Thursday, December 6, 2018

Mueller seeks no prison time for former national security adviser Michael Flynn, citing his ‘substantial assistance’

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III recommended that former national security adviser Michael Flynn serve no prison time, according to a new court filing. (Reuters)

By Carol D. Leonnig ,

Rosalind S. Helderman and

Devlin Barrett

December 4

Doing battle with Saudi Arabia

2018-12-01

How can Saudi Arabia be brought low? If the King won’t remove from power his 33-old-son, Prince Mohammad bin Salman, there may be no alternative but to do battle (non-violently) with its regime.

There seems to be no doubt that it was bin Salman who gave the order to murder Saudi Arabia’s dissident journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.
This is not the only reason to take up (non-violent) arms against Saudi Arabia. Others are its massive buying of Western military hardware. Another is its war in Yemen where it has killed tens of thousands of civilians. Another is that it still follows the intolerant strictures of the Wahabi sect of Islam.

In 2015, the German vice-chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, publicly accused Saudi Arabia of financing Islamic extremism in the West and warned that it must stop. He said the Saudi regime was funding extremist mosques and communities that pose a danger to public security.

In his autobiography, Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service (home of James Bond), wrote that some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington, told him that “The time is not far off in the Middle East when it will be literally ‘God Help the Shiite.’ More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”

Thanks to Wikileaks we know that Hillary Clinton, when Secretary of State, wrote a cable in December 2009 that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for Al-Qaida, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan.”

In his autobiography, Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service (home of James Bond), wrote that some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington, told him that “The time is not far off in the Middle East when it will be literally ‘God Help the Shiite.’ More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.” Another is the evidence that it is considering developing nuclear weapons. Last week, the New York Times in a dispatch by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad asked if bin Salman was “laying the groundwork for building an atomic bomb.” Saudi Arabia may have arranged to buy an already-made bomb from Pakistan whose own successful nuclear weapons programme was funded in part by Saudi money. Pakistan called it the first “Sunni bomb.”

What’s to be done? Sanctions have already been imposed by the US on 17 Saudi officials close to bin Salman. Bin Salman has been spared. Trump has made clear in public the reason for this is because Western countries need its oil and, second, the arms market is too lucrative to pass up.

The truth is that, though enormous, the sales are only a small percentage of America’s total arms production. It could be forsaken.

Oil is more problematic, but a boycott of part of its production is doable. Already, oil prices are substantially below the country’s financial needs. Its financial deficit is dangerously-high says the IMF. This is the time to hit it.

The price of oil needs to be driven down. This means other oil producers increasing the production. The first place to start is Iran whose oil industry is savaged by American sanctions. The second is Russia. Other countries that could increase their production are Nigeria, Mozambique, Angola, Ghana and Uganda. They’ll need Western help.

Western countries, with a minor increase in taxes, could reduce the consumption of oil significantly.

Would Saudi Arabia retaliate? Why would it? It needs income badly. It can’t afford not to sell as much as it can.

Let Saudi Arabia suffer until bin Salman is sacked and brought to justice.

May battles on with Brexit deal, despite Tory divisions

6 Dec 2018
On the third day of the Commons debate on the Brexit deal, divisions in the Conservative party appear to be as deep as ever.

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, told MPs it would be a delusion to think there is any chance of renegotiating the Brexit deal. But former Brexit Secretary David Davis said the deal should be “buried at the crossroads” with a stake “through its heart”.

All day long, senior MPs have been going in and out of the Cabinet Office for confidential briefings on the impact of No Deal on the country.

Warning: this report has flash photography from the start.

Analysis: Slow train to China - India's trade ties with Beijing taking time to ripen

FILE PHOTO: Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, China September 4, 2016. REUTERS/Damir Sagolj/File Photo

Neha Dasgupta, Mayank Bhardwaj -DECEMBER 6, 2018

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - China and India may be talking about improving their trade relationship but there is little action to go with the words.

According to Indian government officials and representatives of various Indian trade bodies, progress is very slow - and may even be getting slower after last weekend’s truce between the United States and China in their trade war.

Both India and China have sought to rebuild trust after a armed standoff over a stretch of the Himalayan border last year.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping have met a number of times this year to give impetus to the trade discussions. The latest was last week, when they met on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Argentina.

Indian and Chinese officials said after that meeting there was talk of Beijing increasing its soymeal, rapeseed meal, rice and sugar imports from India, while China would push for more Chinese exports of dairy products, apples and pears to India.

India is also keen to increase its exports of drugs to China.

In reality, though, getting such exchanges turned into deals is going to be a laborious process.

“When we say the Chinese are receptive, it means the talks are happening, but it’s going slow,” said one senior Indian government official with direct knowledge of the discussions. “It can be termed as progress because just a few months ago, we weren’t even talking,” said the official, who did not wish to be named because he is not authorised to talk to media.

The Chinese commerce ministry did not respond to a faxed request for comment for this article.
Bilateral trade between China and India touched $89.71 billion in the year ending March 2018, with the trade deficit widening to $63.05 billion in China’s favour, more than a nine-fold increase over the past decade.

The Indian government is very keen to reduce that gap. A recent study commissioned by India’s trade ministry and reviewed by Reuters, said: “There is no bilateral trade relationship of greater economic and political significance for India than with China.”

