SAUDI ARABIA WANTS TO DUMP NUCLEAR WASTE ON THE QATARI BORDER TO MAKE ITS ARCH ENEMY AN ISLAND, NewsWeek , BY DAVID BRENNAN
Saudi Arabia is planning to escalate its isolation of regional rival Qatar by using nuclear waste and a 650-foot wide canal to turn its neighbor into an island.
According to reports in the state-linked al-Riyadh and Sabq newspapers, the project—which would establish a military zone, nuclear waste dump and canal—would separate the two countries along the entire length of the 37.5-mile border.
The two nations have been locked in a crisis since the imposition of a Saudi-led diplomatic blockade on Qatar in June 2017. Saudi Arabia and its allies—including Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Egypt—accuse Qatar of supporting terrorism in the Middle East, a charge Doha denies.
Apparently, Riyadh is not content with traditional isolation. The so-called “Salwa Marine Canal Project” would establish a military base in one area of the border and a nuclear waste site in another. The waste would come from the nuclear reactors that Saudi Arabia is planning to build. The border would then be clearly demarcated by a wide canal. The UAE would also build a nuclear waste site at its border’s closest point to Qatar.
Sabq reported that the canal would be dug by Egyptian companies using experience gained in the construction of the Suez Canal and would take around a year to complete. Costing around $750 million, the waterway would be roughly 650 feet wide and 66 feet deep. It would be financed by private Saudi and Emirati investors.
Facing reality in the US-Saudi nuclear agreement: South Korea https://thebulletin.org/facing-reality-us-saudi-nuclear-agreement-south-korea11683, Victor Gilinsky, Henry Sokolski, 10 Apr 18 The Trump administrations is on the verge of signing a nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia that is reportedly “flexible” on Saudi acquisition of centrifuge technology to enrich uranium—the technology that can provide material for nuclear weapons and that was the central concern in regard to Iran’s nuclear program. This flexibility is necessary, the administration argues, to ensure the Saudis choose Westinghouse as their nuclear power reactor supplier. But Westinghouse, which performed abysmally on its last two US projects and is in bankruptcy as a result, is far less likely to win the bid than the South Korean construction firm whose work force is coming off successful completion of a large nuclear project nearby in the United Arab Emirates. This increases the importance of striking a tight US-Saudi agreement to ensure the Saudis don’t get to enrich under their nuclear cooperative agreement with Seoul.
The administration’s pitch that Congress should go along with “flexibility” pulls out all the usual bogeymen. Energy Secretary Rick Perry told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 22 that, “Either Russia or China is going to be a partner in building civil nuclear capability in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or the United States.” The Saudis, guided by several Washington lobbying firms, have been pushing this line, which much of the Washington establishment has swallowed, adding that allowing Moscow to gain a nuclear foothold in Saudi Arabia would deal a serious blow to US regional influence and prestige.
But the Saudis are not so foolish as to choose Russia or China. Moscow is nuclear supplier to Saudi Arabia’s foe, Iran, and Beijing has yet to bring a power reactor online outside of China. The Saudis already have a significant history of nuclear involvement with South Korea. They signed an agreement for “cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy” in 2011 and a memorandum of understanding in 2015, with a view to buying two smaller, so-called small modular (SMART) Korean reactors. Dozens of Saudis have gone to South Korea for nuclear training.
In these circumstances, the enrichment provision in the 2011 Saudi-South Korean agreement is of vital concern. It reads as follows: “Uranium transferred pursuant to this Agreement or used in any equipment so transferred shall not be enriched to twenty (20) percent or more in the isotope U-235 unless the Parties otherwise agree.” In other words, the 2011 agreement permits installation of Saudi enrichment facilities generally, and in particular the enrichment to 20 percent of uranium supplied under the agreement. A reason this is worrying—and was worrying in the case of Iran—is that, although it may seem counter intuitive, to further enrich the 20 percent product to a bomb explosive level takes only an additional one-tenth of the work it took to get to 20 percent. It becomes especially worrying when coupled with the Saudi Crown Prince’s hair-trigger promise (see this 60 Minutes interview) that if Iran got a bomb, the Kingdom would, too, “as soon as possible.”
