«Foreign Affairs» (Фо́рин аффе́рс) — американский журнал по тематике международных отношений и внешней политики США, выходящий шесть раз в год. Издатель — Совет по международным отношениям. Журнал считается наиболее авторитетным в вопросах внешней политики США.
Журнал выходит с 1922 года; основателем и первым редактором (до 1927 года) был Арчибальд Кэри Кулидж.
Тираж журнала рос:
- 1922 год — 5 тысяч экземпляров;
- 1959 год — 27 тысяч;
- 1963 год — 57 тысяч;
- 1976 год — 72,5 тысячи;
- 2014 год — 170 тысяч
Позиция по отношению к СССР
Уже первый номер содержал статью самого Кулиджа «Россия после Генуи и Гааги», которая после анализа новой экономической политики и дипломатических усилий большевистского государства высказывала сомнения в долговечности текущего курса большевиков и предлагала «четыре очевидных возможности» развития (контрреволюция, экономическая реставрация капитализма, раскол партии большевиков с возвратом к жёсткой коммунистической идеологии и рост экономических проблем, в результате которых страна «впадет в анархию, развалившись на куски»). За первые 50 лет существования в журнале были опубликованы 220 статей по советской тематике (почти по одной статье в каждом номере). По утверждению Р. С. Овинникова, «ни одна из них не была дружелюбной» Вики
Foreign Affairs — семнадцатый эпизод девятого сезона мультсериала «Гриффины».
США всегда делили мир на союзников, послушных их воле, и противников, которых необходимо подавить. Главным и едва ли не единственным своим соперником Америка считала СССР. Теперь мир изменился, но США отнюдь не отказались от планов мирового господства. Рецепт прост: нужно сокрушить лишь три державы....
On Monday, June 2, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Center for Strategic and International Studies will co-host a symposium entitled “[email protected]: The Evolution of Treasury’s National Security Role,” marking the 10th anniversary of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI). Secretary Jacob J. Lew will deliver remarks on the Department’s role in advancing U.S. national security and foreign policy and the event will convene senior Administration officials, former government and Congressional leaders, and other foreign policy experts in academia and the private sector to discuss the future of financial tools, financial transparency, and financial intelligence as a means of advancing our national security. The symposium recognizes TFI's important work to disrupt and dismantle the financial networks of terrorist organizations, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, drug traffickers, and transnational organized criminals as well as to protect the U.S. financial system from abuse. Since its establishment in 2004, TFI has marshalled the Department’s intelligence, regulatory, policy and enforcement authorities to combat the most significant threats to U.S. national security and advance key foreign policy objectives. Below are additional details on the impressive speakers and panelists that will be participating. The whole event will be broadcasted live on USTREAM here. Monday, June 2, 2014 Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington, DC 8:40 a.m. Introductory Remarks David S. Cohen Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, U.S. Department of the Treasury 8:45 a.m. Morning Keynote Jacob J. Lew Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury Introduction: John J. Hamre President, CEO, and Pritzker Chair, CSIS 9:05 a.m. Panel I: Leveraging Financial Tools to Advance National Security Tom Donilon Distinguished Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations Former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley Chairman of the Board, U.S. Institute of Peace Former National Security Adviser Moderator: Andrea Mitchell Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News 10:15 a.m. Morning Remarks Stuart Levey Chief Legal Officer, HSBC Holdings plc Former Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence 10:30 a.m. Panel II: Financial Intelligence: Redefining and Reshaping National Security Keith Alexander Former Director of the National Security Agency Jane Harman Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center Former Representative (D-CA) Michèle Flournoy CEO, Center for a New American Security Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Moderator: David Sanger Chief Washington Correspondent, The New York Times 11:30 a.m. Midday Keynote Denis McDonough White House Chief of Staff 12:30 p.m. Panel III: Increasing Financial Transparency and Protecting the U.S. Financial System Neal Wolin Former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Reuben Jeffery III Senior Adviser, CSIS; CEO, Rockefeller & Co. Former Undersecretary of State for Economic, Business, & Agricultural Affairs Moderator: Juan Zarate Senior Adviser, CSIS Former Deputy National Security Adviser Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes 1:30 p.m. Closing Remarks David S. Cohen Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, U.S. Department of the Treasury Anthony Reyes is the New Media Specialist at the United States Department of the Treasury.
Ученых Запада все чаще тревожит тот факт, что реализация Китаем инициативы «Один пояс и один путь» способна привести к дальнейшей трансформации глобального стратегического ландшафта в пользу Пекина, пишет украинский еженедельник «2000», публикуя эксклюзивную статью Фрэнсиса Фукуямы и его коллег в Foreign Affairs.