The reduction in trade tensions between Washington and Beijing, which has led to a delay in the imposition of larger punitive tariffs by the United States pending further trade talks over a 90-day period, means that the Chinese government may not feel the need to speed up its discussions with New Delhi, Indian officials said.

The government has received calls from jittery exporters who want to know whether the improvement in the relationship between China and the United States would make India’s position weaker, said the senior Indian government official.

ROADBLOCK FOR INDIA

Ajay Sahai, director general of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, also said China’s truce with the United States may be a roadblock to improved trade with Beijing.

“As it is, the China-U.S. tariff tension was a temporary opportunity and it is not correct for companies to base their long-term strategies on it,” said Sahai.

One longer term impediment to improved trade is product quality, and trade, industry and government officials in India said both Beijing and New Delhi could take time to iron out their differences.

Last week, India and China signed an agreement allowing Beijing to inspect imports of Indian fish meal and fish oil.

A Chinese trade delegation is coming to India on Dec. 10 to inspect soymeal plants, said D.N. Pathak, executive director of the Soybean Processors Association of India.

India wants China to drop a years-long ban on soymeal imports from the South Asian nation. China was a leading buyer of Indian soymeal, a key ingredient in animal feed, until Beijing banned the purchases in late 2011 over quality concerns.

In November, India’s trade ministry said the country could export up to 2 million tonnes of sugar, but trade officials said the target was too steep because China has already exhausted its import quota for this year.

Although India has contracted to sell some tiny shipments of rice to China, officials said New Delhi would find it difficult to boost volumes as Beijing has traditionally been importing the staple from Vietnam and Thailand and the Chinese would take time to develop a taste for Indian rice.

Reporting by Neha Dasgupta and Mayank Bhardwaj; additional reporting by Ryan Woo in Beijing; Editing by Martin Howell and Raju Gopalakrishnan

One Belt, One Road, One Big Mistake

China’s signature foreign-policy project is a failure that the U.S. shouldn’t copy.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, Papua New Guinea's Governor-General Bob Dadae, and Papua New Guinea's Chief of Defense Gilbert Toropo attend a welcome ceremony for Xi's state visit in Port Moresby on Nov. 16. (David Gray/AFP/Getty Images)

BY TANNER GREER

| DECEMBER 6, 2018, 3:29 PM
The headlines coming out of this year’s APEC conference in Papua New Guinea focused on the conflict between America and China that kept the forum from issuing a joint communiqué. Less noticed were two short memorandums released on the sidelines of the conference by the island nations of Vanuatu and Tonga. In return for renegotiating existing debt, both agreed to become the newest participants—following other Pacific nations like Papua New Guinea and Fiji—in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s signature foreign-policy venture, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

As Xi’s trillion-dollar development strategy has snaked away from the Eurasian heartland and into the South Pacific, western Africa, and Latin America, concern has grown. Many Americans fear that the Belt and Road Initiative is an extension of efforts by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to undermine the security and economic architecture of the international order. China’s growing largesse, they worry, comes largely at the expense of international institutions and American influence.

This angst lies behind another announcement made at last month’s APEC gathering: Australia, Japan, and the United States declared that they had formed their own trilateral investment initiative to help meet infrastructure needs in the Indo-Pacific. For some this is not enough: In its most recent report to the United States Congress, the bipartisan U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission recommended that Congress create an additional fund “to provide additional bilateral assistance for countries that are a target of or vulnerable to Chinese economic or diplomatic pressure.”

This is the wrong response to the Belt and Road Initiative. Ignore the hype: For the Chinese, this initiative has been a strategic blunder.By buying into the flawed idea that barrels of money are all that is needed to solve complex geopolitical problems, China has committed a colossal error. Xi’s dictatorship makes it almost impossible for the country to admit this mistake or abandon his pet project. The United States and its allies gain nothing from making China’s blunders their own.

In Xi’s speeches, the phrase most closely associated with the Belt and Road Initiative is “community of common destiny.” Xi’s use of this term is meant to link the BRI to the deeper purpose party leaders have articulated for the CCP over the last three decades. China’s leaders believe that not only is it their “historic mission” to bring about China’s “national rejuvenation” as the world’s most prestigious power, but that China has a unique role to play in the development of “political civilization” writ large.

It is the Chinese, Xi maintains (as Hu and Jiang did before him), who have adapted socialism to modern conditions, and in so doing have created a unique Chinese answer to “the problems facing mankind.” Though this answer began in China, Xi is clear that the time has come for “Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach” to benefit those outside of China. The Belt and Road Initiative is intended to do just that. By using the Chinese model of socialism to develop the world’s poorer regions, the initiative justifies Xi’s grandiose claims about the party’s historic mission on the international stage.

To match these lofty aims, Chinese academics and policy analysts at prestigious party think tanks have articulated more down-to-earth goals for the initiative. According to them, the BRI promises to integrate China’s internal markets with those of its neighbors. Doing so will bring its neighbors closer to China geopolitically and bring stability to the region. By increasing economic activity in China’s border regions, such as Xinjiang and Tibet, the Belt and Road Initiative will lessen the appeal that separatist ideology might have to the residents. Another projected benefit is the energy security that will come through the construction of BRI-funded transport routes. Finally, by articulating and then following through on an initiative that puts common development over power politics, China will gain an advantage over other major countries (read: Japan and the United States) who present the world as a black-and-white competition for hegemony. The community of common destiny, these analysts have claimed, is a community that will immensely benefit China.