This means that if we intend to bar Saudi Arabia’s path to nuclear weapons, and we absolutely should, we have to insist on a provision in our agreement with Saudi Arabia like that included in the agreement with its UAE neighbor: that the country will not engage in its territory in activities related to enrichment or reprocessing (extracting plutonium from spent nuclear fuel—the other path to a bomb). And we need to make sure South Korea agrees to hold off on moving forward on Saudi reactors until such a provision is in place.
Why would Saudi Arabia agree to such a restrictive provision? And why would South Korea agree to cooperate in ensuring it is in place. The short answer is that both countries depend on our protection. If we can pressure countries on trade terms—something the administrations brags about—surely, we can do so in the interest of security. As US Sen. Jack Reed, ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, said in response to Perry’s testimony, “The proliferation dangers are so great that we should be able to wield all of the influence we have, which goes way beyond just this one transaction, to insist [on the] same standards we applied to the Emirates.” And as President Gerald Ford said many years ago, “nonproliferation objectives must take precedence over economic and energy benefits if a choice must be made.”
This of course assumes the administration adheres to the traditional US policy objective of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, even among friends. An especially worrying aspect of this entire affair is that there seems to be a sense, born of hostility to Iran, that a Saudi nuclear weapon option might not be such a bad thing—in fact that it might even be useful to frighten Iran. All that can be said about such thinking is: This way lies chaos. We should move in the opposite direction, starting with barring Saudi Arabia from getting nuclear weapons.
Editor’s Note:If President Trump insists on meeting Kim Jong-un, he must be prepared either to agree to a long negotiating process that will play into Kim’s hands, or to walk away from the table, writes Evans Revers. Faced with these options, the prudent choice might be to press the “pause” button. This piece originally appeared on Newsweek.
President Donald J. Trump’s upcoming summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will be an historic encounter between two supremely self-confident, headstrong, and mercurial men, each seeking the other’s surrender.
The irresistible force of Donald Trump, whose administration has declared it will never accept, allow, or tolerate a North Korean nuclear threat to America, will soon meet the immovable object of a North Korean regime that has declared it will never give up its nuclear weapons “even in a dream.” What could possibly go wrong?
President Trump agreed to the summit on a whim, surprising his advisers and the South Korean envoys who conveyed Kim Jong-un’s invitation. Had he discussed the invitation with his advisers first, he would have heard that Kim’s reported interest in a deal on “denuclearization of the whole Korean Peninsula” is nothing of the kind.
Those who have negotiated nuclear matters with Pyongyang know that Kim’s words were a familiar North Korean demand to end the “threat” posed by the U.S.-South Korea alliance, the presence of U.S. troops in Korea, and the nuclear umbrella that defends South Korea and Japan.
A senior North Korean official once explained to a group of American experts, “If you remove those threats, we will feel more secure and in ten or twenty years’ time we may be able to consider denuclearization. In the meantime,” he continued, “we are prepared to meet with you as one nuclear weapon state with another to discuss arms control.”
That is North Korea’s concept of “denuclearization.” It bears no resemblance to the American definition.
Secret, direct talks underway between US and North Korea, By Elise Labott, Kevin Liptak and Jenna McLaughlin, CNN, April 7, 2018 Washington The United States and North Korea have been holding secret, direct talks to prepare for a summit between President Donald Trump and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un, a sign that planning for the highly anticipated meeting is progressing, several administration officials familiar with the discussions tell CNN.
Central Intelligence Agency Director Mike Pompeo and a team at the CIA have been working through intelligence back-channels to make preparations for the summit, the officials said. American and North Korean intelligence officials have spoken several times and have even met in a third country, with a focus on nailing down a location for the talks.
Although the North Korean regime has not publicly declared its invitation by Kim Jong Un to meet with Trump, which was conveyed last month by a South Korean envoy, several officials say North Korea has since acknowledged Trump’s acceptance, and Pyongyang has reaffirmed Kim is willing to discuss the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula……..https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/07/politics/north-korea-us-talks/index.html
Does Trump Even Know What He Wants From Kim Jong-un?
