• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Издания274
      • Показать ещё
      Люди1381
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы1226
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации195
      • Показать ещё
      Разное623
      • Показать ещё
      Компании727
      • Показать ещё
      Формат18
      Показатели41
      • Показать ещё
Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy («Форин полиси» ) — дословно «Внешняя политика» (то есть «Международные отношения»), американский журнал со штаб-квартирой в столице США. Тираж более ста тысяч экземпляров, выходит каждые два месяца (изначально выходила раз в квартал). Еж ...

Foreign Policy («Форин полиси» ) — дословно «Внешняя политика» (то есть «Международные отношения»), американский журнал со штаб-квартирой в столице США. Тираж более ста тысяч экземпляров, выходит каждые два месяца (изначально выходила раз в квартал). Ежегодно публикует собственную версию списка ста мировых мыслителей (The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers).

http://inosmi.ru/foreignpolicy_com/

Журнал основан в 1970 году Самюэлем Хантингтоном, американским политологом, автором концепции «столкновения цивилизаций», и Уорреном Маншелем, американским дипломатом и инвестором, при поддержке Фонда Карнеги.

Идея выпускать журнал раз в два месяца (вместо раза в квартал) принадлежит редактору Моисею Наиму (1996–2010), под чьим руководством журнал выигрывал премии National Magazine Awards в 2003, 2007 и 2009 годах. Журнал затрагивает темы глобальной политики, экономики, мировой интеграции, политических идеологий и теории международных отношений. 29 сентября 2008 года The Washington Post Company объявила о приобретении прав на издание журнала у Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

В начале 2006 года запущен блог Foreign Policy Passport, а 5 января 2009 года перезапущен сайт издания, который репозиционирован как «ежедневный сетевой журнал».

В 2012 году Foreign Policy вырос до группы (The FP Group)  – расширение журнала включает ForeignPolicy.com и проект FP Events («FP События»).

По утверждению сайта The FP Group количество читателей онлайн версии журнала достигает 2,4 миллиона в месяц.

Foreign Policy издается сегодня под руководством генерального директора и главного редактора The FP Group Дэвида Роткопфа (David Rothkopf), который присоединился к FP в этой роли в 2012 году после того, как был постоянным автором этого издания с 1997 года.

https://www.youtube.com/user/FPRIVideo

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/

Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
06 декабря, 06:00

Trump Adviser: 'Screw' China If It Doesn't Like Taiwan Call

Stephen Moore, an economic adviser to Donald Trump, made crystal clear during an interview Monday how he felt about the president-elect’s call with the president of Taiwan. “If China doesn’t like it, screw ‘em,” Moore, one of five Steves on Trump’s economic advisory team, told the hosts of the Big John and Ray radio show, according to CNN. “We gotta stand by Taiwan,” he continued. “We see what’s happening in China with the way they’re saber-rattling out there in the East, and it’s about time we do what Reagan did: We stand up to these bullies and say we’re not gonna let you do this.” Trump’s phone conversation with Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ying-wen, marked the first time in more than 30 years than an American president-elect has talked to a leader of the island, which the U.S. does not officially recognize as a sovereign nation. Trump tweeted on Friday that he had spoken with Tsai, saying she called “to wish me congratulations on winning the Presidency.” The controversial call illustrated the untraditional and, frankly, alarming approach Trump is taking toward diplomacy, causing many experts to say the president-elect may have altered decades of relations with China. The White House stood by its longtime foreign policy stance after news of the call broke, saying in a statement on Friday that it remained “firmly committed to our ‘one China’ policy,’” which maintains that Taiwan is part of China. Moore, however, said he welcomes Trump’s unconventional tactics. “I love the fact that Trump did that,” he said. “Too many mamby-pamby people in the foreign policy shop are saying, ‘Oh my gosh we can’t do this, we might insult the Chinese.’” Listen to the full interview with Moore on the Big John and Ray website. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

06 декабря, 05:30

Republican Elector Vows To Vote Against Donald Trump

A Republican member of the Electoral College from Texas has promised to vote against Donald Trump during the college’s meeting Dec. 19, saying the president-elect “shows daily he is not qualified for office.” In an op-ed published Monday in The New York Times, Christopher Suprun, a paramedic and first responder to the Pentagon on Sept. 11, laid out a lengthy list of concerns about Trump. He called on fellow electors to “do their job” and unify around an “honorable and qualified” alternative such as Ohio. Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. The Federalist Papers, Suprun wrote, argue that the Electoral College is tasked with ensuring candidates are “qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence.” Trump, he said, does not meet these standards, and should therefore be rejected from the White House.  “Mr. Trump,” Suprun wrote, “lacks the foreign policy experience and demeanor needed to be commander in chief ... Mr. Trump urged violence against protesters at his rallies during the campaign. He speaks of retribution against his critics.” Suprun added that he has “poured countless hours” into serving his party, and will continue to do so. “But I owe no debt to a party,” he wrote. “I owe a debt to my children to leave them a nation they can trust.” With his promise, Suprun becomes the Republican party’s first potential “faithless elector” this presidential election, The Guardian reports. Previously, seven of the nation’s 538 electors ― all Democrats in states won by Hillary Clinton ― had voiced their intent to break their pledge.  To support anti-Trump Electoral College members, Harvard University law professor Larry Lessig announced on Monday he will launch “The Electors Trust,” which will provide free counsel to those seeking to oppose Trump in states where doing so may be illegal, Politico reports. The platform is also intended to help electors gauge whether there’s enough support to prevent Trump from becoming president. “It makes no sense to be elector number five who comes out against Trump. But it might make sense to be elector 38,” Lessig told Politico. Since 1796, there have been 157 “faithless electors,” most recently in 2004.  Last week, Art Sisneros, also a Republican elector from Texas, announced he planned to resign from the Electoral College rather than vote for Trump. He said casting his vote for Trump would “bring dishonor to God.” Trump is expected to receive 306 electoral votes when the college votes on Dec. 19. That means that in addition to Suprun, 36 GOP electors would have to jump ship to drop Trump below the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.  It may be a long shot, but it’s exactly what Suprun is pushing for.  “The election of the next president is not yet a done deal,” he wrote. “Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience.” “Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Suprun added. “On Dec. 19, I will do it again.” Read Suprun’s full NYT op-ed here. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

06 декабря, 05:10

Can Trump's Pick for Secretary of State Pass the "Togo Test"?

John Richard Cookson Politics, Americas Visiting one African state—or not—can reveal a lot about the diplomatic agenda. After a wide-ranging selection process, President-elect Donald Trump will reportedly name his secretary of state in the next week or so. As soon as America’s top diplomat is revealed, pundits will undoubtedly pillage through his past, looking for clues that may augur the country’s foreign policy future. There is, however, an even simpler way to determine how the likely sixty-ninth secretary of state will set his agenda: Does he plan to visit Togo or not? It is an odd question, but one which the sixty-seventh secretary of state answered easily. In January 2012, Secretary Hillary Clinton did visit Togo, the nation of seven million wedged between Ghana and Benin in West Africa. In the capital, Lomé, she toured the modernist, multimillion-dollar, Chinese-built presidential palace with President Faure Gnassingbé. As Clinton pointed out later, “No secretary of state had ever been to Togo before.” In fact, no secretary of state has ever been to as many countries as Clinton, before or since. Her successor, John Kerry, is at the moment a full twenty-one stops short of her total 112. To reach that record, Clinton had to visit a number of places usually skipped by U.S. secretaries of state. Between 2009 and 2013, her travels took her to the Cook Islands and Timor Leste, to Angola and Cote d'Ivoire, to Uzbekistan and Mongolia, and to Papua New Guinea and Uruguay. She visited Cape Verde a couple of times. Of course, the relevance of these countries to America’s immediate national interest is somewhere between nearly and entirely nonexistent. Nonetheless, there was intention behind this wild itinerary. Read full article

06 декабря, 04:30

A Response: My Election Blame List

This article was written in response to a “Huffington Post” article by Max Weiss, which was in turn written as a response to a “Slate” article. The original “Slate” article was titled: “So We’re Still Blaming Jill Stein And James Comey, Huh?” and the Weiss response was titled: “Things I Blame For Hillary Clinton’s Loss, Ranked.” But the Weiss list was so far removed from my own feelings about the Clinton loss that I felt it was time to respond with my own blame list. It’s been a month since the election, so hopefully enough time has passed that Democrats can discuss what went so wrong. So here is my own list of the things I blame for the 2016 election loss, ranked. And I have to quote Weiss in saying (while he was blaming Bernie Sanders): “I know this is going to piss a lot of people off, but so be it.”   1-15. HILLARY CLINTON AND HER CAMPAIGN Hillary Clinton was the wrong candidate for this election. She might have won in a different year, against a different opponent. Her strongest point, oddly enough, was the one thing the Democratic National Committee seemed scared to highlight ― she is a great debater, and whether facing Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump did an excellent job on the debate stage. But it just wasn’t enough. So here it is, broken down. (1) Hillary is a bad campaigner. She doesn’t have anywhere near the political/people skills her husband does, and it showed throughout the entire election. Clinton is fully capable of showing her human side ― as she actually proved in a speech immediately after the election ― but she seemed incapable of presenting that authenticity to the public during the campaign. Also, imagine just for a minute if Hillary had been more forceful in responding to all of Donald Trump’s tweetstorms, in real time. If she had answered back with snappy (and scathing) tweets every single time Trump tweeted something outrageous, then she would have shared all those news cycles with Trump. Is competing for the presidency via Twitter battles unseemly? Sure it is, but Trump just proved how downright effective it can be ― it is, in fact, the new “bully pulpit of the 21st century.” Trump used this to his advantage, and Clinton just couldn’t keep up. (2) As the saying goes, “you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose.” Hillary Clinton tried to campaign in prose. Over and over again, she refused to do proper sloganeering, instead lapsing into lawyerly talk about incremental changes she felt certain she could actually deliver. But this translates into a posture of timidity, and being unwilling to risk shooting for the moon on any particular issue. That may be a realistic way to govern, but it’s not a great way to get elected. Comparing her campaign to Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. (3) Because of this, Clinton’s entire message could really be boiled down to a rather non-inspirational slogan: “Dream small!” Don’t even dream of a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and maybe I’ll be able to get something like $12 an hour. Maybe. Free college tuition for some ― not for all. Marijuana legalization needs more “study” before I can even make up my mind on whether I support it or not. Don’t break up the big banks, I’ll slap them on the wrist and they’ll fall into line, trust me. Clinton reinforced this message of cautious baby steps every time she debated Bernie Sanders, even ridiculing Sanders for being too wildly unrealistic. Unfortunately for Clinton, this wasn’t what the public was looking for this time around. (4) If Clinton’s incrementalism ever had a chance, it certainly would have been helped if she had more forcefully made the case for Barack Obama’s legacy. Maybe this wouldn’t have worked in any case ― maybe it was always going to be a “change” election ― but she could have made the attempt with a bit more forcefulness. Reminding voters of what America was like in 2008 when Obama got elected would have strengthened her case for tinkering around the edges. (5) Clinton’s hesitancy was most notable in her economic message. Blue-collar voters just didn’t believe her when she promised to “fight every day” for their issues. Her campaign’s choice to not visit states like Wisconsin over attempting to flip states like Arizona just reinforced this problem. They would have done a lot better to have adopted the Bill Clinton slogan: “It’s the economy, stupid” as their central identity, but they didn’t. (6) The Clinton campaign made a big strategic choice, and it didn’t work. They chose to primarily attempt to scare suburban Republican voters into switching their votes from Trump to Clinton. This is the same sort of triangulation that worked well for her husband back in the 1990s, but no matter how many tens of millions of dollars of Trump fearmongering ads they ran, it had a very limited amount of success. The Clinton campaign came off looking angry and trying to fear-monger, instead of positive and hopeful for the future. (7) Clinton refused to release the transcripts of speeches she gave to the big Wall Street banks and hedge fund managers. This made it look like she was hiding something, which is never a good look for a politician. This also totally undermined all her promises to fight for working-class Joes, since she so obviously was telling them one thing while whistling a completely different tune to (as Bernie would say) the millionaires and billionaires. When Clinton came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, for example, very few voters believed that she was sincere in her new-found populism. (8) This was a larger problem than just her speeches. Hillary Clinton gave rise to an unprecedented amount of distrust among even Democratic voters. When you can’t even convince your own base that you are trustworthy and believable, you’re going to have a very hard time convincing anyone else, to put it bluntly. This was especially pronounced in the youngest voters. (9) Which leads to a related point. Hillary Clinton just didn’t excite young voters. There were a lot of people voting this year who had turned 18 since 2004 ― some of whom are now almost 30 years old ― who had never voted for anyone but Barack Obama for president. That’s the level of expectation they had for presidential candidates and presidential campaigns. That’s a very hard bar to clear for any candidate, but this year they all flocked to Bernie Sanders only to see Clinton tear him down as much as possible for being too idealistic and promising too much ― which were, in fact, exactly the same things Obama won on. When Sanders lost to Clinton, she had the chance to energize them with her general election campaign, but she failed to do so. (10) Which brings me to one of the biggest disappointments of Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign: her choice of Tim Kaine as her running mate. There was a lot of speculation at the time that Clinton chose Kaine because he was guaranteed never to upstage her in popularity ― she went for boring, instead of trying for some excitement. Imagine how different a Clinton/Warren ticket would have been for young voters. Clinton/Sanders was probably never going to happen, but even something like Clinton picking Sherrod Brown would have gone a long way towards building some excitement in the base (and among undecided blue-collar voters). There were many intriguing possibilities for the veep slot, any one of which might have helped Clinton increase the excitement level, but she chose the one guy seemingly guaranteed not to do so. (11) Conversely, with voters old enough to recognize the name, Clinton’s praise of Henry Kissinger was just downright bizarre. Those too young to know who he was probably weren’t affected, but to those Democrats who still consider Kissinger a war criminal (at worst) or the architect of America’s realpolitik foreign policy (at best), her continued praise of Kissinger was just inexplicable. Imagine a Democratic candidate in about 15 or 20 years, offering up words of praise for Dick Cheney out on the campaign trail, if you don’t understand the magnitude of this error. (12) Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” is right up there with Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” statement. Obama had a similar stumble (”cling to their guns and religion”) but managed to overcome it in 2008. When, oh when will Democrats learn that it is just not a good idea to insult a huge portion of the electorate? Sheesh. As Joe Bob Briggs would say: “I’m surprised I have to explain this stuff.” (13) If Team Clinton was going to appeal to voters’ fears, they missed a rather large avenue to do so very effectively. If Clinton had won, liberals would have achieved a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court for the first time in roughly 40 years. That’s a big deal for a lot of people. We wouldn’t have to deal with the outcome of cases like Citizens United if the court was reliably liberal. This is a change that could have made the next few decades a lot better, but Clinton barely mentioned it (especially in her advertising, where it might have done some good with voters not totally enthused to vote for her). (14) Hillary Clinton would never have had an email problem if she hadn’t created her own private server. The problem wouldn’t have been as acute if she had handled it differently when the media started making it a big deal. If she had just admitted: “I set up the server because I didn’t want every email I ever sent to be used against me politically,” then people would have at least believed the explanation. Because she refused to ever admit what was so obvious, the problem dogged her for her entire campaign, as she struggled to parse her answer into something you’d expect in a deposition. (15) Hillary Clinton’s sense of entitlement was on display in the primary campaign in the same way it was in her 2008 primary campaign. How dare any other candidate challenge her for the Democratic nomination! This sense of entitlement ― it was her nomination, and Bernie Sanders should never have even run ― was off-putting to many (even many who didn’t even support Sanders). Republicans are the ones who usually respond to this “let’s nominate the next one in line” thinking, not Democrats.   OK, there were a few others outside of the Clinton campaign who I felt should share the blame, and then at the end I’ll get to those who I feel are blameless: 16. JAMES COMEY The F.B.I. director’s actions were unprecedented throughout the campaign. Even J. Edgar Hoover never interfered in elections in such blatant fashion (he favored doing so behind the scenes, to be fair). Comey’s original press conference where he castigated Clinton for her email server while saying he wasn’t going to recommend indictment was, again, unprecedented. First, this is really the Justice Department’s decision, not Comey’s; and, second, press conferences are simply not usually held unless the prosecution is going forward. That’s normal F.B.I. policy, which was ignored. Third, Comey’s October Surprise was possibly the biggest factor in Clinton’s loss outside of her own campaign. Comey blatantly interfered in a presidential election, and he shouldn’t have. Period. 17. MAINSTREAM MEDIA The media were unfair to Hillary Clinton. But she should have been ready for it. It’s pretty much a given that the media are simply not going to focus on what is important in a presidential election (see: the last 50 years or so of coverage), and are instead going to chase the shiny, shiny objects dangled in front of them. Clinton should have been ready for this onslaught, because it was inevitable. 18. THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE That really should read “...and the entire concept of superdelegates.” Debbie Wasserman Schultz was obviously in the tank for Hillary from the get-go, and the machinations that happened to cut Bernie’s campaign off at the knees got so bad that Debbie had to resign her position the day the Democratic National Convention kicked off. That’s a stunning amount of party disunity to put on display, right at the start of the convention. Plus, Clinton locking up the lion’s share of superdelegates early on just contributed to her air of inevitability, which highlighted their anti-democratic (but apparently not anti-Democratic) nature. It’s time to rethink the whole superdelegate idea, folks. 19. RUSSIA AND WIKILEAKS A large part of the D.N.C.’s problem in the general election was the exposure of all of their emails, too. This pulled the curtain back and showed how political operatives talk amongst themselves, and it wasn’t pretty. 20. NO NEW ANSWERS FOR THE RUST BELT Democrats are generally stronger on economic message than Republicans, since they support things like unions, minimum wage raises, guaranteed worker benefits (like sick pay), and equal pay (and too many other economic issues to list, in fact). But they are failing badly in coming up with an answer for what to do to help towns and communities devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs. Listen close to just about any Democrat, and they’ll trot out their only solution: more job training. That’s it. That’s all they’ve got. But these communities have seen previous efforts at job training, and they’re not impressed. What is the point in getting trained for a different career if there are no jobs in that sector where you live, after all? “Move” seems to be the Democrats’ only answer to that, which just isn’t good enough. Trump’s answers to the problem may not work, but at least he had something new to say to them. Democrats just don’t seem to, at least not so far. “Get a better education” sends two messages simultaneously: losing your job when your factory moved overseas was not only your fault, but it was your fault because you are stupid. That’s not a great message to inspire these voters, to state the obvious. 21. MADELINE ALBRIGHT AND GLORIA STEINEM Second and third place in the “worst campaign gaffe” category (after Hillary’s “basket of deplorables”) went to Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem, two feminist icons. Both used lines that they have used before, to absolutely horrific effect among millions of young, female voters. Albright’s: “There’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help each other,” and Steinem’s explanation of why young women were supporting Sanders: “When you’re young, you’re thinking ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie,” did an unbelievable amount of harm to Clinton’s campaign among young voters of both sexes. Albright at least has been using that line (in generic fashion) for a long time, so she thought she could use it during the primary campaign in support of Clinton. Steinem really has no excuse ― that is just as sexist and demeaning a line as anything heard on Mad Men. She’s fought her entire life for all women to be treated every bit as intelligent, serious, and influential as men ― and her only answer for Bernie’s popularity is that his young female supporters have all seemingly stepped out of a “Gidget” movie? Really? Wow. Millions of young voters were repulsed by these ham-fisted attempts to shame them into supporting Clinton. 22. MISOGYNY Yep, plenty of misogyny out there. Even among lots of Democrats. No denying it. And it certainly was more pronounced, due to Donald Trump’s entire persona and history. But any woman running for president is going to face this. Breaking that glass ceiling will mean future women candidates might face less of it, there’s no doubt about that, but misogyny will always be an incredibly strong headwind for the first woman president to have to overcome.   And finally, a few things I don’t blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss: 1. BERNIE SANDERS Bernie Sanders had every right to run for the Democratic nomination, and his voters had every right to vote for him. Having a tough primary battle doesn’t mean your campaign is necessarily weakened ― as Barack Obama proved, in 2008, when Hillary Clinton challenged him. It made him stronger, and he went on to win the general election. So it can be done, no matter how bruising the primary fight was. Once Bernie conceded, he campaigned for Hillary Clinton and tried to get his voters to vote for her. If he hadn’t done so, perhaps he would share some blame, but that simply wasn’t the case. 2. BERNIE’S MESSAGE Bernie’s message didn’t “force Clinton to tack to the left,” she decided to do that when it became obvious that his message was resonating better with the Democratic base. Bernie’s populism was what people wanted to hear. So was his idealism, and so was his lifelong commitment to fighting for the little guy over Wall Street. If Bernie’s message was so bad, then why did Clinton try to co-opt so much of it, after all? 3. JILL STEIN Just as everyone has a right to run in the primaries, all political parties have the right to run in the general election. Ralph Nader didn’t lose the election for Al Gore ― instead, Al Gore did not convince enough Nader voters that Gore was the better choice. Period. That’s how elections work. Stein convinced a lot of people to vote for her. That is her right, and it is the American way. Deal with it. 3a. SUSAN SARANDON Celebrities have rights too, and one of those is the right to advocate for ― or against ― whichever candidate you wish. Period. It’s a personal decision, and anyone who says any individual should support a candidate simply because of the “D” after their name just doesn’t understand the free nature of American politics ― where nobody else gets to make up your mind for you.   Chris Weigant blogs at: Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant   -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

