25 Oct 2018

Fall in hi-tech shares wipes out Wall Street’s 2018 gains

Nick Beams

Wall Street experienced a sharp sell-off yesterday, wiping out all the gains it has made this year, with the tech-heavy NASDAQ index undergoing its biggest fall in seven years.
The fall in the markets came late in the day with the Dow Jones dropping by 334 points in the last hour of trading. It finished down more than 600 points for the day, a decline of 2.4 percent, continuing the trend of the past two weeks. The VIX volatility index ended around 22 percent up, its highest level since the market turbulence of last February.
The benchmark S&P 500 index was down by 3.1 percent, bringing its fall over the past month to 9.4 percent.
The biggest fall was in the NASDAQ index, which dropped by 4.4 percent. This was its biggest drop since August 2011, taking its decline to more than 12 percent since its peak in August this year. Over the past period, tech stocks have sustained the rise in the market but have now become the leaders of the downturn.
One of the areas showing the sharpest falls has been the shares of chipmakers because they are sensitive to trade flows between the US and China and are being hit by concerns over the impact of the trade war launched by the Trump administration.
Shares in Texas Instruments fell by more than 8 percent after its profit and revenue forecasts fell below market expectations. After the market had closed, the shares of another hi-tech company, AMD, dropped by a further 22 percent, on top of the 9 percent decline during regular trading hours.
In comments to the Financial Times, Max Gorkman, head of asset allocation for Pacific Life Fund Advisors, cited the trade tensions that are threatening to disrupt global supply chains as a key reason for the sell-off. “Semiconductors are so tied to Asia,” he said. “Most supply chains—once you disrupt them it’s hard to find alternatives.”
On top of the disruption caused by the US trade war with China, there is a growing recognition that sooner, rather than later, the effects of the “sugar hit” delivered by the Trump administration’s massive corporate tax cuts will wear off. The tax cuts have boosted markets in two ways: by raising corporate profits and share earnings and by providing companies with additional cash to finance the share buybacks that have been a significant component of the rise of the market.
Signs of a weakening US economy came on Tuesday with significant falls in industrial shares, led down by two major corporations, Caterpillar and 3M. Caterpillar shares fell by 7.6 percent, after being down by 10 percent in the course of the day. Shares in the industrial conglomerate 3M dropped by 4.4 percent after being down by as much as 8 percent.
Both companies cited concerns over tariffs, trade war with China and rising costs in the US as impacting on their bottom line. Caterpillar said tariffs imposed by the Trump administration earlier this year on steel and aluminium had made the parts it produces for machinery more expensive.
Reporting on slower sales growth across all its lines in the third quarter, 3M chief executive Michael Roman said: “We see signs of slowing in China; the automotive build rates are down significantly and that has a knock-on effect.”
Commenting on Tuesday’s industrial sell-off, the Wall Street Journal said it was “the clearest signal yet that fortunes could be turning for manufacturers after a year of strong production and sales driven in part by tax cuts and high consumer confidence.”
The latest fall on Wall Street has taken place amid what the Financial Times described as a “frightful October” with the FTSE All World Index so far this month taking a fall of 7 percent—its worst performance since the peak of the euro zone crisis in 2012.
The FT reported that of the 3,211 members of the global equity index almost a third had lost 20 percent of their value so far this year in US dollar terms, well over half were down at least 10 percent and only 851 companies were still positive for 2018.
The newspaper cited one analyst who said the global market fall was driven by a “cocktail of negative drivers from Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic isolation and what that means for Silicon Valley to fresh worries about slowing global economic growth and fading corporate earnings.”
Another factor in the market downturn is the apparent determination of the US Federal Reserve to push ahead with interest rate rises. Three rises, each of 0.25 percentage points, have been carried out so far this year with the expectation that there will be another rise in December. The Fed is motivated by two concerns: to ensure that there is a downward push on wages amid low official unemployment rates and that it has some room to manoeuvre if there is a downturn in the US economy.
The Fed’s actions have brought a string of criticisms from US President Trump. After earlier denouncing the Fed as “crazy” and “loco,” he again took aim at the central bank in an interview with the Wall Street Journal earlier this week.
While adhering to the independence of the Fed in setting interest rates, he made it clear to chairman Jerome Powell that he wants to see them lowered.
“Every time we do something great, he raises the interest rates,” he said, adding that Powell “almost looks happy he’s raising interest rates.” Asked if he regretted placing Powell in the post, Trump said it was “too early to say, but maybe.”
“He was supposed to be a low-interest-rate guy. It’s turned out that he’s not,” Trump said. The president said was “very unhappy” with the Fed because “Obama had zero interest rates.”
However, during the 2016 election campaign Trump denounced the then Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen for keeping interest rates low, which, he said, was aiding the Democrats and creating a potential bubble in the stock markets.
Now he has changed tack out of fear that the bubble, which his policies have helped to inflate still further, could be on the way to collapsing.

24 Oct 2018

French Government Eiffel Excellence 2019/2020 Masters and PhD Scholarships for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 11th January, 2019
  • Announcement of results: Week of March 25th, 2019
Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Emerging economies

To be taken at: France

Accepted Subject Areas: Eiffel scholarships are available in three main fields:
  • engineering science at master’s level,
  • science in the broadest sense at PhD level (engineering science; exact sciences: mathematics, physics, chemistry and life sciences, nano- and biotechnology, earth sciences, sciences of the universe, environmental sciences, information and communication science and technology);
  • economics and management;
  • law and political sciences.
About the Award: The Eiffel Excellence Scholarship Programme was established by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development to enable French higher education establishments to attract top foreign students to enrol in their master’s and PhD courses.
It helps to shape the future foreign decision-makers of the private and public sectors, in priority areas of study, and encourages applications from emerging countries at master’s level, and from emerging and industrialized countries at PhD level.