Authored by James Pinkerton via The American Conservative, Progressives melt down after the Democratic doyenne denounces open borders here and in Europe... Amidst the hurly-burly of politics these days, it can be hard to notice when your side has won a victory. Yet that’s what’s just happened for conservatives on immigration: they’ve won. Okay, it’s not a final victory, nor even a crushing victory, but, even so, it’s a win. We know this because Hillary Clinton, arguably still the biggest name in Democratic politics, has just said that conservatives were right. She has conceded the essence of the rightist—and, by the way, centrist—critique of the open-borders approach to immigration. On November 22, Clinton said in an interview with The Guardian, “I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame.” Continuing in that vein, she damned German Chancellor Angela Merkel with faint praise: “I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message—‘we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support’—because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.” In other words, when Merkel opened the German border in 2015, she was being nice, but misguided. Of course, Clinton is no doubt aware that the global backlash against Merkelism was felt in America, too, contributing to her own defeat in 2016. To be sure, Clinton is no convert to Trumpism. Indeed, lest anyone think she was, she also told The Guardian that the president has “a strong streak of racism…the whole package of bigotry.” Yet of course, the fact that Clinton doesn’t like Trump is not news. What is news is that she has shifted her stance on immigration in a Trumpian direction—or, if one prefers, to the familiar rule-of-law position embraced even by the Bernie Sanders left until recently. Yet the immediate reaction to Clinton’s words was cautious incredulity. As The New York Times put it later that day, “Mrs. Clinton’s remarks to The Guardian drew criticism and a dose of surprise from an array of scholars, immigration advocates and pundits on both the left and the right, some of whom were so perplexed by the comments that they wondered aloud whether Mrs. Clinton had perhaps misspoken.” After all, as the Times observed, “Mrs. Clinton, many said, has a long history of supporting refugees—a track record seemingly at odds with her recent remarks. Her immigration platform in the 2016 presidential election boasted that ‘we embrace immigrants, not denigrate them.’” Yet in the days since, Clinton not only reiterated her position, but went a step further, making it clear that she was talking about the U.S. as well. In a tweet on November 23, she said, “On both sides of the Atlantic, we need reform. Not open borders.” Once Clinton’s words sank in, the reaction on the left was fierce. For starters, an editorialist in the same Guardian slammed her with the headline: “Hillary Clinton’s chilling pragmatism gives the far right a free pass” And Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) tweeted, “Deeply misguided and unfortunate comment from someone who must know better.” Jayapal was approvingly retweeted by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, the new darling of avant-garde progressivism. Meanwhile, on the right, immigration hardliner Ann Coulter bemusedly tweeted, “Maybe we should have voted for her. Might have gotten a wall.” Coulter, of course, is a maximalist; Trump, tough on the border as he is, has fallen short of her exacting standards. It’s also worth noting that other leaders on the moderate left have also endorsed tougher border restrictions. In the same November 22 Guardian article that quoted Clinton, former British prime minister Tony Blair declared, “You’ve got to deal with the legitimate grievances and answer them, which is why today in Europe you cannot possibly stand for election unless you’ve got a strong position on immigration because people are worried about it.” He added, “You’ve got to answer those problems. If you don’t answer them then…you leave a large space into which the populists can march.” And former Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi agreed, too, with this right-tacking realism. In fact, in yet another Guardian interview, former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry went further: “Europe is already crushed under this transformation that is taking place due to migration.” Indeed, Kerry went even further than that; he directly linked the open borders issue to the demography of Africa, albeit choosing to argue through the prism of climate change. As he said, “Imagine what happens if water dries up and you cannot produce food in northern Africa. Imagine what happens if Nigeria hits its alleged 500 million people by the middle of the century…you are going to have hordes of people in the northern part of the Mediterranean knocking on the door. I am telling you. If you don’t believe me, just go read the literature.” When Kerry says, “read the literature,” we can assume he is referring to scientific or geopolitical papers, as opposed to the dystopic fictional literature on mass migration. Undeniably, a new hard-nosed pessimism about population flows is creeping into the discussion, even among the Davos Men. In September, tycoon-turned-philanthropist Bill Gates said, perhaps somewhat awkwardly, that African population growth was “the elephant in the room.” Meanwhile, some on the right are welcoming the shift in Western attitudes. Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz, elected last year on a strong border-security platform, observed recently, “There are a lot of things that have changed. A lot of people who said [the Merkel Migration of 2015] is beneficial for Europe, it is necessary for our demography, do not say it any more.” An upcoming flashpoint is the United Nation’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration, which will be considered at an upcoming UN conference in Marrakech, Morocco, on December 10 to 11. The Compact, an international amnesty lawyer’s dream, emerged from the UN General Assembly in 2016, with the hearty endorsement of the Obama administration, the German government, and, of course, George Soros. Yet now, just two years later, the climate for the Compact has cooled. The Trump administration has announced that it will not sign the document, joined by Israel, Australia, and a half-dozen European countries. Indeed, the assessment of Hungarian foreign affairs minister Péter Szijjártó was, shall we say, blunt: “The goal of the UN Global Compact for Migration is to legalize illegal immigration.” (The globocrats deny that—but then, they always do.) Of course, the hottest immigration issue in the U.S. these days is the fate of the caravan at our border with Mexico. It’s impossible to know what will happen there, and there’s plenty of potential for the narrative to boomerang every which way. Moreover, the fate of Trump’s wall, or of any sort of legislative change on U.S. immigration policy, is also highly uncertain. Yet still, as we have seen, the threaded issues of nationalism, national security, and national sovereignty are bigger than any one incident—or any one nation. That is, the desire of countries to determine their own destiny, out from under some utopian international regime, has been awakened, and is unlikely to go back to sleep any time soon. (Even in Canada, arch-globalist Justin Trudeau sits at a mere 36 percent in the polls, just a point ahead of his conservative rival.) In the meantime, here in the U.S., conservatives—as distinct, of course, from libertarians—are now able to say, “Even Hillary Clinton and John Kerry agree on the need for border enforcement.” And in political terms, that’s not a small victory.