bring clean water and modern sanitary systems to developing countries? Will there be a push to create more sanitary conditions in the world so that pandemics don't get started? Plagues and pandemics before have motivated people to build modern sanitary systems in places like London and New York in the 19th century where urban populations in close proximity created the conditions of cholera and bubonic plague. Is homelessness a social situation we can no longer afford?

Will the meaning of 'essential services' become normalized in the economy post corinavirus? What then will be considered essential and what could we live without? As long as there is no vaccine for coronavirus, new cases will continue to crop up even after the economy has "reopened." The flu epidemic of 1918 lasted 10 months and had several spikes. We can expect more spikes in the current pandemic until there are widespread vaccinations available. So what is essential? Sports events? Cruises? Rock concerts? Movie theaters? Now with Netflix and Amazon prime we can watch movies at home. Any movie we want to see. I'm catching up on all the great movies I've missed over the years. Last night I watched "To Catch a Thief" with Cary Grant and Grace Kelly. Free on Amazon Prime. The fidelity  both video and audio was excellent on my smart TV. I have no need to go to a movie theater where I can't control the volume. Hint: they are too loud.

Perhaps now we can grasp the concept that cooperation among peoples and nations is more important than manufactured rivalries over some nation's form of government. Perhaps now we can grasp the concept that diplomacy is more important, getting along is more important and winning isn't everything. Maybe now public health and human rights can be seen as more important than having everyone pull themselves up only by their own bootstraps. Maybe we can get on with the business of cooperating to combat the real enemy - climate change and even future pandemics. Maybe we will bring the US infrastructure into the modern world with a Green New Deal. Maybe we can finally grow up and have a consensus about what is really important, what really matters. Maybe doctors, nurses, caregivers, and social workers will come to be seen as more important that Wall Street brokers, the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps as more important than the War Corps. As Governor Cuomo says, "Love will conquer all." Happy Easter.

Off the Top of My Head

Russia and Saudi Arabia Selling Oil at $40 a Barrel. US Fracking Industry in Deep Debt. Can't Survive at That Price.

by John Lawrence, April 11, 2020

As if the coronavirus was not a big enough threat to the US economy, Russia and Saudi Arabia are in a price war over oil driving the price down to $40 a barrel. The world now needs less oil because of the coronavirus, but Russia is still producing at the same rate. Not to be outdone Saudi Arabia is also maintaining its same level of production producing a glut on the world market. To be profitable at all the US shale oil industry needs prices to be at least $60 a barrel. So effectively, Russia is forcing the US fracking industry, which is totally overleveraged in the first place, into bankruptcy. To boot Russia can produce oil for less money than Saudi Arabia. The US has sanctioned Russia's oil industry in terms of the NORD II pipeline to Europe and its Turkstream pipeline to Turkey, but there is no way that Trump can sanction the price of a barrel of oil if Russia floods the market.

Market Watch reported:

The rapid growth of the U.S. shale industry is at the heart of a Russia-versus-Saudi Arabia crude-oil price war that threatens to upend a global economy already under threat from the spread of the coronavirus, experts said Monday.

“Russia has made no secret of the fact that it is concerned about the growth of the U.S. shale industry and of its view that repeated output cuts by OPEC were effectively handing market share to U.S. producers,” said Caroline Bain, chief commodities economist at Capital Economics, in a Monday note.

Russia’s rejection last week of a Saudi push for additional production cuts prompted Saudi Arabia over the weekend to slash prices on crude exports in a move analysts said was aimed at taking market share from Russia. But it was Russia’s longstanding frustration with rapidly growing U.S. shale industry that prompted Moscow to resist the push for additional production curbs.

Saudi Arabia over the weekend slashed prices on oil exports, a move that traders took as a sign that the Riyadh was ready to take on Russia in a global price war that would flood the world with crude at the same time demand is curtailed by the COVID-19 outbreak.

The fracking industry has survived basically on zero percent interest loans from Wall Street. The whole American economy is based on no interest loans with the Federal Reserve providing quantitative easing whenever banks or major industries needed money. The average American pays through the nose for a loan. The whole economy is on life support, and it would collapse unless it is continually salvaged by government deficit spending and the Fed flooding the markets with liquidity. The fracking industry and the banks that carry its loans are in trouble now because Russia is essentially controlling the price of oil and pricing it below what the fracking industry needs just to pay on its debts. Now that the world needs to consume far less oil because of restrictions on travel, less greenhouse gasses are going into the atmosphere. This is the silver lining which is not being talked about.

So now the world is at war, not one nation towards another nation, but the whole world vs the coronavirus. Finally the world is coming together against a common enemy. So far the world has not come together in the same way in the common fight against global warming. If it can come together in the fight against the coronavirus, why can't it come together in the fight against global warming which is far more serious. The coronavirus is so far only killing the elderly with underlying conditions. So nursing homes have to be very concerned about their patients, but so far in the US young people that have acquired the virus generally get over it just as they would with the flu virus. The coronavirus may kill millions, but global warming has the potential of killing billions.

Off the Top of My Head

The Campaign Against Arms Trade

by John Lawrence, November 10, 2019

One of the most corrupt branches of the military-industrial complex is BAE System located in the US and the UK. The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) is a UK-based campaigning organisation working towards the abolition of the international arms trade. It was founded in 1974 by a coalition of peace groups. It has been involved in several campaigns, particularly its legal challenge against the Serious Fraud Office's decision to suspend a corruption investigation into BAE Systems in 2007. BAE represents how the hand-in-glove military alliance between the US and the UK works.

BAE Systems formerly British Aerospace, is the world's second largest arms dealer. BAE's arms are sold around the world. It has military customers in over 100 countries and in 2010 it was listed by SIPRI as having 95% of its sales as military. CAAT has long campaigned against BAE, highlighting allegations of corruption and political influence, rebuking claims about jobs, attending AGMs as critical shareholders, and through legal action.

BAE is prominent in the San Diego port area which also houses General Dynamics' NASSCO. The roots of BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair date back to the mid-1970s. They service US Navy ships at the shipyard, at the Naval Station San Diego, and at neighboring shipyards. They repair, overhaul, and modernize both U.S. Navy surface warfare ships and commercial vessels.

From Wikipedia:

In September 1985 BAE was a signatory to the UK's largest ever arms deal, the Al Yamamah contract to sell and service military planes to the government of Saudi Arabia. This ongoing contact has evolved through several phases and by 2006 had brought them £43 billion.

Shortly after the contract was signed, corruption allegations emerged concerning bribes paid to Saudi officials through a £60 million pound slush fund. On 12 September 2003 the Serious Fraud Office began an investigation into possible corruption. There were also SFO investigations in BAE dealings in Chile, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Austria, Qatar, Romania, South Africa and Tanzania. However, on 14 December 2006 the Government, under the personal intervention of Prime Minister Tony Blair, discontinued the Al Yamamah probe on the grounds that its conclusions might embarrass the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and threaten Britain's national security.

The US and UK are competing to sell arms to Saudi Arabia since the Saudis have tons of money to buy them so Brits and Americans are foaming at the mouth to profit off of arms sales to a big spender. Corruption ran rampant as certain high ranking Saudis including Prince Bandar were paid off in order to insure an arms and planes deal. These items were used to slaughter men, women and children in Yemen. The Guardian reported:

The arms company BAE secretly paid Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia more than £1bn in connection with Britain's biggest ever weapons contract, it is alleged today. A series of payments from the British firm was allegedly channeled through a US bank in Washington to an account controlled by one of the most colourful members of the Saudi ruling clan, who spent 20 years as their ambassador in the US.

It is claimed that payments of £30m were paid to Prince Bandar every quarter for at least 10 years.

It is alleged by insider legal sources that the money was paid to Prince Bandar with the knowledge and authorisation of Ministry of Defence officials under the Blair government and its predecessors. For more than 20 years, ministers have claimed they knew nothing of secret commissions, which were outlawed by Britain in 2002.

The US and UK and their arms dealers were anxious to profit off of Saudi corruption and maintain jobs in the arms industry. President Trump is all about selling military procurements to the Saudis, and he doesn't hide his motives. “It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, tremendous economic development, and much additional wealth for the United States,” Trump said in a statement. So selling arms to a human rights violating murderous regime is being justified on the grounds that it will provide wealth for the US - filthy lucre to say the least. The deal supposedly included a Saudi order for $110 billion-worth of US military equipment and weapons.

Corruption and human rights violations are at the core of US and UK dealings with Saudi Arabia. They are US and British allies simply because they have money to buy arms and create profits and jobs for these countries despite their abominable human rights record including murdering journalist Jamal Khashoggi. This in and of itself makes the US and UK human rights violators one step removed. Some ally!

Off the Top of My Head

The US is Now Arming ISIS After Spending Trillions Trying to Get Rid of ISIS

by John Lawrence

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrat bringing up the absurdity of the US continuing to arm terrorists, whom we spent trillions to eradicate, in their efforts to overthrow Assad in Syria. Since Assad is allied with Iran (his religion is a variation of Shiite Islam which is espoused by Iran), all of a sudden it's not ISIS that are the terrorists, it's Iran and everyone allied with Iran who are the terrorists. This is all a game designed to spend trillions of dollars and destroy millions of lives just so the US can maintain its military spending at a high level while accomplishing nothing but death and destruction. What the US foreign policy experts don't seem to understand is that what is going on in the Middle East is fundamentally a continuation of the Sunni-Shiite split that happened centuries ago. Add to that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and you have a real mess.

Tulsi Gabbard understands the ridiculousness of this continued mucking around in this conflict which has produced nothing but death and destruction and wasted trillions of dollars:

Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. If an American citizen gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, he or she would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government. The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This support has allowed al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorist organizations to establish strongholds throughout Syria, including in Aleppo.

Since the US has redefined Iran as the enemy and undertaken a series of provocations towards Iran, all of a sudden anyone who is fighting Iran's friend Assad, namely ISIS is a friend of ours. All of a sudden Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism and not ISIS. It all depends whose side you're on how you define who is and who isn't a terrorist. Since the brou ha ha over Jamal Khashoggi's death at the hands of Saudi Arabia has died down, we can now get on with our close relationship with the Sunni country of Saudi Arabia which spawned ISIS (who are Sunnis) in the first place. Now it's Sunnis good, Shiites bad although by taking out Saddam in Iraq we created a Shiite state affiliated with Iran since the majority of Iraquis are Shiites (Saddam was a Sunni).