Offered Since: 1999

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility
  • Only foreign nationals are eligible to apply for a scholarship from the French Government.
  • In the case of dual nationality applicants, those with French nationality are ineligible.
  • for master’s courses, candidates must be no older than 30 on the date of the selection committee meeting,March 2019; at PhD level, candidates must be no older than 35 on the date of the selection committee meeting, March 2019.
  • only applications submitted by French educational establishments are accepted. These establishments undertake to enrol scholarship holders on the course for which they have been selected. Applications submitted by any other means shall not be considered. Furthermore, any candidate nominated by more than one establishment shall be disqualified.
  • scholarships are for students wishing to enrol on a master’s course, including at an engineering school, and for PhD students. The Eiffel Programme does not apply to French-run master’s courses abroad, as non-PhD scholarship holders must complete at least 75% of their course in France. It does not apply to training under an apprenticeship contract or a professional training contract either.
  • Educational establishments that shortlist non-French speaking applicants must ensure that their level of French is sufficient to enable them to integrate satisfactorily into the anticipated course
  • Combination with other scholarships: foreign students who, at the time of application, have already been awarded a French government scholarship under another programme are not eligible, even if the scholarship in question does not include social security cover.
  • Eiffel PhD scholarships: Establishments may nominate a candidate who was previously awarded an Eiffel scholarship at master’s level for a scholarship at PhD level. Candidates who have already been awarded an Eiffel scholarship once during their PhD cannot be awarded it for a second time. No application will be accepted for any student who applied previously but was rejected, even if the application is submitted by a different establishment or in another field of study.
  • Eiffel master’s scholarships: no application will be accepted for any student who applied previously but was rejected, even if the application is submitted by a different establishment or in another field of study. Students who have already been awarded an Eiffel scholarship at master’s level are not eligible to re-apply at master’s level.
  • Language skills: when pre-selecting non-French-speaking candidates, establishments must make sure that their language skills meet the requirements of the relevant course of study.
Number of Scholarships: Not Specified

Selection Criteria: The selection criteria are as follows:
  • the excellence of the candidate, as demonstrated by his or her university career so far and the originality of his or her research subject;
  • the international policy of the establishment nominating the candidate, its action in the geographical area in question, the excellence of the host department, the establishment’s compatibility with the candidate being nominated, its efforts to publicise the Eiffel Programme and its continued support of scholarship holders, especially through a partnership with France Alumni (https://www.francealumni.fr/en);
  • the cooperation and partnership policy of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development, and in particular, the priority given to certain countries for this Programme.
The committee marks each candidate for these three criteria and calculates a total score out of 50. It sets a minimum threshold for admissibility and distributes the scholarships as follows, depending on the number available:
  • at least 70% of the scholarships are awarded to the highest-scoring candidates;
  • the remaining scholarships are distributed among the establishments that have not received one, for candidates who achieved scores above the minimum threshold.
These selected applications represent the definitive list of successful candidates.

Scholarship Amount:

Master’s level:
  • The Eiffel scholarship includes a monthly allowance of €1,181 (a maintenance allowance of €1,031 and a monthly stipend of €150).
  • In addition, the following expenses are directly covered: – one international return journey; Page 3 of 6 – social security cover; – cultural activities. Scholarship holders may also receive an additional housing allowance, under certain conditions.
PhD level:
  • The Eiffel scholarship includes a monthly allowance of €1,400.
  • In addition, the following expenses are directly covered: – one international return journey (for students in law or political sciences who may make several trips, only one return journey shall be covered); – social security cover; – cultural activities. Scholarship holders may also receive an additional housing allowance, under certain conditions.
Duration: The scholarship is awarded for:
  • a maximum of 12 months for entry at M2 level,
  • a maximum of 24 months for entry at M1 level,
  • a maximum of 36 months for an engineering degree.
A 2-month preliminary intensive language training course. The total duration of the course undertaken (including compulsory work experience or internships in France or abroad) must be clearly indicated by the educational establishment in the application form. Optional placements are not covered by the grant.
For PhD: The Eiffel scholarship is awarded for a maximum of ten months. For scientific and economic disciplines, no language course is provided for and the scholarship duration cannot be divided up. For law students, the ten-month scholarship can, with the consent of the selection committee, be split into two or three stays in France, of three or four months each. These stays must take place over a maximum of three calendar years. Only law students have the option of taking French lessons alongside their studies. This must be clearly requested in the application.

How to Apply

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for details to apply


Sponsors: The French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs

Government of Canada Recruitment of Policy Leaders (RPL) Program 2019

Application Deadline: 5th November 2018 23:59 Pacific Time

To Be Taken At (Country): 
  • Government of Canada organizations
  • Various locations across Canada
About the Award: Aspiring to shape Canada’s domestic or international policies and programs? A career awaits for you. The Recruitment of Policy Leaders (RPL) program focuses on recruiting exceptional professionals with diverse achievements and experience into mid and senior-level policy positions across the Government of Canada.
Each year, the Recruitment of Policy Leaders (RPL) program seeks talented and accomplished academics, scientists and professionals. The RPL program offers you a unique opportunity to launch directly into stimulating and diverse careers in the federal public service and to make a difference to the lives of Canadians.
Candidates may also be considered for other opportunities at various levels across the Government of Canada.

Type: Jobs

Eligibility: As part of the application process you will be asked to respond to pre-screening questions about the requirements listed below:
  • Education: You must have obtained by December 31, 2019 from a recognized university, a Master’s or a Doctoral degree in any discipline, or a law degree complemented by another undergraduate degree in any discipline.
  • Academic excellence or distinctions: You must have obtained a record of academic excellence or a distinction.
  • This record of academic excellence or distinction must have been obtained through:
    • Scholarships, such as: Trudeau, Rhodes, Fullbright, or Canada’s three federal granting agencies (Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC); or
    • Academic prizes or recognitions, such as: the Governor General’s Academic Medal (Gold or Silver), merit awards, departmental or university awards or admission to internationally competitive academic programs; or
    • Other academic distinction or achievement that demonstrate comparable levels of domestic or international academic excellence or achievement; or
    • Publications in peer-reviewed journals.
  • Degree equivalency
  • Experience: You must have acquired relevant policy experience in at least one (1) of the following fields: economics, political, legal, social or scientific.
  • This policy experience must have been acquired through:
    • Work experience; or
      Research, studies, presentations or publications; or
      Program or policy development or implementation; or
      Managerial experience with non-governmental organizations, voluntary organizations, government, businesses, consulting firms, think tanks or universities.
  • You must also have participated in activities in which you have either taken a leadership role, or demonstrated initiative, which brought about positive change in a community through:
    • Voluntary service to a community (e.g. student government, voluntary or not-for-profit sector); or
    • Personal accomplishment or initiative (e.g. high-level sporting or cultural achievement, founding a business or other organization); or
    • Receipt of community recognition through awards, prizes or other public acknowledgement for non-academic, non-professional achievement or contribution.
  • Various language requirements
Selection Criteria: The RPL program assesses candidates on the following requirements:
  • Knowledge of Canada’s public policy environment, its challenges and priorities.
  • Analytical thinking
  • Values and Ethics
  • Ability to communicate effectively orally
  • Ability to communicate effectively in writing
– Effective interpersonal relations
– Judgement
– Creativity
– Initiative/Leadership