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren called Thursday for a U.S. foreign policy that “works for all Americans,” not just wealthy capitalists, and helps block the rise of authoritarianism.In a speech at American University, the likely 2020 White House contender also announced her opposition to President Donald Trump’s newly renegotiated trade deal with Canada and Mexico, while calling for a smaller defense budget, a pullout of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and a “no first use” nuclear weapons policy. “Our country is in a moment of crisis decades in the making, a moment in which America’s middle class has been hollowed out, working people have been betrayed, and democracy itself is under threat,” Warren said.If she decides to run in 2020, the Massachusetts Democrat will need to differentiate herself in a crowded presidential field, especially from other progressive favorites such as Bernie Sanders. Both Warren and Sanders have had more of a domestic and economic focus during their legislative careers. But foreign policy will be a hard issue to avoid during the 2020 race, not least because of Trump’s repeated clashes with U.S. allies and seeming fondness for autocrats abroad. Warren has beefed up her global affairs and national security bona fides in recent years, including by joining the Senate Armed Services Committee. She made it clear during her speech, however, that her foreign policy will be heavily influenced by the leftist economic views that helped her win political office, arguing that it’s a “fiction” to cast foreign and domestic policies as separate. “We need to refocus our international economic policies so that they benefit all Americans, not just wealthy elites,” she plans to say. “At the same time, we must refocus our security policies by reining in unsustainable and ill-advised military commitments and adapt our strategies overseas for the new challenges we see in this coming century.” Republicans have dismissed Warren‘s chances, especially after she sparked controversy last month by releasing DNA tests to back up her claims of distant Native American ancestry — claims Trump has mocked."It's ironic that Elizabeth Warren has chosen to launch her 2020 campaign with the two topics she knows the least about: her heritage and foreign policy,” Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Ahrens said in a statement Thursday.Warren, who simultaneously published an essay in Foreign Affairs laying out her views, devoted much of her speech to bashing unfettered trade policies that she argues have left ordinary workers behind while fostering corruption among the wealthy elite around the world.She linked all of that — especially the corruption — to the rise of authoritarianism in parts of the world. And she added that it’s clear that American hopes that capitalism would lead to more open societies were misplaced; instead, autocratic countries such as China and Russia now pose grave threats to the United States. “Efforts to bring capitalism to the global stage unwittingly helped create the conditions for anti-democratic countries to rise up and lash out,” she said to a largely sympathetic audience heavy on students. “Russia has become belligerent and resurgent. China has weaponized its economy without loosening its domestic political constraints. And over time, in country after country, faith in both capitalism and democracy has eroded.” Warren criticized the new trade deal covering the U.S., Canada and Mexico — NAFTA 2.0, she called it — as a pact that “won’t stop outsourcing, it won’t raise wages, and it won’t create jobs.” She asserted that even though Trump’s rhetoric appears to be pro-worker, his policies aren’t.“We need a new approach to trade, and it should begin with a simple principle: our policies should not prioritize corporate profits over American paychecks,” she said.Another Warren target: defense contractors, whom she accused of having a “stranglehold” on U.S. military policy and helping bloat the Pentagon budget to more than $700 billion a year. Some of that money would be better spent on other programs, including U.S. diplomacy and infrastructure, Warren suggested.Warren pointed out that Trump has refused to get tough on Saudi Arabia over the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi because of his interest in moving forward with arms deals. “ It is time to identify which programs actually benefit American security in the 21st century, and which programs merely line the pockets of defense contractors — and then pull out a sharp knife and make some cuts,” she said. In the past, she’s called for an end to “wasteful and duplicative” defense spending. Warren repeatedly went after Trump. In a question-and-answer session after delivering her remarks, Warren denounced Trump’s slow response to Moscow this past week after Russia fired on Ukrainian ships and seized their crews near the Crimean Peninsula. Russian President Vladimir Putin is “testing Donald Trump“ to see how far he can go without punishment, Warren said, and Trump is “failing.” “He is not responding with strength,” Warren said of the mercurial Republican president, who has at times overtly sought friendly relations with the Russian strongman.Shortly before Warren spoke, Trump announced on Twitter that he was canceling a planned meeting with Putin on the sidelines of this week’s G-20 summit in Argentina because of the Ukraine clash.Warren also noted, however, that Trump has threatened to engage in a new nuclear arms race against Russia. She insisted that is a foolish idea because the U.S. does not need more nuclear weapons.Warren said the U.S. should pursue more arms control initiatives, and she came out in favor of a “no first use” doctrine, which means the U.S. would pledge not to be the first to use a nuclear weapon in a conflict. So far, America has reserved the right to use such weapons first. “To reduce the chances of a miscalculation or an accident, and to maintain our moral and diplomatic leadership in the world, we must be clear that deterrence is the sole purpose of our arsenal,” Warren said. The senator, who emphasized that her three brothers served in the armed forces, decried the U.S. military role in Afghanistan, which has lasted 17 years. She said the U.S. must remain vigilant about stopping terrorism and that it should support a peace process involving Afghan parties, which includes the Taliban. But she restated her position that: “It is time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan — starting right now.” Warren said America’s global standing will erode if its citizens do not address a struggling education system, drug addiction and other problems at home. And while she warned that the U.S. must protect its elections from foreign attacks in the wake of Russia’s alleged interference in 2016, she also spoke out against domestic policies that make it harder for Americans to vote. All of these trends are a threat to U.S. democracy, Warren said. “President Trump’s actions and instincts align with those of authoritarian regimes around the globe,” she said. “Americans must demonstrate to this president and to the world that we are not sliding toward autocracy—not without a fight.” Article originally published on POLITICO Magazine]]>
On November 7 Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, the deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, announced that Doha was looking to expand trade and investment ties with Iraq. Local media reported that the two parties proposed greater maritime cooperation by establishing direct shipping lines and relationships between ports. The government visit to Baghdad followed the September 4 signing of a commercial and economic cooperation agreement with Turkey, intended to promote bilateral trade, particularly in the services…
Victor Davis Hanson, Washington TimesPresident Trump's challenges are not really his economic policies and foreign affairs agendas. For the most part, they are supported by the American people and are resulting in prosperity at home and security abroad.