The president has shown no indication that he has any plan for next month’s all-important North Korea summit. Slate, By FRED KAPLAN , 3 April 18.
The biggest, riskiest diplomatic trip of his presidency—the summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un—is set to take place next month, and Donald Trump shows no signs of comprehending the issues or interests at stake.
Two statements from last week should have set off alarm bells that the president is not remotely ready for prime time.
The first came on Thursday, during a rambling, campaign rally–like speech in Ohio. At one point, Trump mentioned his recently reached trade deal with South Korea, saying, “I may hold it up until after a deal is made with North Korea. You know why? Because it’s a very strong card. And I want to make sure everyone is treated fairly.”
Within a few hours, aides to South Korean President Moon Jae-in were seeking clarification on the statement, working through various channels to understand Trump’s “true intentions.”Good luck on that.
I’ve sought some clarification myself, to no avail. The remark was either utterly incoherent or a terrible blunder. The former—yet another instance of Trump’s incoherence—is the likelier explanation. It’s not at all clear why Trump should hold up a trade deal with South Korea, pending the results of nuclear talks with North Korea. The two have little or nothing to do with each other.
But impolitic incompetence should never be dismissed as a source of confusion. Moon will be meeting with Kim—another historic first—on April 27 at Peace House, near the North-South border. It is expected that their meeting will tee up the issues, and to some degree set the agenda, for Kim’s meeting with Trump a few weeks later. Trump’s relations with Moon are rife with tensions. Trump has harshly criticized Seoul for fair-trade violations (and is said to see the new trade deal as an imperfect solution); he often grumbles that the South Koreans should pay more for their own defense and has threatened to withdraw U.S. forces from the region if they don’t—thus arousing fears, in South Korea and Japan, that Trump might do just that in exchange for a promise by North Korea to freeze or cut back its nuclear arsenal.
Trump’s remark in Ohio could be read as a threat to Moon: Push Kim hard on his nuclear weapons, maybe even get him to agree to dismantle them in advance of the U.S. summit—do the heavy lifting for us—or forget about the new trade deal. ……….
Does Trump have any idea what sorts of “phased, synchronized measures” he would like North Korea to take—and what sorts of measures he would permit the United States to take at the same time? For example, as a first step, North Korea could extend its freeze on nuclear testing and open up its production and test sites to international inspection—with the United States simultaneously removing some sanctions. What would be the second, third, and fourth synchronized measures, and what would be the ultimate goal—the finishing line of these steps? These are issues to be discussed by experts, debated in National Security Council meetings, and decided very carefully by the president and his top advisers. If officials at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the NSC aren’t already well into this project, they’re starting way too late.
It’s also worth noting that Trump’s incoming national security adviser, John Bolton, has spoken out against the whole concept of phased, synchronized measures, demanding that Kim dismantle his nuclear arsenal, all at once, and urging the United States to launch a first strike if he refuses. Will he offer Trump the same advice, now that he’s off Fox News and inside the White House? Will Trump listen? And who’s still around to offer countervailing advice?
Kim Jong-un will come to both negotiations—the one with Moon near the DMZ and the one with Trump at a location not yet determined—with a goal, an agenda, and a bag of bargaining tactics. He may also have sought and won consent for his approach (though there’s no way of knowing this) during his meeting in Beijing with Xi. Unless something dramatic happens in the next few weeks, Trump will arrive at the summit with no firm grip on a strategy or tactics—and wavering support from, and for, his allies. He may come instead with the cloak of an unearned self-confidence that he can prevail with a deal through his charisma and instincts. For this kind of deal, that won’t be enough. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/does-trump-even-know-what-he-wants-from-kim-jong-un.html
But together, the Kim-Moon meeting serves more as a prelude to the Trump-Kim summit. And if those talks fail, Harry Kazianis, an Asia security expert at the Center for the National Interest think tank, thinks the chances of war might increase.
“We are putting all of our eggs in the summit basket,” he told me. “This is the ultimate Hail Mary.”