Number of Awards: Number to be determined

Value of Award: The salary will depend on the position being staffed

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Government of Canada

Important Notes: 
Reference number: PSC17J-014695-001161
Selection process number: RLP-RPL-2017-2018

Mass Arrests in Ahwaz

Hossein Bouazar

Iran is taking advantage of the attack to unite the ranks behind the besieged regime, but they have bigger worry than a single armed operation in Ahwaz as the incident is just another terror attack done by the Iranian regime.
But the Ahwazis are paying a high price for the attack. Iranian regime continuous their systematic crack down on Ahwazi Arabs, continuously spreading fear among Ahwazis. Iran under the universal obligation must treat its own people fairly but are they following that? bearing in mind that the Iranian regime harass/arrests/torture and execute people for their political/cultural and environmental activities.
Even though Ahwaz region accounts for 90% of Iran’s  oil production, standing as the backbone of Iran’s economy, yet it is one of most underdeveloped borders in the world’s most polluted areas. Our sources in Ahwaz said around 400 people were arrested.
So, the arrestees include civil, cultural, religious, human rights and political activists.But the issue has gone further, and in some cases, children and women have been detained as hostages. Some of the detainees have been transferred to Tehran. Meanwhile, no one dares to inquire about courts or security forces departments because they are terrified that they may get arrested.
The security forces seem to do whatever they want with the Ahwazi Arab people as they can blame them with the “Military parade attack” label. They try to eradicate any kind of independent cultural and civil activity in the province by creating a climate of terror and imprisonment/torture and execution.
The names of some of the detainees who have been identified by ACHR members inside Ahwaz are as follows:
Seyed Ghasem Mousawi
Fazel Shamousy
Sohrab Moghadam
Karim Mojadam
Mohammad Temas
Seyed Jasem Rahmani
Majed Cheldawi
Seyed Hamood Rahmani
Hatam Sawari
Jafar Hezbawi
Ahmad Hezbawi
Aref Nasseri
Esameh Temas
Ahmad Temas
Jasem Koroshat
Jafar Abidawi
Ahmad Bawi
Ali Shajeerat
Jemil Heidari
Majed Heidari
Ahmad Hemreh
Ali Sawari
Mostafa Sawari
Khaled Obidawi
Abbas Heidari
Mortezah Yassin
Wally Amiri
Sadegh Heidari
Jalal Nebhani
Ali Sawari
Hamdan Afrawi
Ahmad Amin
Shani Shamousy
Khalil Silawi
Fars Shamousy
Ali Mazraeh
Sajad Silawi
Jawad Badwi
Samir Silawi
Riaz Shamousy
Jamil Silawi
Sadegh Silawi
Ali Heidari
Yousef Khasraji
Jawad Hashemi
Alireza Drees
Maher Masoudi
Seyed Jalil Mousawi
Essa Badwi
Hadi Abdawi
Seyed Sadegh Mousawi
Ahmad Heidari
Riaz Zehiri
Farhan Shamousy
Mohammad Amouri
Naeem Heidari
Aref Ghazlawi
Kazem Ghazlawi
Ali Al-haee
Khaled Silawi
Mokhtar Masoudi
Ali Al-baji
Mohammad Masoudi
Jader Afrawi
Aghil Shamousy
Abbas Badwi
Mohsen Badwi
Shaker Sawari
Mahmood Doraghi
Aziz Hamidawi
Omid Bechari
Noori Neisi
Hussein Heidari
Adnan Sawari
Zamol Heidari
Majed Sawari
Ali Sawari
Mohammad Sawari
Ali Mazbani-Nasr
Ahmad Kazem Koroshat
Ramin Bechari
Jemil Ahmadpoor
Fahad Neisi
Amir Afrawi
Ali Afrawi
Ghasem Kaebawi
Danial Adel
Moosa Mazraeh
Abdulrahim Kharaji
Mehdi Mazraeh
Ahmad Sweedi
Adnan Mazraeh
Hassan Herbawi
Ali Sweedi
Faez Afrawi
Mohammad-Amin Afrawi
Abbas Moghinami
Mortezah bait Shekh Ahmad
Mortezah Moghinami
Aref Moghinami
Lami Shamousy
Adel Afrawi
Mehdi Kuti
Ali Kuti
Satar Kuti
Ali Mansour
Ali Saaki
Abbas Saaki
Abo Shelan Saaki
Khazal Abbas Tamimi
We, Ahwazi Centre for Human Rights are calling on all human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and the European Parliament to address the situation of Ahwazi Arabs prisoners and put an end to torturing human rights and political prisoners and stop human rights violations towards Ahwazis and other non-Persian nations, human rights and political prisoners.