MIDDLE EAST MUDDLE: How Saudi and Qatar are competing over Iraq. A Qatari delegation led by Deputy Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani visited the Iraqi capital of Baghdad on Nov. 7, where he met with the Iraqi president, prime minister and parliament speaker to “discuss the ties between the two countries.” Three days […]
В своем выступлении на Генеральной Ассамблее ООН президент США Дональд Трамп сознательно просигнализировал о решительном разрыве с интернационалистским консенсусом, которым США руководствовались в своей глобальной стратегии со времен Второй мировой войны. «Мы никогда не отдадим […]
As the Russian "hacking" episode continues to mire the Trump administration in nebulous innuendo and daily claims of collusion, Luke Rosiak of the Daily Caller reminds us that House Democrats participated in an actual data breach conducted by Pakistani-nationals who were given access to highly sensitive intelligence as part of their duties providing IT support to members of Congress - and in particular, Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY). "Every one of the 44 House Democrats who hired Pakistan-born IT aides who later allegedly made “unauthorized access” to congressional data appears to have chosen to exempt them from background checks," writes Rosiak. All of them appear to have waived background checks on Imran Awan and his family members, even though the family of server administrators could collectively read all the emails and files of 1 in 5 House Democrats, and despite background checks being recommended for such positions, according to an inspector general’s report. The House security policy requires offices to fill out a form attesting that they’ve initiated background checks, but it also includes a loophole allowing them to simply say that another member vouched for them. -Daily Caller [email protected] broke the news that 44 Democrats used a loophole to waive background checks on the #AwanBrothers Read 👉 https://t.co/13Z9qPx0NH Reminder: Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened a police chief who has her laptop for the investigation. pic.twitter.com/n9aKt998IY — Katica (@GOPPollAnalyst) April 2, 2018 Had any of the 44 House Democrats performed background checks, they would have discovered several red flags in Abid Awan's past - including "a $1.1 million bankruptcy, six lawsuits against him or a company he owned; and at least three misdemeanor convictions including for DUI and driving on a suspended license, according to Virginia court records," notes Rosiak. WOW: IG report finds nearly 50 Democrats waived background checks for Pakistani IT aide Imran Awan who was accused of hacking. This is the same man who was arrested earlier this year for bank fraud as he was attempting to flee the country.pic.twitter.com/wVbKXpq4Or — Stelian Onufrei (@TheStelian) April 2, 2018 Meanwhile, Schultz introduced a bill on Monday that would require background checks on all Americans purchasing ammunition. “Without bullets a gun is just a hunk of useless metal,” she said, describing ammunition the “loophole” when it comes to gun control. Former DNC chair, who hired Pakistanis to manage her US Congressional email accounts, introduces bill to perform background checks on ammunition purchasers... 🤦🏻♂️ can’t make this stuff up.https://t.co/w4tZwDDlMR — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 29, 2018 Let's pause to appreciate Rep. Louie Gohmert's reaction when he learns that the Awans were telecommuting and had full access to House Democratic computer systems from Pakistan. Clip of the year? @replouiegohmert learns from @lukerosiak that Debbie Wasserman Schultz indicted staffer teleworking and providing House Dem IT "support" from Pakistan! Full @JudicialWatch discussion here....https://t.co/4HwY3Jgvd2 pic.twitter.com/VVjkiujJqo — Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) December 17, 2017 A background check would have also revealed that The Awans operated a used car dealership known as "CIA" in court filings, which has all the markings of a money laundering operation: On its Facebook page, CIA's "staff" were fake personalities such as "James Falls O'Brien," whose photo was taken from a hairstyle model catalog, and "Jade Julia," whose image came from a web page called "Beautiful Girls Wallpaper." If a customer showed up looking to buy a car from Cars International A, often referred to as CIA, Abid Awan - who was managing partner of the dealership while also earning $160,000 handling IT for House Democrats - would frequently simply go across the street to longstanding dealership called AAA Motors and get one. -Daily Caller The Awans allegedly borrowed, laundered and never repaid a $100,000 from a shady Iraqi expat physician linked to Hezbollah (and who oddly advised the Bush administration on rebuilding Iraq). When the Awans stopped paying vendors of their 'CIA' dealership, a U.S. Congressman from Florida, Theo Deutch, began paying a monthly salary to a man who had threatened to sue the Awans. The brothers had numerous additional sources of income, all of which seemed to disappear. While they were supposedly working for the House, the brothers were running a car dealership full-time that didn't pay its vendors, and after one - Rao Abbas - threatened to sue them, he began receiving a paycheck from Rep. Theodore Deutch (D-FL), who like Wasserman Schultz represents