06 декабря, 04:13

Donald Trump And The Republicans: The Art Of The Steal

During the campaign Donald Trump boasted that he could kill someone on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn't affect his standing among his supporters. Whether or not this is true, this appears to be the approach that Trump and his fellow Republicans are taking to their role in governing. The basic story is that they can rip off the public as much as they want, because ain't no one going to stop them. They could be right. The most immediate issue is Donald Trump's refusal to sell his assets and place the proceeds in a blind trust. This was a practice followed by every president in the last half century. The idea is that the president should be making decisions based on what they think is good for the country, not based on what they think will fatten their pocketbooks. Trump's proposal in this area is essentially a joke. The idea is he turns over the operation of his empire to his kids. It's not clear how this helps at all. His kids will never discuss any business issues with him and also have no opportunity to discuss policy with their father or father-in-law? Perhaps more importantly, he knows what properties are in his empire. This means that if he decides to make an issue of the crackdown on opposition by Turkey's president, Recep Erdogan, it is likely that Erdogan will retaliate against the Trump resorts in Turkey. The same applies to his dealings with many other countries. We shouldn't have to rely on a "trust me" pledge from the president that the financial interests of his family will not be a consideration in his foreign policy. That is exactly why prior presidents put their assets into a blind trust. And, there is little reason to believe that Donald Trump is more honest than our past presidents. It is also important to realize that divestment of Trump's empire is not an insoluble problem. The key is to have an appraisal process, which would set a value on his assets. Trump can then lock in this price by buying an insurance policy, which would protect him from the risk that the assets may be sold off at a lower price than the appraisal. The proceeds from the sale of properties would be put directly in a blind trust. Any extra funds go to a designated non-Trump affiliated charity. From the point of the appraisal forward, Trump would have no financial stake in his empire. That would end this huge conflict of interest problem. It appears that Donald Trump's indifference to problems of conflict of interest is likely to extend to his top appointees as well. Politico reported on evidence that Steven Mnuchin, Trump's nominee as Treasury Secretary, used the money from a tax exempt foundation under his control, to engineer a lobbying campaign. According to the article, when Mnuchin was chair of the bank OneWest, he used funds from the bank's foundation to make payments to non-profits that later lobbied on the bank's behalf. If Politico's information is accurate, and the payments were in fact made to support a lobbying campaign, then it would be a clear case of tax fraud. A nice twist to this story is that as treasury secretary, Mr. Mnuchin would be responsible for overseeing the I.R.S. We have yet to see the full list of top level appointees, but it is already clear that it will include some of the richest people in the country. Wlibur Ross, the billionaire private equity fund manager, is slated to head the Commerce Department. His pick for secretary for the Department of Education is Betsey DeVos, an heir to a multi-billion dollar fortune. If Trump refuses to hold himself to the same ethical standards as past presidents, it is difficult to believe that he will pressure his cabinet and top advisers to avoid conflicts of interest. And given the wealth of some of his appointees, there will be plenty of opportunity for conflict. In fact, it looks like the tidal wave of conflicted government has already spilled over to the legislative branch. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell announced that he will not recuse himself from voting on Elaine Chao, Trump's pick to head the Department of Transportation. Chao also happens to be McConnell's wife. When it comes to ethics in government, presidents usually start out setting high standards which they don't always live up to. By refusing to put his holdings in a blind trust, Donald Trump is starting in the sewer. It is likely to go down from there. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

06 декабря, 04:13

Donald Trump And The Republicans: The Art Of The Steal

During the campaign Donald Trump boasted that he could kill someone on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn't affect his standing among his supporters. Whether or not this is true, this appears to be the approach that Trump and his fellow Republicans are taking to their role in governing. The basic story is that they can rip off the public as much as they want, because ain't no one going to stop them. They could be right. The most immediate issue is Donald Trump's refusal to sell his assets and place the proceeds in a blind trust. This was a practice followed by every president in the last half century. The idea is that the president should be making decisions based on what they think is good for the country, not based on what they think will fatten their pocketbooks. Trump's proposal in this area is essentially a joke. The idea is he turns over the operation of his empire to his kids. It's not clear how this helps at all. His kids will never discuss any business issues with him and also have no opportunity to discuss policy with their father or father-in-law? Perhaps more importantly, he knows what properties are in his empire. This means that if he decides to make an issue of the crackdown on opposition by Turkey's president, Recep Erdogan, it is likely that Erdogan will retaliate against the Trump resorts in Turkey. The same applies to his dealings with many other countries. We shouldn't have to rely on a "trust me" pledge from the president that the financial interests of his family will not be a consideration in his foreign policy. That is exactly why prior presidents put their assets into a blind trust. And, there is little reason to believe that Donald Trump is more honest than our past presidents. It is also important to realize that divestment of Trump's empire is not an insoluble problem. The key is to have an appraisal process, which would set a value on his assets. Trump can then lock in this price by buying an insurance policy, which would protect him from the risk that the assets may be sold off at a lower price than the appraisal. The proceeds from the sale of properties would be put directly in a blind trust. Any extra funds go to a designated non-Trump affiliated charity. From the point of the appraisal forward, Trump would have no financial stake in his empire. That would end this huge conflict of interest problem. It appears that Donald Trump's indifference to problems of conflict of interest is likely to extend to his top appointees as well. Politico reported on evidence that Steven Mnuchin, Trump's nominee as Treasury Secretary, used the money from a tax exempt foundation under his control, to engineer a lobbying campaign. According to the article, when Mnuchin was chair of the bank OneWest, he used funds from the bank's foundation to make payments to non-profits that later lobbied on the bank's behalf. If Politico's information is accurate, and the payments were in fact made to support a lobbying campaign, then it would be a clear case of tax fraud. A nice twist to this story is that as treasury secretary, Mr. Mnuchin would be responsible for overseeing the I.R.S. We have yet to see the full list of top level appointees, but it is already clear that it will include some of the richest people in the country. Wlibur Ross, the billionaire private equity fund manager, is slated to head the Commerce Department. His pick for secretary for the Department of Education is Betsey DeVos, an heir to a multi-billion dollar fortune. If Trump refuses to hold himself to the same ethical standards as past presidents, it is difficult to believe that he will pressure his cabinet and top advisers to avoid conflicts of interest. And given the wealth of some of his appointees, there will be plenty of opportunity for conflict. In fact, it looks like the tidal wave of conflicted government has already spilled over to the legislative branch. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell announced that he will not recuse himself from voting on Elaine Chao, Trump's pick to head the Department of Transportation. Chao also happens to be McConnell's wife. When it comes to ethics in government, presidents usually start out setting high standards which they don't always live up to. By refusing to put his holdings in a blind trust, Donald Trump is starting in the sewer. It is likely to go down from there. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

06 декабря, 03:13

Flynn under fire for fake news

A shooting at a D.C. pizza restaurant is stoking criticism of the conspiracy theories being spread by Donald Trump’s pick for national security adviser.