The North Korea nuclear standoff: how we went from “fire and fury” to talks in under a yearVox, “North Korea has 100 percent changed its tactics.” By Alex Ward@AlexWardVoxalex.ward@vox.com
Last year, it seemed like war between the United States and North Korea was a real possibility.
“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” President Donald Trumpsaid at the United Nations on September 19, 2017. “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime,” he continued, using his favored nickname for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
Flash-forward to March 29, 2018, when Pyongyang and Seoul announced that Kim and South Korean President Moon Jae-in will meet face to face in April for talks. It’ll be only the third in-person meeting between the heads of both countries, and the first since 2007. But that’s not all: The Kim-Moon summit will lay the groundwork for an even more historic meeting between Kim and Trump sometime in either May or June, although it remains unscheduled.
How did we get here? How did North Korea and the US go from talk of potential nuclear warto actual, well, talks? Here’s one explanation: Experts tell me the war threats may have actually scared leaders like Trump.
“I’d like to believe that while President Trump talks tough,” Leon Panetta, the former defense secretary and CIA director, told me, “deep down, he also is concerned about involving this country in another war that is going to cost thousands of lives.”
But others simply give credit to North Korea. “North Korea has 100 percent changed its tactics,” Sue Mi Terry, a North Korea expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, told me. “I think this is all North Korea actually driving this.”
Whatever the reason, top officials want to take advantage of this moment. “We must not let this historic opportunity for diplomacy go to waste,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, told me.
What follows is a guide to how the two countries went from a nuclear standoff to a rare moment of cautious optimism.
Kim pivots from bombs to talks………..
The coming Trump-Kim summit made the South Korea meeting possible
On March 8, South Korean envoys who had just met with Kim Jong Un relayed a message to Trump: The North Korean leader wanted to meet with him. Trump reportedly accepted the offer on the spot.
Moon, the South Korean president, seemed relieved by the news. He campaigned in part on easing tensions with North Korea and continually advocated for a diplomatic solution to the US-North Korea standoff. After Trump agreed to meet with Kim, Moon offered three-way talks between him and the other two leaders.
That, however, is not in the works. Instead, Moon and Kim finally set a date for their face-to-face meeting in April. But Terry, the North Korea expert, told me she doesn’t expect much from the Kim-Moon summit. Instead, she said “South Korea’s chief goal is to set up that [the] Trump-Kim meeting goes well.”
As for Kim, he likely wants a greater sense of how badly Moon wants to strike some sort of deal.
Kim is already preparing for both encounters. This week, he took a secret trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Oriana Skylar Mastro, a China expert at Georgetown University, told me in an interview that Kim wanted to ensure he had China’s support ahead of talks with the US. Having Beijing’s backing could help Kim not concede too much in talks with Moon and Trump.
Kim needs the help. Trump will want Kim to give up his nuclear weapons, but experts are unanimous that Kim won’t agree to do so. Having China’s support allows the North Korean leader to feel more comfortable defying the American president.
“I think the North Korean leader made some very smart moves and has put himself in a good position,” Panetta, the former Obama Cabinet official, told me. “He has given himself greater leverage ahead of these meetings.”
Put together, the Kim-Moon meeting serves more as a prelude to the Trump-Kim summit. And if those talks fail, Harry Kazianis, an Asia security expert at the Center for the National Interest think tank, thinks the chances of war might increase.
Mohammed bin Salman (commonly referred to as MBS) is on a historic visit – the first in nearly 75 years – to Saudi Arabia’s closest ally, the US. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal this week, he called for restrictions that would “create more pressure” on Tehran.
“If we don’t succeed in what we are trying to do [imposing sanctions on Iran], we will likely have war with Iran in 10-15 years,” MBS, who has become the true power behind his aging father, King Salman, said.
Tehran and Riyadh have clashed over various issues in recent years. The Syrian crisis – especially the future of Syria’s government under President Bashar Assad – remains one of the major stumbling blocks.
The trip to the US of the prince’s entourage and meeting with Donald Trump only added fuel to the fire amid already strained relations. Iran sees the whole tour as a cynical exercise in self-promotion ahead of Bin Salman’s assumed ascension to the Saudi throne.