Florida. -Daily Caller Pakistani spies? "Based on the modest way Awan was living, it is my opinion that he was sending most of his money to a group or criminal organization that could very well be connected with the Pakistani government," said Wayne Black - a private investigator who worked in Janet Reno's Miami public corruption unit, adding "My instincts tell me Awan was probably operating a foreign intelligence gathering operation on US soil," sentiment echoed by Fox's Judge Andrew Napolitano. Meanwhile, an internal House investigation concluded that the Awans impersonated at least 15 U.S. House members for whom they did not work - using their credentials to log into Congressional servers, before migrating data to a single server, which was stolen during the investigation, all while covering their tracks - reports Luke Rosiak of the Daily Caller. House leadership covered up in the IT worker scandal? w/ @LukeRosiak https://t.co/c4pooOs0RO — Mornings with Maria (@MorningsMaria) April 2, 2018 This, and much more is detailed in a presentation assembled the House's internal watchdog - the Office of the Inspector General, after a four-month internal probe. The presentation, written by the House’s Office of the Inspector General, reported under the bold heading “UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS” that “5 shared employee system administrators have collectively logged into 15 member offices and the Democratic Caucus although they were not employed by the offices they accessed.” -DC One systems administrator “logged into a member’s office two months after he was terminated from that office,” reads the investigative summary. There are strong indications that many of the 44 members’ data — including personal information of constituents seeking help — was entirely out of those members’ possession, and instead was stored on the House Democratic Caucus server. The aggregation of multiple members’ data would mean all that data was absconded with, because authorities said that entire server physically disappeared while it was being monitored by police. -DC The OIG also concluded that the Awans' behavior appeared to be a "classic method for insiders to exfiltrate data from an organization," as well as indications that a House server was "being used for nefarious purposes and elevated the risk that individuals could be reading and/or removing information," and "could be used to store documents taken from other offices," the Caller reports. A House committee staffer close to the probe told The Daily Caller that “the data was always out of [the members’] possession. It was a breach. They were using the House Democratic Caucus as their central service warehouse.” “All 5 of the shared employee system administrators collectively logged onto the Caucus system 5,735 times, an average of 27 times per day… This is considered unusual since computers in other offices managed by these shared employees were accessed in total less than 60 times,” the presentation reads. The internal document also shoots down any notion that the access was for some legitimate purpose - indicating "This pattern of login activity suggests steps are being taken to conceal their activity." A second presentation shows that shortly before the election, their alleged behavior got even worse. “During September 2016, shared employee continued to use Democratic Caucus computers in anomalous ways: Logged onto laptop as system administrator Changed identity and logged onto Democratic Caucus server using 17 other user account credentials Some credentials belonged to Members The shared employee did not work for 9 of the 17 offices to which these user accounts belonged.” Without even considering espionage, Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), simply accessing a computer and obtaining information carries a sentence of up to 10 years for more than one conviction of the same abuse. Trespassing on a government computer also carries a 10 year sentence. You can see the rest of the CFAA penalties below, many of which appear to fit the Awan case: While each violation above carries its own penalties, let's look at the first one; National Security violations Under the CFAA, a felony: Double standards Meanwhile, Wasserman Schultz was the chair of the DNC when Wikileaks published leaked emails from the organization, along with Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager John Podesta. Schultz and other Democrats have called the breach "an act of war" and "an assault on our democracy," notes Luke Rosiak. But there is no indication Democrats put those concerns into practice when they entrusted the Pakistani dual citizens with their data, nor when suspicious activity was detected. Police banned the suspects from the network after the IG report, but Wasserman Schultz kept Imran on staff anyway. He was in the building and in possession of a laptop with the username RepDWS months later, according to an April 6, 2017 police report. The House security policy, HISPOL16, says “House Offices shall… Ensure background checks, as defined in this policy, have been conducted on Privileged Users.” It includes quarterly reviews of privileged accounts’ appropriateness. By the time the policy was enacted, some members had dropped the Awans for assorted reasons, including Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona in early 2015 for what her spokesperson