06 декабря, 02:43

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 12/5/16

12:28 P.M. EST    MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Happy Monday.  I hope you all enjoyed your weekends.  I do not have any announcements at the top, so we can go straight to your questions.   Kevin, would you like to begin?    Q    Sure.  Thank you, Josh.  Has the President talked to anyone affiliated with President-elect Trump’s transition team or to President Xi about the President-elect’s call with the leader in Taiwan?  Have any concerns been expressed with foreign leaders at all about this call?  Or is this simply President-elect Trump’s to own and for the current administration to distance itself from?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, Kevin, I don't have any presidential conversations to tell you about.  I can confirm that U.S. officials, including senior officials at the National Security Council, have been in touch with their Chinese counterparts to reiterate our country’s continued commitment to a one-China policy.     This is a policy that is based on three joint U.S.-China communiques that were negotiated by different U.S. Presidents in different parties and, of course, by the Taiwan Relations Act.  This is a policy that has been in place for nearly 40 years, and it has been focused on promoting and preserving peace and stability in the strait.  The adherence to and commitment to this policy has advanced the ability of the United States to make progress in our relationship with China and, of course, has benefitted the people of Taiwan.  Taiwan, after all, is the ninth-largest trading partner of the United States, and they certainly benefit from peace and stability in the strait.  And pursuit of and commitment to that peace and stability advances U.S. interests.     If the President-elect’s team has a different aim, I'll leave it to them to describe.   Q    Have you had conversations with the President-elect’s team, and did you get the sense that this call is designed to forge closer relations with Taiwan?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I think it's hard to determine exactly what the aim was of the President-elect.  I know both the Vice President-elect and his campaign manager were -- when asked about this over the weekend, indicated that these were courtesy calls -- or that this was a courtesy call and the President-elect was merely returning that call.  The Washington Post today tells a different story, with some Trump aides indicating that this was a long-planned call and that this is part of a broader strategic effort.   It's unclear exactly what the strategic effort is, what the aim of the strategic effort is, and it's unclear exactly what potential benefit could be experienced by the United States, China or Taiwan.  But I'll leave that to them to explain.   Q    Keeping on foreign affairs, what is the President’s reaction to the election results in Italy?  And he put some political capital into this, bringing Prime Minister Renzi in for the final official visit.  Is he disappointed in the results?  And is he concerned that this is kind of the beginning of the unraveling of the European Union?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, Kevin, obviously both the President and the President-elect had quite a bit to say about this when Prime Minister Renzi was here at the White House back in October.  And the President, at that point, indicated his hope that the Italian people would be supportive of the referendum and the reforms that Prime Minister Renzi put forward.  Didn’t turn out that way.     I would warn against painting with an overly broad brush about the potential consequences of this outcome.  There certainly is a not entirely unreasonable tendency to want to loop together the outcome in the UK and even the outcome of the U.S. presidential election with this outcome.  But each of these is different.  We're talking about different constituencies.  In one case, we're talking about a presidential election; in two other cases we're talking about a referendum, only one of which actually had a direct impact on Brexit.     So there are some broader trends that are worthy of analysis, but I think there’s a risk in oversimplifying that analysis based on the outcome of yesterday’s referendum in Italy.   Q    Thank you.   MR. EARNEST:  Okay.  Roberta.     Q    Since Friday, what contact has the administration had with other allies in Asia who may have been concerned about the call?   MR. EARNEST:  I don't have any other diplomatic conversations to tell you about.  Obviously the United States, through the State Department and other agencies, including occasionally from the National Security Council, is in touch with our allies not just in Asia but around the world.  I think that there were a couple of conversations over the weekend between senior U.S. officials at the National Security Council and Chinese officials to reiterate and clarify the continued commitment of the United States the our longstanding one-China policy.  But beyond that, I don't have diplomatic conversations to read you out.   Q    You can't say one way or the other whether there were other conversations with other allies?   MR. EARNEST:  I can't say one way or the other.   Q    And I guess I'm wondering, with the rebels in Aleppo being almost completely overwhelmed, how concerned is the White House that Al-Nusra or other groups like that are going to step in and sort of gain strength because of what’s happening?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think our concern with the situation in Aleppo right now, Roberta, is focused on the plight of thousands of civilians, including children, who are caught in harm’s way.  And the reports continue to trickle out of Aleppo are increasingly dire and the situation there continues to worsen.  And it's clear that while far too many innocent lives have already been lost, there are many more innocent lives that are at risk, including women and children.     And it is a reflection of the depravity of the Assad regime. It is a reflection of the willingness of the Russian government and the Iranians to risk deepening involvement in a quagmire to accomplish a goal of trying to shore up their influence in the region.  And it raises profound moral concerns.  It also serves to isolate Syria, Russia and Iran from basically the rest of the world, who’s deeply concerned with the violence that they see continuing to be perpetuated in that war-torn country.   Q    So it raises profound moral concerns.  Are any adjustments being made to U.S. policy in Syria because of what's happening now?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, the U.S. efforts underway right now are diplomatic in nature.  And we have said from the beginning of this conflict that a military solution is not available.  The only available solution is a diplomatic one.  And for a time, the United States, through the historic and tenacious efforts of Secretary of State Kerry, were focused on trying to reach a bilateral negotiated agreement with the Russians.  But again, despite his tenacious efforts, that kind of solution was not to be found.  But Secretary of State Kerry has remained undeterred and has continued to pursue a multilateral negotiated agreement to try to bring the violence to an end, or at least reduce the violence and not allow so many innocent Syrians to be in harm's way of a bloody bombing campaign.   But I'd refer you to the State Department of an update on those efforts, but obviously that's something that he continues to work on very diligently because of our nation's profound concern for the plight of those innocent Syrian men, women and children.   Michelle. Q    Thanks, Josh.  Among the criticism that's been out there of Donald Trump's foreign policy or his contact with foreign leaders are that he's winging it, and also we've heard from one who is a congressman, that that's how wars start.  How seriously does the administration take some of these contacts?  I mean, do you think that this borders on dangerous?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, whenever you are talking about the President-elect of the United States interacting with foreign leaders, it's incredibly important.  It has profound consequences for our country and for our national interests around the world. In talking about this situation -- well, let me be more specific.    Last week, we had some conversations about a conversation that the President-elect had with the Prime Minister of Pakistan. And I noted in answering questions about that telephone call that President Obama, over the course of his eight years in the White House, has benefitted significantly from the expertise, advice, and experience of career diplomats at the State Department.  And that expertise and advice is available to the President-elect.  That advice will continue to be available to him when he enters the Oval Office.  President Obama benefitted from it, and President-elect would, as well.   Q    Do you think that his contact with Taiwan and his tweeting about China, is that dangerous?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think what is true is that there has been a longstanding policy in place that's been governed by our one-China policy, undergirded by three different joint communiqués negotiated between U.S. Presidents and their Chinese counterparts.  My understanding is that these -- or the facts are that these communiqués were negotiated, one in 1972 by President Nixon, one in 1979 by President Carter, and one in 1982 by President Reagan, and those joint communiqués have guided our approach to this region of the world.  And the Chinese government in Beijing places an enormous priority on this situation and it's a sensitive matter.  And some of the progress that we have made in our relationship with China could be undermined by this issue flaring up.  It’s also unclear how the people who live in Taiwan benefit from this issue flaring up.   The response from the Chinese government in the aftermath of this call has primarily been to ratchet up the rhetoric against Taiwan.  And it’s unclear to me how that kind of consequence benefits the people of Taiwan or benefits the ninth-largest trading partner of the United States.  So these are significant issues and worthy of careful consideration.   Q    And we know the Chinese officials reached out to the current administration after this phone call with Taiwan.  So what does this administration say to the Chinese in this instance?  I mean, what really can you say?   MR. EARNEST:  What we have made clear in a couple of different phone conversations is that the administration is committed to our nation’s pursuit of a one-China policy rooted in three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act.  This is a policy that’s been in place for 40 years -- or almost 40 years, and it’s a policy that has been aimed at promoting peace and stability in the Strait.  And this has been a policy that has advanced the interests of the United States both in terms of advancing our relationship with China, but also in terms of the interests of the people of Taiwan, who happen to be the ninth-largest trading partner of the United States.  So there are significant economic consequences here as well.     Q    So, in saying that, are you expressing confidence to them that that policy will continue?  Or do you really have no way of knowing? MR. EARNEST:  Well, it’s the President-elect and his team who can speak to what sort of policy they intend to pursue after January 20th.  I can’t speak to that.   Q    But you say that there have been a number of phone conversations with the Chinese government.   MR. EARNEST:  I’m aware of two different phone conversations with officials at the National Security Council with their Chinese counterparts.   Q    Okay, great.  Thanks, Josh.   MR. EARNEST:  Justin.   Q    I wanted to return to Italy first.  I was wondering if you could talk a bit about what you anticipate it meaning for European refugee policy, and also if the administration -- if anybody in the Treasury Department or here at the White House has been in touch with sort of financial markets out of this concern that this could either impact the Euro, or kind of spark fears of a recession or a run on the banks -- all these different possible economic consequences.   MR. EARNEST:  There are obviously a range of potential contingencies any time there is a significant national election like this.  It’s no secret that the Treasury Department has been closely monitoring the financial system in Italy for some time now.  There have been increased signs of volatility there.  I’m certainly no expert on those issues so I’d refer you to my colleagues at the Treasury Department for an analysis.   I know that a number of analysts have suggested that the market reaction is indicative of this being the anticipated outcome, but I’ll let those analysts speak to that assessment.  Obviously, the United States and Italy have an important economic relationship, and the United States benefits from Italy and the EU more generally making smart financial and economic decisions.   With regard to the potential consequences for the unity of the European Union, I think that remains to be seen.  Obviously, this is not a -- the referendum was not on -- was not a question about Italy’s relationship with the EU, but there are a range of broader potential consequences that I can’t speak to.  But obviously, there are some important political decisions for Italy in the near term in terms of Prime Minister Renzi submitting his resignation and the need to form a new government -- whether that’s a caretaker government or another government is something that ultimately the Italian President will have some say on.   But, look, the United States and Italy have an extraordinarily important relationship.  And that relationship was on display when Prime Minister Renzi was here at the White House just six weeks or so ago.  And obviously, there’s a deep cultural relationship between our two countries.  There are many people who live in this country who proudly identify themselves as Italian-American.  The security relationship between the United States and Italy is critical.  Italy is a NATO member and has made important contributions to our counter-ISIL campaign, to the NATO effort in Afghanistan.  And we obviously work closely and consult closely with Italy as we resolve some of the security concerns with regard to ISIL’s presence in Libya.   So this is an extraordinarily important relationship to the United States and to our national security and to our economy.  And that will continue to remain the case even as they work through some of the political challenges that they’re currently facing.   Q    I want to ask about the decision by the Army Corps to delay the Dakota access pipeline for an environmental review.  I’m interested both in your general reaction, but also if the White House was in any way sort of in contact with the Army Corps or dictating this decision to sort of further --   MR. EARNEST:  Justin, I’ve indicated before that the White House was being regularly updated on the talks between concerned local residents and federal agencies, including the U.S. Army with regard to the construction of this infrastructure project.  The White House did not and has not been dictating the outcome, but rather has been updated by the Army Corps on the negotiations.   The President, a couple of weeks ago, welcomed the indication from the United States Army and other government agencies to redouble their consultation with those communities that are most directly affected by the construction of this project.   This is typically the kind of principle that you would hear from conservative politicians -- that whenever the federal government is undertaking a project that has a direct impact on a local community or a local American citizen, that the rights to that person and that community should be very carefully considered.   There has been some criticism from self-described conservative politicians.  Why they have reached a different conclusion in this case is something you'd have to ask them.  It's curious to me.  But I think more generally, the President believes that this kind of consultation between federal agencies and local communities is important, particularly when a local community has such a significant stake in the outcome or is so significantly affected by a project like this moving forward.  And that was the case in this situation.  And the result has been for this federal agency to determine that more study is required. But ultimately that was a decision that was arrived at by the agency -- in this case, the United States Army.   Q    Protestors there obviously are happy with the delay, but there's been complaints throughout the last few weeks about some of the tactics that have been used by local law enforcement, whether it be using water cannons on freezing nights, or rubber bullets.  I'm wondering what the White House's perception of the way local law enforcement has treated these protests is, and if there's been any consideration of sort of a federal intervention into the interaction between protestors and law enforcement.   MR. EARNEST:  I'm not aware of any contemplated federal *interaction [intervention] at this point.  What I am aware of is the very first thing that the President said publically about this matter earlier this fall.  And the very first thing that he said was he encouraged protestors to abide by the responsibility that they have to exercise their constitutional rights to protest peacefully.  They have that responsibility.  The President also made clear that law enforcement officials who have a responsibility to keep that peace have a responsibility to handle themselves in a manner that would promote peace in watching over these protests.  So that's important.  And that's the responsibility that people on both sides of this issue have, and the President's expectation is that those are responsibilities that they should uphold.   Q    One last one.  President Rouhani said over the weekend that if President Obama did not block the Iran Sanctions Act there would be a "firm response" from Iran.  I'm wondering what your reaction to that is, and especially your level of concern, considering that the Ayatollah and others in Iran have said continuing this legislation, even though it doesn't directly impose sanctions itself, would be a violation of the Iran nuclear deal.   MR. EARNEST:  Well, we've made clear since Congress was considering the passage of this legislation that this legislation was not inconsistent with the agreement that was reached in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action -- this was ultimately the international agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  We've been clear about that from the beginning, and that's clear today.  And in fact, we made clear that if Congress did pass legislation that undermined the deal that was inconsistent with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that the President would veto it.   And given the support in the Congress for the deal, there was sufficient political support to ensure that the President could back up that promise.  In this case, because the legislation doesn't undermine the deal and is not inconsistent with the agreement, the President does intend to sign it into law.   Olivier.   Q    Thanks, Josh.  I've got two for you.  The first one -- I'm trying to understand this outreach -- this conversation between the U.S. and China in the aftermath of the President-elect's phone call.  They know that he doesn't speak for you guys and that you guys don't speak for him, so I'm trying to understand how your message of continuity of policy can get across to them.  They've got to know, as you acknowledge, that in January, everything could change.  So are you promising them that he's going to see the light somehow, or what’s the message there?   MR. EARNEST:  No, there’s no attempt and no effort and, frankly, no desire to make promises on behalf of the President-elect.  When the President-elect assumes office, when he assumes the awesome responsibility of governing the greatest country in the world, that’s something that he’ll do on his own.     The assurances that we could offer the Chinese government were the ongoing commitment of the U.S. government to the pursuit of a one-China policy that we believe has benefitted the United States, China and Taiwan.  But the Chinese government and senior officials in the Chinese government are sophisticated enough to understand the complexities of the U.S. political system and they understand that President Obama’s ability to set our policy towards this region of the world expires on January 20th, and someone else will take over.  Our message -- the message that was conveyed by senior National Security Council officials was intended to make clear that the policy position of the Obama administration had not changed.   Q    And then could you give us a flavor -- we got a flavor of the speech tomorrow from Eric last week.  Could you flesh it out a little bit more?  What is the President’s purpose in giving this speech tomorrow?  Is this a legacy-minded assessment of his eight years in office on the foreign policy front?  Is it about unfinished business?  And to the degree that it is about unfinished business, is he planning on suggesting to the incoming administration that they finish that?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don’t have a whole lot more to say about the speech for tomorrow.  We’ll try and get you some more information before the end of the day today, just as you prepare to write about the President’s speech.   I think, in general, what I can tell you is that the speech is focused on underscoring how important some of the reforms are that President Obama has put in place with regard to greater accountability and transparency in our national security programs.  These reforms were necessary in part because, when President Obama took office our country was benefitting from new technology, including the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, to apply pressure to terrorist organizations and terrorist leaders in remote locations.  And President Obama believed it was important and worth a lot of time and effort to impose some constraints on how that program was used and to make it more transparent.     And the President’s view is that by putting in place that legal architecture, it would make the program more durable.  It would also inspire greater confidence around the globe in our ability to conduct these programs consistent with our values.  And so much of the authority and influence the United States wields around the world is derived from our adherence to these universal values.   So I think the goal tomorrow is to help the American people understand why these reforms were so important, and understand why they’re so valuable to our national security moving forward. There will be an acknowledgement that there is additional work in this area that needs to be done and will require thoughtful consideration by national security professionals in the next administration.  But the President is quite proud of all of the progress that we have made, both in terms of keeping the country safe, but also in making sure that our country lives up to the values that are central to our greatness.   Jordan.   Q    Thanks, Josh.  I want to know if the White House has any reaction to the arrest that was made yesterday at Comet Pizza up in Northwest.  I’m asking because the President has spoken out a number of times on the corrosive effect that fake news has had on the political discourse, and I know that a lot of the rumors surrounding that establishment was spread by fake news online.   MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me start by complimenting and crediting local law enforcement here in the Washington area who responded with a lot of professionalism to that situation in preventing any bloodshed.  So this is just another example of how our men and women in blue never take a day off from keeping us safe.  We owe them a debt of gratitude, and that certainly applies to the brave men and women who serve in the Metropolitan Police Department here in Washington, D.C.   The second thing I can tell you is that those law enforcement officials are continuing to investigate this situation.  I know there have been some interviews that have been conducted with the subject and I think there’s some interest in trying to learn more about what exactly his motives were.     I think more generally it’s -- even without knowing precisely what those motives were, I think there’s no denying the corrosive effect that some of these false reports have had on our political debate.  And that’s concerning in a political context. It’s deeply troubling that some of those false reports could lead to violence.    So, again, it’s unclear if that’s exactly what happened in this situation.  I’ll let local officials speak to that.  But this is something that I think everybody is going to spend some time thinking about, particularly people in this room and the people who represent news organizations in this room.  How people understand what’s happening in the world is important to the functioning of our democracy.  And this is something that I assume the next administration is going to have to spend some time thinking about and working on as well.   Q    Do you think the President-elect or his top advisors need to speak out about this problem, too?  We’ve seen the son of Michael Flynn, the incoming national security advisor, spread some of the rumors about this pizza shop on his Twitter account. So given that, do you think that senior members of the Trump team need to respond?   MR. EARNEST:  I’m not here to issue any specific challenges to the incoming administration on any topic.  I think we all hold a responsibility, regardless of whether or not we are planning to serve in a government position or if one of our family members is planning to serve in a government position, that we shouldn’t be propagating false things that could inspire violence.  I think that’s a -- there’s probably some overlap of the Golden Rule there I think somewhere that may be worth considering.   Q    Just lastly, there was a group of 22 Republican senators who sent a letter to President Obama today asking him to stop issuing any non-emergency rules and regulations in the final weeks of the administration.  Just wondering if the White House has received that letter and if you have any response to it.   MR. EARNEST:  I haven’t seen the letter, but it’s not the first time we’ve been asked about a letter that purports to carry the same kind of message.  And I think I’ll just reiterate something that I think President Obama has said, which is simply that the rulemaking process in the Obama administration continues.  And our goal is not to generate a bunch of new rules in response to the surprising election outcome, but rather to ensure that the rulemaking process that has long been underway is completed effectively and in a timely fashion before President Obama leaves office.  And that’s what we’re focused on doing.   Kevin.   Q    Thanks, Josh.  Any update on the situation in Oakland, California -- devastating fire there?  Is there any federal response to what has happened there?   MR. EARNEST:  Obviously, Kevin, what happened in Oakland is a heartbreaking situation.  Dozens of people who thought they were showing up to a party didn’t go home.  And it raises lots of questions that are still being carefully considered by investigators about building codes and what sort of precautions were put in place to ensure the safety of partygoers.  And obviously, those precautions were woefully insufficient, and it’s a tragedy.     I can tell you that White House officials have been in touch with the mayor’s office to offer our condolences and offer our support to local officials that are bearing a heavy burden.  And this is another situation where you’ve got first responders who put themselves in harm’s way to try to protect the public -- in this case, firefighters and EMTs that used their skill to save lives.  And we’re certainly grateful for that.  But this is a community that’s mourning and it’s obviously a very sad turn of events.   Q    Let me ask you about Gitmo.  I understand there was indeed a transfer.  Can you give us more details about that, and do you expect others this week?   MR. EARNEST:  I'd refer to my colleagues at the Department of Defense for the details.  But there was one Guantanamo Bay detainee that was transferred to Cape Verde.  This is an individual who will be subject to some security requirements that were negotiated in advance by the United States with the local government there to ensure that this individual does not pose an undue threat to our national security.     The population at Gitmo is now down to 59.  And there are still at least a couple dozen of those individuals who are eligible for transfer, and we're continuing to do the diplomatic work of finding an arrangement for those individuals to be safely transferred to another country.   Q    So it's still the President’s intention to continue with the transfers but not necessarily close down the facility -- is that sort of a fait accompli at this point?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, we're continuing to do this important work, and this is work that's rather painstaking in making sure that were carefully reviewing the files, putting the national security interests of the United States first, and doing the important work with countries around the world to try to find a suitable location where these individuals can be transferred.   Our stated goal of closing the prison is still rooted in the ideas that closing the prison would be good for taxpayers because it's prohibitively expensive to continue to run it, and our view is also that continuing to have the prison open only serves to advance the recruiting interests of extremist organizations that do view the continued operation of the prison at Guantanamo Bay as an effective recruitment tool.     And this is not just an observation that was made by the Obama administration.  Senior officials who served in President Bush’s administration said the same thing and have advocated for the closure of the prison for the same reasons.  So this has bipartisan support among national security professionals that this is a prison that should be closed.  And we continue to be strongly opposed to the politically motivated effort by the Congress to prevent and obstruct the successful closure of the prison.   Q    I want to last ask you about the comments you made earlier about what happened in Italy.  You said it would be a mistake, you said, to oversimplify.  But would you at least acknowledge the there is a populist wave that appears to be happening throughout Europe?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, Kevin, I think that's overly stated just because we saw the outcome in Austria --   Q    Would you also acknowledge, given that history in contributing -- one of their citizens being one of the most reviled in all of history might sort of set them separate.  I'm not suggesting that they’re somehow not from that community, the European Community, but I am suggesting is when you see what happened in France, Brexit, now Italy, there seems to be a building populism.   MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, I think what is true is -- and this is true irrespective of the election outcomes -- I think it is true that there are people in Europe who are frustrated that the current state of the economy doesn’t allow them to meet the aspirations that they have set for themselves and their family.  And they are looking for answers.     And the President made the point on a number of occasions that policymakers need to be focused on expanding economic growth and looking for ways to drive that growth, both by investing in the citizens of their country, but also in making investments in local markets to try to spur that economic growth.  That would be good for the global economy but also would be good for the living conditions and the aspirations of the people in their country.   And there's a reaction on the part of some people to give into the temptation to try to withdraw from the international community, the sense that there will be a bigger slice of the pie, so to speak, to enjoy if you build fences around the country and prevent other people from getting access to the pie.  That actually flies in the face of a strategy that's rooted in using our interconnected, integrated world to grow the size of the pie, and give more workers the opportunity to succeed, and ensure that the economic growth and productivity and economic benefits of globalization are not just enjoyed by those at the top but that that prosperity is enjoyed by everybody.     Q    Is that message winning?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, look, I think that this is a fundamental question that is facing leaders all around the world, not just in Europe, and there's a fundamental tension here that needs to be resolved.  