So there's this big realignment of US foreign policy since Trump backed out of the JCPOA, the nuclear arms deal with Iran. This deal made Iran a partner instead of an adversary. Now Trump has accomplished the goal of turning them into an adversary and may even start a war with them. At the same time he is doubling down on his efforts to oust Assad in Syria since Assad is an ally of Iran.

Tulsi continues:

The CIA has long been supporting a group called Fursan al Haqq, providing them with salaries, weapons and support, including surface to air missiles.  This group is cooperating with and fighting alongside an al-Qaeda affiliated group trying to overthrow the Syrian government. The Levant Front is another so-called moderate umbrella group of Syrian opposition fighters. Over the past year, the United States has been working with Turkey to give this group intelligence support and other forms of military assistance. This group has joined forces with al-Qaeda’s offshoot group in Syria.

Why is she the only Democrat talking about this stuff? Who is going to define who is and who is not a terrorist? A terrorist is in the eyes of the beholder and has become a meaningless term used to justify every side in a conflict. As Tulsi points out, "Our limited resources should go toward rebuilding our communities here at home, not fueling more counterproductive regime change wars abroad."

At the root of the conflict is the continually festering situation between the Palestinians and Israel. Even though the Palestinians are essentially Sunnis, the Shiite nation of Iran is supporting them in a proxy war against Israel through its proxy, Hezbollah. If this issue were to be resolved, then maybe all parties could get along, and Sunnis, Shiites and Jews could all be friends. In any event the US mucking around in the Middle East has only made the situation worse while spending trillions of dollars that could have been better spent at home.

Off the Top of My Head

With the Money Saved by Withdrawing Troops From Syria and Afghanistan, Build a High Tech Wall

by John Lawrence, December 24, 2018

Senator Rand Paul has the right idea. Trump's pulling of the troops from these two countries should save a ton of money. Use some of that money for enhanced border security which might include a wall in some places. Better yet why don't you guys come up with a comprehensive plan for border security before you just build some 30 foot concrete monstrosity just to fulfill a campaign promise to Trump's supposed "base." Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said on Twitter that he was “happy to see a president who can declare victory and bring our troops out of a war. It’s been a long time since that has happened.” Senator Paul said that critics of Trump's move are talking like the US should be the world's policeman. Why not get rid of most of the thousand or so US military bases around the world which implement the US world policeman role as well?

Transfer the money consumed by an overbloated military and military-industrial complex to border security and infrastructure rebuilding and expansion. That is putting America First. Solve the problems of gun violence, opioid addiction and homelessness. That is putting America First. These are not just right wing issues. The Dems should co-opt the right wing issues whenever possible. However, Trump, of course, is all over the map when it comes to anything to do with the military. For instance, his next pick for Defense Secretary is Patrick Shanahan who worked for Boeing, a major defense contractor, for 30 years. Do you think that he is anything more than a lobbyist for Boeing and other defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon? No, he probably never met a military jet he didn't like. Expect major military defense contracts to go Boeing's way.

The Democrats better get on board with those Trump impulses that are actually positive like removing troops from places that the US has a permanent presence. That means closing down Bagram Air Base, which is tantamount to a major American city, in Afghanistan. The US needs to revamp its whole foreign policy taking a neutral stance toward the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran instead of aligning itself with one of the worst human rights violators in the world - Saudi Arabia. As long as the US does that, it is the world's leading hypocrite and has little if any moral authority.

The US can fulfill its own needs for oil without Saudi Arabia's help, and besides, the US needs to get out of the fossil fuel business altogether and into 100% renewables as quickly as possible before the Earth becomes a living Hell due to global warming. Rethinking foreign policy is crucial to reestablishing the US as the world's moral leader. Taking a primary stand on global warming, reentering the Paris Accords is a necessary step for the next US President, hopefully a Democrat of the Bernie Sanders variety.

 

Off the Top of My Head

Trump Blunders into Doing the Right Thing

by John Lawrence, December 22, 2018

Getting the US out of Syria is the right thing to do. Ditto for that money pit - Afghanistan. Let us not forget that the purpose of going into Syria was regime change. The US wanted to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad. However, Assad with Russia's and Iran's help won the civil war so then the dialog has been all about ISIS. A little history is in order perhaps. Assad practices a flavor of Islam which is close to the Shiites. Assad is an ally of Iran which is majority Shiite. But the people of Syria are majority Sunni. It is just the opposite situation that existed in Iraq before the US invasion. There a majority Shiite population was governed by a Sunni government. By overthrowing Saddam and instituting a "democracy", Iraq became a country governed by Shiites allied with Iran. The Saudis, who are the largest Sunni nation in the Middle East and a US ally were saying the Arabic equivalent of "What the fuck?"

So Obama and Hillary in all their zest and zeal for "democratic values" were of the opinion that the US should institute "regime change" in Syria so that the majority Sunnis could be in power there. That would be lovely as far as the Saudis were concerned. However, please don't forget that ISIS is Sunni. ISIS was spawned by Saudi Arabia in their virulent Wahhabist schools which preach "Death to the West." Lest we forget, Usama bin Laden came from a wealthy Saudi family and 15 0f the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. So getting back to Syria, if the US had been successful in unseating Assad, it is likely that a Sunni caliphate aka ISIS would have taken over. In fact the US and ISIS were fighting for the same objective - a Syrian government dominated by Sunnis and allied with Saudi Arabia.

So getting out of Syria is the right thing to do. Hurrah for Donald Trump! Lindsay Graham needn't worry about ISIS taking over now. Assad, Russia and Hezbollah (Iran's proxy) will make short work of ISIS in Syria. The Kurds which had hopes of establishing an independent state in northern Syria - Kurdistan - will have to retreat into Turkey where they and the majority Turks are Sunnis. So the status quo ante will have been reestablished and the fighting will have ceased thanks to Trump's decision to declare victory and get the hell out of the way. (Actually, it was a US defeat, but what the hell.)

So to sum up, Syria will remain governed by Assad aligned with Iran and Iraq had a regime change which aligned it with Iran. US meddling in the Middle East has caused nothing but death and destruction and cost a trillion dollars which could have been spent more wisely at home rebuilding US infrastructure. Instead, we destroyed civilian infrastructure in the Middle East. The US is left with its human rights violating ally, Saudi Arabia minus an ally in Iraq, the legacy of being friends with the murderer of Kashoggi and a money pit in Afghanistan. Might we venture to say that US foreign policy is a shambles? A shambles that makes a mockery of human rights and allies itself with the worst actors? Oh what tangled webs we weave.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Trump Won't Sanction Saudi Arabia

by John Lawrence, December 6, 2018

The short answer is that he has business dealings with Saudi Arabia. The New York Times reported:

Mr. Trump’s dealings with the Saudis extend back to at least 1995, when he sold the Plaza Hotel to a partnership formed by a Saudi prince and an investor from Singapore. The deal, for $325 million, enabled Mr. Trump to escape a default on his loans. (The same prince had reportedly bought Mr. Trump’s yacht for $18 million four years earlier.)

The Saudis “buy apartments from me,” he said in August 2015 at a rally in Mobile, Ala. “They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”

His company filed paperwork to create eight inactive corporations in Saudi Arabia around that time, presumably contemplating a hotel or licensing deal in Jidda that has not come to fruition.

So Trump doesn't want to offend countries with which he has lucrative business deals going past and present. Would this cloud his judgment when deciding what to do as President of the United States? You think? You might as well make Saudi Arabia the 51st state. They have a horrible human rights record. It's to the point where human rights don't mean anything at all. Even Republican Congressmen are convinced that Mohammed bin Salman ordered the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.

Long story short: we have a corrupt President who puts his business dealings first and not the interests of the US. It used to be said that what is good for General Motors is good for the US. Now that has changed to what is good for Donald Trump is good for the US. Trump's interests come first and the US' interests are secondary. I guess it's not illegal though so Trump has a point that the Mueller investigation is a "witch hunt."

Off the Top of My Head

The World's Biggest Hypocrite

by John Lawrence, November 24, 2018

The CIA has traced the murder of Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, directly to the door steps of one Mohammed bin Salman the Crown Prince of the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. Some call it a "kingdom," but that is a total euphemism. They even have a tape of Khashoggi being tortured and murdered which Trump refuses to listen to. Why? Because it might ruin his appetite? He doesn't want to hear the cries and screams? He doesn't want to hear those of the children of Yemen either as he continues to support the Saudis' war there which is creating a humanitarian crisis.

So while there is a direct link to Mohammed bin Salman in Khashoggi's murder, there is no evidence whatsoever that Vladimir Putin is responsible for the attempted murder of the Skripals in the UK. Yet the US establishment has pinned the blame squarely on Putin. The US is always accusing other countries and leaders of human rights violations like we're so pure. We'll slap sanctions on them without an iota of proof. Yet when an ally does it, why there is not a peep out of Trump. There are others to be fair that have stood up and said that Saudi Arabia committed a human rights violation. People like Lindsay Graham, bless his heart. There are still a few honest, unconflicted people in Washington, thank God. But the President of the United States is not one of them.

Trump brazenly says that his non condemnation of Saudi Arabia and Salman in particular is all about money. Yes, if there is money involved, it even justifies murder. It even justifies human rights violations. We wouldn't want to take jobs away from the weapons manufacturers. Killing innocents is their job, and it is very lucrative. Thank God, there are at least some decent people in Washington who want to stop the US supported war in Yemen. Isn't it enough that we have slaughtered over a million people throughout the Middle East?

With Statement Equal Parts 'Dangerous' and 'Imbecilic,' Trump Smears Khashoggi and Vows to Back Murderous Saudis

Published on Tuesday, November 20, 2018 by Common Dreams

"This Donald Trump statement—simultaneously pledging never-ending support for Saudi Arabia and blaming Iran for every Middle East problem—reads like a 6th grader's school report."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

67 Comments

President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media prior to his departure from the White House November 20, 2018 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

In a bizarre, exclamation point-riddled statement on Tuesday that one critic said reads more "like a 6th grader's school report" than an official White House press release, President Donald Trump shrugged at the CIA's conclusion that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) ordered the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi—"maybe he did and maybe he didn't!"—and declared that the U.S. will continue to back Saudi Arabia because it is one of the world's largest oil producers, a major purchaser of American arms, and an ally in the "fight against Iran."