called “incompetence.” -Daily Caller Every one of the 44 House Democrats who hired Pakistan-born IT aides who later allegedly made “unauthorized access” to congressional data appears to have chosen to exempt them from background checks. https://t.co/0BDiOg44mo — Nick Short 🇺🇸 (@PoliticalShort) April 2, 2018 That said, the same Democrats whose hair is on fire over the Russian hacking narrative simply didn't care about Pakistani foreign nationals infiltrating their network. And a reminder: As we learn 44 Dems waived background checks on the #AwanBrothers, let's not forget Hillary let Platte River Networks work on her server & MOVE IT with CLASSIFIED INFO before they signed a contract. No background checks Dems don't care about Nat'l Security Vault Part 1; pgs 5-7 pic.twitter.com/TayqJcd3AF — Katica (@GOPPollAnalyst) April 2, 2018 To read more about the Awans, take a look at the extensive reporting below by Luke Rosiak: Imran Awan: A Continuing DCNF Investigative Group Series Court docs House IT Aides Ran Car Dealership With Markings Of A Nefarious Money Laundering Operation Becerra Tried To Block Awan From House Democratic Caucus Server, But Logins Continued; He Didn't Go To Cops Hard Drive Tied to Wasserman Schultz Is Central To Imran Awan Case 18 Months In, Dem IT Aides Not Charged With Hill Crimes Despite Evidence Used Political Influence To Have Fraud Charges Dropped In Pakistan Own Wife Turns, Accuses Him Of Fraud, Violent Threats Imran Awan 'Very Strongly' Wants To Block Review Of Hard Drive, Was Using Alias Lawyer Says Congressmen Wanted Invoices Falsified Sending Money To Police Officer In Pakistan Funneling 'Massive' Data Off Congressional Server, Dems Claim It's Child's Homework 'Like a Slave': Three Muslim Women, At Least One Of Them Bloodied, Called Police on Imran Had Secret Server, Caught Falsifying Evidence To Cover It Up Imran Still Has Copy Of House Laptop DWS Said Has Sensitive Leg-Branch Info DWS Laptop Found at 3AM In Phone Booth With Letter To Prosecutors Awan Asks Judge To Remove GPS, Citing Possible Emergency With Kids--Who Are In Pakistan Has Secret, Still-Active House [email protected] To Intelligence Specialist DWS 'Islamophobia' Claim Prompts Angered Witnesses To Go Public Rep. Yvette Clarke Quietly Signed Away $120,000 In Missing Equipment Imran, Hina Indicted For Conspiracy Against U.S. DWS Now Says Laptop She Sought To Keep From Police Was Awan's, Not Hers Liquidating $1.8M In Real Estate When Arrested, Some Still Pending DWS Seemingly Planned To Pay Suspect Even While He Lived In Pakistan Lawyer Is Longtime Clinton Associate Arrested At Airport After Wiring $300k To Pakistan FBI Seized Smashed Hard Drives From Home Ex-DNC Head 'Negotiating' With Police Over Letting Them See Evidence Dems Tying Themselves Into Knots To Ignore Criminal Probe 'You'd Like Him:' Associates Describe 'Cunning,' Charismatic Con Artist In Personal Lives, Evidence Of Massive Cons House Dems Hired A Fired McDonald's Worker As Email Administrator DWS Admits To Violating Network Security, Blames House Wasserman Schultz Threatened Police Chief For Gathering Evidence Suspect Has Fled To Pakistan, Relative Says House IT Aides Fear Suspects In Hill Breach Are Blackmailing Members Read the Court Docs Detailing Their Greed, Ruthlessness Paul Ryan: Capitol Police Getting 'Assistance' On Criminal Investigation Brothers Could Read Every Email Of Dozens Of Congressmen ...Also Had Access To DNC Emails ...Allegedly Kept Stepmom In 'Captivity' To Access Offshore Cash ...Received $4 Million From Dem Reps ...Owed Money To Hezbollah-Connected Fugitive ...Secretly Took $100K In Iraqi Money Brothers Had Massive Debts, Years Of Suspicious Activity House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs Committee Members IT Compromised
In Hugh Hewitt, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have a one-man fan club.
Речь идёт об ABLV Bank, контрольный пакет акций которого принадлежит Эрнесту Бернису и Олегу Филю (по 43 процента каждому), а остальная «мелочь» приходится на высшее руководство, сотрудников и партнёров заведения. Банк стал налоговой гаванью и «прачечной» для коррупционеров из России, Украины и Азербайджана. При этом ни сам банк, ни страна его прописки (Латвия) не внесены в «чёрный список налоговых убежищ» Евросоюза.
Если верить сообщению The Wall Street Journal, один «крошечный латвийский банк стал раем для мировых грязных денег». WSJ пишет, что несколько лет назад Министерство финансов США «заметило тревожное подводное течение в мировых финансовых потоках: фиктивные компании переводили миллиарды долларов через малоизвестный банк в Латвии, бывшем советском государстве с 2 миллионами жителей». Речь идёт об ABLV Bank, контрольный пакет акций которого...
US diplomats were seen leaving their consulate in St. Petersburg at the request of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Saturday. One of the supposed staffers at the consulate was caught on camera making an odious gesture at journalists filming the scene. COURTESY: RT's RUPTLY video agency, NO RE-UPLOAD, NO REUSE - FOR LICENSING, PLEASE, CONTACT http://ruptly.tv Check out http://rt.com RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RussiaToday Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews Follow us on Telegram https://t.me/rtintl Follow us on VK https://vk.com/rt_international Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.