And, again, I think this is something that we can say irrespective of election outcomes because I think there's nothing that was on the ballot in Italy that was directly related to the EU or to the prospect of Italy leaving the EU.  But, look, I think these are broader trends that leaders all around the world are going to have to confront.   Ron.   Q    Just quickly on the Oakland fire.  The federal involvement in that was just support, resources?  Is that the extent of it now?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, the role of the federal government is to offer assistance to local officials who are dealing with the situation.  And right now, local officials are engaged in a painstaking effort to comb through the remains of the fire in search of additional people who may have died in the fire, but also in carefully investigating this particular incident.  And I know that some law enforcement officials have locally indicated their intent to consider this from a criminal angle.  I'd refer you to them for the investigation.   Q    That's the part I was wondering about.  Is there federal concern about some of these issues that have been raised about inspections, about the -- that people were living in a place that apparently wasn't a home or a residential environment? Is that part of your -- the federal government's concern and involvement?   MR. EARNEST:  These regulations that relate to building codes and fire codes are something that are administered at the local level.  So I'm not aware of any involvement by the Department of Justice in this matter, but you should check with them to confirm.   Q    And just lastly on the transition.  We're a few weeks into now, and I know you don't want to comment on specific appointments and so on and so forth, but there are a number of issues that have been raised about the President-elect's businesses and conflicts of interests, some appointees have raised some eyebrows -- the national security advisor, counsel to the President, the head of Health and Human Services, for example.  There have been these phone calls with foreign leaders that have raised some issues.  Is the President still satisfied with the way things are going?  And you've said his goal was for a smooth and I think you even used the word successful transition.  Does he still see that happening now, given where we are?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, Ron, I think this is a situation where the President is focused on making sure that this administration is doing everything possible that we can and doing everything that is under our control to facilitate a smooth and effective transition into the next presidency.   Obviously, this administration is not going to be in a position to offer them personnel advice or certainly not advice that would be unsolicited from the podium, or to try to help them craft what sort of policies they want to implement.  If they're interested in the advice of members of the President's transition team, then they certainly know how to seek out that advice, and the President's team stands ready to share it.  But ultimately, what the President and his team are focused on is making sure that we are taking everything that is under our control, and orienting it in the direction of ensuring a smooth and effective transition that will give the incoming President and his team the best opportunity to succeed at uniting and leading the country.  Whether or not the incoming administration is oriented effectively to take advantage of that opportunity is something that you have to ask them about.   Q    Increasingly, though, more is not under your control or the President's control.  Is there some tension, some feeling that he has of his inability to shape events?  And while, again, you're trying to make this effective and facilitate what the incoming administration wants to do, there's obviously these contradictions between what the President would like them to be doing versus what they are doing.  How does he reconcile that?  Is it just that the election has consequences and you just have to -- you can't throw your hand up and walk away?  To what extent is he trying to influence events in terms of policy and so forth for the transition?   MR. EARNEST:  Look, what this President is trying to do is to make sure that his team is oriented in such a way that we can provide all of the cooperation and information that the next President's team requires to get off to a running start.  And President Obama believes that that is in the best interest of the country to do that and that's why we are focused on that direction.   Look, the truth of the matter is that even if Secretary Clinton had won the election, it's still likely that her team would be sending signals about making changes to policies that President Obama kind of liked.  So this is the nature of a democracy and this is the nature of a peaceful transfer of power -- that the person who’s been in office for eight years has to willingly give up power and give up influence and give up authority.   Q    But sometimes that's very difficult to accept.   MR. EARNEST:  Well, look, I think that's -- well, I guess what I would say is that's the reason it doesn’t happen in most places.  Most countries in the world, they don’t have this kind of process, and for most of human history, the process has been bloody and has been a transition by force.  That's the genius of our system.  And it does require the person who's currently sitting in that office to put the interest of the country ahead of its own political preferences.  That's absolutely true.  But that is a responsibility that President Obama has embraced, and the country is better off for it.   Maggie.   Q    You've announced that Prime Minister Abe will be visiting Pearl Harbor as the first Japanese Prime Minister to do so.  This is right after President Obama went to Hiroshima as the first sitting U.S. President to do so since the bombing.  Why are these historic visits happening now?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, obviously the decision by Prime Minister Abe to travel to Pearl Harbor is a decision that he made, and he issued a statement today indicating that is he hopeful that his visit will be an indication of how adversaries have an opportunity to reconcile their differences and pursue a peaceful future together as allies.  That's certainly what happened between the United States and Japan.  And there are Presidents in both parties that have sought to advance those shared goals, and certainly Japanese prime ministers in a variety of parties that have sought to advance those shared goals.  I know that Prime Minister Abe also indicated his desire to travel to Pearl Harbor as a show of respect for those who died on that day.     So, look, President Obama visited Hiroshima earlier this year.  It was a powerful image seeing the American President and the Japanese Prime Minister standing side by side in that city.  And I would expect that seeing the Japanese Prime Minister and the American President standing side by side in Pearl Harbor, at the memorial of the USS Arizona, just a couple of weeks after the 75th anniversary of that attack I think will be similarly powerful.  And I think it is just one more occasion for us to remember the substantial sacrifice and the remarkable patriotism of the greatest generation of Americans.     President Obama's grandfather played an important role in World War II in terms of signing up to fight for his country, and remembering that Greatest Generation of Americans, his grandfather is obviously at the forefront of his mind.  But millions of Americans, I think, certainly can spend some time this week remembering the remarkable contribution and the remarkable sacrifice that millions of Americans made to ensure that the United States emerge victorious from World War II.   Q    When President Obama visited Hiroshima, was this visit by the Prime Minister already in the works?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, there had always been a number of conversations between the U.S. President and the Prime Minister of Japan about the symbolic value of an American presidential visit to Hiroshima.  And I know there had been discussions previously about the Japanese Prime Minister visiting Pearl Harbor, as well.  I think if the two were directly linked, they probably would have been announced simultaneously, but they were not.  But, look, there have always been discussions about these important symbolic gestures, and there's no downplaying the significance of the Japanese Prime Minister's decision to visit Pearl Harbor just three weeks after the 75th anniversary of the attacks there.   Sarah.   Q    Thanks, Josh.  A couple of questions related to the transition and the President's stated commitment to it.  First, there have been some Democratic senators on the Hill who have talked about seeing what happened to Chief Judge Garland, to now Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and saying that maybe they should kind of not really rush on President-elect Trump's nominees.  The President knows how important it is to have people in his Cabinet when he's getting up and running.  How does he feel about the idea of slow-walking Trump's nominees?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, look, there is the stated fact about the way that Chairman Grassley handled his business over the course of the last year, or couple of years.  Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the first African American woman to serve as the Attorney General of the United States, waited longer than her six or seven predecessors combined to be confirmed into that job.  Why Republicans imposed that kind of delay on her candidacy and her nomination I think is something that only they can explain.     With regard to Chief Judge Garland, he has waited more than 200 days for action in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we’ve heard from Chairman Grassley a blanket refusal to even consider his nomination despite the fact he’s got more experience on the federal bench than any other Supreme Court nominee in American history, despite the fact that Republicans acknowledge that he represents a consensus pick, and despite the fact that he is somebody who has served his country bravely, including investigating and prosecuting the perpetrators of one of the worst terrorist attacks on American soil.   But when President-elect Trump signals his intent to nominate an attorney general, Chairman Grassley kicks the squeaky wheels of the Senate judiciary conformation process into motion. And I do think it reflects an unprecedented injection of partisanship into what had previously been a committee that went to some length to try to prevent partisan politics from infecting the process.     But under the purview of Chairman Grassley, it’s clear that the process hasn’t just been infected but they’ve got a full-blown fever of partisanship.  But when you are the Republican chair of the committee presiding over a partisan committee and considering the nominees of the Republican President, I guess it’s smooth sailing.  We’ll see.   Q    So he doesn’t have advice or a sort of principled suggestion to Democrats about how they should handle --   MR. EARNEST:  Look, I think individual Senate Democrats are going to have to decide on their own.  But I do feel confident that they’ll consider the merits of the nominees that are handed down, but how they want to respond to that is something that will be ultimately left to them.   Q    And a question that I want to distance from Ron’s a little bit, but it’s sort of along a similar line.  You’ve talked about how -- and the President has talked about how important it is to have a smooth transition and how it’s kind of his last big priority to really make sure that his staff is doing everything that they can to help the incoming Trump team.  Is that incoming Trump team taking advantage of all that cooperation and information that -- and you used the word -- that the incoming President requires to have a successful start?   MR. EARNEST:  Listen, I’ll refer you to the President-elect to assess how well his transition team is performing.  I’m not going to hand out grades from here.  What I can tell you is that the President’s team is focused on making sure we’re doing everything we can to facilitate a smooth and effective transition.  But ultimately, how well the President-elect is served by his team is something that he’ll have to assess.   Q    And so you or President Obama will not be issuing any sort of opinion or pulling back the curtain at all about how the process is actually going.   MR. EARNEST:  Look, I think that there are a number of ways in which we’ve tried to characterize exactly how the process is going, but I certainly wouldn’t want me handing out a grade, if you will, to affect the ability of people to do their jobs.  Ultimately, if I stand up here and sort of offer up a new assessment where, in my view, they may or may not have fallen short, that may not lend itself to the kind of cordial, professional, collegial relationships that will contribute to the most effective transition.   So this is just one of those situations that crops up all too frequently when I’m standing at this podium at least, where discretion is the better part of valor, I guess, a little bit here.   Gardiner.   Q    Josh, this administration has made a huge priority out of responding to online threats from jihadists.  You have a whole set of people at the State Department; you have them at the Pentagon; you’ve got people who have gone after those who posted these messages and killed them in the Middle East.  The administration has gone to Silicon Valley and had conversations with Twitter and social medial companies about making sure they crack down on these jihadi threats.  You had an entire set of businesses up here on Connecticut Avenue for months getting direct death threats, and they said that nothing was done about them.  Is it only a priority if these are jihadi threats?  And is it not a priority for this administration if businesses and normal people are getting death threats and being terrorized for months with no action on the part of this administration?  Help me understand the difference there.   MR. EARNEST:  Well, Gardiner, I would strongly disagree with the assessment that somehow the administration had not done anything to respond to this situation, particularly when it comes to violent threats.  I’ll refer you to my colleagues at the Department of Justice and the FBI for the role that they may have played in investigating those threats.     I'd also refer you to the Metropolitan Police Department here in Washington for a discussion of any work that they may have done to ensure that the D.C. residents who were patronizing those establishments were able to do so safely.   Q    Did you know the FBI investigated this and went after the people who had given those threats over the course of these many months, despite the fact that the business owners themselves say nothing has been done?   MR. EARNEST:  I can't speak about any sort of criminal investigations.  I do know that it is a matter of standard practice that if people are threatened with violence, that that raises significant legal questions, and legal questions that must be checked out.  And whether that is local law enforcement or federal law enforcement, that's something that they have to work out among themselves.   Obviously there's a joint terrorism taskforce that in some cases can pool resources to ensure that those investigations are conducted using the best practices that are maintained by individual agencies.  But the safety and security of the public is the President's highest priority, and that's true when it comes to administering our national security policy around the globe, but it's also true when we're fighting crime here in the United States.  And the administration has a quite strong record that we're proud of in terms of the impact of some of our crime-fighting policies and our investments in local law enforcement agencies on the overall crime rate.   But yes, I would quibble with the notion that somehow -- in fact, I wouldn't just quibble; I would strongly disagree with the notion that the administration had done nothing in the face of these threats.   Q    I think everyone in this room has gotten threatening emails and threatening things on social media and the rest.  Again, the administration specifically went to Silicon Valley, had these meetings to talk about what these companies were doing about their response to threats from abroad.  I guess what I'm asking -- I've never heard you talk about what the administration is doing, even not just on a law enforcement basis but a policy basis, reaching out to these Silicon Valley companies.  I mean, the President has recently been discussing the problem of fake news on Facebook.  Why hasn't there been a concern -- a growing concern on the part of the administration about what seems to be a growing amount of vitriol directed at a variety of people, sometimes violent vitriol, within the United States?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, Gardiner, I think over the course -- over the last year or two, you've heard the President I think speak quite bluntly about the rhetoric that was being used in the context of this political campaign, and the impact that that could have on the broader political debate and the climate -- political climate in the country.  So I do think this is something that we have talked about, and it's something that the President is concerned that that kind of harsh, sometimes violent, rhetoric obscures legitimate policy debates that we should be having in this country.   So with regard to the role of Silicon Valley and some of these technology companies and the role that they can play in policing the standards for people who use their platform, I know that's something that they've had a broad internal debate about, as well.    Obviously, there are some important First Amendment issues that come into play when we're having this discussion.  Those First Amendment issues aren't prioritized in the same way when we're talking about overseas terrorist organizations that don't enjoy the same kinds of protections that American citizens do.     But the same observation that I made about these technology companies with regard to the use by terrorists of these platforms also applies to some of the harsh rhetoric that we've seen.  And it's simply this:  That many of the entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley didn't develop this technology to make it easier for hate to be propagated online.  Their idea was to build a community where people could more effectively communicate and engage in commerce.     So they've got their own built-in interest in protecting the First Amendment rights of their users while also creating a community and a platform that people actually want to use.  And yes, if you do administer a platform that is used extensively to propagate hate and to inspire acts of violence, well, I think most people are going to be less likely to use the platform.     So this is the kind of balance that these technology companies are going to have to strike, and it’s something that I know that they’ve been grappling with for some time.  In some cases, I know that they’ve been doing it even outside the context of politics.   Q    Do you think the market just will have to police itself on that then?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, look, I don’t think it necessarily has to be -- I think there is a -- given the First Amendment questions that are raised, the role for the government to play in all of this is going to be necessarily limited by that.  But I don’t think it eliminates the possibility that the U.S. government could contribute to a productive, fruitful conversation about the effective administration of these online platforms to ensure that people’s lives aren’t at risk.   Q    What will happen to the Aleppo insurgents who don’t leave?  Russia says they will be regarded as terrorists and risk death.  Can you help with that?  These are obviously, in many cases, people who have been supported by the United States.   MR. EARNEST:  Well, what I can say about this is that we know that it has been the strategy of the Syrian government, backed by the Russians and the Iranians, to bomb innocent civilians into submission.  And the focal point of much of that bombing campaign has been eastern Aleppo.   It’s a bloody tactic.  It’s disgraceful.  And it’s heartbreaking because of the scale of innocent lives lost.  It’s why the United States has been working so tenaciously through diplomatic channels to try to bring the bombing campaign and the violence to an end, or at least reduce it enough that innocent people can get out of harm’s way and humanitarian assistance can be consistently provided.     But there hasn’t been a willingness on the part of either the Syrians, the Russians or the Iranians to engage in that process particularly constructively, and at least in a way that would yield a sustainable outcome.  Hopefully, that will change.  Hopefully, there’s more progress that we can make.  And hopefully the Russians will show some renewed interest in this.  And we would welcome that change.  But far too many lives have been lost and, yes, it’s true that even more are at risk because of the deplorable tactics that are used regularly by the Syrians with the support of the Russians and Iranians.   Q    Josh, when the Prime Minister from Japan comes to the Pearl Harbor Memorial -- one of the reasons this hasn’t happened for so long is the Japanese don’t feel that they have anything to apologize for generally.  They feel that the attack grew out of the oil embargo and all this.  So how are veterans’ groups going to react with Abe showing up and just sort of bowing but no apology?  Is there not going to be an apology?  And how do you think that’s going to play in the United States?  Because from the United States’ point of view, of course, the Pearl Harbor attack was completely unjustified and a total surprise, and an act of total violence and war that was, from our perspective -- there is no justification for it whatsoever.    So, I mean, this was obviously a problem when the President went to Hiroshima -- there were people in Japan who believed the United States shouldn’t have dropped the atomic weapon; we don’t feel that way.  So how is this going to play out?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, I don’t want to prejudge at this point what Prime Minister Abe may choose to say when he visits Pearl Harbor.  I think that most Americans would warmly receive the sentiment that he expressed in his statement earlier today.  He indicated that he will visit Pearl Harbor, together with President Obama, to “mourn the souls of the victims.”  He continued saying, “I would like to express my resolve toward the future that the tragedy of wars should never be repeated again.  At the same time, I’m hoping to make it an opportunity to send out a message about the value of reconciliation between Japan and the United States.”   So again, I think the kind of sentiment that’s being expressed by the Prime Minister of Japan is one that would be warmly received by most Americans.  But, obviously, the benefits of a visit like this is it displays the kind of opportunity that lies for America’s future, that lies ahead.     Not long ago, within the lifetime of many Americans, the United States and Japan were at war.  And hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our citizens were killed in that war.  And 70 years later, the United States and Japan actually have formed an alliance that has benefitted both our countries and our national security and our economy.  And I think this visit further underscores the benefits of pursuing peace and reconciliation.   Q    But you don’t think people are going to sort of see the guy coming from a country that caused the deaths to occur saying simply, well, we’ll mourn the deaths but I’m not going to say that I even feel bad about causing the deaths?   MR. EARNEST:  Listen, I can’t speak for every single American and how they will respond to or react to this particular situation.  If I were a World War II veteran who was drafted by the United States military to go and fight for our country overseas in the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack, I might feel quite embittered.  And I think it would be a perfectly natural and understandable human reaction to not be particularly satisfied with the words of the Japanese Prime Minister.   But I think the thing that we know about the Greatest Generation of Americans is they’re anything -- well, let me say it this way.  This Greatest Generation of Americans, I think we take a risk if we underestimate their patriotism and their capacity to set aside their own personal interests and prioritize the ambition and opportunity of the American people.     And so, yes, there may be some who feel personally embittered.  But I’m confident that many will set aside their own personal bitterness, not because they’re personally satisfied by the words of the Prime Minister, but because they recognize how important this moment is for the United States.  And that’s certainly why they qualify to be described as the greatest generation.   Jared.   Q    Josh, earlier you said that some of the calls by the President-elect could potentially undermine some of the progress that’s been made with the relationship with China.  You’ve also said and the President has said that we’re in a situation where we have one President at a time.  Do any of the calls or any of the other actions that have been taken at this point by the President-elect nibble around the edges or even take a big bite out of this concept of "one President at a time"?   MR. EARNEST:  Listen, I did not participate in any of the phone calls that the President-elect has made over the last several weeks.   Q    But you’re aware of the reaction to them.   MR. EARNEST:  Yeah, I’m aware of the reaction to them but I’m not aware of what he said in them, so that’s why it’s hard for me to assess whether or not this would erode a principle that the President-elect and his team have strongly supported, which is the idea that there’s one President at a time.     Q    When we’re talking about the President-elect still in his capacity as a private citizen, does anything that he’s done approach a violation of the Logan Act, any prohibition against someone who’s not in an elected office making arrangements on behalf of the state or government of the United States?   MR. EARNEST:  I’m not aware of the finer points of the Logan Act, so there may be somebody else that you consult on that one.   Q    Senator Cruz has said that he would rather the President-elect talk to Taiwan than talk to Cuba or Iran.  What do you make of that statement?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, I guess the first thing I would point out is that there are any number of American officials who are in touch with Taiwanese authorities on a regular basis.     Q    He was talking about the implications of these unprecedented calls or thawing relationships that are long frozen.   MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, the relationship between the United States and Taiwan is an unofficial one, but it's not frozen.  After all, Taiwan is the ninth largest trading partner with the United States.   Mark.   Q    Josh, are you saying that, in the White House view, the President-elect's phone call the Taiwan President or the phone call that he had with the Taiwanese President is a breach of the Shanghai Communiqué in and of itself?      MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I think what is clear -- I think this is just an objective fact -- for the last 40 or so years, there hasn't been another phone call between the President of the United States or a President-elect of the United States and President Tsai or one of her predecessors.  So that's just a fact.     What this administration has pursued very carefully is a one-China policy that promotes peace and stability in the strait.  And that's served the United States well.  It served our ability to work effectively with Chinese authorities, and it's also served our ability to work effectively with Taiwanese authorities.  But if President-elect Trump and his team have a different goal in mind or a different strategy in mind, I'll leave it to them to articulate what those goals might be and what strategy they intend to pursue to achieve them.   Q    Would the administration like a clarification of what their goals are?   MR. EARNEST:  I'm not -- look, I'll leave it to the President-elect and his team to communicate what they would like about his strategy or the policy that they intend to pursue.  I think what I can do is do my best to describe to you the strategy that we have pursued and the significant benefits that have been enjoyed by the United States and the American people as a result of that strategy.   If he's got a different strategy that he intends to pursue in pursuit of some different goals and some different benefits, then I'll leave it to him to articulate that.  Thus far, I think it's kind of hard to see exactly what that would be when you consider that the reaction from the Chinese has been to ramp up or ratchet up their rhetoric that is aimed at Taiwan.  I'm not sure how that benefits the United States, and I'm not sure how that benefits the United States relationship with Taiwan.  I'm not sure how that benefits the Taiwanese people.  I'm not sure how that benefits the U.S. relationship with China.  But I'll leave it to the President-elect and his team to offer up those explanations.   Q    And on the Pearl Harbor visit, is it your understanding that both leaders will be making speeches at that visit?   MR. EARNEST:  Well, when President Obama visited Hiroshima, both leaders had an opportunity to make statements, but I think they stopped short of something that could be described as a speech.  And I think in this setting, I would expect that you'll have an opportunity to hear from both leaders at the memorial site.   Q    You said it was Prime Minister Abe's decision to come, but clearly it was coordinated with the White House, correct?   MR. EARNEST:  Yes, it was.  There were discussions.  In fact, President Obama and Prime Minister Abe had an opportunity to discuss the potential of this visit when they spoke in Lima, at the APEC Summit just a few weeks ago.   Bill Press.   Q    Josh, does the President have a candidate for the next head of the Democratic National Committee?   MR. EARNEST:  The President has not endorsed any of the candidates for DNC Chair, and I don’t anticipate that he will.   Q    So would you say then that of the three candidates remaining -- Jamie Harrison, or Ray Buckley, or Congressman Keith Ellison -- that the President would be happy with any one of the three as the next DNC Chair?   MR. EARNEST:  I don’t anticipate that the President is going to weigh in particularly aggressively in support or against any of the candidates.   Q    Well, that leads to my third question, which is, if the President has said that he recognizes that the Democratic Party needs a lot of work to get back on top and start winning, particularly at the state legislative level and governors races because of reinforcement -- so if the President really intends, and he says he's going to focus on that in his post-presidency, he's going to focus on that, wouldn’t he have an opinion about the person that he's going to be working with as head of the DNC?  Or wouldn’t we expect him to?   MR. EARNEST:  He may.  He just may not choose to express it.   Cheryl, I'll give you the last one.   Q    Okay, thanks.  Just quick on the CR that expires Friday --   MR. EARNEST:  Yeah.   Q    -- have you heard from Capitol Hill?  Are they going to have one --   MR. EARNEST:  Still haven’t seen the bill, have we?   Q    Haven't seen the bill yet.  Okay.   MR. EARNEST:  No, we haven’t.  Look, I know there have been a number of discussions, including over the weekend, between officials on Capitol Hill and some officials at the White House.  But this is a basic governing responsibility.  Republicans have the strong majority in both the House and the Senate.  They've already put off passing a budget once, back when the first deadline arose two and a half months ago.  But, look, they've got a deadline to meet on December 9th, and hopefully they'll meet it.   Q    Do you see this going into next week, maybe just a two- or three-day CR? MR. EARNEST:  I wouldn’t hazard a guess about what the outcome looks like at this point.  But like I said, the original deadline was September 30th.  We're now in the first week in December.  So hopefully Congress will get its act together, and the Republicans who lead both chambers of Congress will fulfill the most basic responsibility that Congress has, which is to pass a budget and ensure the government doesn’t shut down.   Thanks, everybody.  Have a good rest of the day.   END  2:41 P.M. EST