"This is, without a doubt, the most uninformed, imbecilic, toady, poorly-written, categorically untrue statement I have ever seen from a president of the United States."
—Joe Cirincione, Ploughshares Fund

Speaking to reporters on the White House lawn just hours after his statement went public, Trump said Khashoggi's murder "is a very complex situation, it's a shame, but it is what it is."

"It's all about America first. We're not going to give up hundreds of billions of dollars in [weapons] orders and let Russia, China, and everybody else have them," the president added. "Saudi Arabia, if we broke with them, I think your oil prices would go through the roof. I've kept them down, they've helped me keep them down."

 

 

Off the Top of My Head

Small World Isn't It

by John Lawrence, November 21, 2018

As an Uber and Lyft driver, I have people from all over the world in my car. In particular, as I'm writing quite a bit about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the Saudis' bombing of Yemen, I recently had a Saudi pilot in my car. He was over here for some "training." He practically begged me not to judge him. "We are just human," he said. Sure, and if you're a Saudi pilot, you do what you're told ... or else. I don't judge him. He is just doing his job.

I do judge Trump and his henchmen though. It's becoming quite obvious that US foreign policy is not based on "traditional American values" but on far darker motives like money and profit. The hatred of Iran is not because Iran is the worst actor in the Middle East. It's based on the US dollar and oil and profits from selling the Saudis weapons so they can kill their neighbors.

The totally botched killing of Khashoggi and the ridiculous attempts to cover it up make it obvious that the Saudis should not be allies of the US. You tell them Lindsay Graham. He won't do business with them again. Now MBS, as they call him, wants to kill five of the guys he ordered to kill Khashoggi as a form of ... penitence?

Bottom line: The US should get out of the Middle East except for diplomacy to ease the situation there that the US has been inflaming for years. And the US should rebuild what it has destroyed. But there's no way to bring back the million or more who have been killed.

Off the Top of My Head

Why is George W Bush Being Honored?

by John Lawrence, November 20, 2018

Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which have killed over a million people and now Joe Biden of all people presented him with the Liberty Medal on the hundredth anniversary of the end of World War I? Bush should have paid for his criminal acts, and instead he's being rewarded. He blatantly lied to the American people because he wanted to be a "war time President." Even the war in Afghanistan was ill conceived because Osama bin Laden was a Saudi living in Pakistan. What did Afghanistan have to do with it? Obama was duped too, by the way, into thinking that Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11. He continued that fruitless war.

If anyone other than bin Laden himself was responsible, it was our ally, Saudi Arabia, who contributed 15 of the 19 hijackers. But Trump wants to be friends with the Saudis even now after their leader has committed one of the most egregious human rights violations in human history by offing Jamal Khashoggi. Trump's rationale: they buy our weapons to kill Yemeni women and children and thereby create American jobs producing those weapons. Trump is all about creating American jobs even if they kill people.

Common Dreams put it this way:

We do know this: To make their splendid little war happen, Bush and his minions lied again and again — about "ticking time bombs" that had been unplugged years earlier, about weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, and about ties between Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda that never were. The Iraq war has destabilized the Middle East to this day and paved the way for the rise of a new anti-American group called ISIS that remains a murderous scourge. And it made the world safe for oil, right at the moment when the planet's survival depends on moving away from fossil fuels.

Has this guy no shame? Has this country no shame? Bush represented a new low in American politics until Trump came along who is even lower. Trump wants to stay friends with a murderer because he buys lots of weapons from the US, and Trump thinks he's protecting the jobs of the weapons makers. The US has sunk to a new moral low point when its economy depends on selling weapons to murderers.

So now even the Democrats want to rehabilitate George W Bush. He's one of us former Presidents - welcome to the club, by the way - so we can't let his reputation fall too low. He spends his time helping veterans and painting pictures. What's not to like? It turns out a lot. The destabilization of the Middle East. The destruction of billions of dollars worth of real estate. The killing of a million people. And that's just for starters. A fit tribute to George W Bush would be to send him to Guantanamo and let him linger there for the rest of his life being waterboarded from time to time.

Trump Said Considering Extradition of Turkish Cleric to Quiet Erdogan on Khashoggi Murder

Published on Friday, November 16, 2018 by Informed Comment

A stronger phrase than abject shamelessness needs to be coined in order fully to characterize the cheapness of what the White House is apparently considering

by Juan Cole

 

13 Comments

Trump’s desperate ploy, finally to shut Erdogan up about the crown prince and let the whole controversy die down if possible, so as to preserve Bin Salman as quarterback of the White House Middle East game. (Photo: Screenshot)

NBC News maintains that four sources in US government agencies (probably the FBI and the State Department) told its reporters that the Trump White House is seeking ways to expel Turkish religious leader Fethullah Gulen. But the kicker is that Trump apparently is exploring the extradition as a bribe to shut Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan up about the murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi on the orders of crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman. The Saudis are now trying to pin the blame on lower-level operatives, whom they have sentenced to death. But Erdogan has been like a bulldog, insisting that Bin Salman ordered the hit (which is the only logical).

NBC says that career officials were absolutely furious when they figured out what was behind the White House requests. It is of course the ultimate in shamelessness for Trump to have a US green card holder sent to the gallows in Turkey in order to cover up the murder of another US green card holder murdered in the Saudi consulate.

Turkey maintains that Gulen’s Hizmet Movement is a front for terrorist activities and was behind the failed 2016 military coup attempt against Tayyip Erdogan. I think there is evidence that the group is a cult and that it did attempt to infiltrate key Turkish government institutions, in the way of the old Stalinist covert cells. But that all Gulenists are terrorists is pretty hard to believe; the group runs schools and universities and those institutions haven’t been violent (they have been shut down in Turkey proper). That the upper echelons of the leadership have been involved in shady goings-on is plausible (just as it is possible with regard to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which is being treated by the al-Sisi government the way Ankara is now treating the Gulenists).

The US government has repeatedly denied such Turkish requests, and disputes that the evidence the Turkish government has provided to the FBI is sufficient to warrant Gulen’s extradition. (This datum in the NBC reporting is itself significant, since it means that Turkey has not been able to provide convincing documentation on the origins of the 2016 coup to US authorities.)

Erdogan’s campaign to unseat the crown prince has been extremely inconvenient for Trump. Trump has said that Saudi purchases of billions in US weaponry cannot be put in jeopardy over Khashoggi’s murder. Bin Salman is also the linchpin of the Trump administration’s anti-Iran coalition, and to the extent that he is permanently weakened by the fallout over Khashoggi, Iran is strengthened. Bin Salman only had part of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates) with him on boycotting Iran. Oman and Qatar have refused to join in, and even Kuwait is soft on this issue. Egypt, Jordan and Morocco were aboard, but offered little practical support, and both Egypt and Jordan want improved relations with the pro-Iran government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. With Bin Salman being ridiculed as “The Sawman” (Abu Minshar), like a cartoon villain, it is hard to see how he can lead a charge against Iran.

In fact, the strategy of flooding the market with extra oil has already backfired, harming the Saudi and other Arab producers’ bottom line, and Saudi Arabia has announced cutbacks for next month (cutbacks that will help Iran withstand the boycott, since it may sell less oil but get more per barrel).

Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are pro-Iran and Qatar has correct relations with Tehran, plus Russia and China are with Iran. The European Union is trying to protect Iran and keep the 2015 nuclear deal. The US-backed Bin Salman’s success in the anti-Iran push was already in doubt before the murder of Khashoggi. Now it is in severe doubt.

Hence Trump’s desperate ploy, finally to shut Erdogan up about the crown prince and let the whole controversy die down if possible, so as to preserve Bin Salman as quarterback of the White House Middle East game.

A stronger phrase than abject shamelessness needs to be coined in order fully to characterize the cheapness of what the White House is apparently considering. (Note that the White House denies the NBC story; but four sources are pretty damning).

© 2018 Juan Cole

Off the Top of My Head

Beyond Shamelessness...Beyond Hypocrisy

by John Lawrence, November 18, 2018

First you have the murder of a US based Saudi journalist who was critical of the dictator of Saudi Arabia - Mohammed bin Salman. Then you have the Saudi attempts to cover it up. Now even the CIA is convinced that the order came from Salman who plans to kill five of the hatchetmen involved as a way of assuaging international opinion, apparently, that they were really the ones responsible, not him. But then you have Trump, on behalf of the holier-than-thou United States when it comes to murders like this, saying that we have to go along with Saudi Arabia and Salman on this because, otherwise, it might cost American jobs. Sure, and if all wars were stopped immediately, it would cost thousands of American jobs. So that is what this is all about - the perpetuation of war because it might cost American jobs?

Morality and ethics have been totally thrown out the window by the US in the conduct of international relations. Any careful consideration would conclude that Iran, although far from perfect, is a more moral and ethical country than Saudi Arabia. Yet we have to hate Iran and sanction Iran and try to bring Iran's economy to its knees because Saudi Arabia hates Iran and they are our ally? This whole thing is ridiculous. Trump is trying to preserve Saudi Arabia as an American ally because Nixon made a deal with the Saudis to sell oil only for dollars thus making the dollar the world's reserve currency. The Saudis off people in the public square for hardly any reason at all. Their religion, Wahhabism, preaches death to the West and to Jews. Usama bin Laden was a Saudi as were 15 of the nineteen 9/11 highjackers. The Saudis are just using the US and vice versa.

On moral and ethical grounds, we shouldn't be allies with Saudi Arabia. On moral and ethical grounds concerning the welfare of our grandchildren who will be getting the worst effects of climate change brought about by the usage of oil, we shouldn't be friends with Saudi Arabia. I don't say we have to be enemies with them either. Just take a step back and treat them as you would any other country. Don't alienate them, but don't consider them total allies either. The US should operate so as to bring peace to the world, not to side with one set of nations against another set. In other words diplomacy rather than outright support and alliances. Only then will America have the moral and ethical high ground.