As the Belt and Road Initiative is only five years old (and many of its main members have been involved for a far shorter time) its full results cannot yet be judged. However, a preliminary assessment can be offered for BRI projects in South and Southeast Asia, the region described by Chinese leaders as the “main axis” of the Belt and Road Initiative. It is here that BRI investment is strongest and has been around longest. The picture is not promising. The hundreds of billions spent in these countries has not produced returns for investors, nor political returns for the party. Whether Chinese leaders actually seek a financial return from the Belt and Road Initiative has always been questionable—the sovereign debt of 27 BRI countries is regarded as “junk” by the three main ratings agencies, while another 14 have no rating at all.

Investment decisions often seem to be driven by geopolitical needs instead of sound financial sense.
In South and Southeast Asia expensive port development is an excellent case study. A 2016 CSIS report judged that none of the Indian Ocean port projects funded through the BRI have much hope of financial success. They were likely prioritized for their geopolitical utility. Projects less clearly connected to China’s security needs have more difficulty getting off the ground: the research firm RWR Advisory Group notes that 270 BRI infrastructure projects in the region (or 32 percent of the total value of the whole) have been put on hold because of problems with practicality or financial viability. There is a vast gap between what the Chinese have declared they will spend and what they have actually spent.

There is also a gap between how BRI projects are supposed to be chosen and how they actually have been selected. Xi and other party leaders have characterized BRI investment in Eurasia as following along defined “economic corridors” that would directly connect China to markets and peoples in other parts of the continent. By these means the party hopes to channel capital into areas where it will have the largest long-term benefit and will make cumulative infrastructure improvements possible.

This has not happened: one analysis of 173 BRI projects concluded that with the exception of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) “there appears to be no significant relationship between corridor participation and project activity… [suggesting that] interest groups within and outside China are skewing President Xi’s signature foreign policy vision.” This skew is an inevitable result of China’s internal political system. BRI projects are not centrally directed. Instead, lower state bodies like provincial and regional governments have been tasked with developing their own BRI projects.

The officials in charge of these projects have no incentive to approve financially sound investments: by the time any given project materializes, they will have been transferred elsewhere. BRI projects are shaped first and foremost by the political incentives their planners face in China: There is no better way to signal one’s loyalty to Xi than by laboring for his favored foreign-policy initiative. From this perspective, the most important criteria for a project is how easily the BRI label can be slapped on to it.

This is why many of the more promising BRI projects were already slated or under construction well before Xi announced his vision for the initiative. These projects have simply been rebranded with the BRI label to curry favor with the party leadership. (Sometimes this rebranding reaches comical proportions: Turkey’s Marmaray rail tunnel, for example, was recently lauded by the World Bank as an exemplary BRI investment, even though it is funded by a Turkey-EU-Japan consortium and appears to have no Chinese involvement.) It is easier to rebrand a successful project as part of the Belt and Road Initiative than it is to create successful projects from scratch.

This reality helps explain the coolness with which private investors have treated the initiative. Despite stringent capital controls on non-BRI investment, only 12 percent of Chinese foreign direct investment has been directed to the countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative (and one third of that goes to the developed economies of South Korea, Israel, and Singapore). Government calls for participation from international partners and private investment have been ignored: large state-owned enterprises and government policy provide more than 95 percent of BRI funding. BRI is not a brand investors trust.

This might not matter if BRI projects were driving favorable political outcomes. They aren’t. Prolonged exposure to the BRI process has driven opposition to Chinese investment and geopolitical influence across the region. In the Maldives, the pro-Beijing Progressive Party of Maldives was unseated this year by the Maldivian Democratic Party, which ran on an explicitly anti-BRI platform. The Maldives’ new president calls the BRI “a big cheat” and a “debt trap” that must be abandoned or renegotiated.

He has a kindred spirit in Mahathir Mohamad, the new prime minister of Malaysia, who has described BRI projects as a form of “new colonialism” that must be rejected. Beijing’s quest to create a stable pro-China tilt in Sri Lanka has only spawned political instability, with President Maithripala Sirisena sliding up to and away from Sri Lankan politicians connected to China as the situation demands. In Bangladesh authorities recently blacklisted China Harbour Engineering Company, one of the region’s most active BRI construction firms, on accusations of corruption.

Burma was so alarmed by regional trends that it put a hold on its own BRI-funded port project in Kyaukpyu until the Chinese agreed to cut its scale by 80 percent. Nepal and Pakistan have also demanded that China cancel or completely retool ongoing projects in their countries. In western Pakistan opposition to the initiative has turned violent. Last week Baluchi separatists attacked the Chinese consulate in Karachi, treating Chinese infrastructure investment in their region as a threat to their dreams of independence. Chinese analysts who hoped that the BRI investment would help stabilize China’s borderlands and ease the threat it faces from ethnic separatists inside China now must come to terms with an initiative that is embroiling China in conflict with separatists outside of it.