Prior to his coast-to-coast US trip, in which he rubbed shoulders with top politicians and Silicon Valley executives, the 32-year-old Saudi prince said that his country would enter the nuclear arms race if Iran is ever successful in developing a weapon of mass destruction. He also called Iran’s supreme leader the “new Hitler.”
The Iranian Foreign Ministry described MBS as “delusional” and “naïve,” following his allegations that Iran is hosting Al-Qaeda leaders.
The oil-rich kingdom and the US – under President Trump – have repeatedly slammed the landmark 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. Trump seems to be advancing a plan to confront Saudi Arabia’s number 1enemy in the region.
According to Vladimir Sazhin, a senior research associate at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, by withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear agreement, “the US would become a pariah,” since the international community largely approves of the deal and confirms that Tehran is sticking to its obligations.
The Strategic Wisdom of Accommodating North Korea’s Nuclear Status
What if Washington came to terms with a nuclear North Korea but remained on the peninsula? The Diplomat , By Graham W. Jenkins, March 28, 2018
As the North Korean “crisis” continues to unfold, any negotiations, including the possible (albeit unlikely) Trump-Kim summit, represent a significant strategic opportunity for coming decades — even if today’s official policy goals are never achieved.
Pyongyang and Washington must come to terms with two realities: North Korea will not surrender its nuclear arsenal; the United States will not withdraw its support for South Korea. But once the U.S. policymaking apparatus accepts this, the aperture of the possible widens. By tacitly acquiescing to North Korea’s nuclear status — and in the process, securing concessions on advance warning and notifications, among other subjects — the United States could partially supplant China as a patron (in a limited sense), simultaneously shoring up peninsular stability and presenting China with a new security challenge on its own border, requiring the diversion of forces and materiel……..
There are significant drawbacks to outright recognition of North Korea as a nuclear state. Even though by withdrawing from the NPT, North Korea did not violate international law per se, openly admitting that any country can a) exercise Article X and withdraw from the NPT and then b) develop and test a nuclear arsenal, without suffering consequences for it, sets a troubling precedent, to put it mildly. But it is still possible to pursue a policy of splitting the needle: quietly accepting (not officially, but through nonofficial or track II diplomatic efforts) North Korea’s nuclear status while refusing to officially condone it. Such a tacit form of acceptance would also allow the United States to potentially extract concessions from Pyongyang and allow it to maintain its nuclear arsenal, all of which would serve to reduce its reliance on China as a client state, and instead allow it to chart a more independent path, but one in which the United States, China, and South Korea would still be able to deter any major crises.
……… It’s important, too, to condition any U.S. acknowledgement on North Korea making concessions. There is a broad range of requests that would represent positive policy outcomes, depending on the executive branch’s preferences. Advance notice of missile and nuclear testing (or even adherence to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), establishing a “hotline” linking Pyongyang, Seoul, Washington, and Tokyo for crisis management, visible human rights changes like work camp prisoner releases or allowing humanitarian workers into the country, withdrawing artillery from the Kaesong Heights – some combination of these or others should be sufficient to justify changing U.S. policy toward North Korea’s nuclear weapons.
It’s rare that a nation is presented with a win-win-win scenario, but if bold enough to accept this manageable additional risk, the United States can emerge from this missile crisis in a stronger strategic position than before, with an adversary forced to reinforce an additional front and with our own hand strengthened. While the Trump-Kim summit – and indeed, any diplomatic efforts whatsoever – might now be a flight of fancy, with the ascension of John Bolton to national security advisor, negotiations remain the single best means of resolving the current Korean crisis. The United States stands to gain much: not least of all, avoiding a needless war.
National security veterans urge Trump not to scrap Iran nuclear deal, By Zachary Cohen, CNN March 27, 2018 Washington (CNN)A bipartisan group of more than 100 US national security experts — including nearly 50 retired military officers and more than 30 former ambassadors — is urging President Donald Trump to remain in the Iran nuclear deal as sources say it is becoming increasingly likely he will withdraw.