06 декабря, 02:39

How Trump Can Avoid His Predecessors’ Iran Mistakes

When he assumes office in January, Donald Trump will inherit a host of foreign policy problems in the Middle East—from civil wars to terrorist insurgencies. But of all the antagonists in the region that he will have to deal with, Iran, an unpredictable foe with its flag planted in Arab capitals from Beirut to Baghdad, is the most consequential. For Trump, a successful foreign policy in the Middle East will hinge on a successful Iran policy.As the new Trump administration contemplates just what form this policy will take, there are important lessons it can learn from all of its predecessors. Since the advent of the Islamic Republic in 1979, successive administrations—both Republican and Democrat—have wrestled with the theocratic regime, often making the same assumptions and often the same mistakes. To avoid this trap, the new team should absorb the right lessons from this tortured history.The first lesson is that Iran should be treated as a unitary nation-state and not a collection of hard-liners and moderates that American policy can manipulate to its advantage. The entire notion of Iranian factionalism must be reconsidered in the aftermath of the 2009 revolt, when the theocratic state purged the reformers from its midst. It is too facile to suggest that Iran has arrived at the age of internal consensus, but the rivalries that once divided the clerical state are less urgent and less acute today. On core issues of regional hegemony and consolidation of clerical autocracy, the Islamic Republic has arrived at an agreement as both Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani share the same objectives, even though their tactics may at times differ.Furthermore, even if Iran did still face the same internal divisions it once did, factionalism should never be used as a justification for absolving the Islamic Republic of responsibility for its crimes. The Carter administration was averse to taking forceful measures against Iran when it held American diplomats as hostages in 1979 for the fear of undermining the so-called moderates. The Reagan team’s entire justification for its arms-for-hostages deal was to empower the moderate Iranians that it thought were poised to assume power after the founder of the state, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, died. And no president has been more concerned about shifting Iranian politics in a pragmatic direction than Obama. By conceding to a deficient arms control agreement and lifting sanctions, Obama hoped to help Rouhani consolidate his power. Rouhani did—and the Islamic Republic has gone on to wreak havoc in Syria, Iraq, destabilize the Persian Gulf and engage in a massive repression of its citizens. All countries, including the United States, suffer from factionalism, yet Iran is the only one that has cleverly used impressions of internal rivalry to seduce and mislead gullible Westerners.The second important lesson is that Iran is susceptible to a threat of force. During the hostage crisis when there was much talk in Tehran about putting the American diplomats on trial, Carter secretly warned Iran of possible retaliation if it proceeded with such steps. All talk of trials soon ceased. And it was the Carter officials themselves that were trying to induce Iran into ending the hostage crisis by intimating that should Ronald Reagan be elected he may approach the issue entirely differently—and more aggressively. The use of the “Reagan card” by the Carter White House was instrumental in ending the crisis. In dealing with clerical oligarchs, threats succeed, blandishments don’t.The George W. Bush administration provides a good case study in what works and what does not. America’s momentary military triumph in displacing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein unsettled the clerical regime, and Iran quickly suspended its nuclear program in 2003. Bush’s forceful denunciation of states that sponsor terrorism and pursue weapons of mass destruction was well-noted in Tehran. And yet, the administration soon fell into the quagmire of negotiations. By 2005, America set aside its forceful posture and sought to engage Iran in stabilizing Iraq and settling the nuclear issue. An Islamic Republic at ease with its revived fortunes responded by accelerating its nuclear activities and lacerating American forces in Iraq with its lethal Shia militias. The next lesson to remember is that the Islamic Republic is not interested in normalizing relations with the United States. For the past four decades, American presidents have hoped that offers of dialogue and the possibility of resumed relations would entice Iran into moderation. Carter wanted to settle the hostage crisis in a manner that did not foreclose the possibility of reestablishing relations with Iran. Reagan’s envoy Robert McFarlane arrived in Tehran in 1985 hoping to discuss ways of improving relations. Obama has often spoken of putting the contentious history of the two nations behind and moving to a better future with Iran. The point that many White Houses have missed is that the Islamic Republic is a revolutionary state whose entire identity is invested in its hostility toward the West. For the clerical rulers, resumed relations with America is itself an existential threat.So what does all this mean for Donald Trump? The Trump administration would be wise to craft an actual Iran policy and not just a series of arms control proposals like those that obsessed its two predecessors. The essence of such a policy would be to weaken Iran as opposed to seeking ways of empowering its so-called moderate factions. In today’s Islamic Republic, there are no pragmatists waiting to mend fences with Washington. Rather, the centerpiece of this policy would be to stress Iran’s economy while isolating it in the region. The United States should once more impose crippling sanctions on Iran and isolate it from the global economy. In the meantime, by working with Arab allies and Israel, Washington can push back on Iran in the Middle East. Given its hawkish posture, the Trump team can credibly invoke the threat of force to coerce concessions out of Iran. Despite the chorus warning the new administration that it cannot possibly revise any aspect of the arms control agreement signed by Obama, Trump has a real chance of scaring the mullahs back to the negotiating table and getting a deal that dispenses with problematic aspects of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action such as its sunset clauses and lenient research and development provisions. Trump and his advisers should also note that Tehran will assess their intentions not just by what they say but how they behave elsewhere in the Middle East. Should the new administration neglect America’s Arab allies and denigrate Israel as the Obama White House often did, then the clerical rulers will sense that they have more room to maneuver.To paraphrase Dean Acheson on the Soviet Union, the Islamic Republic should be thought of as an old-fashion penny slot machine—we may get something out of it by shaking it but there is no point of talking nicely to it.