We shouldn't be basing American jobs on support for an immoral dictator, who shamelessly tries to cover up the fact that he had a journalist brutally murdered by murdering five of the guys he ordered to do it. When Trump is hopefully defeated in 2020, the US should get back into the Iran deal which Trump pulled out of and which the Europeans have tried to uphold, and we should sanction Saudi Arabia over the murder of Khashoggi, let the chips fall where they may. Only then can the US redeem itself as a moral and ethical nation.

As WaPo Accuses Trump of 'Abetting Saudi Coverup,' Crown Prince Shielded While Khashoggi 'Murder Team' Members Face Execution

Published on Friday, November 16, 2018 by Common Dreams

"It's not surprising at all, but there is something extra evil about ordering the death of a bunch of people who tortured and murdered a dissident on your orders while you pretend you had nothing to do with it."

by Jon Queally, staff writer

 

2 Comments

A protester dressed as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and another dressed as U.S. President Donald Trump stand outside the White House in the wake of the disappearance of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi on Oct. 19. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

"It's not surprising at all, but there is something extra evil about ordering the death of a bunch of people who tortured and murdered a dissident on your orders while you pretend you had nothing to do with it."

That was the sharp reaction from MSNBC's Chris Hayes after news emerged Thursday that while Saudi Arabia would continue to shield Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman from responsiblity, the nation's top court prosecutor would seek the death penalty against five members of the "murder team" that assassinated, and then dismembered, journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, Turkey last month.

While a full and transparent investigation has yet to be conducted—and the video and audio evidence the Turkish government possesses yet to be made public—reports have strongly suggested the likelihood that the crown prince was directly responsible for ordering the mission and knew the murder of Khashoggi was its goal or a likely outcome:

It's not surprising at all, but there is something extra evil about ordering the death of a bunch of people who tortured and murdered a dissident on your orders while you pretend you had nothing to do with it.

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) November 15, 2018

Responding to the latest statement by the Saudis on Thursday, Turkey's foreign minister, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, called it completely insufficient in terms of admitting guilt and said it betrayed the facts and earlier statements acknowledging the murder had been premeditated. "The necessary equipment and people were previously brought in to kill and later dismember him," he said.

Speaking with The Independent, a Turkish source familiar with the thinking in Ankara described the statement by the Saudi prosecutor as "a great work of fiction" that nobody in the Turkish government is buying. The Saudis, the source said, "wants the world to believe that a group of goons just felt like killing the most prominent non-royal Saudi in the world."

Meanwhile, in an editorial published late in the day Thursday, the Washington Post, where Khashoggi was employed as a contributor, the newspaper condemned the Saudis' latest story about the murder as well as the Trump administration's continued willingness to play along with it:

By offering up this incredible account, the Saudi regime is baldly defying all those, including leading members of Congress, who called for full disclosure and accountability. Yet the Trump administration appears ready to accept its stonewalling. On Thursday, it announced sanctions against 17 people implicated by the Saudis — leaving untouched both the crown prince and top intelligence officials in Riyadh. 

Accepting the Saudi story means ignoring a number of well-established facts. An audio recording of Mr. Khashoggi’s last moments, which Turkish officials shared with CIA Director Gina Haspel, indicates he was attacked and strangled immediately after entering the consulate. The Saudi version claims he died only after a quarrel and a struggle that prompted the head of the "negotiation team" to decide to murder him by injecting him with drugs.

The Post continued by saying the Saudi's "all-too-transparent tissue of lies only underlines the need for a genuinely independent international investigation led by the United Nations" and castigating the Trump administration for "abetting the Saudi coverup" with the toothless sanctions annnounced by the Treasury Department on Thursday.  

"Congress should not allow this travesty to continue. It should suspend all military sales and cooperation with Saudi Arabia until a credible international investigation of the Khashoggi killing is completed," the editorial concluded. "The Saudi cover story is just one more instance of Mohammed bin Salman’s arrogant and reckless behavior. The true murderers of Jamal Khashoggi must be named and punished."

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

Due to a Change in the News Cycle, Salman's Prayers Have Been Answered

by John Lawrence

Salman and his partner in crime, Trump, have been saved by a shift in America's attention away from the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. They are thanking their lucky stars that, while the world was pondering whether or not the Saudis should be sanctioned over Khashoggi's murder, along came a multiple pipe bomber, a mass murderer who killed 11 Jews inside a synagogue and another would be mass murderer who was locked out of a black church so he murdered two African Americans in a Kroger store and parking lot. Salman must be breathing a sigh of relief. He and Trump knew the news cycle would change but it changed so quickly that not even they could have foreseen that their lucky day were just around the corner to mix a metaphor.

Now Trump and the US military-industrial complex can get on with selling the Saudis millions of dollars worth of weaponry so they can continue to slaughter innocent women and children in Yemen with US assistance. All those workers for Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics can also breathe a sigh of relief because now they won't have to lose their jobs as if their jobs were ever in danger of being lost anyway. They are the most protected jobs in American society thanks to relentless lobbying by defense contractors and compliant Republican Congressmen and women. A lot of Democrats also are for a "strong defense".

Also at stake was the fate of petrodollars which prop up the US budget deficit of a trillion dollars a year and the national debt of $21 trillion which grows by a trillion dollars annually. It would be unthinkable that the Saudis would start accepting currencies other than the dollar for oil purchases because that would spell the end to the dollar as the world's reserve currency and all hell would break loose. The US would probably finally have to live within its means which would spell the end of social security and medicare because it's unthinkable that the US defense budget would be diminished by even one dollar.

Yet without much if any proof, other countries, namely those on the US' shit list, can be sanctioned over the murder or attempted murders of journalists either past or present. This makes it clear that US allies such as Saudi Arabia can get away with things that other countries would be sanctioned for. But who said that the world was fair or that power politics would not triumph over the moral high ground? It's clear that sanctions are just a tool that the US uses against its enemies not its friends.

Off the Top of My Head

The US Would Be Cutting Off Its Hand To Spite Its Foot If It Sanctioned Saudi Arabia

by John Lawrence, October 25, 2018

Since it is becoming clear that Salman, the Saudi leader, ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, there is talk of sanctioning Saudi Arabia as punishment in the same way that the US has sanctioned Russia and other countries over human rights violations. The NY Times reported:

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday condemned Saudi Arabia’s account of the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi as “the worst cover-up ever,” and his administration warned for the first time that it would impose human rights sanctions on some of those who took part in the plot.

Mr. Trump’s criticism, and the sanctions announced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, attested to the mounting pressure on the White House after Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, characterized the killing of Mr. Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul as premeditated and “savage.”

But the president still appeared to be playing for time, complaining about how the Saudis botched the crime rather than about who was behind it, and blacklisting what are likely to be Saudi operatives rather than decision makers like Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.

“They had a very bad original concept, it was carried out poorly, and the cover-up was one of the worst in the history of cover-ups,” Mr. Trump said to reporters in the Oval Office.

OK, then can we agree that Salman ordered the killing? If Salman himself is not sanctioned, then at least Saudi Arabia should be sanctioned. But wait a minute. Let's consider the history of the US-Saudi relationship. In 1971, President Nixon took the US off the gold standard and offered a deal to the Saudi king at that time that, if he would accept only US dollars as payment for oil, the US would offer the Saudis military protection. The deal was done and that resulted in the US dollar becoming the world's reserve currency. Because the US dollar is the world's reserve currency and most business world wide is conducted using dollars, the US has the ability to sanction individuals and countries which means that they can't do business using the US dollar because those dollars have to be processed by US controlled banking institutions which just won't allow it if the President so orders.

So what does this mean in the case of Saudi Arabia? If Saudi Arabia were to be sanctioned they couldn't sell oil for dollars which more or less nullifies the original agreement. From their perspective the US would be effectively negating the agreement that allowed the US dollar to become the world's reserve currency which resulted in the US' ability to sanction in the first place. The net result would probably be that the Saudis would sell oil for other currencies which would diminish the role of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency and, therefore, limit the US' ability to sanction. So the Saudis would probably say to the US: Ha. Ha. Sanction us and you will lose the ability to sanction anyone or any other country.

This gives the Saudis carte blanche to violate the human rights of anyone they choose to with impunity. Trump's excuse for not sanctioning Saudi is that the US would lose jobs due to an arms deal being nullified and they would buy their arms elsewhere. But Trump could sanction any country from selling the Saudis arms so that excuse is bogus. No, it's more than an arms deal that's at stake. It's the whole edifice of world financial transactions based on the US dollar. Trump is whistling Dixie to reporters because he and the other hypocrites that run the US know in their hearts that they will never sanction Saudi Arabia over Khashogg's murder.

Off the Top of My Head

The US Should Detach Itself from Saudi Arabia and Reinstate the Nuclear Deal With Iran

by John Lawrence, October 23, 2018

The US is involved in a genocidal war on behalf of Saudi Arabia in Yemen where millions of people could starve to death or be otherwise murdered. So why is Lindsay Graham all of a sudden so upset over the killing by Saudi Arabia of one man - Jamal Khashoggi? Regarding Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's putative leader, Lindsay Graham had this to say: "This guy is a wrecking ball, he had this guy murdered in a consulate in Turkey, and to expect me to ignore it, I feel used and abused," the South Carolina Republican said on "Fox and Friends." So why is the US so tight with Saudi Arabia? It all has to do with oil.

Saudi Arabia, through its dominant position in OPEC, controls or used to control the world's oil supply. Leaving aside the question of why the US is sucking up to a nation that is hastening the day when global warming will destroy the planet, the US made a deal with the Saudis in 1971 that it would price oil only in dollars thus making the US dollar the world's reserve currency. So the US, in order to keep the world's oil supply on a rational basis, has had to tolerate Saudi Arabia as one of the world's worst human rights violators and a country in which the dominant religion, Wahhabism, preaches death to the west including the US. Most US Presidents simply laughed this off as a lot of hyperbole, but it became more than that when Osama bin Laden organized the operation which took down the twin towers. Bin Laden was Saudi. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. It was a Saudi operation that was carried out despite the fact that the Saudi ruling class had supposedly nothing to do with it. Why would they? They had the US tied to them by the nose because of oil.