The statement titled “Keep the Iran deal — 10 Good Reasons Why” calls on Trump to “maintain the US commitment to the Iran nuclear deal” as doing so will “strengthen America’s hand in dealing with North Korea, as well as Iran, and help maintain the reliability of America’s word and influence as a world leader.”
“Ditching it would serve no national security purpose,” the statement said.
Penned by a group that calls itself the National Coalition to Prevent an Iranian Nuclear Weapon, the coordinated message comes as US officials are taking a two-track approach to the deal — negotiating with allies to make changes demanded by Trump even as they prepare to walk away from the international agreement.
Yes, John Bolton Really Is That Dangerous, NYT By THE EDITORIAL BOARD, MARCH 23, 2018
The good thing about John Bolton, President Trump’s new national security adviser, is that he says what he thinks.
The bad thing is what he thinks.
There are few people more likely than Mr. Bolton is to lead the country into war. His selection is a decision that is as alarming as any Mr. Trump has made. His selection, along with the nomination of the hard-line C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, as secretary of state, shows the degree to which Mr. Trump is indulging his worst nationalistic instincts.
Mr. Bolton, in particular, believes the United States can do what it wants without regard to international law, treaties or the political commitments of previous administrations.
He has argued for attacking North Korea to neutralize the threat of its nuclear weapons, which could set off a horrific war costing tens of thousands of lives. At the same time, he has disparaged diplomatic efforts, including the talks planned in late May between Mr. Trump and the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. He not only wants to abrogate the six-party deal that, since 2015, has significantly limited Iran’s nuclear program; he has called for bombing Iran instead. He has also maligned the United Nations and other multilateral conventions, as Mr. Trump has done, favoring unilateral solutions.
Over a 30-year career in which he served three Republican presidents, including as United Nations ambassador and the State Department’s top arms control official, Mr. Bolton has largely disdained diplomacy and arms control in favor of military solutions; no one worked harder to blow up the 1994 agreement under which North Korea’s plutonium program was frozen for nearly eight years in exchange for heavy fuel oil and other assistance. The collapse of that agreement helped bring us to the crisis today, where North Korea is believed to have 20 or more nuclear weapons. ……….
Mr. Bolton is certain to accelerate American alienation from its allies and the rest of the world. Congress may not be able to stop his appointment, but it should speak out against it and reassert its responsibilities under the Constitution to authorize when the nation goes to war.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/john-bolton-trump-national-security-adviser.html
Saudi Prince’s Nuclear Bomb Comment May Scuttle Reactor Deal, Bloomberg By Ari Natter
Fresh scrutiny for plan to build U.S. reactors in Saudi Arabia
Lawmakers say Saudis shouldn’t be allowed to enrich uranium
Opposition to a deal for the U.S. to provide nuclear power technology to Saudi Arabia is growing after Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman said the kingdom would develop a nuclear weapon if Iran did.
The potential for U.S. companies to participate in the construction of as many as 16 nuclear reactors sought by the kingdom has been seen as a potential lifeline to Westinghouse Electric Co. and others suffering from the flagging nuclear industry at home.
To further that effort, the Trump administration is said to be considering allowing the Saudis the right to enrich uranium, a break from the so-called “gold standard” included in the nuclear-sharing agreement with the United Arab Emirates, which allows power generation but prohibits the enrichment and reprocessing of uranium.
But that idea ran into a buzzsaw during a House hearing on Wednesday, with lawmakers from both parties saying prince’s admission that his country might seek to build nuclear weapons was cause to halt negotiations between the two nations. Energy Secretary Rick Perry met with Saudi officials earlier this month in London to begin talks on the deal. …….https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-21/saudi-prince-s-nuclear-bomb-comment-may-scuttle-reactor-deal
State Department Approves $1 Billion Arms Sale With Saudi Arabia , Daily Caller HENRY RODGERS Political Reporter 24 Mar 18
The State Department announced it had approved the sales of more than $1 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia Thursday, which includes 6,700 missiles.