06 декабря, 02:25

China hawks rally to Trump

Trump's precedent-breaking call with Taiwan's president buoyed conservatives eager for a harder line on China.

06 декабря, 02:10

HUFFPOST HILL - HUD Secretary Ben Carson, Handing Out Slips Of Paper That Just Say "zillow"

Like what you read below? Sign up for HUFFPOST HILL and get a cheeky dose of political news every evening!  We look forward to Ben Carson’s tenure as HUD secretary and all the times he’ll accost people living in boxes and tell them that “if you give a man a fish…” Mitch McConnell may attach Jim Mattis’ civilian/military waiver to the NDAA, but no one is taking our suggestion to call it the Rubicon Rider. And a fake news story about Comet Ping Pong got real scary this weekend when an armed wingnut entered the pizza place. Presumably he missed that AllNewsSoTrue.us item about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion being written on the patio of 2Amys. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Monday, December 5th,  THE LATEST FROM TRUMP’S SECRETARY OF STATE PAGEANT - Major Garrett: “The ‘serious’ names on the list remain former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 2012 GOP nominee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus (ret.). Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, is in the mix, too, but he’s on the outer edges of intense consideration. But even that list is subject to alterations. The most interesting development in the State merry-go-round is the re-emergence of former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. Sources close to the transition tell me Bolton – initially boxed out of consideration – has moved back into contention due to his foreign policy experience, his pro-Trump advocacy during the campaign and his sharp-elbows approach to diplomacy. Bolton has always had supporters on the transition team and up-and-downs that have befallen Giuliani, Romney and Petraeus have given him new life and a possible opening, the sources said.” [CBS News] LOL BEN CARSON - We can’t wait for his confirmation hearing, and his prepared statement which will surely just be a framed inspirational poster that he’ll hold up and read from. Alana Horowitz Satlin: “President-elect Donald Trump is nominating Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who has never held public office, as his secretary of housing and urban development. In a statement released Monday, Trump called Carson a ‘distinguished national leader’ with a ‘brilliant mind.’ … As HUD chief, Carson would be tasked with setting housing policies for the Trump administration, including access to affordable housing and community development. Carson’s comments on certain anti-discrimination policies ― he has called one plan a ‘mandated social-engineering scheme’ ― are likely to worry some fair housing advocates’” [HuffPost] Rep. Ted Lieu’s statement on Carson: “Remember the famous commercial where a man is flying a helicopter and reveals he’s not a pilot but he did ‘stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night’? Trump’s nomination of Dr. Ben Carson to lead HUD reminds me of that commercial. Do you have any experience running a large federal agency or knowledge of housing and urban development?’ ‘No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.’” [HuffPost’s Jennifer Bendery] Like HuffPost Hill? Then order Eliot’s new book, The Beltway Bible: A Totally Serious A-Z Guide To Our No-Good, Corrupt, Incompetent, Terrible, Depressing, and Sometimes Hilarious Government Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It’s free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to [email protected] Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill HISTORY’S BRUNCHIEST COUPLE FIND THEIR NATURAL HOME - Then there’s also all that deep conflict of interest stuff. David Wright: “Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, are house hunting in Washington as they look to move from New York City to D.C., CNN has learned. The couple’s planned move with their three children reflects the expectation that Kushner will serve as an adviser to President-elect Donald Trump in some capacity, though the precise role ― potentially complicated by nepotism laws ― remains to be seen…. [T]he president-elect has signaled that he may look to put his adult children in charge of managing his sprawling business empire while he serves as president. Trump is planning a December 15 news conference to provide details about his plan for his businesses. Still, such a plan ― which the Trump team has portrayed as a ‘blind trust’ ― would do little to preclude conflicts of interest from arising, since Trump insists he will maintain close contact with his kids while they manage the family’s international network of business interests, even as he steers US foreign policy.” [CNN] From Jason O. Gilbert in McSweeney’s: “Why I’m Leaving My Job At The Illuminati And Joining The Trump Administration.” SNEAKY, SNEAKY, SNEAKY - Kelsey Snell, Karoun Demirjian and Ed O’Keefe: “Republican leaders in the House and Senate are considering adding a measure to the upcoming year-end spending bill that would make it easier for retired Gen. James Mattis to be confirmed next year as Donald Trump’s secretary of defense. Mattis needs an act of Congress to make him eligible to lead the Pentagon because under the law the defense secretary has to be a civilian for at least seven years before taking office…. The measure currently under consideration would allow Republicans to potentially avoid a showdown with Democrats when Mattis’s nomination comes up for a vote next year, according to several senior House and Senate aides, by essentially dispensing with the waiver issue this month. No final decisions have been made, but on Monday, lawmakers floated adding the measure to the spending bill, the aides said. The waiver being considered would only apply to Mattis and would not change the overall law.” [WashPost] MCCARTHY THROWS WATER ON TRUMP’S TARIFF TALK - This is really going to hurt his chances of nabbing a selfie with Scott Baio. Matt Fuller: “If President-elect Donald Trump thinks he’s going to impose a 35 percent tariff on companies importing goods, he might want to check with Republicans in Congress. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested Monday that Republicans would not be in favor of imposing the 35 percent tariff on foreign goods that Trump proposed Sunday in a series of tweets…. ‘I don’t want to get into some sort of trade war,’ McCarthy said, still downplaying the policy differences between Trump and congressional Republicans…. [T]he majority leader said Republicans were intent on overhauling the corporate tax code so that businesses would stay in the United States. ‘That’s the best way to solve this problem,’ McCarthy said. But he also made it clear that he doesn’t believe high tariffs are the best way to keep or create jobs in the United States. ‘I think history has taught us that trade wars are not healthy,’ he said.” [HuffPost] @mkraju: No Dems and just three Republicans on the Senate floor listening to David Vitter’s farewell address MICHAEL FLYNN HAS BATS IN THE BELFRY - Only a matter of time before this loon convinces Trump to bomb, like, Costa Rica because he misread something on InfoNewsReport.xu. Matthew Rosenberg: “Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice for national security adviser, has a well-established penchant for pushing conspiracy theories about Islamic law spreading in the West and the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Less well noticed was his willingness throughout the presidential campaign to indulge in conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton. Six days before the election, Mr. Flynn, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, tweeted a fake news story that claimed the police and prosecutors in New York had found evidence linking Mrs. Clinton and much of her senior campaign staff to pedophilia, money laundering, perjury and other felonies. ‘U decide,’ Mr. Flynn wrote in the Twitter message on Nov. 2, though it appeared there was little doubt what he thought.” [NYT]  Flynn’s son ― who works on Trump’s transition team ― is no better. TRUMP SUPPORTERS’ HANDS FIRMLY CUPPED AROUND EARS - Can someone please record James Earl Jones saying, “This... Is NewsForYou.biz” Ariel Edwards-Levy: “More than four in 10 Americans, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov survey, agree with Trump that he’s faced unduly negative coverage. A similar percentage, though, say Trump’s behavior toward the media has been unacceptable as well. A 41 percent plurality of Americans think media coverage of Trump has been generally too negative, with 17 percent saying it’s been too positive and 23 percent that it’s been about right. But many are also uncomfortable with the way Trump has interacted with the press. Forty-three percent say the way Trump treats journalists is unacceptable, while just 33 percent think he treats them in an acceptable way…. A 56 percent majority of Trump voters say that if a national media outlet reported that Trump said something untrue, they would be more inclined to believe him than the news outlet. Just 2 percent say they’d believe the media, with another 38 percent saying it depends on what the story is.” [HuffPost] RYAN: OBAMACARE REPEAL IS VITAL AND ALSO SOMEHOW WON’T CHANGE ANYTHING - Straight making up things worked so well for Trump, Ryan’s decided to test it out. Craig Gilbert: “House Speaker Paul Ryan said Monday he envisions an extended transition from Obamacare that ensures ‘no one is worse off’ after Congress votes to repeal the program…. Ryan said there will be an early repeal vote next year, but after that, ‘clearly there will be a transition and a bridge so that no one is left out in the cold, so that no one is worse off. The purpose here is to bring relief to people who are suffering from Obamacare so that they can get something better.’ Some Republicans have suggested it would take years to perform the complex process of phasing out and replacing the health care law. Critics and some analysts have predicted that a GOP strategy of quickly voting to repeal the program but delaying its effective end date would create chaos and disruption for the people currently in it.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel] House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is spouting the same nonsense, so get used to hearing it and seeing liberals go apoplectic. THE NORTH CAROLINA GUBERNATORIAL RACE IS OVER AT LAST - Rest easy, Al Franken and Norm Coleman: Your 2008 recount remains the most insufferably lengthy one of all time. Julia Craven: “North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) finally conceded the state’s gubernatorial race to state Attorney General Roy Cooper (D) on Monday…. McCrory, who is the first sitting governor to lose re-election in North Carolina, has been fighting to remain in the state’s highest office since election night. Cooper declared victory over McCrory on Nov. 9 following a tight race. But McCrory refused to concede, saying the race was too close to call with Cooper up by slightly more than 4,300 votes.” [HuffPost] GORE MEETS TRUMP - An historic summit between the man who invented the internet and the man who ruined it. Igor Bobic: “President-elect Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump met with former Vice President Al Gore on Monday to discuss ‘climate issues,’ the Trump transition team said. The transition team initially announced that Gore was to meet only with Ivanka Trump at Trump Tower in Manhattan. After the meeting, Gore disclosed he had also met with the president-elect, describing the conversation as ‘very productive’ and a ‘sincere search for areas of common ground.’ ‘I had a meeting beforehand with Ivanka Trump,’ Gore said, according to a transition pool report. ‘The bulk of the time was with the president-elect, Donald Trump. I found it an extremely interesting conversation, and to be continued, and I’m just going to leave it at that.’” [HuffPost]  PLAN AFOOT TO INSTALL PEOPLE’S’ CHOICE JOHN KASICH AS PRESIDENT - Hillary Clinton just can’t get into the White House no matter how crazy things become. Kyle Cheney and Gabriel DeBenedetti: “Advocates of the long-shot bid to turn the Electoral College against Donald Trump have been in contact with close allies of Hillary Clinton, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions, but the Clinton camp — and Clinton herself — have declined to weigh in on the merits of the plan…. The Democratic electors have already revealed that they’re close to a consensus pick for whom they will vote: Ohio Gov. John Kasich.” [Politico] NATIONAL ANTHEM TO BE REPLACED BY NONSTOP COUGHING FITS - Evan Halper: “When an obscure nonprofit group attacked one of California’s signature green-energy projects this summer — warning a congressional panel that the embrace of solar energy would lead to crippling hikes in electricity bills — officials in the state shrugged off the testimony as noise from the fringe. With Donald Trump’s election, however, that group, the Institute for Energy Research, has moved suddenly from the fringe to the center of power. The president-elect has sent the group’s president, a former Koch Industries lobbyist named Thomas Pyle, to the Energy Department to take charge of its transition. For years, Pyle has led a coordinated national assault on renewable power. His groups and others that belong to the sprawling network bankrolled by Charles and David Koch, whose vast fortune stems originally from oil refining, pressure lawmakers to roll back policies that promote green power. The Koch network gave Pyle’s groups $3 million in 2015.” [LA Times] BECAUSE YOU’VE READ THIS FAR - Here’s a dog being lulled to sleep with a song. 27 WAYS YOUR SOVEREIGN FUND SHOULD TOTALLY CONSIDER MORE HIGH-YIELD FIXED-INCOME INSTRUMENTS - BRB selling Comfort Food to Bridgewater Associates. Sarah Krouse: “BlackRock Inc. has hired a new global chief marketing officer from digital media company BuzzFeed as the world’s largest money manager works to bolster its business from individual investors. Frank Cooper, who spent the last 18 months as chief marketing officer and chief creative officer at BuzzFeed, plans to join the New York asset manager in January, according to an internal memo seen by The Wall Street Journal.” [WSJ] COMFORT FOOD - Scenes from the artistic bicycle championship. - A supercut of Chance the Rapper’s favorite noises. - A dramatic enacting of “Bohemian Rhapsody.” TWITTERAMA @NYTMinusContext: Set your meetings, phone calls and emails aside, at least for the next several minutes. That’s because today you’re a bee  @arthurdelaneyhp: Just wait till people find out Donald Trump is a birther who says vaccines cause autism. @timothypmurphy: The president-elect literally said that President Obama’s real name was “Barry Soweto.” Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson ([email protected]) -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

06 декабря, 01:39

Texas elector says he won't vote for Trump

Christopher Suprun would become the first “faithless elector” since 2004.

05 декабря, 23:47

Gen. John Kelly seen as leading contender for DHS

The retired Marine Corps general would play a central role in the promise to build a wall along U.S.-Mexico border.

05 декабря, 23:27

An Easy Way to Avoid Foreign-Policy Mishaps

Presidential transitions have helped bring disasters from the Bay of Pigs to the Middle East—all because of inadequate intelligence briefings.