Echoing the Treasury Department's decision to prohibit trading in Venezuelan "hunger bonds" in US markets, UK Prime Minister Theresa May is mulling whether to throw her support behind a measure that would ban the sale of Russian sovereign debt in City of London financial markets. And just like with Venezuela, such a short-sighted prohibition wouldn't make it any more difficult for Russia to sell its sovereign debt. Rather, Russia would be forced to turn to China to compensate for the shortfall, according to the Guardian. May's decision to look into the ban comes at the behest of Foreign Affairs Select Committee Chairman Tom Tugendhat, who has repeatedly urged May to do more to punish Russia for allegedly masterminding the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia with novichok - a Soviet-era nerve agent. Most recently, the tensions between the UK and Russia have precipitated a round of diplomatic expulsions, with more than two dozen countries expelling at least some Russia diplomats. EU and US sanctions against Russia didn't prohibit the bond sales because of a loophole that effectively set up Russian bank VTB as the main liaison between the Russian state and western financial markets. Now, Tugendhat and several of his allies in Parliament are calling for the loophole to be closed - on both sides of the Atlantic. Tugendhat has spoken about the loophole at least three times in the past week. The denunciations come as Tugendhat's committee is beginning an investigation into how the UK enables allies of Russian President Vladimir Putin to store and spend their money in the UK. Tugendhat has proposed that Russian bond sales are no longer made available to key western clearing houses such as Euroclear and Clearstream, making them effectively untradeable on the secondary market and so deterring the majority of EU and US investors from buying them. Last month’s sale was specifically skewed to make it attractive for Russian citizens living overseas to repatriate their money to Russia, a long-term goal of Putin. According to Tugendhat and several of his advisors, cutting off Russia's access to Western markets would be the best way to undermine Putin's regime, per the Guardian. Tugendhat has been briefed by a British research fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows, Emile Simpson, who has argued Russia’s greatest weakness is its dependence on western investors. He contends a policy blindness leads the west to sanction individuals, and sometimes sectors, but not to look at sanctioning the Russian state as a whole. He said: "At present, Russia can borrow in EU and US capital markets despite western sanctions and then can support the sanctioned Kremlin-linked banks and energy companies that can no longer do so". Tugendhat alleges that the bond sales are one way wealthy Russians can move their money back to Russia. Urging the foreign secretary to look at the issue, Tugendhat said: "One of the ways that people are getting their money out of this country is by allowing Russian sovereign debt to be sold in the UK, and that debt to be used to reimburse Russians, in a way, to bring back their money onshore, in Moscow terms. As that gold is moving towards Moscow, we are, quite extraordinarily, enabling those bond auctions, those debt auctions." Of course, thanks to Russia's relatively low public debt levels ($122 billion in domestic debt and nearly $40 billion in Eurobonds) and its growing economy, there will likely be no shortage of buyers for Russian debt. Recently, Russia has bragged about the strong demand for its recent auctions (as is evident by the rise in bid-to-cover sen above), saying it might take advantage of low interest rates and offer more Eurobonds thanks to interest from German investors. Certainly, any economic stress that US sanctions are supposed to putting in Russia are not showing in its sovereign credit risk... And while sanctions could have an immediate impact, it wouldn't take Russia long to source new investors in mainland China.
The cuts come as the president went after the company on Twitter, but sources said the two events were unrelated.
Moscow's responsive measures to the expulsion of diplomats from several western countries will be announced soon. This was stated by the spokeswoman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maria Zakharova.
Anatoly Antonov has been rebuffed by U.S. government officials who are reluctant to be seen as friendly toward the Kremlin.
ОДКБ и НАТО: возможен ли диалог? В Брюсселе предпочитают договариваться с «отдельными комнатами», а не со всем «домом» Константин Александров 28 марта 2018, 15:47 © Владимир Коробицын/zvezdaweekly.ru Военный эксперт Виктор Литовкин: «Золотой стандарт» армии США может основательно поржаветь На этом фоне отсутствие диалога с НАТО руководство ОДКБ воспринимало как серьезный упущенный шанс в деле объединения потенциала двух организаций в интересах противостояния угрозе международного терроризма, принявшей к тому моменту весьма конкретные формы в лице действующих в Афганистане «Аль-Каиды» и движения «Талибан». Между тем, вторая половина «нулевых годов» в международных отношениях ознаменовалась дальнейшим энергичным продвижением Вашингтоном стратегии глобального лидерства США. Одним из важнейших инструментов реализации этой стратегии провозглашалась НАТО, которая к тому моменту насчитывала в своих рядах 26 стран и продолжала активную расширительную политику в направлении Балкан и постсоветского пространства. Указанный вектор американской дипломатии расходился с видением России и ее союзников по ОДКБ, которые, несмотря на упорное отстаивание США «натоцентричной» модели, продолжали исходить из необходимости коллективных усилий в борьбе с глобальными вызовами и угрозами, в числе которых на первое место уверенно выдвинулся международный терроризм. Расмуссену было приказано сидеть только в своих санях Речь президента России Владимира Путина на мюнхенской конференции по безопасности в феврале 2007 года стала «холодным душем» для тех на Западе, кто рассчитывал и далее выстраивать отношения с РФ и ее партнерами по формуле «учитель - ученик». Недвусмысленно высказавшись против попыток США и НАТО использовать военную силу как решающий фактор в международных отношениях, Владимир Путин, по существу, подвел черту под периодом монополии Запада на истину в том, что касается решения важнейших вопросов