The announcement comes two days after President Donald Trump met with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as part of a three week trip in the U.S. The Saudi Arabian government requested to purchase 6,700 U.S. built anti-tank missiles as well as supplies and parts for old tanks and helicopters, which the State Department approved.
The sale will “support U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives by improving the security of a friendly country, which has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic growth in the Middle East,” the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) said in a statementThursday, adding it “will not alter the basic military balance in the region.”
One of the people MBS told about the discussion with Kushner was UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, according to a source who talks frequently to confidants of the Saudi and Emirati rulers. MBS bragged to the Emirati crown prince and others that Kushner was “in his pocket,” the source told The Intercept.
The Washington Post reported this week that former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster “expressed early concern that Kushner was freelancing U.S. foreign policy.” According to the Post, Tillerson once asked staffers in frustration: “Who is the secretary of state here?”
Indeed, Kushner has grown so close to the Saudi and Emirati crown princes that he has communicated with them directly using WhatsApp, a reasonably secure messaging app owned by Facebook and popular in the Middle East, according to a senior Western official and a source close to the Saudi royal family.
UNTIL HE WAS stripped of his top-secret security clearance in February, presidential adviser Jared Kushner was known around the White House as one of the most voracious readers of the President’s Daily Brief, a highly classified rundown of the latest intelligence intended only for the president and his closest advisers.
Kushner, who had been tasked with bringing about a deal between Israel and Palestine, was particularly engaged by information about the Middle East, according to a former White House official and a former U.S. intelligence professional. Continue reading →
La Libre 19th March 2018, More than 40 scientists, intellectuals, engineers and artists: “It is time
for the political world to assume Fukushima” (OPINION).It is time for the
political world to take its mistakes and put an end to the nuclear
industry.
This is not only illegitimate, but it is also an extreme threat
to our future. On June 25 last year, 50,000 people joined hands to demand
the closure of the Tihange plant. The number of protesters surprised many.
Also notable was the lack of reaction from the political world as a result
of this extraordinary event.
There are reasons for this apparent lethargy of the leaders of this country, in the face of this popular demonstration,
perhaps starting with a feeling of guilt, which would be quite appropriate.
Indeed, what has prevailed in the implementation of the nuclear industry is
the lack of democratic debate and false state propaganda, that of an energy
that would be unlimited, cheap and safe; as we recalled the commemoration
of the seventh anniversary of Fukushima, the second accident of a nuclear
power station which has no end, after that of Chernobyl in 1986.
More serious still, in 1960, the leaders of 16 European countries, including Belgium, agreed to sign the Paris Convention which was intended to limit the financial liability of the operator in the event of a nuclear accident, no insurance company willing to cover the nuclear risk considered too high.
Without this unique Convention, the nuclear industry could never have developed in Europe.
It is worth mentioning here that a major accident in Tihange would mean the end of life as we know it and, in fact, the end of Wallonia as a region. That the cost of such an accident would amount to
several trillions of euros, without it being possible to quantify the
sanitary and psychological misery into which the Walloons, sentenced,
either to leave their country abandoning all their property – but to go
where, or to live in a contaminated territory for the poorest of them. That
on this amount, the operator, Engie-Electrabel, would have to pay only 1.2
billion, less than its profit of certain years and less than one thousandth
of the cost of the disaster. http://www.lalibre.be/debats/opinions/plus-de-40-scientifiques-intellectuels-ingenieurs-et-artistes-il-est-temps-que-le-monde-politique-assume-fukushima-opinion-5aae9319cd702f0c1a63ffda
Times 18th March 2018, Ed Davey: Vladimir Putin’s ambitions have been evident for some time, but
the Conservatives’ position has long been incoherent and inconsistent.
During the coalition years, the Conservatives seemed torn between the
national security evidence of the country’s wrongdoings and the billions
of roubles it had to invest.
Russian industrial investment plans would
never have stood up to the sort of detailed scrutiny we gave to Chinese
ones. I was particularly astonished when David Cameron agreed to Putin’s
request that the Russian state nuclear power company, Rosatom, be
introduced to the UK’s civil nuclear power market and develop an
international consortium with Rolls-Royce.
nuclear-news 