05 декабря, 23:23

Play the Long Game with Russia

Thomas F. Remington Politics, Eurasia America can’t give Putin opportunities to grow the specter of war. Editor’s Note: The following is part of a multi-part symposium commissioned by the National Interest and Carnegie Corporation of New York. We asked some of the world’s leading experts about the future of U.S.-Russia relations under President-elect Donald Trump. You can find all of their answers here. The United States must sustain strategic patience in relations with Russia. We cannot, nor should we attempt to, force a change in Russia’s foreign-policy behavior or its domestic institutions. This means avoiding responding to provocative language, but seeking opportunities for specific cooperation where possible. For the most part, this is the policy that the Obama administration has pursued, and we should continue it. The United States must explicitly and repeatedly declare that it does not seek “regime change” in Russia, and insist that Russia is deliberately creating a straw-man argument when it claims that we are doing so. Rather, we should explicitly endorse evolutionary change that brings about greater transparency and accountability in Russia. For example, we should explicitly support the regime’s avowed goal—pursued more in the breach than in fact—to diversify and upgrade the economy. A healthy Russian economy enjoying solid trade relations abroad benefits both Russia and the rest of the world. Rhetoric matters, but it has to be backed up consistently with actual behavior. Gratuitous gestures, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s December 2013 visit to the Maidan rally, are foolish: they reinforce the paranoia of the Putin team while failing to bring about constructive change. Read full article

05 декабря, 20:29

China: Trump team aware of Beijing's 'solemn attitude' on Taiwan call

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is “fully aware of China's solemn attitude” on the issue of Taiwan, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said at a news conference on Monday. The Manhattan billionaire spoke on the phone last Friday with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, making him the first president or president-elect to speak with Taiwan’s leader since 1979, the year the U.S. officially recognized the Chinese government in Beijing. Since then, the U.S. has maintained close, albeit unofficial, ties with Taiwan, which China regards as a breakaway province. “The Chinese side has lodged solemn representations with the relevant party on the U.S. side both in Beijing and Washington,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang during Monday's press briefing, according to a transcript of the event. “China has got its message across to the world as a whole with regard to Taiwan-related issues. The U.S. side, President-elect Trump's team included, is also fully aware of China's solemn attitude on the issue.”Trump made a tougher foreign policy toward China a key component of his presidential campaign, pledging to crack down on Chinese currency manipulation and to keep American jobs from moving there. Though he said little, if anything, about Taiwan, his surrogates and other Republicans have praised his decision to speak with Tsai, arguing that it represents a first step in resetting America’s relationship with China on more favorable terms for the U.S.China's initial reaction to the phone call was mild -- Foreign Minister Wang Yi called it a "petty move" by Taiwan, but did not directly condemn Trump. Subsequent statements have been more pointed. On Monday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said only that “the Chinese side keeps in touch with President-elect Trump and his team” but offered little further detail about the nature of those communications. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday at his own daily press briefing that U.S. officials had been in contact with their Chinese counterparts over the weekend to reaffirm the current administration's dedication to the "One China" policy that has dictated relations between the two nations for more than 35 years. Earnest said that policy has been to the benefit of the U.S., China and Taiwan, the latter of which, he noted, is America's ninth-largest trading partner.Citing a Washington Post report that Trump's call was an intentional move intended to signal a new direction for U.S.-China relations, Earnest added that it was unclear what benefit might exist for China, the U.S. or Taiwan for any shift away from the "One China" policy.Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, whose name has been floated to join Trump's State Department, said Monday in an interview on "Fox News" that he had nothing to do with the president-elect's phone call but said he supported the move. He said the call is not "as big a deal as some people think."Bolton has long advocated close ties to Taiwan, writing in January that the U.S. should tilt toward Taipei in response to Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.“I'm convinced that they made the decision to accept the call or to schedule the call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, very knowledgeably about what the implications were," Bolton said. “I think we’re going to see other indications that Donald Trump is not going to follow the policies of the past eight years or maybe longer. You know, that’s why we have elections.”Yousef Saba contributed to this report.

05 декабря, 20:12

November ETF Asset Flow Report

Inside the ETF asset flow report for the month of November.

05 декабря, 20:08

What Was the Goal of Trump's Call with Taiwan?

Ted Galen Carpenter Security, Asia Without clarity, the nervousness and speculation will only grow worse. President-elect Donald Trump has received phone calls from numerous foreign leaders in the weeks since his upset election win, but none has attracted as much attention as the call from Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen. It was the first time since the United States transferred diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979 that there has been any formal contact between the leaders of Taiwan and the United States. Moreover, the Trump transition team, in referring to the call, described Tsai not as president of the Republic of China (Taiwan’s formal, if thoroughly obsolete name) but as the president of Taiwan. That is a term not even Tsai claims. Instead, it is a favorite of hard-line elements within the governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) who wish to achieve formal independence for a Taiwanese state. Needless to say, Trump’s decision to receive that call has generated considerable commentary. Members of the political and policy communities have weighed in with equal vehemence on opposite sides. To Taiwan’s avid supporters, especially conservative Republicans, such a gesture to a friendly, democratic de facto ally is long overdue. To those who instead worry about the impact on U.S.-China relations, it was another example of Donald Trump as a dangerous, unpredictable bull in America’s foreign-policy china shop. There is also a widespread belief that the call signals a significant shift in U.S. policy, both on the Taiwan issue and in general U.S. policy toward China. But it is too early to reach such conclusions. There are at least three possible explanations for the way Tsai’s phone call was handled. Read full article

05 декабря, 19:35

Executive Order -- Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species

EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - SAFEGUARDING THE NATION FROM THE IMPACTS OF INVASIVE SPECIES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and to ensure the faithful execution of the laws of the United States of America, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, (16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.), the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Lacey Act, as amended (18 U.S.C. 42, 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 7781 et seq.), and other pertinent statutes, to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control, and to minimize the economic, plant, animal, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to prevent the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive species, as well as to eradicate and control populations of invasive species that are established. Invasive species pose threats to prosperity, security, and quality of life. They have negative impacts on the environment and natural resources, agriculture and food production systems, water resources, human, animal, and plant health, infrastructure, the economy, energy, cultural resources, and military readiness. Every year, invasive species cost the United States billions of dollars in economic losses and other damages. Of substantial growing concern are invasive species that are or may be vectors, reservoirs, and causative agents of disease, which threaten human, animal, and plant health. The introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive species create the potential for serious public health impacts, especially when considered in the context of changing climate conditions. Climate change influences the establishment, spread, and impacts of invasive species. Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999 (Invasive Species), called upon executive departments and agencies to take steps to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species, and to support efforts to eradicate and control invasive species that are established. Executive Order 13112 also created a coordinating body -- the Invasive Species Council, also referred to as the National Invasive Species Council -- to oversee implementation of the order, encourage proactive planning and action, develop recommendations for international cooperation, and take other steps to improve the Federal response to invasive species. Past efforts at preventing, eradicating, and controlling invasive species demonstrated that collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial government; stakeholders; and the private sector is critical to minimizing the spread of invasive species and that coordinated action is necessary to protect the assets and security of the United States. This order amends Executive Order 13112 and directs actions to continue coordinated Federal prevention and control efforts related to invasive species. This order maintains the National Invasive Species Council (Council) and the Invasive Species Advisory Committee; expands the membership of the Council; clarifies the operations of the Council; incorporates considerations of human and environmental health, climate change, technological innovation, and other emerging priorities into Federal efforts to address invasive species; and strengthens coordinated, cost-efficient Federal action. Sec. 2. Definitions. Section 1 of Executive Order 13112 is amended to read as follows: "Section 1. Definitions. (a) 'Control' means containing, suppressing, or reducing populations of invasive species. (b) 'Eradication' means the removal or destruction of an entire population of invasive species. (c) 'Federal agency' means an executive department or agency, but does not include independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104. (d) 'Introduction' means, as a result of human activity, the intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination, or placement of an organism into an ecosystem to which it is not native. (e) 'Invasive species' means, with regard to a particular ecosystem, a non-native organism whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human, animal, or plant health. (f) 'Non-native species' or 'alien species' means, with respect to a particular ecosystem, an organism, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that occurs outside of its natural range. (g) 'Pathway' means the mechanisms and processes by which non-native species are moved, intentionally or unintentionally, into a new ecosystem. (h) 'Prevention' means the action of stopping invasive species from being introduced or spreading into a new ecosystem. (i) 'United States' means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, all possessions, and the territorial sea of the United States as defined by Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988." Sec. 3. Federal Agency Duties. Section 2 of Executive Order 13112 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 2. Federal Agency Duties. (a) Each Federal agency for which that agency's actions may affect the introduction, establishment, or spread of invasive species shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, (1) identify such agency actions; (2) subject to the availability of appropriations, and within administrative, budgetary, and jurisdictional limits, use relevant agency programs and authorities to: (i) prevent the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive species; (ii) detect and respond rapidly to eradicate or control populations of invasive species in a manner that is cost-effective and minimizes human, animal, plant, and environmental health risks; (iii) monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; (iv) provide for the restoration of native species, ecosystems, and other assets that have been impacted by invasive species; (v) conduct research on invasive species and develop and apply technologies to prevent their introduction, and provide for environmentally sound methods of eradication and control of invasive species; (vi) promote public education and action on invasive species, their pathways, and ways to address them, with an emphasis on prevention, and early detection and rapid response; (vii) assess and strengthen, as appropriate, policy and regulatory frameworks pertaining to the prevention, eradication, and control of invasive species and address regulatory gaps, inconsistencies, and conflicts; (viii) coordinate with and complement similar efforts of States, territories, federally recognized American Indian tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, Native Hawaiians, local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector; and (ix) in consultation with the Department of State and with other agencies as appropriate, coordinate with foreign governments to prevent the movement and minimize the impacts of invasive species; and (3) refrain from authorizing, funding, or implementing actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction, establishment, or spread of invasive species in the United States unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions. (c) Federal agencies shall pursue the duties set forth in this section in coordination, to the extent practicable, with other member agencies of the Council and staff, consistent with the National Invasive Species Council Management Plan, and in cooperation with State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, and stakeholders, as appropriate, and in consultation with the Department of State when Federal agencies are working with international organizations and foreign nations. (d) Federal agencies that are members of the Council, and Federal interagency bodies working on issues relevant to the prevention, eradication, and control of invasive species, shall provide the Council with annual information on actions taken that implement these duties and identify barriers to advancing priority actions. (e) To the extent practicable, Federal agencies shall also expand the use of new and existing technologies and practices; develop, share, and utilize similar metrics and standards, methodologies, and databases and, where relevant, platforms for monitoring invasive species; and, facilitate the interoperability of information systems, open data, data analytics, predictive modeling, and data reporting necessary to inform timely, science-based decision making." Sec. 4. Emerging Priorities. Federal agencies that are members of the Council and Federal interagency bodies working on issues relevant to the prevention, eradication, and control of invasive species shall take emerging priorities into consideration, including: (a) Federal agencies shall consider the potential public health and safety impacts of invasive species, especially those species that are vectors, reservoirs, and causative agents of disease. The Department of Health and Human Services, in coordination and consultation with relevant agencies as appropriate, shall within 1 year of this order, and as requested by the Council thereafter, provide the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council a report on public health impacts associated with invasive species. That report shall describe the disease, injury, immunologic, and safety impacts associated with invasive species, including any direct and indirect impacts on low-income, minority, and tribal communities. (b) Federal agencies shall consider the impacts of climate change when working on issues relevant to the prevention, eradication, and control of invasive species, including in research and monitoring efforts, and integrate invasive species into Federal climate change coordinating frameworks and initiatives. (c) Federal agencies shall consider opportunities to apply innovative science and technology when addressing the duties identified in section 2 of Executive Order 13112, as amended, including, but not limited to, promoting open data and data analytics; harnessing technological advances in remote sensing technologies, molecular tools, cloud computing, and predictive analytics; and using tools such as challenge prizes, citizen science, and crowdsourcing. Sec. 5. National Invasive Species Council. Section 3 of Executive Order 13112 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 3. National Invasive Species Council. (a) A National Invasive Species Council (Council) is hereby established. The mission of the Council is to provide the vision and leadership to coordinate, sustain, and expand Federal efforts to safeguard the interests of the United States through the prevention, eradication, and control of invasive species, and through the restoration of ecosystems and other assets impacted by invasive species. (b) The Council's membership shall be composed of the following officials, who may designate a senior-level representative to perform the functions of the member: (i) Secretary of State; (ii) Secretary of the Treasury; (iii) Secretary of Defense; (iv) Secretary of the Interior; (v) Secretary of Agriculture; (vi) Secretary of Commerce; (vii) Secretary of Health and Human Services; (viii) Secretary of Transportation; (ix) Secretary of Homeland Security; (x) Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (xi) Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; (xii) Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development; (xiii) United States Trade Representative; (xiv) Director or Chair of the following components of the Executive Office of the President: the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of Management and Budget; and (xv) Officials from such other departments, agencies, offices, or entities as the agencies set forth above, by consensus, deem appropriate. (c) The Council shall be co-chaired by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce, who shall meet quarterly or more frequently if needed, and who may designate a senior-level representative to perform the functions of the Co-Chair. The Council shall meet no less than once each year. The Secretary of the Interior shall, after consultation with the Co-Chairs, appoint an Executive Director of the Council to oversee a staff that supports the duties of the Council. Within 1 year of the date of this order, the Co-Chairs of the Council shall, with consensus of its members, complete a charter, which shall include any administrative policies and processes necessary to ensure the Council can satisfy the functions and responsibilities described in this order. (d) The Secretary of the Interior shall maintain the current Invasive Species Advisory Committee established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., to provide information and advice for consideration by the Council. The Secretary shall, after consultation with other members of the Council, appoint members of the advisory committee who represent diverse stakeholders and who have expertise to advise the Council. (e) Administration of the Council. The Department of the Interior shall provide funding and administrative support for the Council and the advisory committee consistent with existing authorities. To the extent permitted by law, including the Economy Act, and within existing appropriations, participating agencies may detail staff to the Department of the Interior to support the Council's efforts." Sec. 6. Duties of the National Invasive Species Council. Section 4 of Executive Order 13112 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 4. Duties of the National Invasive Species Council. The Council shall provide national leadership regarding invasive species and shall: (a) with regard to the implementation of this order, work to ensure that the Federal agency and interagency activities concerning invasive species are coordinated, complementary, cost-efficient, and effective; (b) undertake a National Invasive Species Assessment in coordination with the U.S. Global Change Research Program's periodic national assessment, that evaluates the impact of invasive species on major U.S. assets, including food security, water resources, infrastructure, the environment, human, animal, and plant health, natural resources, cultural identity and resources, and military readiness, from ecological, social, and economic perspectives; (c) advance national incident response, data collection, and rapid reporting capacities that build on existing frameworks and programs and strengthen early detection of and rapid response to invasive species, including those that are vectors, reservoirs, or causative agents of disease; (d) publish an assessment by 2020 that identifies the most pressing scientific, technical, and programmatic coordination challenges to the Federal Government's capacity to prevent the introduction of invasive species, and that incorporate recommendations and priority actions to overcome these challenges into the National Invasive Species Council Management Plan, as appropriate; (e) support and encourage the development of new technologies and practices, and promote the use of existing technologies and practices, to prevent, eradicate, and control invasive species, including those that are vectors, reservoirs, and causative agents of disease; (f) convene annually to discuss and coordinate interagency priorities and report annually on activities and budget requirements for programs that contribute directly to the implementation of this order; and (g) publish a National Invasive Species Council Management Plan as set forth in section 5 of this order." Sec. 7. National Invasive Species Council Management Plan. Section 5 of Executive Order 13112 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 5. National Invasive Species Council Management Plan. (a) By December 31, 2019, the Council shall publish a National Invasive Species Council Management Plan (Management Plan), which shall, among other priorities identified by the Council, include actions to further the implementation of the duties of the National Invasive Species Council. (b) The Management Plan shall recommend strategies to: (1) provide institutional leadership and priority setting; (2) achieve effective interagency coordination and cost-efficiency; (3) raise awareness and motivate action, including through the promotion of appropriate transparency, community-level consultation, and stakeholder outreach concerning the benefits and risks to human, animal, or plant health when controlling or eradicating an invasive species; (4) remove institutional and policy barriers; (5) assess and strengthen capacities; and (6) foster scientific, technical, and programmatic innovation. (c) The Council shall evaluate the effectiveness of the Management Plan implementation and update the Plan every 3 years. The Council shall provide an annual report of its achievements to the public. (d) Council members may complement the Management Plan with invasive species policies and plans specific to their respective agency's roles, responsibilities, and authorities." Sec. 8. Actions of the Department of State and Department of Defense. Section 6(d) of Executive Order 13112 is amended to read as follows: "(d) The duties of section 3(a)(2) and section 3(a)(3) of this order shall not apply to any action of the Department of State if the Secretary of State finds that exemption from such requirements is necessary for foreign policy, readiness, or national security reasons. The duties of section 3(a)(2) and section 3(a)(3) of this order shall not apply to any action of the Department of Defense if the Secretary of Defense finds that exemption from such requirements is necessary for foreign policy, readiness, or national security reasons." Sec. 9. Obligations of the Department of Health and Human Services. A new section 6(e) of Executive Order 13112 is added to read as follows: "(e) The requirements of this order do not affect the obligations of the Department of Health and Human Services under the Public Health Service Act or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act." Sec. 10. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (1) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (2) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. BARACK OBAMA THE WHITE HOUSE, December 5, 2016.