Meanwhile, the US has found every excuse to demonize Iran which has a government and a society which is much more democratic that Saudi Arabia. Iran has some justification to be angry with the US because the US installed the Shah of Iran, a brutal dictator, in 1953, overthrowing a democratically elected regime. That was because Iran, under its democratically elected leader, Moseddagh, was going to nationalize Iran's oil industry. Subsequent to that came the Iran hostage crisis during Jimmy Carter's Presidency. So both countries have some animus to be angry with each other over historical events. That being said, the US cozying up to the brutal regimes in Saudi Arabia, where people are beheaded in public for little or no reason at all, meant that the US had to make enemies out of the Saudis' enemies, the primary one being Iran. So power politics and nefarious activities by the US over oil have resulted in the present day scenario in which the US is in bed with one of the world's largest human rights violators which is also conducting a genocidal war in Yemen which got little attention from the American press until Khashoggi was murdered. This suddenly focused the world's attention on Saudi Arabia as a human rights violator which, prior to that event, it had managed to escape.

Simply put, the US is on the wrong side of history. The use of oil to provide the world's energy has to be terminated to stop global warming. The US should not ally itself with human rights violators over oil. Besides the US is currently self sufficient in oil so why does it have to suck up to Saudi Arabia? The nuclear deal with Iran should be reinstated. The US should be more concerned about the genocide in Yemen than it is with the death of one human being - Khashoggi - as bad as that is. Sanctions as a tool of US diplomacy are going by the wayside as other countries devise workarounds for doing business with other countries. The US should wake up and smell the coffee. They are not the big kid on the block any more despite having the world's largest military. Certainly not the world's moral arbiter.

'We Call BS': As Saudi Arabia Claims Khashoggi Killed in 'Fistfight,' Trump White House Issues 'Laughably Weak' Response

Published on Friday, October 19, 2018 by Common Dreams

Saudi Arabia's "explanation for the arbitrary execution of Jamal Khashoggi is just not plausible. No government should accept it," says U.N. special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

18 Comments

Activists on Friday delivered a petition to the U.S. State Department demanding justice for journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul nearly three weeks ago. (Photo: Ford Fischer/News2Share)

"We call BS," declared CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin on Friday after the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia finally confirmed that Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul—but also claimed he died in "fistfight" gone wrong rather than the widely suspected grisly torture and assassination by a hit team acting on orders from the highest levels of Saudi leadership.

The Kingdom later updated its explanation, according to a CNN reporter, to say that Khashoggi was killed in a chokehold during a fight. Turkish officials, meanwhile, have alleged to the press that a team of Saudi agents—including a doctor specializing in autopsies—brought a bone saw into the consulate, where they tortured, killed, and dismembered Khashoggi.

Fist fight that ends up with fingers being cut off and body dismembered? That’s quite a #Saudifistfight. We call BS. #JusticeForJamal

— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) October 19, 2018

Breaking down the past nearly three weeks since Khashoggi, who was a U.S. resident, entered the Saudi consulate in Turkey but never reemerged—despite Saudi Arabia's initial claims to the contrary—activist and writer Shaun King also called "bullshit" on the official Saudi explanation.

For 3 weeks Saudi Arabia said Jamal Khashoggi left their consultant safe and sound.

They said they had no idea where he was.

They denied all wrongdoing to every leader in the world as late as yesterday.

Now they say they accidentally killed him in a fistfight.

Bullshit.

— Shaun King (@shaunking) October 19, 2018

Saudi Arabia's "explanation for the arbitrary execution of Jamal Khashoggi is just not plausible. No government should accept it or the pretense at investigation," warned U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Executions Agnes Callamard. "We need a trustworthy, impartial, and transparent investigation. To identify the killers and the mastermind."

Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California dismissed the Saudi explanation as "ridiculous on its face."

The Saudi Arabia story that Khashoggi would get into a fist fight with up to 18 Saudis, many of whom are trained killers, is ridiculous on its face.

Oh, and there's that whole bone saw thing. https://t.co/k9hrIJAQRU

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) October 19, 2018

"The stupidity of the Saudi explanation is mind boggling," Karen Attiah, global opinions editor for the Post, concluded in a series of tweets. "What I hate about the statement is the use of the passive construction to imply this was an accident. Jamal didn't just 'die during a struggle.' #Khashoggi was killed. By Saudi men. In a consulate. His life was taken from him."

#Khashoggi was a 60 year old man. What sort of equal “fight" would he have had against 15 other men? And who brings a bone saw to a “discussion”?!

The stupidity of the Saudi explanation is mind boggling….

— Karen Attiah (@KarenAttiah) October 20, 2018

Critics also condemned the Trump administration's response to the latest developments. In a statement that journalist Chris Hayes decried as "laughably weak," Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders acknowledged the Kingdom's admission that Khashoggi is dead and that it "has taken action against the suspects." The Kingdom announced Friday that it has fired five top officials and taken 18 people in custody.

The White House statement also vowed the Trump administration would to "continue to closely follow the international investigations into this tragic incident and advocate for justice that is timely, transparent, and in accordance with all due process."  U.S. President Donald Trump, however, has been ridiculed for naively accepting denials of any wrongdoing by Saudi royals and ignoring mounting evidence that a team of Saudis murdered Khashoggi.

The president—who also has rebuffed demands that the U.S. cut off arms sales to the Kingdom and military assistance for the war in Yemen in light of Khashoggi's killing—even has been accused of conspiring with Saudi officials to obstruct justice. Responding to the reports on Friday, filmmaker Michael Moore tweeted: "Of course! KHASHOGGI DIED BOXING! Trump and the Saudi dictator finally have their lying story worked out."

Asked about Saudi Arabia's new claims late Friday, Trump told reporters he has confidence in the "fistfight" explanation and called the supposed findings a "good first step." VoteVets pushed back against Trump's remarks on Twitter:

Absolutely disgraceful.

Lying about even knowing he was dead, and then shoveling out the biggest load of BS about him dying in a "fist fight" isn't a "good first step," at all.

Not. At. All. https://t.co/GEgBhhLUtI

— VoteVets (@votevets) October 20, 2018

Saudi Arabia has now set up a commission that is reportedly being led by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, or MbS—the heir to the throne and an accused war criminal known for his cozy relationships with the American elite, including Trump—to overhaul the Saudi intelligence operation. Notably, shortly after Khashoggi disappeared, MbS told Bloomberg News that the journalist had left the consulate unharmed.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut—who often has advocated for ending U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, which has produced the world's worst humanitarian crisis—denounced the Saudi explanation as "preposterous" and demanded American action in response to the initial lie that Khashoggi hadn't been killed, but did not offer further details.

For two weeks, Saudi Arabia has been lying to the world, telling us that Jamal was alive when they knew, the whole time, he was dead.

The new explanation is preposterous, and America’s moral compass has come completely unmoored if we don’t take action.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) October 20, 2018

"The admission by Saudi authorities that Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in their custody plainly exposes all their previous claims about his fate as flagrant lies," PEN America senior director of Free Expression Programs Summer Lopez said in a statement. "The Saudi regime must not be allowed to hide behind lies in order to literally get away with murder." 

"It is absurd to entrust the investigation of Khashoggi's murder to those most likely to have ordered it," Lopez added. "Turkey should call on the U.N. secretary general to authorize an independent, international investigation to expose the truth and lay the groundwork for holding those behind this grievous crime fully responsible."

This post has been updated with comment from PEN America and to clarify a statement by VoteVets.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

Salman's Flimsy Scenario for Khashoggi's Murder

by John Lawrence, October 20, 2018

Finally, the Saudis have admitted the fact that Khashoggi was murdered in the Saudi embassy after proof emerged that a whole contingent of Saudi security guards plus one doctor with a bone saw were present that day. So the problem now is how to get around the fact that this was a human rights abuse ordered by Saudi dictator, Mohammed bin Salman. Trump has said that, if Salman is responsible, there will be very serious repercussions for the Saudi distatorship. Whether or not this is true is a matter of conjecture. Trump could give Salman a slap on the wrist and claim he had delivered a punishing blow. Salman could react vehemently, but the whole thing might have been preconceived and acted out for the benefit of the world press.

So now begins the kabuki dance in which Trump and Salman orchestrate a plausible denial that Salman had anything to do with the murder. At first Salman professed to have no knowledge that Khashoggi was even murdered. But the facts showed Khashoggi walking into the Saudi embassy and never coming out. Pretty hard to rationalize this. So the Saudis, not wanting to appear to be fools, devised another explanation. Sure, they said, Khashoggi died in the embassy but only because an impromptu fist fight broke out in which Khashoggi was evidently the loser. Only how do you explain the presence of 15 Saudi security guards and one doctor with a bone saw?

Trump and Salman are hoping that the media attention to this specific even will soon be over, and they both can relax having offered up a somewhat plausible scenario for what happened that day. The media will have focused on another 'outrage of the day' and forgotten all about Khashoggi. Salman will have relieved from duty or fired those presumably responsible for the event while not implicating himself, of course. Trump may have offered up some 'severe' punishment for Salman (wink, wink) and Salman will have sworn that such an event will never happen again because those responsible have been severely punished. Maybe even a few will have their heads cut off which the Saudis seem to do for minor crimes without a moment's hesitation.

It's obvious that Trump and the American establishment want to preserve Saudi Arabia as an ally so they can preserve Iran, the Saudi's enemy, as their enemy. Then there is the 'oil for dollars' deal that Nixon entered into with the Saudis in 1971. The Saudis are perhaps the least ethical and the least democratic of the Middle Eastern countries, but no matter, they have been reliable allies in colluding with the US over oil. However, the fact of the matter is that oil must be phased out or the whole planet will be going up in smoke because of global warming in about 20 years. This fact seems to be of no concern to either the Saudis or to Trump who is doing everything he can to increase global warming.

Off the Top of My Head

The US Should Sanction Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

by John Lawrence, October 17, 2018

Trump says that Saudi Prince Salman is innocent till proven guilty of the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. but Russian President Vladimir Putin is guilty till proven innocent of the attempted killing of the Skripals. A double standard, you think? The US will never sanction Saudi Arabia because the Saudis are propping up the US dollar by selling oil only for dollars and not any other currency. That gives the Saudis the dominant hand in US-Saudi relations. Of course, the Saudis should be sanctioned for killing and starving thousands of Yemeni children. But the US is totally complicit in that operation not only from selling Saudis the weapons but also by providing backup support.