The problems China has had with the BRI stem from contradictions inherent in the ends party leaders envision for the initiative and the means they have supplied to reach them. BRI projects are chosen through a decentralized project-management system and then funded through concessional loans offered primarily by PRC policy banks. This is a recipe for cost escalation and corruption. In countries like Cambodia, a one-party state ruled by autocrats, this state of affairs is viable, for there is little chance that leaders will be held accountable for lining their pockets (or, more rarely, the coffers of their local communities) at the entire nation’s expense. But most BRI countries are not Cambodia. In democracies this way of doing things is simply not sustainable, and in most BRI countries it is only so long before an angry opposition eager to pin their opponents with malfeasance comes to power, armed with the evidence of misplaced or exploitative projects.

If the party leadership was willing to pour extra resources into target countries each time power changed hands, they might be able to blunt this sort of opposition. Beijing has not proven willing to do this. The helter-skelter nature of BRI investment has caused other problems for party leadership: while local Chinese governments and state-owned enterprises are willing to lend so much that BRI investments threaten to drive some countries towards default, the central government is not willing to be the lender of last resort for the countries thus driven. Like Pakistan last month, most countries forced to this extremity will have only one option left: come crawling to the International Monetary Fund in hopes of a solution. For such countries, the end result of Chinese investment is an even stronger dependence on the Western-led financial system.

Far from being a strategic masterstroke, the BRI is a sign of strategic dysfunction. There is no evidence that it has reshaped Asia’s geopolitical realities. The countries that have benefited most from it are those that already had strong geopolitical reasons for aligning themselves with Chinese power, such as Cambodia and Pakistan. The expansion of the Belt and Road Initiative across the globe is deeply worrisome not because of the strategic threat it poses to the standing international order, but because of what it tells us about the internal workings of the world’s most powerful authoritarian state.

These problems are not new. For the last three years even China’s state-run banks have been trying to extricate themselves from spending more on the initiative. Yet despite these problems, the initiative expands to new countries and continents. Why this is happening is clear enough—no other foreign policy program is associated personally with Xi like this one is. Xi’s apotheosis to permanent leadership at the 19th Party Congress this spring meant that his signature foreign-policy initiative also had to be elevated—and so it was, written directly into the constitution of the Chinese Communist Party. Now to attack the Belt and Road Initiative is to attack the legitimacy of the party itself. The Belt and Road Initiative is evidence that the party’s once responsive policymaking system is breaking down. The rest of the world must recognize that BRI persists only because it is the favored brainchild of an authoritarian leader living in an echo chamber.

Ecuador says UK has given ‘guarantees’ for Assange to leave embassy

President Lenín Moreno said Ecuador has received written assurances UK would not extradite Assange to face death penalty

Julian Assange on the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy on 19 May 2017. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty Images

Dan Collyns in Quito and Patrick Wintour -Thu 6 Dec 2018 18.53 GMT

Ecuador has received written assurances from the UK government that it would not to extradite Julian Assange to any country where he would face the death penalty, the country’s president, Lenín Moreno, has said.

In a live radio interview on Thursday, Moreno said that the WikiLeaks founder now had sufficient guarantees to leave Ecuador’s embassy in the UK, where he has lived under asylum since mid-2012.
Moreno told journalists he was talking to the UK government so it would “guarantee his life, and guarantee he wouldn’t be extradited to any country where his life would be in danger”. He added the UK would require Assange to complete a short jail term for breaching bail conditions.

The announcement comes as speculation mounts that the Australian activist’s six-year stay in the London embassy could be coming to a close. The appointment of a new ambassador, Jaime Marchán, in the London embassy this week is a sign that the government wants to resolve the problem, according to analysts in Quito.

Pressure has been mounting on the WikiLeaks founder since Ecuador cut his internet connection in March and the Guardian reported that the country had spent millions on his extended stay.

“I don’t like Mr Julian Assange’s presence in Ecuador’s embassy,” Moreno said on Thursday, without saying the activist would be forced out. He added that the Australian had spent “too much time almost imprisoned” in the country’s embassy.

Opinion polls show most Ecuadorians want Assange to leave the embassy, and Moreno is under pressure at home and from the US to end the unwanted house guest’s stay.

“Ecuadorians have a long tradition of respect for human rights,” Fabricio Villamar, an MP for the opposition Creo party, told the Guardian.

“But that tradition cannot be interpreted as a weakness or as a loophole for people who are being pursued by ordinary justice,” he added.

In October, Ecuador imposed stringent new house rules for Assange to which he responded with an action against the embassy for “violating his fundamental rights and freedoms”. An Ecuadorian judge rejected the legal move.

Assange’s legal team has said it is considering how to respond, according to the Associated Press.
US authorities have never officially confirmed that they have charged Assange, but last month a mistake in a document filed in an unrelated case hinted that criminal charges may have been prepared in secret.
The court filing, submitted apparently in error by US prosecutors, mentioned criminal charges against someone named “Assange” even though that was not the name of the defendant.

Legal analysts said the error was likely to have been caused by prosecutors copying and pasting from sealed documents outlining charges against the WikiLeaks founder.

The Foreign Office did not deny a previous news report last month suggesting the Home Office had given written assurances to the Ecuadorian government that UK ministers would not allow Assange’s extradition to a country where he would face the death penalty.

It is not clear if this assurance amounts to a commitment that the UK will not allow Assange’s extradition to the US at all – or whether it would allow extradition on condition that he would not face the death penalty.

It is understood that the UK has also given assurances that Assange would not face more than six months in jail for related bail offences.