European Commission rejects Italy’s 2019 budget

Alexandre Lantier & Marianne Arens

Yesterday, the European Commission struck down the 2019 budget proposed by Italy’s far-right government, claiming that it violated Italy’s promises to the European Union (EU) to impose austerity, and demanding revisions. This is the first time that the EU Commission has ever demanded that an EU member state rewrite and resubmit its budget to the EU.
A violent struggle is set to unfold on the summits of European bourgeois politics, as both pro-EU and far-right populist forces fight to impose their version of austerity while trying to avert a financial panic that could provoke an Italian and global market crash. The central question is a perspective for independent political opposition by the working class, uniting workers struggles against austerity in Italy and across Europe. The EU austerity diktat and neo-fascist Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini’s nationalist demagogy are equally right-wing and hostile to the workers.
On October 18, the EU issued a letter denouncing Salvini’s “People’s Budget” as a “significant deviation” from previous plans, and demanding clarifications. While Salvini’s austerity budget is within the deficit limits of the EU’s Maastricht criteria, it sets out a deficit three times as high as the 0.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) pledged by the previous Italian government.
The EU letter triggered a sell-off in bond markets, and Economic Commissioner Pierre Moscovici pledged “constructive dialog” with Rome in order to prevent a crash. With Italian banks already holding an estimated €260 billion in bad loans from the last crash in 2008, Credit Suisse AG estimated that Italy’s banking system would face “unsustainable pressure” if Italian bonds fell to the point that they were paying 4 percent more interest than German bonds. This nearly happened on October 19, when the so-called “spread” over German bonds reached 3.41 percent.
Despite Moscovici’s pledges, the EU Commission again denounced the Italian budget yesterday and formally demanded that it be rewritten in line with the EU austerity diktat. “Unfortunately the clarifications were not convincing to change our earlier conclusions of particularly serious non-compliance,” said EU Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis yesterday. “The Italian government is consciously and openly going against commitments made. … It is tempting to cure debt with more debt, but at some point the debt weighs too heavy.”
The Commission’s decision bucked a statement on Monday by Portugal’s Mario Centeno, the new head of the eurogroup of eurozone finance ministers. Centeno had praised Rome’s responses to the EU as “constructive” and predicted a deal would be reached.
The Italian government now has three weeks to rewrite and resubmit its budget or face billions of euros in EU fines.
Italian officials are issuing calls for nationalist resistance to Brussels, while signaling that a deal might be reached with the EU bureaucracy in Brussels. Salvini, the regime strongman, declared: “This doesn’t change anything, let the speculators be reassured, we’re not going back. They’re not attacking a government but a people. These are things that will anger Italians even more. And then people complain that the popularity of the European Union is at its lowest!”
Deputy Prime Minister Luigi di Maio of the populist Five Star Movement (M5S) wrote on Facebook: “This is the first Italian budget that the EU doesn’t like. I am not surprised. This is the first Italian budget that was written in Rome and not in Brussels.”
Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte sounded a more cautious note, however. While he said that Rome has “no Plan B” for another budget, he added: “We are ready to reduce, maybe, to operate a spending review if necessary.” Conte told Bloomberg News that he has “some leeway to tweak aspects” of the budget, but that if he were asked to change the substance of the budget, “it will be difficult for me because I cannot accept that.”
In fact, furious behind-the-scenes discussions are doubtless taking place in Rome over how to reach an accommodation with Brussels. The ruling alliance between the M5S and Salvini’s Lega party has already cut deals with the EU, notably ditching its proposed economy minister, anti-euro economist Paolo Savona, in the spring. This weekend, Lega official and Italian Cabinet Undersecretary Giancarlo Giorgetti stated that Rome could not ignore systemic risk to the financial system.
Powerful forces in the European bourgeoisie are also seeking to arrange an austerity deal in Rome, working—as they did with the Syriza government of Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras—through talks between the EU and the national government. This strategy was laid out yesterday by the German financial daily Handelsblatt in its article, “The sound of not criticizing Italy.”
Handelsblatt wrote, “That deafening silence you’re hearing in Berlin is the sound of German VIPs not (yet) talking openly about Italy. Sure, everybody from Chancellor Angela Merkel on down is worried that we may be on the verge of Euro Crisis 2.0. ... But German pols also know that the worst thing right now is for Germans to be doing the criticizing. That would just dare Rome’s governing populists on left and right. … Under the banner of defying German tyranny, they would leap even further over the cliff of budget insanity. So the talking-to must come from Brussels, not Berlin.”
Whatever maneuvers are planned by various factions of the European ruling elite, however, a major political breakdown is unfolding. With Britain set to exit the EU in March, talks over how to handle Italy’s budget deficits and its €2.4 trillion debt pile (130 percent of Italy’s GDP) have again exposed the unviability of the political and financial foundations of European capitalism.
After a decade of economic disintegration and vindictive EU austerity since the 2008 Wall Street crash, Italy’s economy is still smaller than it was before the crash. And across Europe, states are sinking into debt, financed by massive money-printing from the European Central Bank, without which they would be effectively bankrupt. Heavily indebted states include not only Italy but Greece (180 percent of GDP), Portugal (126 percent), Spain (99 percent) and France (98 percent). Even Germany, at 63 percent of GDP, is indebted over the 60 percent Maastricht limit.
With official unemployment still at 9.7 percent (31 percent for youth), social anger in Italy is explosive. The EU’s own “Generation What” poll, which found last year that most European youth want to participate in a mass uprising against the social order, showed that nearly two-thirds of Italian youth want to join such an uprising.
The central issue facing workers and youth in Italy is the turn to the European working class. The collective industrial and social strength of the working class across Europe must be mobilized in a struggle to bring down the capitalist system, which is financially and politically bankrupt.
Salvini’s nationalist blustering, his demagogic “People’s Budget” and his behind-the-scenes talks with the EU are nothing but a neo-fascist trap for the masses. While he builds up a vast police state apparatus in order to carry out mass deportations of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, Salvini is implementing his own version of austerity. His budget pledges billions of euros for the military, the police-state build-up, and business tax breaks, while providing a miserly €780 per month “basic income” for all Italian citizens, who would then be forced to work in order to receive that income.
The ultimate targets of Salvini’s maneuvers are not only refugees and immigrant workers, but growing social opposition to austerity in the entire working class of Italy.