The world the US wants to maintain is one in which the Saudis are our friends no matter what they do and the enemies of Saudi (like Iran) are our enemies. This at least is a stable world in which there is no current threat to the US dollar and the US can continue to run up enormous deficits and debts. Were that situation to change, all hell would break loose. In the final analysis maybe even peace would have to break out in order to preserve some semblance of the world as we know it.

The world alignment is the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the EU on one side and Russia, China, Iran and Syria on the other. This alignment is designed to preserve the integrity and the profits of the US military-industrial complex. Trump mentioned that sanctioning Saudi would affect the profits of Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon, three of the largest denizens of the US military-industrial complex. Their profits would also be threatened if peace broke out between Russia, Iran and the US. China is a case of split personalities. On the one hand they're our enemy . On the other, they're a large trading partner and the world's second largest economy. The US must tread lightly there.

Well, Trump has shown himself to be the world's leading hypocrite by giving Prince Salman of Saudi Arabia a pass for killing Jamal Khashoggi and holding Putin accountable for attempting to kill the Skirpals. Our friends can kill anyone they want, and that is not a human rights violation. But what about the human rights of Yemeni children? It seems they haven't any.

As Khashoggi Case Highlights Saudi Crimes, UN Warns Famine Driven by US-Backed War in Yemen Could Kill 13 Million People

Published on Monday, October 15, 2018 by Common Dreams

While the U.S. faces pressure to stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, the United Nations estimates that if current conditions continue, Yemen could face "the worst famine in the world in 100 years."

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

16 Comments

The United Nations is warning that Yemen could soon face "the worst famine in the world in 100 years." (Photo: UNICEF)

With heightened attention on Saudi Arabia's crimes in the wake of the alleged murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi at the country's consulate in Turkey, the United Nations is warning that if current conditions continue, the U.S.-backed war in Yemen led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates could cause "the worst famine in the world in 100 years."

"There's no question we should be ashamed, and we should, every day that we wake up, renew our commitment to do everything possible to help the people that are suffering and end the conflict."
—Lise Grande, United Nations

 

"I think many of us felt as we went into the 21st century that it was unthinkable that we could see a famine like we saw in Ethiopia, that we saw in Bengal, that we saw in parts of the Soviet Union—that was just unacceptable," Lise Grande, chief of the U.N.'s diplomatic mission in Yemen, said in an interview with BBC News.

"Many of us had the confidence that would never happen again and yet the reality is that in Yemen that is precisely what we are looking at," she continued. "We predict that we could be looking at 12 to 13 million innocent civilians who are at risk of dying from the lack of food."

Asked by BBC correspondent Orla Guerin if the global community should be ashamed about what already has become the world's worst humanitarian crisis, Grande responded: "Yes. There's no question we should be ashamed, and we should, every day that we wake up, renew our commitment to do everything possible to help the people that are suffering and end the conflict."

Yemeni civilians who don't starve to death or die from rampant disease are still at risk of being killed by the Saudi and UAE-led coalition's airstrikes. Since June, when the coalition launched an offensive to take control of Hodeidah, civilian deaths in and around the port city have "surged dramatically." Over the weekend, Saudi bombings killed at least 15 civilians and injured 20 others who were traveling on passenger buses.

Denouncing the weekend incident as "horrific," Grande declared in a statement that "the United Nations agencies working in Yemen unequivocally condemn the attack on civilians and extends our deepest condolences to the families of the victims." She also issued a reminder that targeting civilians, or even declining to protect them, violates international humanitarian law.

The weekend attack followed similar deadly strikes earlier this year, including when coalition forces dropped a U.S.-made bomb on a school bus in August, killing 40 boys aged six to 11.

Following Khashoggi's suspected murder, President Donald Trump has been hit with a new wave of pressure to stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia and end support for the coalition. While Trump, in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" that aired Sunday, threatened "severe punishment" if the United States finds evidence that Khashoggi was killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, the president has also repeatedly said in recent days that he doesn't want to cut off arms sales to the country because it would cost U.S. weapons manufacturers jobs and profit.

Last month—even before Khashoggi's suspicious disappearance—Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation that aims to revoke all U.S. support for the war. It was welcomed by peace advocates as a long overdue move that "offers a glimmer of hope to the suffering people of Yemen."

"Regardless of what ultimately happened to Khashoggi, continuing U.S. arms sales and military support to Saudi Arabia under current circumstances is immoral." —William D. Hartung, Center for International Policy

William D. Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and a supporter of Khanna's measure, argued Monday that "regardless of what ultimately happened to Khashoggi, continuing U.S. arms sales and military support to Saudi Arabia under current circumstances is immoral."

"Jobs should not be an excuse to arm a murderous regime," Hartung asserted, "that not only may be behind the assassination of a U.S. resident and respected commentator but is responsible for thousands of civilian casualties in its three-and-one-half-year military intervention in Yemen—the majority killed with U.S.-supplied bombs and combat aircraft and U.S. refueling and targeting assistance."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

If the US Retaliates Against Saudi Arabia, Will They Stop Pricing Oil Just in Dollars?

by John Lawrence, October 16, 2018

When President Nixon took the US off the gold standard in 1971, he made a deal with Saudi Arabia (some say with the devil) to only accept US dollars as payment for oil in return for military protection. This is what made the dollar the world's reserve currency and the Saudis allies of the US. Now with the evident killing of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Embassy, some US Congressmen are calling for reprisals against Saudi Arabia, and Saudi dictator Salman has threatened harsh actions towards the US in return.

The Guardian reported:

Riyadh vowed to hit back against any action. “The kingdom affirms its total rejection of any threats and attempts to undermine it, whether through economic sanctions, political pressure or repeating false accusations,” it said.

“The kingdom also affirms that if it is [targeted by] any action, it will respond with greater action.” The statement also pointed out that the oil-rich kingdom “plays an effective and vital role in the world economy”.

The country’s foreign ministry issued a series of tweets rejecting the accusations as “attempts to undermine” Saudi Arabia, writing in one post “demise is the outcome of these weak endeavors”.

The deal between the US and Saudi Arabia has allowed the US to run huge budget deficits because there is a ready market for US Treasury bonds mainly because of the need for other countries to purchase oil with dollars. If that's no longer the case, the US will have a harder time selling off all its debt the amount of which recently increased as Treasury Secretary Mnuchin frantically tries to sell more and more US debt. The government is trying to handle a budget deficit expected to eclipse $1 trillion in the next two years. The national debt is at $21.3 trillion, having risen about $800 billion in 2018. That means more and more US debt needs to be sold at a time when other countries are scaling back their purchases.

Russia recently dumped 84% of its American debt, and China, the US' largest debt holder sold off $3 billion in US Treasury bonds. Is it any wonder? Russia has been targeted with US sanctions, and China and the US are in a trade war started by Trump. If the US does not go along with the Saudis' murdering of a journalist, thereby becoming complicit in Khashoggi's murder, the Saudis might retaliate by pricing oil in other currencies. Then where does that leave the US with its frantic need to sell off more and more of its debt which has ballooned thanks to Trump's recent tax cuts for the wealthy.

Trump has said that he doesn't want to cancel the arms deal with the Saudis because it would mean US jobs for Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon. In other words the US military-industrial complex would suffer if we do not sell the Saudis the weapons they are using to slaughter innocent Yemenis. This is so much bullshit. If he sanctioned the Saudis, no other country supposedly would be able to sell them weapons either and this might be the best outcome if that meant the Saudis could not keep on slaughtering Yemenis.

The larger picture, however, has to do with the fact that Trump's alienating other countries including the US' largest debt holder, China, will mean a sell off of US debt and rising interest rates for US Treasury bonds to attract investors. This does not bode well for the continuation of the situation that currently holds sway in which the US lives off its penchant for funding its military and social programs with other people's money.

With Khashoggi Believed Killed, Ethics Watchdog Says: We Must Ask If Trump's Silence "Being Dictated by His Business Interests" With Saudis

Published on Friday, October 12, 2018 by Common Dreams

"Is the Saudi gov't purposely filling Trump's pockets? If so, what do they expect in return? We don't know, because Trump refuses to comply with the Constitution."

by Julia Conley, staff writer

 

11 Comments

 U.S. President Donald Trump and Mohammed bin Salman, Deputy Crown Prince and Minister of Defense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, prepare to have lunch in the State Dining Room, at the White House, March 14, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

As new evidence emerges that Washington Post correspondent Jamal Khashoggi was tortured and killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last week, lawmakers and ethics watchdogs said Thursday that President Donald Trump's reluctance to hold the Saudis responsible for Khashoggi's possible murder is exactly what they've warned about when calling attention to Trump's refusal to divest from his businesses—which, according to the president himself, Saudis have invested tens of millions of dollars over the years.

Saudi officials, along with other international political figures, have stayed in Trump's hotels since he took office in 2017, with lobbyists from Saudi Arabia spending $270,000 in the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. last year alone.

"Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them," Trump said in 2015. "They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much."

The Saudis also have a long history of business dealings with Trump, including a Saudi prince's purchase of a yacht and a hotel from him in the 1990s when the real estate developer was in need of money. But Democrats in Congress and the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) have especially expressed concern with his financial entanglements with the kingdom after he took office, saying they blatantly violate the U.S. Constitution's emoluments clause.

On Twitter, CREW suggested that Saudi Arabia's status as a loyal customer to the Trump Organization—from which the president refused to divest after taking office—has likely been on Trump's mind this week as he's told the press that he won't consider sanctioning or condemning the Saudis over Khashoggi's disappearance.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Does the US Establishment Get All Up in Arms Over the Death of One Man But Tolerates the Deaths of Thousands of Innocent Civilians?

by John Lawrence, October 13, 2018

Certainly we should be upset over the death of Khashoggi who was a critic of Saudi Arabia. However, Saudi Arabia, with US help, is slaughtering innocent men, women and children in Yemen and there's nary a peep. They get furious over a supposed "human rights violation." So when a regime like Saudi Arabia or even Russia kills a critic of the regime, it's a human rights violation and we should all get very upset, but, when thousands of innocents are killed in war, that's OK? This is ridiculous. What set of values condones killing innocents in war but gets all righteous about human rights when a few individuals are killed by some regime. Perhaps that regime considered that those individuals committed treason. The definition of treason is quite arbitrary. If you went against the king, that was treason. It basically still is in countries that have a king or dictator as the US likes to call them.