Earlier this year, the Foreign Office minister, Alan Duncan, tried to reassure Assange about his treatment if he chose to leave the embassy, telling MPs: “We are increasingly concerned about his health.

“It is our wish that this is brought to an end, and we would like to make the assurance that if he were to step out of the embassy, he would be treated humanely and properly. The first priority would be to look after his health, which we think is deteriorating.”

Turkish prosecutor seeks arrests of Saudis over Khashoggi murder

Ahmed Asiri and Saud al-Qahtani are among those thought to be responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

Ahmed Asiri and Saud al-Qahtani both have close ties to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman [Al Jazeera]

5 Dec 2018

Istanbul's chief prosecutor has filed warrants for the arrest of a top aide to Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler and the deputy head of foreign intelligence on suspicion of planning the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The prosecutor's office concluded that there is "strong suspicion" that Saud al-Qahtani and Ahmed Asiri, who were both removed from their positions following the murder, were among the planners of the murder, two Turkish officials said on Wednesday.

Jamal Khashoggi, a United States resident and columnist for the Washington Post, was killed shortly after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2.

"The prosecution's move to issue arrest warrants for Asiri and Qahtani reflects the view that the Saudi authorities won't take formal action against those individuals," one of the officials told Reuters news agency.

The official added that Saudi Arabia could address the international concern by extraditing all suspects in the case to Turkey.

According to AFP news agency, the application for the warrants was filed on Tuesday.

At the time of publication, Saudi Arabia had not publicly responded to the request.

Al-Qahtani worked as a media adviser to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman [Al Jazeera]

The Saudi prosecution has previously acknowledged that al-Qahtani and Asiri were part of the plot to kill Khashoggi.

The two men were both high-ranking officials with close ties to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Al-Qahtani is one of the highest-profile figures implicated in the killing. Believed to have been Prince Mohammed's right-hand man.

Erdogan demands Saudis extradite suspects in Khashoggi killing

The 40-year-old was removed as a royal court adviser following Khashoggi's assassination. Prior to that, he served as a media adviser to Prince Mohammed.

Al-Qahtani is believed to have supervised a 15-man hit squad that flew from the Saudi capital, Riyadh, to Istanbul to carry out Khashoggi's murder, although he did not travel to Turkey.

Nor did Asiri, who served as spokesperson for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen before being appointed as an adviser to Prince Mohammed, who then promoted him to his intelligence position in 2017.

Asiri is believed to be one of the planners of Khashoggi's murder [Amr Nabil/AP Photo]

Asiri frequently was the subject of condemnation from rights groups over apparent disregard for civilian casualties in the war in Yemen.

Al Jazeera's Mohamed Vall, reporting from Istanbul, said it is possible that more arrests will be ordered.

"The Turkish prosecution believes that these men are only a part of the planning and we understand that the list is not conclusive.

"We understand also that there was a previous request from the Turks to Saudi Arabia to extradite the 18 men they mentioned were involved in the crime but none of that has happened.

"No response came from Saudi Arabia and now there is this specific mention of these two men at the top, but it's not a conclusive list and they said these men are among the planners, not all the planners," he said.

US pressure needed

Wednesday's announcement came hours after CIA director Gina Haspel briefed US senators on new evidence in the Khashoggi case.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he felt there was "zero chance" the crown prince wasn't involved in Khashoggi's death.

How will the new Khashoggi revelations affect MBS?

While several countries have taken steps to put pressure on the kingdom, including in some cases suspending weapons exports, it is felt that Saudi Arabia is unlikely to comply with Turkish demands without encouragement from the US.

"We know that Mohammed bin Salman takes his cues from President Trump and that Trump so far has not commented on the statements that have been issued during the night from Congress members.

"I think the Saudis on their own will not comply with any Turkish demands unless there is enough pressure put on them from the American side," Valls said.

Also on Wednesday, United Nations human rights chief Michelle Bachelet said that an international investigation was needed to determine who was responsible for Khashoggi's murder.

"I do believe it is really needed in terms of ensuring what really happened and who are the [people] responsible for that awful killing," she said at a news conference in Geneva.

Speaking in Brussels on Wednesday, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu urged Saudi Arabia to be transparent, saying Ankara would not hesitate to launch an international probe if its investigation becomes deadlocked.

Khashoggi's murder prompted international outcry and forced many countries to reassess their ties with the kingdom.

After weeks of repeated denials that it had any involvement with his disappearance, Riyadh eventually acknowledged that Saudi officials had planned and executed the killing.

The whereabouts of his remains are still unknown.

Yemeni women demand seat at the table as peace talks begin in Stockholm

Yemeni women tell MEE they've been sidelined from peace talks and consultations on Yemen's civil war - and that must change

'Women in Yemen are paying the highest price of war,' one activist said (AFP)

Aaya Al-Shamahi-Thursday 6 December 2018

A coalition of Yemeni women are demanding a seat at the negotiating table as UN-sponsored peace talks to end Yemen's war are scheduled to begin in Sweden.

Pictures released of delegates attending the talks showed only one woman present on the negotiating table from both sides of the civil war, which has been going on for nearly four years.

Only one woman is present during peace talks as Sweden prepares both sides for negotiations (Reuters)

Kawkab Al-Thaibani, a Yemeni woman who works for the Women for Yemen network, told Middle East Eye that Yemen's women had borne the brunt of the country's war.