Turkish president brands Khashoggi killing a premeditated murder

Peter Symonds

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan yesterday provided details of the premeditated murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi on October 2 in the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul. While Erdogan had promised to expose the “naked truth” about the brutal killing, his less-than-full account indicates that his government is intent on exploiting the issue to further Turkish interests in the Middle East.
Erdogan nevertheless did confirm incriminating details that had previously been leaked to the media, which puncture Saudi claims that Khashoggi’s killing was not planned, but was the result of an operation gone wrong. The speech will compound the political crisis in Riyadh, putting pressure on King Salman to take some action against his son and de-facto Saudi ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and his clique of advisers.
The following are the key elements of Erdogan’s speech:
* The planning for the murder began immediately after Khashoggi first visited the Saudi consulate on September 28 to finalise divorce proceedings. The first three-person team arrived from Saudi Arabia on October 1, while another team from the consulate went to examine Belgrad Forest and Yalova—areas now being searched by Turkish authorities for Khashoggi’s remains.
* On October 2, further agents, including generals, arrived from Saudi Arabia, and the assassination team, numbering 15 people, was assembled at the Saudi consulate prior to Khashoggi’s second visit. The hard-drive was taken out of the building’s surveillance system and Turkish staff were told to stay away from the consulate. Most of the team flew out of Turkey on the same day, while a Khashoggi look-alike took a commercial flight to Riyadh to lend credence to Saudi claims, now repudiated, that the journalist left the consulate alive.
* Erdogan appealed for answers to a series of questions, including who ordered the killing and the location of Khashoggi’s body. “Without these questions being answered,” he said, “nobody should think the issue will be closed. Intelligence and security institutions [in Turkey] have evidence showing the murder was certainly planned... Pinning such a case on some intelligence and security members will not satisfy us and the international community.”
Erdogan, however, did not confirm key aspects of the murder that have been leaked to the Turkish media. He said nothing about how Kashoggi had been murdered, and did not release audio and video recordings which, according to Turkish sources, would contradict Saudi claims that the journalist was killed accidentally in a fist fight following an argument in the consulate. One of the Saudi hit squad was allegedly a doctor who used a bone saw to dismember the body.
Erdogan pointedly did not refer directly to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman nor to evidence that implicates him in the murder. According to Turkish reports, the crown prince’s chief security and intelligence adviser Maher Abdulaziz Mutreb was on the spot in Turkey on October 2. Following the killing, he made four phone calls from inside the Istanbul consulate to Bader al-Asaker, who manages Prince Mohammed’s office in Riyadh. Saudi authorities insist that the crown prince knew nothing about the murder.
Erdogan’s deliberate omissions provide the Saudi regime with the leeway that it needs to concoct a new face-saving cover-up to protect top Saudi leaders, including the crown prince, who it has claimed knew nothing of the murder. Erdogan has had several phone calls with King Salman who agreed to establish a joint working group and to allow Turkish investigators into the Istanbul consulate.
Turkey may well be  seeking to remove, or at least clip the wings of, Prince Mohammed whose aggressive foreign policy has conflicted with Turkish interests. The crown prince, who has close ties with US President Trump, effectively seized power in June 2017 by ousting his cousin Mohammed bin Nayef. He then consolidated his grip over the state apparatus, including the military and intelligence agencies, through an “anti-corruption” purge of hundreds of journalists, businessmen, Islamic scholars and fellow royals.
Khashoggi was aligned with sections of the Saudi monarchy opposed to Prince Mohammed and fled abroad after he came to power. Far from being a champion of democracy, the journalist had longstanding ties with the Saudi intelligence agencies, which are notorious for their criminal activities in the region.
Erdogan came into conflict with Prince Mohammed when he instigated a Saudi-led economic and diplomatic blockade of Qatar in June 2017 after it refused to cut ties with Tehran and halt the construction of a Turkish military base in the Gulf state. In March 2018, the Saudi crown prince said that Turkey was part of a “triangle of evil,” along with Iran and “terrorist organisations,” and accused Erdogan directly of seeking to re-establish the Ottoman Caliphate—that is, Turkish domination over the Middle East.
At the same time, Erdogan does not want an open breach with Saudi Arabia. Turkey has heavily relied on Saudi investment to stave off a deepening of its financial crisis. Erdogan is also looking for concessions from the Trump administration, which is wanting to protect Saudi arms sales and investment.
Trump, who is under fire for not taking a tougher stance against Saudi Arabia, yesterday declared that the Khashoggi case was “the worst cover-up ever” and stated that there would have to be “some kind of retribution.” He told reporters that whoever was responsible was “in big trouble,” and said: “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.”
This utterly cynical statement is an indication of what is underway. It is significant that Trump is not critical of the brutal murder itself, but rather of the botched operation and subsequent cover-up. He has despatched CIA director Gina Haspel, who is herself directly implicated in the crimes of torture and forced disappearance, to “review” the evidence in the Khashoggi killing. He also spoke at length to Erdogan last weekend prior to the Turkish president’s speech yesterday. All this suggests that the US, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are engaged in elaborate behind-the-scenes negotiations to invent an improved cover-up that protects the interests of all three countries.
Neither Trump nor his critics in the US has any intention of damaging relations with the autocratic Saudi regime which has been a key cornerstone of US strategy in the Middle East. While Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin pulled out of Prince Mohammed’s showpiece Future Investment Initiative conference, dubbed “Davos in the desert,” he nevertheless flew to Riyadh to meet with the crown prince on Monday behind closed doors.
Trump has declared that he will leave the imposition of any penalties on Saudi Arabia up to congress and appealed for bipartisan support. At the same time, in an interview with “USA Today,” he made clear he would oppose efforts to end billions of dollars’ worth of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which he described as an economic boon to Americans. “We have a very big picture we have to keep in mind,” he declared, noting Saudi Arabia’s role in countering Iran.
Trump’s comments reflect not only the attitude of his administration, but of the entire political establishment in Washington, which has turned a blind eye to the Saudi regime’s crimes and repressive methods for decades.

23 Oct 2018

UNESCO/UNDP International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) Research Challenge 2019 for Young Journalists

Application Deadline: 20th December 2018 11:59 p.m.

Eligible Countries: International

About the Award: Competitors are requested to submit 700 – 1000 words in an article relating to the progress of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) implementation in a certain country or region – based on IATI data and data obtained using the country’s national Access to Information laws .
The competition opens on the International Day for the Universal Access to Information (IDUAI) as one of a range of activities marking 10 years since the launch of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).
Investigate how a country of your choice is progressing towards meeting the Sustainable Development Goals and explore how funds for development are being utilised, using IATI data for your research and analysis to answer the following question:
How are aid and other external resources being used to achieve sustainable development’ – based on data published to the International Aid Transparency Initiative.
Submit your findings in an essay for the chance to win a laptop or tablet! The best articles will be published on the websites of UNESCO and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).

Type: Contest

Eligibility: The categories* for essay submission are:
  • Journalists age group 15 – 20
  • Journalists age group 20 – 25
  • Journalists from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, New Zealand and the US
  • Journalists from Africa
  • Journalists from Asia
  • Journalists from Latin America and the Caribbean
*Based on the number of submissions, the categories might be adapted to allow for a fair competition. A global winner will also be chosen from all categories by the judges.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Prizes for the winners in each category include laptops or tablets, as well as the publication of the winning essay(s) on the IATI and UNESCO websites.