мировой политики в сфере безопасности. В этот период развитие диалога НАТО с РФ заметно замедлилось, а затем и вообще вступило в полосу перманентного кризиса, который сопровождался частичным, либо полным замораживанием отношений. Сначала в августе 2008 года по инициативе НАТО в связи с негативной оценкой действий России в ходе грузино-югоосетинского конфликта было заморожено военное сотрудничество (возобновлено в декабре 2009 года), а затем, в апреле 2014 года, из-за событий на Украине сотрудничество Альянса с РФ было практически свернуто. © youtube.com Смотр войск НАТО на учениях в Латвии Справедливости ради, однако, следует отметить, что, благодаря своей последовательной и настойчивой политике, в этот период государствам-членам ОДКБ однажды почти удалось «пробить брешь» в глухой обороне Альянса, упорно не желающего реагировать на призывы к налаживанию взаимодействия. Согласно утечкам, приведенным в 2011 году WikiLeaks, в 2009 году тогдашний Генеральный секретарь Альянса Андерс Фог Расмуссен всерьез планировал официально заявить о начале сотрудничества НАТО с ОДКБ. На эту инициативу его якобы вдохновила статья бывшего советника президента США по национальной безопасности Збигнева Бжезинского в журнале Foreign Affairs. Речь в ней шла о том, что ради укрепления безопасности в Европе необходимо снизить напряженность в отношениях Запада с Россией, для чего НАТО следует заключить пакт с ОДКБ о сотрудничестве. Инициативе Расмуссена, однако, не было суждено реализоваться. В сентябре 2009 года Госдепартамент США направил своему послу при НАТО Айво Даалдеру серию депеш, предписывающих незамедлительно переубедить Расмуссена, что и было американским представителем неукоснительно выполнено. При этом в телеграммах Госдепа, если верить утечкам WikiLeaks, опубликованным в норвежской газете Aftenposten, прямо указывалось, что сотрудничество НАТО с ОДКБ, созданной Россией для противостояния Альянсу и США на постсоветском пространстве, не может быть продуктивным. Такое партнерство может привести к тому, что влияние ОДКБ усилится, а это негативно скажется на позициях НАТО, предупреждал Госдеп. После этого «одергивания» из Вашингтона Расмуссен оказался в весьма деликатной ситуации, поскольку резкая смена курса в отношении уже озвученных им перспектив налаживания диалога с ОДКБ потребовала вразумительного объяснения. И оно последовало. Спецпредставитель генсека НАТО по Южному Кавказу и Центральной Азии Джеймс Аппатурай выступил с заявлением о том, что у НАТО нет необходимости в более тесном сотрудничестве с ОДКБ, поскольку Альянс и его союзники и так имеют очень хорошие отношения со всеми участниками ОДКБ. Дескать, зачем дружить домами, если мы и без того уже дружим с каждой комнатой в отдельности. Эта сформулированная Аппатураем формула в последующем превратилась в своего рода дипломатическое клише, которое представители НАТО всякий раз пускали в ход, когда в информационном пространстве возникала тема о перспективах взаимодействия Альянса с ОДКБ. НАТО перманентного кризиса Определенные ожидания, связанные с вероятной коррекцией стратегической линии Альянса в отношении России с приходом к власти в США Дональда Трампа, не оправдались. Итоги состоявшегося 25 мая 2017 года саммита Альянса в Брюсселе указали на то, что линия НАТО на «сдерживание» РФ остается жесткой и неизменной. С учетом этого, нет никаких оснований рассчитывать на смягчение подхода натовцев к перспективам возобновления полноформатного диалога с Москвой и подключение к этому диалогу ОДКБ, даже учитывая наличие объективных предпосылок к такому взаимодействию на треке афганского урегулирования. Сохранение глубоких геополитических разногласий Запада с Москвой и удовлетворяющий партнеров РФ по ОДКБ формат их взаимодействия с НАТО в двустороннем плане объективно означают ослабление в кругах Организации стимулов к возобновлению попыток наладить полноценный межблоковый диалог с Альянсом. Исходя из этого, можно предположить, что перспектива такого диалога без кардинального изменения обстановки в сфере глобальной безопасности на обозримую перспективу остается крайне маловероятной, а попытки Брюсселя играть сдерживающую роль в развитии инструментов обеспечения коллективной безопасности в рамках ОДКБ продолжатся
Oriana Skylar Mastro Security, Asia While North Korea and the United States will be vying for the upper hand, the ultimate winner will be Beijing. On Tuesday, March 27, an armored train transported a number of high-level North Korean officials to Beijing for a secretive visit—a delegation that included Kim Jong-un himself. This is a major turn of events as Kim has never traveled outside his hermit kingdom since becoming its leader in 2011, nor has he met with another head of state. Though China did confirm Kim’s presence in Beijing after he left, we still have no insight into who initiated the visit and what was discussed. One thing is certain, however: this visit was a desperate—but strategic—move designed to improve Kim’s position in any future negotiations with the United States. Kim needs Beijing on his side if North Korea is going to achieve its goals at the negotiating table. However, Beijing’s support is not a given. As I wrote in Foreign Affairs, the China–North Korea relationship has deteriorated in recent years. Beijing’s efforts to distance itself from Pyongyang enjoys wide public support. Xi is said to despise the North Korean regime, and he has publicly stated that China will not protect North Korea if Kim provokes a conflict. In fact, the bilateral relationship has gotten so bad that officers in the People’s Liberation Army have suggested to me in private meetings that Beijing and Pyongyang may not take the same side in the event of a new Korean war. Such a historical trip may demonstrate Kim’s willingness to finally heed Beijing’s advice, which would go a long way to improve strained relations. Having Beijing on his side would work to Kim’s advantage in a number of ways. First, based on past negotiating patterns, Kim is likely to ask for the easing of sanctions and even some positive economic inducements just to stay involved in the diplomatic process. The United States, however, will be resistant to this, given its opposition to the economic benefits that were a part of the Iran deal, coupled with National Security Advisor–designate John Bolton’s comments that meeting President Trump should be enough of a reward. Read full article