"Women in Yemen are paying the highest price of war. I believe that no lasting peace will happen... without women [being involved] in the peace negotiations," Thaibani said this week.

"They're facing hunger, poverty, violence, displacement and being uprooted, among many other issues.

"Women are now leading the entire household, domestically and financially alone, often for the first time, in a country where its basic delivery system is collapsing."

In March 2015, Saudi Arabia launched a military campaign in Yemen to root out Houthi rebels, who had taken over the capital, Sanaa, and deposed president Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi.

The Saudi-led coalition has been accused of committing war crimes in Yemen, such as the deliberate bombing of hospitals, buses and other civilian infrastructure.

The Houthis have also been accused of taking hostages and arbitrarily detaining and torturing opponents, all potential war crimes.

Over the past three years, the war has killed tens of thousands of people and spawned what the UN has called the world's most dire humanitarian crisis, in what was already one of the world's poorest countries.

Yet peace has remained elusive since the last attempt in September, when the Houthis did not attend negotiations in Geneva after their wounded were refused evacuation.

But on Monday, the UN helped evacuate 50 injured Houthis out of Yemen. The next day, a Houthi delegation touched down in Sweden.

On Thursday, UN mediator Martin Griffiths told reporters in a renovated castle outside Stockholm that just getting the warring sides to the table was an important milestone.

Yemeni workers pose for a photograph near a vegetable field in the northern district of Abs in Hajjah province, on 16 October 2018 (Essa Ahmed / AFP)

Observers say previous peace talks have seen Yemeni women sidelined from the negotiating table.

Amal Ali, a Yemeni journalist, says that past talks "have had almost no presence of women".

She added: "Those who cross through the siege in Taiz carrying food and medicine on their heads are women, so they must have a place at the negotiating table."

Thaibani said that despite the best efforts of those who want a seat at the table, it's been an uphill battle.

"Many activists are pushing for more inclusion of women, [but] unfortunately, consultations have poor representations of women and negotiations have had almost no presence of women too," she said.

"This is very unfortunate...[and] it has been proven that when women are involved, lasting peace can happen.

"There are many issues that we believe women have to be included if we want to ensure lasting peace."

Yemeni women have said that they have been sidelined for several peace talks (AFP)

Diplomats are expected to shuttle between the warring parties to discuss other confidence-building steps and the formation of a transitional governing body, a UN source said.

As negotiations were set to begin on Thursday, Swedish hosts called for constructive talks to end what Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom called a "catastrophe". Griffiths, flanked by the two delegations, told them not to waiver.

History: Countries without government

There have been many instances in history of a lawless, stateless society. Some have been success stories, and some have been complete failures

(December 5, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Anarchy! No rules, no police, no authorities. Do we really need a government? It may sound awesome to live in a country with no rules or government, but many people find it quite a scary concept. What happens when you can’t go to the police? When you’re forced to defend your own land? The Ancient Greeks said that without the rule of law, there can be no freedom. Were they right? Is government necessary to live a free, comfortable life? There are very contrasting views on this subject. There are many Anarchists today that will tell you that life without government is much better than living under a system of rules.

The only way to figure out if this system will actually work is by looking to the past, and in some cases, the present. There have been many instances in history of a lawless, stateless society. Some have been success stories, and some have been complete failures. Some are products of civil wars, while other states of Anarchy were precursors to successful nations such as the USA. Some of these countries passed through a state of Anarchy with little to no ill effect, while others are still recovering from lawlessness today. My personal opinion is that an Anarchist society can be successful only if the majority of its people are responsible and do not want to take advantage of a nation without the rule of law. But read about these lawless countries, and make up your own mind!

SOMALIA

Somalia is one of the most well-known examples of a country with no government. This state of Anarchy lasted from 1991 to 2006. After a dictator called Siad Barre was ousted from power in 1991, no government ever replaced him. Instead, the country plunged into a period of time that was lawless and without any semblance of government. Instead of having a government, the Somalians reverted back to old clan systems and customs. The rule of law was the “Xeer,” and ancient system where a council of elders decides the best way to settle disputes on a case-by-case basis. Although there were no rules or laws so to speak, the Xeer guaranteed safe passage, trade, and marriage for people throughout Somalia to certain extent. Rural Somalians didn’t even notice the change, since they had been using the Xeer long before the old government fell anyway. Interestingly, under this state of Anarchy no Somalians ever had to pay taxes, as this was forbidden under the Xeer. Because there was no longer a coast guard, this period of time was characterized by a huge rise in Somalian piracy. There was also extreme violence throughout Somalia during this time, although during the same time neighboring countries with a government suffered much worse violence.

Because there was no government imposing taxes and regulations, businesses were able to step in and offer services at incredibly cheap rates. Somalians enjoyed some of the cheapest and best cell phone services in all of Africa. They also had several privately owned newspapers, electricity provided on a local basis, and one entrepreneur even supplied one hospital with free electricity. Mogadishu had its first gas stations built during this state of Anarchy. Their currency was based on a mixture of real money and forgeries of pre-1991 bills. The forgeries were treated as having equal value to the real bills. The world bank stated that economies might actually be able to function better without a government, because there is no central bank, and no one has to pay for government services as they are all provided by private businesses.