How to Apply: Check out guidelines for detailed instructions on eligibility, submission and rating criteria of the IATI Research Challenge for Journalists on UNESCO’s website. Submit your essay to: iati-challenge@undp.org by the deadline of Thursday 20 December 2018.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

The Middle East, Not Russia, Will Prove Trump’s Downfall

Patrick Cockburn

The Middle East has a century old tradition of being the political graveyard of American and British political leaders. The list of casualties is long: Lloyd George, Anthony Eden, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair and George W Bush. All saw their careers ended or their authority crippled by failure in the region.
Will the same thing happen to Donald Trump as he struggles with the consequences of the alleged murder of Jamal Khashoggi? I always suspected that Trump might come unstuck because of his exaggerated reliance on a weak state like Saudi Arabia rather than because of his supposed links to Russia and Vladimir Putin. Contrary to the PR company boosterism of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and his ambitious projects, Saudi Arabia has oil and money, but is demonstrably ineffective as an independent operator.
The Middle East disasters that toppled so many Western leaders have a certain amount in common. In all cases, the strength of enemies and the feebleness of friends was miscalculated. Lloyd George was forced to resign as prime minister in 1922 because he encouraged the doomed Greek invasion of Anatolia which almost led to a renewed Turkish-British war.
George W Bush and Tony Blair never understood that the occupation of Iraq by American and British ground forces had no support inside Iraq or among its neighbours and was therefore bound to fail. A British military intelligence officer stationed in Basra told me that he could not persuade his superiors of the potentially disastrous fact that “we have no real allies anywhere in Iraq”.
The political debacle most similar to Trump’s ill-judged reliance on the Crown Prince and Saudi Arabia over the last three years was American policy towards the Shah and Iran in the years leading up to his overthrow in 1979. US humiliation was rubbed in when its diplomats were taken hostages in Tehran which torpedoed Carter’s hope of a second term in the White House.  
There are striking and instructive parallels between US and British policy towards Iran in the lead up to the revolution and towards Saudi Arabia in 2015-18. In both periods, there was a self-destructive belief that an increasingly unstable hereditary monarchy was a safe bet as a regional ally as well as being a vastly profitable market for arms. 
The Shah and MBS both promoted themselves as reformers, justifying their authoritarianism as necessary to drag their countries into the modern era. Foreign elites fawned on them, ignored their weaknesses, and were fixated by the mirage of fabulous profits. A British ambassador to Iran in the 1970s was said  – I quote from memory – to have rebuked his embassy staff with the words: “I don’t want any more elegantly written reports about social conditions in Iranian villages. What I want is exports, exports, exports!”
Brexit has taken Britain off the world stage and it must be happy in future with whatever crumbs it can scrounge in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. But Trump sounds very much like this long-forgotten ambassador when he justifies the US strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia by referring repeatedly to a $110bn in arms contract.
In practice, hereditary monarchies are at their most unstable during a leadership transition, attempts to reform, efforts to expand as regional powers or as initiators of war. In England, the pacific and cautious King James I was succeeded by his arrogant, arbitrary and incautious son, King Charles I, with unfortunate consequences for the monarchy.
Vulgar display was a feature of the Shah’s Iran 40 years ago as it is of Saudi Arabia today. In his case, there was the celebration of 2,500 years of the Persian Empire at Persepolis in 1971, which fed the ruling elites of the world with exotic delicacies such as 50 roast peacocks with tail feathers restored and stuffed with foie gras along quail eggs filled with caviar, which the Shah could not eat because he was allergic to caviar.
The Saudi equivalent to Persepolis is the much-publicised “Davos in the Desert” or, more prosaically, the “Future Investment Initiative” being held this week in Riyadh and from which politicians and businessmen have been very publicly dropping out as mystery over the disappearance of Khashoggi has deepened. Much of the media is treating their decision to stay at home as some sort of moral choice and never asks why these luminaries were happy to act as cheerleaders for Saudi Arabia in the same time the UN was warning that 13 million Yemenis are on the verge of starvation because of the Saudi-led military intervention.
It is no excuse for the Trump administration or the defecting guests in Riyadh to claim that they did not know about Saudi Arabia’s potential for random violence. As long ago as 2 December 2015,  the German federal intelligence agency, the BND, published a memo predicting that “the current cautious diplomatic stance of senior members of the Saudi royal family will be replaced by an impulsive intervention policy.” It went on to say that the concentration of so much power in the hands of Prince Mohammed bin Salman “harbours a latent risk that …he may overreach.”
Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent MindsThe memo was hurriedly withdrawn at the insistence of the German foreign ministry, but today it sounds prophetic about the direction in which Saudi Arabia was travelling and the dangers likely to ensue.
Trump has put a little more distance between himself and the Crown Prince in the past few days, but he makes no secret of his hope that the crisis in relations with Saudi Arabia will go away. “This one has caught the imagination of the world, unfortunately,” he says though he may believe he can shrug off this affair as he has done with so many other scandals.
Just for once, Trump’s highly developed survival instincts may be at fault. His close alliance with Saudi Arabia and escalating confrontation with Iran is the most radical new departure in Trump’s foreign policy. He withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in defiance of the rest of the world earlier this year on the grounds that he can extract more concessions from Iran by using American power alone than Barack Obama ever did by working in concert with other states. This  struggle is so important because it is not just between the US and Iran but is the crucial test case of Trump’s version of American nationalism in action.
The White House evidently calculates that if it draws out the crisis by systematic delaying tactics, it will eventually disappear from the top of the news agenda. This is not a stupid strategy, but it may not work in present circumstances because the Saudi authorities are too inept – some would say too guilty – to produce a plausible cover story. The mystery of Khashoggi’s disappearance is too compelling for the media to abandon and  give up the the chase for the culprits.
Above all, the anti-Trump portion of the US media and the Democrats smell political blood and sense that the Khashoggi affair is doing the sort of serious damage to the Trump presidency that never really happened with the Russian probe.