The furor over Khashoggi will probably amount to a tempest in a teapot since the US and Saudi Arabia are allies and have been since Nixon took the US off the gold standard and made a deal with the devil that he would provide military protection to Saudi Arabia in return for them pricing oil in dollars. Thus we are allies with a country who produced Osama bin Laden and 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers, not to mention ISIS. So then we turn around and call ISIS our friends in Syria because they are fighting the al-Assad regime in Syria. So the meaning of terrorism is up for grabs. Anyone who is not our ally at some particular time is a terrorist. It has nothing to do with morality or ethics because it has everything to do with alliances, oil, dollars and gold.

So the US gets all morally outraged over the killing of one journalist by Saudi Arabia while at the same time aids and abets Saudi Arabia's killing of thousands of innocents in Yemen. What's wrong with this picture?

The Washington Post reported:

The growing number of Western companies distancing themselves from Saudi Arabia over the alleged killing of dissident Jamal Khashoggi is undermining the kingdom’s push to diversify its economy beyond oil and provide more opportunities for its young and often restive population.

By Friday afternoon, nearly a dozen tech, media and entertainment companies had backed out of a Saudi investment conference to be held this month, as dismay over Saudi agents’ alleged murder of Khashoggi spread to companies that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has tried to woo.

One firm that was among the recipients of the $27 million the kingdom spent on U.S. lobbying last year announced that it would stop its representation. “We are terminating our relationship,” said Richard Mintz, managing director of the Harbor Group.

The companies and executives backing away from the kingdom, including Uber Technologies, Viacom and at least two prominent tech investors, are the very ones the crown prince has sought to cultivate over the past year as the kingdom attempts to modernize its economy and ensure jobs for its young population. More than 60 percent of Saudis are under age 30.

Still, there may be limits to the corporate world’s willingness to censure the Saudis. Big banks and consulting firms that earn large sums issuing bonds for the kingdom or offering strategic advice have largely stayed mum on their plans to sponsor or attend the Riyadh conference, nicknamed Davos in the Desert. Some lobbying firms that work for the kingdom also withheld comment.

And so far the White House has steered clear of harsh criticism, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin saying Friday that he’s still planning to attend the summit — a statement that drew condemnation from two Senate Democrats.

President Trump called Khashoggi’s suspected killing a “terrible thing,” but stopped short of assigning blame and noted that the dissident wasn’t a U.S. citizen. He told reporters later Friday: “A lot of people are going over to the investment conference. We’ll see what happens. Maybe some won’t be going. We’ll make that determination very soon.”

Trump gives lip service to this "terrible thing" but it will soon be forgotten because business must go on.

Off the Top of My Head

What Will Happen to the US Dollar When Its Not the World's Reserve Currency Any More?

by John Lawrence, September 13, 2018

The dollar is the world's reserve currency by virtue of the fact that Saudi Arabia agreed to sell its oil only for dollars in return for US military protection, a deal struck by President Nixon in 1971 when he took the dollar off the gold standard. Other nations had to buy and sell goods in dollars to get enough dollars to buy oil. But the world is changing. For one thing the world is converting to renewable energy so the price of oil will eventually plummet just as the US with its shale oil is becoming the world's leading oil exporter.

However, other nations are losing faith in the US as the world's moral arbiter. US imposed sanctions, brought about because the US controls international financial institutions like SWIFT, have caused the nations that are usually the target of US sanctions to form their own alliances, form their own financial, institutions and trade among themselves using other currencies. Eventually the dollar will only be one of many instead of being the only reserve currency. Eventually, other nations may even impose sanctions on the US, something unheard of at the present time.

So the US dollar may well lose value with respect to other currencies making imports to the US more expensive. However, exports would be cheaper for other countries to buy and that would boost exports which would help manufacturing in the US. If the US dollar loses value with respect to other currencies, other nations will not be as willing to park their savings in US Treasury bonds which means that the Federal Reserve will have to raise interest rates to attract buyers of US debt. Or the Fed could just print dollars and give the money to US banks to buy up US debt which is just what it has been doing with its quantitative easing policy.

The US will be stuck with its enormous national debt with creditors not willing to fund any more of it. Paying it off with "conjured money" will cheapen the US dollar and even perhaps result in the same sort of austerity that has been imposed on Greece and other countries that get behind in their payments to investors. We'll see. In any event it won't happen any time soon. But by mid century as hurricanes, floods and wildfires take their tolls, the paucity of dollars in the US Treasury and the reluctance of investors to fund more US debt may not augur well.

Less Than 24 Hours After Senate Rejected Effort to Curb Slaughter, 26 More Children Killed by US-Backed Bombing in Yemen

Published on Saturday, August 25, 2018 by Common Dreams

"These deaths are on our hands, and many more children will die in Yemen as long as the U.S. supports the Saudi-led war."

by Jon Queally, staff writer

 

3 Comments

A photograph distributed by Houthi fighters shows Yemenis carrying the bodies of children killed in a Saudi-led airstrike near Al Hudaydah on Thursday. (Credit: EPA, via Shutterstock)

Less than a day after Republicans in the United States Senate rejected a chance this week "to slam on the brakes and stop [America's] role in enabling the suffering in Yemen," at least 26 more children were slaughtered by a U.S.-backed Saudi-led bombing in the western part of the country.

"Shame on those Senators who let our involvement in this war continue. History will not be kind to you." —Win Without War

Condemning the bombing near the Red Sea port of Al Hudaydah that occurred Thursday, but was not widely reported until Friday, the United Nation's humanitarian chief, Mark Lowcock, and head of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), Henrietta Fore, said the attack—in which four women, in addition to the children, were killed—took place as the victims tried to flee the area.

"This is the second time in two weeks that an airstrike by the Saudi-led Coalition has resulted in dozens of civilian casualties," said Lowcock, who noted that "an additional air strike in Al Durayhimi on Thursday resulted in the death of four children."

Yesterday, 26 children were reportedly killed in attacks in ad-Durayhimi, Yemen. Children and families continue to be victims of intense and senseless violence. UNICEF calls on all parties to the conflict to stop the war on children in Yemen once and for all. #ChildrenUnderAttack pic.twitter.com/1JkxkjGVAO

— UNICEF (@UNICEF) August 24, 2018

As the New York Times reports:

Criticism of Saudi Arabia and its partners has been growing over thousands of civilian casualties, many of them caused by munitions fired from the coalition’s warplanes.

Humanitarian groups and antiwar activists have also aimed criticism at the United States, a main provider of the Saudi coalition’s weapons, intelligence, warplane refueling and guidance technology for missiles and bombs.

Just two weeks ago, as Common Dreams reported, another Saudi airstrike in the city of Saada—which investigators later showed was carried out using U.S.-manufactured bombs—killed at least 40 children riding in a school bus as they enjoyed a rare field trip. In reaction to that massacre, an outraged Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) declared, in all capital letters, "We just bombed a SCHOOL BUS."

"I had hoped that the outrage that followed the Saada attack in Yemen two weeks ago would be a turning point in the conflict. Yesterday's reported attacks in Al-Durayhimi, killing 26 children, indicate that it was not," said Fore of UNICEF on Friday.

"These deaths are on our hands, and many more children will die in Yemen as long as the U.S. supports the Saudi-led war," declared the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the anti-war Quaker advocacy group, in a tweet.

The U.S. must end its complicity in the Saudi-led onslaught in #Yemen. We're helping intensify the world's worst humanitarian crisis. The worst #Cholera outbreak in human history. It has to stop. #YemenCantWait. https://t.co/CRdOiALgkp

— FCNL (Quakers) (@FCNL) August 25, 2018

It was the August 9th slaughter of the school children on the bus in Saada that drove Sen. Murphy on Wednesday of this week to push for a vote on his amendment that would have "cut off United States' support for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition's war in Yemen until the Secretary of Defense certified that the coalition's air campaign is not violating international law and U.S. policy related to the protection of civilians." But Republicans, led by Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, objected to the measure and would not allow a vote.

The Republicans objected.

It’s just unthinkable to me that we continue to willingly participate in the slaughter of Yemeni kids when there is zero benefit to U.S. security. Mind blowing really. https://t.co/p6qbrfRGoe

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) August 22, 2018

Less than twenty-four hours later, more than two dozen innocent children were dead.

As the peace advocacy group Win Without War put it: "Shame on those Senators who let our involvement in this war continue. History will not be kind to you."

Shame on those Senators who let our involvement in this war continue. History will not be kind to you. 'Despite Effort by Sen. Chris Murphy, GOP Rejects Call to Curb US Funding for 'Slaughter of Yemeni Kids' #YemenCantWait https://t.co/oahjtWnTVp pic.twitter.com/YKtED1tkfy

— Win Without War (@WinWithoutWar) August 24, 2018

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

'We Just Bombed a SCHOOL BUS': Outrage After US-Backed Saudi Coalition Slaughters Children in Yemen

Published on

Thursday, August 09, 2018

by

Common Dreams

 

At least 29 children were killed in the latest attack on civilians by Saudi and UAE forces, which are supported by the United States

 

 

by

Julia Conley, staff writer

 65 Comments

Dozens of children—most reportedly under the age of 10—were killed and wounded by an air strike launched by the U.S.-backed Saudi coalition in Yemen on Thursday. The attack targeted a school bus. (Photo: @FrancescoRocca/Twitter)

Declarations of outrage were followed by demands for an immediate investigation on Thursday after reports that the U.S.-backed Saudi coalition slaughtered dozens of innocent civilians, including many children traveling on a school bus, when it bombed an area near a crowded market in Yemen.

The International Committee of the Red Cross reported on Twitter that its medical team had received "the bodies of 29 children, all under 15 years old" and was treating "48 injured people, among them 30 children."

The school bus that was bombed was reportedly carrying children back to religious education classes after a picnic near the city of Dahyan, according to reports from Save the Children and Al Jazeera. Local journalists reported seeing "body parts scattered" at the scene. 

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), an outspoken critic of the United States' support for the Saudi coalition, expressed fury over the attack and demanded once again that lawmakers end their complicity in the war.