IRAQ

In 2010, Iraq broke the record for going the longest without having a government. 208 days passed before they broke the record that was previously set by Netherlands at 207 days. And it was months before they managed to form a government after breaking that record. Iraqis were incensed that they had risked their lives to vote months earlier following the fall of Saddam Hussein, just to have to wait for the politicians to get their act together. There were a number of reasons that led to this stall. For one, there was still much violence and instability after the US involvement in Iraq. Secondly, all of the political leaders accused one another of fraud after the election results came in, probably because the election results were so close, with one party winning 89 and the other 91. During these long months, the parliament were still collecting their paychecks…

BELGIUM

The record set by Iraq was shattered by Belgium in 2011 when they went 589 without an elected government. How did this happen to a rich, Western nation like Belgium? Well, as it turns out this “state of Anarchy” was a lot less exciting than it sounds. Day-to-day affairs were run by a temporary government headed by a former prime minister, and this government was actually able to make decisions about the country just like a normal government would. This lack of government began after the two main parties, the Flemish and Walloons, were unable to form a coalition government. The dispute was so intense that many people expected Belgium to split into two separate countries at some point. Luckily, Belgium pulled through, and is now one of the most influential countries in the world.

EARLY AMERICA

The “Wild West” of America is seen as a classic example of Anarchy. But the truth is that there has actually been quite a few times in American history where government played little to no role in society. In terms of the Wild West, the truth is that there was a government in place during this time. But in many cases, the government was seen as a distant influence that was irrelevant in day to day activity. This is especially true in areas known as “the frontier,” parts of America that were outside the federal jurisdiction and too far out into the wilderness for real law to enforce. In these parts, settlers were left to settle disputes with pistols at high noon in many cases. In other cases, a town elected a sheriff, who was basically in charge of running a private security company for that area. Remember, the only difference between policeman and a hired gun is that the policeman is paid by the government.

Earlier in American history, when the nation was first formed and gained independence from the British, the founding fathers had very specific ideas about the role of government in their new state which gave birth to the so-called “lawless” state of the Wild West. Right from the beginning, the founding fathers wanted a very small government that did not interfere too much with the people. They wanted to start a Republic. Contrary to popular belief, America is not a Democracy, it’s a Republic. The basic difference between the two is that a democratic government can swell to enormous size, enforcing all kinds of laws and regulations on the public, so long as the majority of the people agree on it. A republic, on the other hand, is a government limited by a set of laws and rules, ensuring that the government will never get too big and become corrupt.

MEDIEVAL ICELAND

Another key example Anarchists like to use of a lawless system actually working is in Medieval Iceland. And it’s actually a great example of how a country can prosper with no rules or government. First of all, because of Iceland’s location, there was no threat of invasion. This eliminates the need for a standing army. One of the main reasons governments justify their existence is because they claim they are necessary to protect the people. Imagine how much lower your tax bill would be if you no longer had to pay for your country’s armed forces! In addition, Icelandic people were distrustful of any form of central government, much like the founding fathers of the United States. The Icelandic people settled disputes locally with the help of their chieftains. There was one member of the group that memorized all of the laws and was able to recite them, and offer advice when necessary. The citizens were allowed to choose to give their allegiance to whatever chieftain they wanted, even if the chieftain was at the other side of Iceland. This kept the Chieftains on their toes, and decentralized the chieftain’s authority. Murder, as well as all crimes, were punishable by a fine. This was true even in war, so if you killed 7 guys in battle, you would have to pay all of their families restitution money. This made war almost non-existent in Iceland.

SPAIN

Many people have argued that the Spanish Civil War and the three years following it was the closest any modern country has come to a free, stateless society. Anarchists were instrumental in organizing the people in the revolution against Spanish dictator Franco in the revolution of 1936. When Franco was finally deposed, Anarchists were once again on hand to steer the nation towards being a functional stateless society. More than half the land was put into the hands of the peasants, who cultivated it themselves without landlords or bosses telling them to do it. In parts of the country where libertarian ideals were embraced, restaurants, barber shops, and factories were all managed and owned by their employees. George Orwell visited Spain and was amazed at the level of equality among all people, saying, “The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.”

ALBANIA

In 1997, Albanian citizens lost billions of dollars after falling for several pyramid schemes. They thought the government was profiting off these schemes, and so they rioted and deposed the ruling party. It turned out that government officials were in fact investing in these ponzi schemes and it was later found that they were fronts for arms trafficking and money laundering. Albanians invested 1.6 billion dollars into these schemes, and for a population of only a few million, this meant they lost big. Many had to sell their houses. A new party was elected, but this didn’t stop the civil unrest. In the south, all law and order collapsed. The gangs completely took over the southern cities. During the night, the gang leaders would announce on loudspeakers that people were not to go outside, as the gangs would be having gun battles every night from now on. These criminal organizations, known as the “Salvation Committee,” completely usurped the rule of law and the government of Albania during this time of unrest.

BURKINA FASO

The African nation of Burkina Faso has seen some of the worst examples of anarchy in history. After the president Blaise Compaore had been ruling for 27 years, he tried to amend the constitution so he could rule even longer. This sparked an uprising that ended in the overthrow of the president. Afterwards, the army promised that there would be free elections, but this process was delayed. During this time, there was much civil unrest. Although the military imposed a curfew, there were still areas of Burkina Faso that were ungoverned by the rule of law. After much fighting and rioting, a new president was put in place.