“No People, Big Problem”: Democracy and Its Discontents In Latvia

Jeffrey Sommers

No people, no problem (Нет людей, никаких проблем) is the quote often attributed to Joseph Stalin. Yet, if there is a lesson from Latvia’s October 6, 2018 national election, the problem was not the oft-repeated histrionics about its electoral takeover by ethnic Russians. The problem was demographics (‘No people, big problem’) and waning enthusiasm for democracy.
Democracy’s health worsens in Latvia, while it is on life-support in many parts of the world. The problem with Latvia’s election was, first, how few people voted, as only 54 percent of the eligible electorate participated (remembering Latvia still has significant, but declining number of ethnic Russian non-citizens, who can’t vote in national elections). This turnout represented a drop from many of Latvia’s previous elections and is low compared to most other EU national votes. Voter turnout has been dropping globally (with some variation by country and time) for three decades at least.
The second problem with Latvia’s election is how few people remain in the country to vote. Since independence in 1991, Latvia has lost over a quarter of its population through emigration and low birth rates. Some of the earliest losses were from Soviet loyalists seeking refuge east when the USSR collapsed. Yet, emigration, or “exit,” as the late political economist Albert O. Hirschman termed it, has continued in Latvia and represents the ultimate vote of no confidence. Latvia, like many post-Soviet states, has seen sustained waves of emigration as often punishing regimes of austerity were imposed on its people to “restore macro-economic stability.”
In Latvia, this occurred as recently again as in 2008, when it suffered the world’s largest contraction of GDP (over 20 percent in the two years following the global financial shock). The ensuing brutal austerity regime led even the IMF to try and restrain the Latvian government from imposing such harsh measures on its people. A massive “vote” of exit followed again as people left in search of better conditions. Several years of exceedingly low birth rates followed for those who remained. Thus, not only is Latvia bereft of many people it once had, but for some of those staying, the choice increasingly made is to not vote as the ballot box has not delivered positive change.
Despite big increases in GDP since independence from the Soviet Union, Latvia’s average take home pay now approaches just 700 euros a month. This paltry sum must cover costs for essentials such as food, energy and clothing which are more expensive than in the US. In the countryside, wages can be lower still. Yet, there is one upside from these demographic losses. With its aging population having dropped to under 2m (from a Soviet peak of 2.67 million) a labour shortage has resulted. This, plus becoming less dependent on offshore banking and raw timber extraction, is creating a more balanced economy where wages are rising. That said, Latvia remains a hard place to live for many, albeit better than in many points east (e.g., most of Russia, Ukraine, etc.).
Populist Shift
The third problem with Latvia’s election was the emergence of a right-wing populist party named “Who Owns the State?” (KPV), fronted by a stage actor whose surname translates into the avuncular sounding “neighbour.” Latvia’s KPV is anti-immigrant and decidedly eurosceptic. While not in the order of popularity of Viktor Orban in Hungary, or the Law & Justice Party (PiS) in Poland, or the populist coalition in Italy, the KPV rapidly rose from obscurity to take 14 per cent on October 6, making it the second highest vote getter in Latvia.
The two ethnic Russian parties, meanwhile, together got some 23% of the vote, which nearly matches ethnic Russians’ share of the population. Thus, they are in no position to dictate anything, despite concerns voiced about election meddling and propaganda to the east from Russia. The leading ethnic Russian party even saw its vote margin slightly fall, thus making many international media reports about an “ethnic Russian takeover” even shriller. Even so, all the other established political parties saw more dramatic declines in support.
This past decade’s reigning centre-right (neo)liberal party in Latvia emerged this election as the re-branded “New Unity” (the prefix “New,” being, well, new). It was also the party trusted by most EU institutions. New Unity massively lost support, dropping to under 7 percent, but with a “half new” liberal party picking up 13 percent of the vote. In short, the liberals are in disarray.
Lastly, a genuine social democratic party (the Progressives) has arisen with no connections to special interest cash. They lean towards youth and are comprised of artists, entrepreneurs and professionals. With almost no money, the Progressives managed to corral significant support from Latvia’s small youth electorate. Unfortunately, Latvia leans old. Yet, the Progressives cleared the 2 percent threshold to secure future public funding for elections.
The chief lessons from Latvia’s election are that ethnic Russians have not taken over. Their main political party remained stable and saw its support slightly decline. Meanwhile, the other established parties all saw big losses and none more so than “Unity,” the most neoliberal and pro-EU/pro-NATO party. The biggest lesson, however, is that Latvia’s population is still declining after 27 years of independence. Voter turnout also continues to fall, while mirroring the global trend towards right-wing populism.