U.S. bombs. U.S. targeting. U.S. mid air support.

And we just bombed a SCHOOL BUS.

The Saudi/UAE/U.S. bombing campaign is getting more reckless, killing more civilians, and strengthening terrorists inside Yemen. We need to end this - NOW. https://t.co/P8V2L6Crgi

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) August 9, 2018

"Save the Children condemns this horrific attack and is calling for a full, immediate and independent investigation into this and other recent attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals," said the group in a statement. "We have seen a worrying rise in these incidents and no action has been taken to hold the perpetrators to account."

YEMEN : Save the Children calls for immediate independent investigation after dozens of children feared dead in school bus attack. @foreignoffice #Yemen #Yemencrisis #NotATarget https://t.co/Uxvv2i1eSX pic.twitter.com/h0ZwOCP6v3

— SavetheChildren News (@SaveUKNews) August 9, 2018

Health officials in Saada told Al Jazeera that 43 people were killed and 61 were wounded in the attack, the majority of whom were children.

According to Al Jazeera, the Saudi coalition claimed it had targeted "missile launchers," but Yemen-based reporters who have witnessed numerous attacks in civilian-populated areas vigorously disputed the claim.

"The place is known to be a market, [and] there is no military installation nearby... but the Saudis are known to have done this many times—target schools, weddings and so on," Nasser Arrabyee told Al Jazeera.

In April, the coalition killed at least 20 Yemeni civilians—including a bride—when it bombed a wedding party. As Al Jazeera reported, a third of the 258 attacks carried out by Saudi and UAE forces in June targeted non-military sites.

In a rare show of attention to the war that's been going on since March 2015, killing and injuring 15,000 civilians and plunging the country into what the United Nations has called the world's worst humanitarian crisis, MSNBC briefly covered the attack and noted that the Saudi coalition is backed by United States, which supplies fuel and intelligence to Saudi Arabia and the UAE in the coalition's war on the Houthi rebels in support of the Yemeni government.  

@adamjohnsonNYC I just saw MSNBC do a short segment on how US back Saudi Arabia dropped a bomb on a school bus in Yemen. Probably lasted 30 seconds, if that.

— Erik Pfantz (@ErikPfantz) August 9, 2018

But on social media, critics noted that other coverage of the air strike in the US and Britain—which also supports the coalition—failed to acknowledge the countries' involvement in the war.

US media outlets that call this atrocity (and others like it in Yemen) the work of a "Saudi-led coalition" - without highlighting the vital, indispensable, multi-layered support the US & UK have given to it from the start (2015) - are engaged in propaganda https://t.co/OgZ9hGYzec https://t.co/mgfh6FRUUn

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) August 9, 2018

Dozens, mostly children, massacred in Saudi UAE attack on #Yemen bushttps://t.co/N32UiigL0p
As almost always if a US UK ally to blame, note how BBC headline doesn’t name the perpetrator, and article nowhere mentions that victims likely killed with US UK supplied planes and bombs

— Charles Shoebridge (@ShoebridgeC) August 9, 2018

International rights groups repeated calls for an end to the war and strongly condemned the bus attack and other civilian massacres.

Grotesque, shameful, indignant. Blatant disregard for rules of war when bus carrying innocent school children is fair game for attack. #NotATargethttps://t.co/ZvCVvIdDdL

— Jan Egeland (@NRC_Egeland) August 9, 2018

Appalled by the attack in #Yemen on a bus full of kids. This is shameful, unacceptable, cruel and barbaric. Civilians are #NotATarget, kids are #NotATarget: they must be protected. All my thoughts to victims, their beloveds and our @ICRC_ye colleagues who are supporting hospitals pic.twitter.com/ayZDJPWmbN

— Francesco Rocca (@Francescorocca) August 9, 2018

"This is yet another example of the blatant violations of international humanitarian law that we have seen in Yemen over the past three years—from indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilians, denial of access to humanitarian aid and the use of starvation as a weapon of war—it's the people of Yemen, not the warring parties, who are paying the ultimate price," said Sylvia Ghaly, director of advocacy in Yemen for Save the Children.

"There is no military solution to this conflict," she added. "Only a political solution can bring the war to an end and reinstate peace in Yemen. We urge all parties to agree to an immediate cessation of hostilities, return to the negotiation table to commit to a ceasefire and cooperate with the U.N. Special Envoy Martin Griffiths. Spare the Yemeni people more death and misery."

As award-winning journalist Iona Craig noted last week, such slaughter and barbarity is nothing new when it comes to the U.S. and Saudi role in Yemen:

U.S.-backed Saudi airstrike on family with nine children shows “clear violations” of the laws of war https://t.co/289p9isVDF by @ionacraig @shuaibalmosawa

— Iona Craig أيونا كريچ (@ionacraig) August 2, 2018

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Coalition Ignores Famine Warnings and Continues Assault on Yemen as Critics Question US Complicity

Published on Saturday, June 16, 2018 by Common Dreams

While senators demand answers from the Pentagon, anti-war advocates are calling the attack on Hodeida a failure by the U.S. to stop it and demanding an end to American military support for the coalition

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

12 Comments

Women and girls line up to receive food aid on June 10, 2018 in Sana'a, the rebel-held captial of Yemen. About 70 percent of humanitarian assistance reaches Yemenis through Hodeida, a port city currently under seige by Saudi-led coalition forces. (Photo: Mohammed Hamoud/Getty Images)

Ignoring international aid groups' warnings that an attack on the Yemeni city of Hodeida, which is held by Houthi rebels, could exacerbate hunger in an impoverished and war-torn nation already on the brink of famine, Saudi-led U.S.-backed coalition forces continued a sweeping assault on the Red Sea port city Saturday, reportedly seizing control of an airport.

"The lack of humanitarian assistance, following suspension of aid programs and with limited NGO staff on the ground while a military offensive is ongoing, will have severe consequences on a region already facing restrictions on the import and internal transportation of vital supplies, including medicines, food, and fuel."
—Frederic Pelat, Médecins Sans Frontières

"The lack of humanitarian assistance, following suspension of aid programs and with limited NGO staff on the ground while a military offensive is ongoing, will have severe consequences on a region already facing restrictions on the import and internal transportation of vital supplies, including medicines, food, and fuel."
—Frederic Pelat, Médecins Sans Frontières 

Since the fighting started earlier this week, thousands of Hodeida's 600,000 civilians have evacuated and hundreds of people have been killed. The port city is the main conduit through which about 70 percent of international aid reaches Yemenis, many of whom are battling starvation and outbreaks of infectious diseases such as cholera.

The Norwegian Refugee Council's office in Yemen told Reuters that "humanitarian agencies cannot currently access areas south of the city where people are most likely to have been injured, affected, and displaced, leaving us without a clear picture of needs."

"The lack of humanitarian assistance, following suspension of aid programs and with limited NGO staff on the ground while a military offensive is ongoing, will have severe consequences on a region already facing restrictions on the import and internal transportation of vital supplies, including medicines, food, and fuel," Frederic Pelat, head of Médecins Sans Frontières' mission in Yemen, warned Thursday. "Yemenis living in the northern parts of the country depend on vital supplies that pass through Hodeida's port."

The port of #Hodeida is an essential lifeline for the country: more than 70% of all food, essential medicines and healthcare supplies are brought in through this port. #Yemen@DrTedros pic.twitter.com/lv1HENfWmf

— WHO Yemen (@WHOYemen) June 16, 2018

Martin Griffiths, the U.N. special envoy to Yemen, arrived in the Houthi-held capital Sana'a on Saturday after the U.S. and U.K. blocked a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have called on coalition forces—which are being led by the United Arab Emirates in Hodeida—to immediately implement a ceasefire due to mounting fears that if the coalition takes control of Hodeida, the majority of Yemenis will be cut off from humanitarian assistance.

In an article published by The Intercept on Saturday, former White House and State Department officials, humanitarian leaders, and Yemen experts characterized the coalition's operation in Hodeida "as a major failure by the U.S. to restrain its coalition partners, who are largely dependent on American weapons, intelligence, and logistical support," and suggested "the attack was a sign that the U.S. is allowing allies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE to drive American policy decisions in Yemen."

Kate Kizer, policy director at the D.C. advocacy group Win Without War, noted that "rather than preventing the offensive, which the U.S. has done twice before, [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo [released] a weak statement giving the UAE the green light to potentially kill hundreds of thousands of people with no political strategy or end goal."

"The UAE's assault on Hodeida is just another example of the Trump administration outsourcing U.S. policy in Yemen—and really the region writ large—to the Gulf states," Kizer concluded. "Believing that this offensive will bring the Houthis to the negotiating table is living in a fantasyland."

On Friday, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) sent a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis that acknowledged reports that the U.S. denied the UAE's request for "intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance" support for the Hodeida operation but still demanded answers about the U.S. military's ongoing assistance to the Saudi-led coalition.

.@SenMikeLee and I call on Sec. Mattis to immediately disclose the full extent of the U.S. military role in the Saudi-led war against Yemen’s Houthis and issue a public declaration opposing the impending assault on Hodeida. https://t.co/jZx5G2Je7i

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 15, 2018

The senators wrote,

We call on you to immediately disclose the full extent of the U.S. military role in the Saudi-led war against Yemen's Houthis, including the use of special operations forces; disclose any role that the Pentagon is currently performing, has been asked to perform, or is considering performing regarding an attack on the port of Hodeida; and issue a public declaration opposing this impending assault and restating the administration's position that Saudi Arabia and other parties to the conflict should accept an immediate ceasefire and move toward a political settlement to resolve the conflict.

Their letter on Friday followed a similar memo sent last month, which went unanswered, as well as a War Powers Resolution that the pair of senators, along with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), introduced earlier this year. While dozens of lawmakers were lauded by peace groups for backing that measure, which would have withdrawn U.S. forces from the war in Yemen, it was ultimately voted down by a majority of the Senate in late March.

In spite of that setback, anti-war advocates continue to push for congressional action to stop U.S. support for the war in Yemen:

Yemen. Can't. Wait.

Send a message to your Representative to act now to stop it from getting even worse: https://t.co/D9xKU0PwWt https://t.co/gRbdGg5OLA

— CODEPINK (@codepink) June 16, 2018

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License