EGYPT

In 2011, president Mubarak of Egypt was ousted by a popular uprising. The military assumed power, dissolving the parliament and suspending the constitution. After some time, President Morsi was installed, and among his chosen parliament were four members of the Muslim Brotherhood. This caused liberal and secular groups to walk out on the talks, as they believed the Muslim Brotherhood would impose strict Muslim law on the population. Their fears were confirmed when the Muslim Brotherhood supported Morsi as he stated that no one could challenge the decisions he made. This led to massive riots and battles between Egyptian people who wanted to remain liberal and supporters of Morsi. Morsi was later deposed by General Al-Sisi. There have been many times where the military took temporary control of the nation during political upheavals in Egypt, and during these times there was no government.

LIBYA

Since American’s intervention in Libya, the country has deteriorated into a lawless hellhole. Ever since Gaddafi was deposed, the country has fallen into Anarchy, and not the pretty kind of Anarchy where everything somehow works without any form of government. More like the violent, unstable kind. The end result of the war in Libya is a destroyed country with no economy or political structure, plagued by “inter-tribal warfare.” And then there’s the added bonus of ISIS taking root in Libya and using the country as a stronghold. In theory, Libya is ruled by two rival governments, one in the east and one in the west. But in truth there is little to no “governance” in this country, and widespread violence has become commonplace in this nation, and continues to this day.

YEMEN

They call Yemen “Syria without the news cameras.” It’s just as bad as its Arab neighbor, although you’ll never hear about it on the news. Since the Arab Spring in 2011, Yemen has plunged into a state of complete turmoil. The American armed forces are now spread so thin across the Middle East that they are ignoring the instability in Yemen because of other threats elsewhere in the area. This shift in attention has allowed Shiite Muslim rebels to intimidate the country’s leaders to the point where they are forced to resign. Just a few days ago, Houthi Rebels announced that they are going to install their own Prime Minister. This divides things even further than they already are. More than 6 groups now control different parts of Yemen, and there is no single group that controls the entire country. While the Americans divert their attention elsewhere, militant groups like the Sunni offshoot of Al-Qaeda are able to set up base in this region, and carry out attacks such as the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France.

FRANCE

France went through a tumultuous period of lawlessness during their revolution in 1789. During the transitional period between the deposition of their king and the installation of a government, the streets were extremely wild. There was no one to enforce the rule of law. Neither the people or the king was fully in power, and the country was in a state of turmoil for some time. Eventually, the king was deposed and a government was installed, but France went a long time without an actual government, which both shocked and interested other major countries at the time, all of whom were ruled by Monarchies. Eventually France led the way and became the first country to overthrow their rulers, but not before they passed through a state of Anarchy.

LIBERTATIA

First of all, let me say that there’s some debate as to whether this place actually ever existed. It was allegedly a nation founded by pirates on the coast of Madagascar, where one was free to do whatever they pleased. Think Pirates Of The Caribbean, but a whole country of them. It was supposed to have been founded by the legendary pirate Henry Avery, and it was said to have existed for about 25 years. There weren’t many laws, but the pirates who founded it were against monarchies, slavery, and capitalism. According to the story, they practiced direct democracy, which means they voted on all of their decisions, and had no rulers. Councils were formed to help settle disputes, but these pirate Councillors were supposed to see themselves as one with the population, and not as rulers. The people of Libertatia also allegedly created their own language. In addition, there was no racism in Libertatia, as half of Henry Avery’s crew was black and half was white.

ZOMIA

Zomia is a vast region of Southeast Asia that has never been under the control of any government in all of its history. The reason for this is to with its geography, it’s covered in rough terrain and the population is small and prefers to live simply, without anyone interfering in their customs. This area covers much of North Vietnam, Laos, Tibet, Burma, and even Afghanistan and Pakistan. These people have been continuously and successfully fleeing the efforts of various governments to create governments in the areas in which they live. They have their own locally-based economies and choose to live as their ancestors did rather than mix with the rest of the modern world. Zomia is the largest area in the world that still hasn’t been absorbed by nation states, although experts say that will soon change.

REPUBLIC OF COSPAIA

The Republic of Cospaia is another shining example of a country functioning with no rules or laws, and no government whatsoever. During the existence of Cospaia, the country flourished and became rich, largely because they didn’t pay any taxes to Italy. Its creation began in 1440, when Italy was divided into several kingdoms. One of these kingdoms was ruled by the Pope in Rome. The Pope at the time borrowed money from a different kingdom, and offered a large portion of land as collateral in case he couldn’t pay back the money. He failed to pay back the money, and in turn the land was given to the other kingdom. However, the initial contract failed to mention the tiny village of Cospaia! That meant that neither the Pope or the other kingdom owned Cospaia, and they promptly declared themselves a separate country. Both the Pope and the other kingdom allowed this, because they both wanted a “buffer zone” between the two territories.

So for the next 385 years, Cospaia flourished as a stateless, Anarchistic country. Cospaia was a very small country, with only about 330 hectares and a population of 300. They became rich by growing tobacco, which was banned by the pope and so they were the only source in Italy. They were also a source for all kinds of smuggled and illegal goods. Disputes were settled by councils of elders, but there was little to no violence or crime in Cospaia anyway. In 1826, Italy starved out the residents of Cospaia and forced them to join the rest of the country.

Courtesy: therichest.com