International Hypocrisy

Elias Akleh

By now all international media resources; newspapers, magazines, TV channels, and internet social media, are busy reporting the gruesome murder of Jamal Khashoggi; a Saudi reporter, who was loyal to the regime until he turned against Muhamad bin Salman (MBS) and his suppressive policies.
Once MBS was announced crowned prince in 2015 and started his war against Yemen, critic Khashoggi found it safer for himself to leave Saudi Arabia. He moved first to UK and later to USA. In his writings Khashoggi harshly criticized the policies of the young prince. Eventually he was lured to the Saudi consulate in Turkey, where he was reported murdered and butchered into small pieces that were buried in different parts of Turkey’s wilderness.
Understanding Saudi culture and the practices of the Saudi royal family, one will come to the logical conclusion, supported by the events and evidences, that MBS has ordered the murder of Khashoggi. The Saudi royal family is notorious in assassination and sentencing to death all alleged criminals and political activists, who dare to criticize their policies. The streets of capital Riyadh have been the witness of so many public gruesome beheadings; 158 in 2015, 154 in 2016, 146 in 2017 and 73 in 2018 as of July 17.
Although the royal family denied any involvement or knowledge of Khashoggi’s murder and had promised to conduct an investigation in the murder, in investigation led by the prime suspect; MBS himself, the Saudi Kingdom was met with harsh condemnations and calls for punishment. Saudi Arabia started to feel the repercussions of such calls when international banks, corporations, investors, major media outlets and world leaders started to pull out of the Saudi Future Investment Initiative (FII); a massive economic conference colloquially known as “Davos in the Desert”, hosted by MBS himself on October 23-25. The initiative is part of MBS’ ambitious “2030 Programme” to make the Saudi kingdom less reliant on oil.
Jim Yong-kim of World Bank, Christine Lagarde of International Monetary fund, Stacey Cunningham president of New York Stock Exchange, John Flint CEO of HSBC, as well as Credit Suisse, and Standard Chartered decided not to attend at Davos. Investment companies such as Uber, Mastercard, Virgin Group, JPMorgan Chase, Ford Motor Comp., Viacom Inc, and private equity firms such as Blackstone, BlackRock and Bain Capital are pulling out of Davos. Media outlets such as Bloomberg, CNN, New York Times, CNBC, The Economist, Financial Times and Los Angeles Times among others decided not to attend. Antonio Guterres; Secretary General of the UN, and Audrey Azoulay of UNESCO expressed their deep concern about the murder and called for investigation and punishment of the perpetrators. Many world leaders condemned Khashoggi’s murder and called for reprimanding the kingdom. Many European politicians and American senators called for halting the sale of weapons to the kingdom.
A lot of “hooplas” for the murder of one person, yet dead silence for the murder of millions others, including women and children, in the seventy years old Zionist occupied Palestine, in the eight years old American/Israeli/Gulf states war against Syria and in three years old Saudi/Emirati war against Yemen.
Zionist Jewish terrorist groups and militias, similar to al-Qaeda and ISIS, had occupied Palestine in 1948, perpetrated numerous massacres against civilian Palestinians, razed to the grounds hundreds of Palestinian towns, ethnically cleansed almost 800 thousand Palestinians, and established a colonial state of Israel. In 1967 those Zionist Israeli Jews again perpetrated more war crimes and occupied the rest of Palestine, destroyed more towns, massacred more Palestinians and built more illegal colonies. Although these Israelis entered into peace treaty with the Palestinians they are still ethnically cleansing and murdering in cold blood Palestinians, usurping their land, and expanding and building more colonies in violation of all peace treaties and in violation of UNSC resolutions. Israeli crimes against Palestinians, as well as other Arab states such as Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, have never stopped, but rather are increasing in number, in intensity and in ferocity.
Due to their narcissist elitist racist religious belief that they, alone and no other nation, are god’s chosen people, Israeli Jews act as if they enjoy a divine impunity that allows them to perpetrate genocidal crimes against Palestinians and against other nations in violation of all human norms and beyond all international laws and conventions. Nurturing this Jewish narcissistic belief are the encouragement, unconditional support, and the immunity and protection Israel enjoys from some western states, specifically the USA and UK, who brag about being champions of human rights, beacon of freedom and democracy, and holding the torch of justice for all.
The US had used its Veto power to protect Israel from at least 44 UNSC resolutions. On top of those Israel has violated 300 other resolutions regarding its occupation of Palestine. To make matters worse the US leads other western countries in describing the Israeli genocidal crimes against Palestinians as “self-defense” and every Palestinian defensive and peaceful reaction as terrorist attacks.
Israel is encouraged to continue its ethnic cleansing and massacre of Palestinians. The latest Israeli erasure of Palestinian villages is going on now in Khan El-Ahmar village. The villagers are the Bedouin Jahalin tribe, who became homeless refugees after being forcefully expelled from their original village in the Negev in 1952 by the Israeli army. They rebuilt new homes and a local children school in Khan El-Ahmar under the Jordanian rule. At the present, Israel is in the process of demolishing the whole village in order to gain more land to expand its illegal Maale Adumim colony a short distance away. Palestinians are conducting daily sit-ins to prevent the demolition of the village and to prevent a second Nakba to its inhabitants.
Israeli genocidal crime of Palestinian civilians is still an ongoing process. Israeli Jews consider Palestinians as the descendants of Amalekites; the worst enemy of ancient Israel. Jewish god ordered the Jews to wipe off Amalekites off the earth. This order is still ingrained in the Jewish psyche, who keep reminding their off springs of this order. On the walls of the holocaust memorial in the Hague hangs a plaque with a text in Dutch and Hebrew from Deuteronomy 25: 17-19 stating “Remember what Amalek has done to you … blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget.”
Present Israeli Jews are still in the process of “plotting out the remembrance of Amalek(Palestinians) from under heaven” as can bee seen recently in the Gaza Strip. Israel has turned Gaza Strip into the largest ever concentrated prison camp (worst than Nazi concentration camps) for its two million inhabitants; mostly refugees who were ethnically cleansed from Palestine during the 1948 Nakba. For the last twelve years these Palestinians have been starved into sickness, their water been poisoned, their electricity was cut, their fishing marine space has been extremely limited, their towns, their homes and their fields were severely bombed with the devastating bombs including the illegal white phosphorous bombs in Israel’s wars of aggression in 2008-2009 and again in 2014,  and their women and children are being shot dead daily.
After seventy years passage of UNSC resolution 194 stating that these Palestinian refugees have the legitimate right to return to their towns and homes they were kicked out of, but none of the international legal organization nor any other country helped them implement this resolution, these Palestinian refugees decided to peacefully march back to their towns in what was dubbed “The Great Return March”. This march started on Friday 30th of last March and has been going on every Friday since then; so far, a total of 30 march attempts. Unfortunately, Israeli army snipers stood in their way, and have murdered in cold blood 212 Palestinians including teen agers, women, paramedics and reporters, and had injured a total of 22,000 others causing a lot of limb amputations due to their use of the explosive hollow pointed bullets, poisonous gas and stun grenades. Yet, despite the obvious fact that Israel is the number one rogue state in the world, Nikki (Nimrata) Haley; the American ambassador to the UN, had the audacity to describe this Israeli army killing fields against civilians in Gaza as the most restrained army in the whole world.  “No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.” She stated.
Yet, none of the self-proclaimed peace-loving justice-calling world leaders, media outlets, banking systems, investors and corporations, who boycotted Saudi Davos in the Desert initiative as a reprimand to Saudi murder of one person; Jamal Khashoggi, have lifted a finger, uttered a word or boycotted Israel for the latest murder of hundred Palestinians nor for the razing of any Palestinian village. Are the lives of these hundreds of Palestinians, and the lives of hundreds of thousands who were murdered since 1948, not worth one life of a Saudi reporter?
There is no puzzle in this picture. International humanity is dead while hypocrisy is thriving and the ultimate goal and justification is money. The Saudi royal family is a filthy rich oppressive theocratic dictatorship, who had been protected in the past by the British and in the present by the American administration. For such protection the Saudi family has to pay and they pay dearly in different forms as in military weapons deals and economic privileges to foreign investing corporations. Trump expressed this situation openly and eloquently when he described Saudi Arabia as “a milk cow which would be slaughtered when its milk runs out.”
All these political and economic pressure exerted by world leaders, bankers, investors and media outlets are merely more attempts to milk Saudi Arabia as much as possible in more weapons deals and more economic privileges. Saudi Arabia has a lot of milk; money, unlike the Israeli case where the USA is Israel’s milking cow.
What goes for the case of Palestinian victims goes also for the Syrian and Yemeni victims. The world leaders and corporations who are milking Saudi Arabia are the same perpetrators committing, though covertly, war crimes against Syria and Yemen.
When comparing the international reactions to the murder of one person; Khashoggi in this case, with the reactions to the heinous war crimes against millions of innocent people in Palestine, Syria, Yemen or in any other place around the globe for that matter, one cannot help but question the validity of the famous proverb that “justice will always prevail”. Are we cheating ourselves and our children when we assert the fallacy that evil will be defeated and justice will always prevail at the end? Studying the history of Mankind, one discovers that those, who had the military power to assert their rights and their own form of justice even if they contradict the rights and justice of others had always prevailed, and those, who lacked military power had no chance to assert their own rights and had always perished. This proves that the rule of law, even the laws approved on internationally, is irrelevant, and that might is right still prevails in this world.