05 декабря, 18:51

Don't Retreat on Cuba Normalization

It's not surprising that the new President-elect is beginning to face pressure urging him to roll back the progress of normalization in our relations with Cuba. He should refuse that choice! He should make it clear that he is interested in policies that lead to a better future, not the re-creation of a failed past with a six decade old embargo that didn't work. If the President-elect studies the nearly sixty year U.S. embargo against the Communist government of Cuba, he'll see it has been a failure by every measure. I understand why our country wanted to pressure the Castro government. There is a long history of abuse to the Cuban people at the hands of that government. And, we should continue to press for more progress in the area of human rights for the Cuban people. However, decade after decade the real victims of the U.S. imposed embargo , which included food and medicine, have been the poor people of Cuba. Our sanctions, however well-intended, did nothing except make their lives harder and their ability to earn a living more precarious. Cuban families were struggling under the embargo, but it's certain that the Castro brothers never missed a meal because of it. While we were imposing the embargo against Cuba, our country took a very different approach to other communist countries like China and Viet Nam. Our policy has been one of engagement through trade and travel which we described as the best way to achieve progress toward open government and improved human rights. I think history has demonstrated the value of that approach. The same strategy will show progress in Cuba as well. In our zeal to punish the Castro government, our policies toward Cuba have also restricted the rights and freedoms of American citizens The travel restrictions imposed on U.S. citizens resulted in some bizarre behavior toward our own citizens. For example, our government investigated and fined a young humble Christian woman from Ohio named Joni Scott for visiting Cuba to hand out free bibles. Our government denied U.S. soldier Carlos Lazio the opportunity to visit his sons in Cuba on his R&R from the war zone. Carlos was a Bronze Star winner for heroism in Fallujah who came to America on a raft from Cuba, yet he was denied the opportunity to travel to Cuba to visit his sons.These and many other stories like them share the theme of trying to bring the Castro regime to its knees by punishing American citizens. It was a strategy that failed, but while doing so we foolishly were willing to sacrifice America's interests and values. The point is, a negotiator like our new President-elect should not shut down our embassy or stop talking to Cuba's government. A man with bigger-than-life confidence in America's future should not restrict travel to Cuba, or the direct opportunities for exchange and dialogue that our finest ambassadors - our fellow Americans - can bring to Cuba's cities, farms, and town squares. Our policy should make travel to Cuba legal for all Americans. An advocate for our country's heartland shouldn't crush the hopes of rural Americans to send grain, beef, and products for use on the kitchen tables of Cubans across the island. A candidate who based much of his campaign on leveling the playing field for US trade should encourage, not undermine, the American companies that after 57 years of being locked out of the Cuban market, can finally have access to that market. Donald Trump ran as an agent of change. After fifty years of a failed embargo, normalization of relations with Cuba is the right kind of change. By continuing the progress toward normalization of relations with Cuba President-elect Trump has an chance to make Cuba part of his foreign policy legacy as well. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

24 июля, 21:21

Константин Черемных. "Недопереворот в Турции и другие события в контексте внешней политики США."

Беседа Дмитрия Перетолчина и эксперта Клуба динамического консерватизма Константина Черемных о подоплёке событий в Турции, Франции и на Ближнем Востоке в свете борьбы за власть в высшем правительственном эшелоне США. #ДеньТВ #Перетолчин #Черемных #Турция #переворот #США #НАТО #ЕС #Великобритания #Франция #БлижнийВосток #Эрдоган #БорисДжонсон #теракт #Ереван #Ницца #Гюлен #исламисты #военные #Стамбул #Генштаб #суды #полиция #democracy #Foreignpolicy #NATO #USA #EU #Britain #Brexit #Turkey

18 июля, 08:15

Станет ли Фетхулла Гюлен турецким Хомейни?

Президент Турции Эрдоган назвал организатором неудавшегося военного переворота Фетхуллу Гюлена, своего бывшего соратника, ныне проживающего в США, в штате Пенсильвания. Так оно или нет, проверить вряд ли удастся, но даже если знаменитый писатель и проповедник не причастен к попытке турецких военных свергнуть Эрдогана, его деятельность и влияние настолько масштабны, что в 2008 году Гюлен был назван самым влиятельным интеллектуалом мира по версии журналов Prospect и Foreign Policy, а журнал Time включает его в список «100 самых влиятельных людей мира».Гюлен реально один из наиболее влиятельных людей в мире хотя бы по той причине, что при его участии создана широкая сеть университетов и школ (свыше тысячи в более чем 160 странах, а общее количество выпускников составляет несколько миллионов человек.Известный российский аналитик Шамиль Султанов считает Гюлена «одним из наиболее талантливых, а может и гениальных специалистов в сфере оргоружия. Фактически он создал и руководит одной из самых крупных в мире многослойных эшелонированных масонских организаций («Хикмет» - В.П.)…Об этой корпорации мало, что известно. И это уже ее огромное преимущество в мире, где тайные организации становятся все более и более влиятельными».Основа «Хизмета»(по-турецки - служение) - классическая закрытая суфийская структура, основанная на принципах безусловного подчинения мюрида(ученика) шейху. Внешняя оболочка такой структуры - «Хизмет», вполне открытая организация, владеющая сотнями лицеев, колледжей, университетов, мечетей, молельных домов и общежитий по всему миру. Официальный мессидж «Хизмета»- идея служения обществу. Сам Гюлен пропагандирует духовное наследие великого поэта-суфия Джалаледдина Руми. А скрытая, и «гораздо более существенная ее функция», как пишет Шамиль Султанов, заключается в том, что «она ищет, вербует, готовит профессиональные кадры, причем особый упор делается на поиске талантливых людей».Вокруг «Хизмета» постепенно создается неформальная общественных и государственных организаций, куда команда Гюлена внедряет своих людей. В 90-е годы гюленисты прочно укрепились в жандармерии, прокуратуре, полиции и профсоюзах Турции. Общая численность гюленистов в Турции - от 3 до 6 миллионов членов «Хизмета» и «сочувствующих», причем значительная часть - в госаппарате.Турецкий исследователь Сонер Чагатай считает, что Гюлен прибрал к рукам более 70 проце6нтов личного состава полиции и полностью управляет спецслужбами страны. Турецкий историк Неджип Хаблемитоглу в книге «Крот» разоблачил приверженцев Гюлена в силовых структурах Турции. Незадолго до издания своей книги – 18 декабря 2002 года – Хаблемитоглу был убит у своего дома». Справка:Суфи́зм или тасаввуф — эзотерическое течение в исламе, проповедующее аскетизм и повышенную духовность, одно из основных направлений классической мусульманской философии. Последователей суфизма называют суфиями.В суфизме существует несколько тарикатов (направлений). Фетхулла Гюлен воспитывался в традициях одного из самых распространенных и влиятельных - тариката Накшбандийа. Кстати, знаменитый русский маг двадцатого века, капитан военной разведки российской императорской армии, Георгий Гурджиев во время выполнения своих спецзаданий на Востоке тесно контактировал с накшбандийскими суфиями. Великий шейх суфиев Идрис Шах, большую часть своей жизни проживавший в Лондоне(говорим - Лондон, подразумеваем - МИ-6), был одним из основателей Римского клуба. Идрис Шах в своих многочисленных книгах пишет о последователях Накшбанди как о главных хранителях суфийской традиции, «Материнском» тарикате.Будучи достаточно независимым мыслителем, Идрис Шах различал «Традицию Накшбанди» и «Орден Накшбанди». «Традиция Накшбанди» это способ передачи бараки- божественного благословения, благодеяния. Или Высшего Знания, по Идрис Шаху.А «Орден Накшбанди» – это уже социальная организация с чисто конкретными земными целями. Идрис Шах считал, что в двадцатом веке ведущие тарикаты выродились в ордена.Шамиль Султанов называет Фетхуллу Гюлена теоретиком и вождем «соглашательского, политического суфизма, то есть суфизма, который стремится не только к духовной, но и светской власти, используя самые различные технологии, приемы и методы». По мнению российского аналитика Гюлен вырос из рамок «Ордена Накшбанди» и создал свой собственный тарикат.В конце 90-х годов у Гулена сложился тактический союз с тогдашним мэром Стамбула - Реджепом Эрдоганом, видным деятелем того направления в исламском движении, которое практически смыкается с «Братьями-мусульманами». Союз этот продержался более десяти лет. Разрыв Гюлена с Эрдоганом во многом был спровоцирован расстрелом военными кораблями Израиля так называемой «флотилии свободы» - кораблей с гуманитарным грузом для населения заблокированной Газы. Эрдоган резко осудил действия Израиля, а Гюлен, напротив, дал интервью газете Wall Street Journal, где выразил негодование по поводу «безответственности турецкого правительства», которое «не попыталось заранее договориться с официальными представителями Израиля для того, чтобы получить у них официальное согласие на оказание гуманитарной помощи жителям Газы» и обвинил правительство Эрдогана в «игнорировании авторитета» Израиля.В российской и украинской прессе можно встретить публикации, в которых Гюлена подозревают в сотрудничестве с ЦРУ. «Именно ЦРУ «успешно» ходатайствовало о предоставлении ему вида на жительство в США», пишет Шамиль Султанов.Влияние Гюлена основано на том, что в суннитском секторе исламского мира возник серьезный вакуум влиятельных и харизматических лидеров. И если с помощью своих западных покровителей Гюлен сможет устранить с политической арены Эрдогана, то у него есть все шансы стать турецким аятоллой Хомейни и опровергнуть знаменитые слова Кемаля Ататюрка: «Турецкая Республика не может быть страной шейхов, дервишей, мюридов и их приверженцев».Версий по поводу неудавшегося переворота не так уж много - числом всего три.Американский след.То, что Гюлен живет в США, - в пользу этой версии. Против нее - неудача переворота. Экспертное сообщество склонно считать, что если уж американцы затевают переворот, то он удается, как это было на протяжении четверти века.Германский след.Эрдоган сильно разгневал ведущие державы Евросоюза своей жесткой позицией, а реально - выламыванием рук (читай - шантажом) - по поводу проблемы с беженцами. Но способна ли БНД организовать даже неудачный переворот? Сомнительно. Не говоря уже о том, что германские спецслужбы полностью контролируются американцами.Инсценировака самого Эрдогана.В пользу этой версии - бенефициаром подавления мятежа стал сам Эрдоган. То есть на вопрос, кому выгодно: ответ - Эрдогану.На мой взгляд - американский след не стоит сбрасывать со счетов. Непрекращающиеся теракты в Казахстане, теракт в Ницце, мятеж в Армении, - считать это случайным совпадением могут лишь домохозяйки, воспитанные на слезливых сериалах.Мой выбор - с вероятностью 60 процентов здесь «порылась» американская «собака», причем задача свержения Эрдогана не ставилась. С вероятностью 40 процентов - неудавшийся переворот является инсценировкой самого Эрдогана. Так в свое время поступили Шеварднадзе и Саакашвили с целью укрепления своей власти. У них получилось, а чем Эрдоган хуже?+Впрочем, с точки зрения российских интересов, всматриваться в кривое конспирологическое зеркало и гадать на кофейной гуще (кстати, эффективность такого гадания - около 80 процентов), кто устроил «активку» на Босфоре - мало пользы.Вместо этого я предложил бы отдать должное американским мастерам мягкой силы, которые бережно и неторопливо создают всецело зависящую от самого главного «Материнского тариката» ( и это вовсе не вполне управлемый своими предполагаемыми кураторами из Лэнгли суфий Гюлен с его «Хизметом») глобальную сеть агентов влияния, которые рано или поздно придут на смену импульсивному реаниматору Османской империи Эрдогану. Как говорил изобретатель голографии Нобелевский лауреат Дэннис Габор, - «будущее невозможно предсказать, его можно изобрести».Будущее за теми, кто его изобретает. Жаль, что это не мы.Автор: Владимир Прохватилов, Президент Фонда реальной политики (Realpolitik), эксперт Академии военных наук http://argumentiru.com/society/2016/07/433655

28 декабря 2015, 18:12

ДВА-ТАЛИБАНА-ДВА

Константин Черемных Третья мировая война не будет нефтяной НЕ СТУЧИТЕ, И НЕ СТУЧИМЫ БУДЕТЕ В 2015 году Foreign Policy включил в свою традиционную «десятку мыслителей современности» не Алексея Навального, а Владимира Путина. Тем не менее, освещение президентского послания Федеральному собранию в западной прессе навязчиво жонглировало двумя именами: Путин–Навальный, Путин–Навальный. По той причине, что бывший «мыслительный столп» подгадал ко дню послания детальнейший, в украинском стиле, компромат на руководство российской Генпрокуратуры.

24 октября 2015, 20:46

Возможности России в ведении электронной войны невероятны

Возможности России по ведению электронной войны произвели на армию США отрезвляющий эффект. Столкнувшись в Сирии и на Украине с комплексами радиоэлектронной борьбы «Красуха-4″, которые подавляют радары и авиационные системы, американские военные чиновники были вынуждены признать, что им не удается догнать Россию. Об этом пишет известный своим беспристрастным анализом мирового рынка вооружений Foreign Policy. Издание цитирует командующего военной группировкой США в Европе генерала Бена Ходжеса, который сказал, что «возможности России в ведении электронной войны невероятны». В свою очередь замначальника кибернетического командования американской армии Рональд Понтиус признал, что «продвижение США в этом вопросе не соответствует имеющимся угрозам». С начала операции в Крыму украинские военные отмечали, что их радиопередатчики и телефоны могли не функционировать в течение нескольких часов, пишет. А специальная мониторинговая миссия ОБСЕ сообщала, что их беспилотники сталкивались с глушением GPS, в связи с чем БПЛА приходилось сажать. У России есть целые боевые подразделения, которые занимаются ведением электронной войны, считает руководитель направления радиоэлектронной борьбы армии США Джефри Черч. По его словам, эти подразделения располагают специальной техникой, у них специальный порядок подчиненности для радиоэлектронной борьбы. При этом в американской армии данные задачи обычно выполняют два солдата из батальона, обеспечивающих круглосуточное функционирование. Всего в армии США предусмотрено более 1000 таких позиций, но реально существует только 813, говорит военный. Черч признает, что значительная часть имеющегося у американской армии оборудования, закупленного в последние 10 лет, было профинансировано из дополнительных средств, в связи с чем оно в основном лежит на полках и требует ремонта и переоборудования. «Без регулярного финансирования оно устаревает», — говорит специалист. Военные США разрабатывают несколько программ по обновлению и улучшению интеграции средств радиоэлектронной борьбы, однако ни одна из них не будет реализована в ближайшее время, пишет Foreign Policy.     Новая машина «Красуха-4″ — грозное оружие борьбы практически с любыми воздушными целями противника. Только побеждает она их не мощными ракетами, скорострельными орудиями или зенитными крупнокалиберными пулеметами. «Красуха» в буквальном смысле делает самолеты и ракеты слепыми и глухими. Репортах о новом уникальном комплексе радиоэлектронной борьбы подготовил телеканал «Россия-24″.   Еще вчера об этой машине нельзя было говорить не только в медиа, но и за пределами оборонных заводов и особо охраняемых воинских частей. Было, что скрывать. «Красуха-4″ — новейшая и одна из самых высокотехнологичных разработок российского ВПК.   «Система создает такие условия, что попасть противникам в нашу авиацию и сбить тот или иной самолет очень сложно при комплексе «Красуха-4″. 99%, что это невозможно», — рассказал гендиректор КРЭТ Николай Колесов. Такие умные машины — на вес золота. Их задача — действовать на стратегически важных направлениях. Там, где особенно активная разведовательная авиация и даже спутники-разведчики космической группировки противника. Тактико-технические характеристики «Красухи-4″ — военная тайна. Однако известно из открытых источников, что радиус ее действия превышает 300 км. На вопрос о высоте разработчики с улыбкой отвечают: «достаточно, мало не покажется».   При помощи уникального оборудования «Красуха-4″ может работать практически по любым воздушным целям одинаково эффективно. Невозможно, но факт: ни скорость, ни высота воздушного супостата на боевые качества комплекса не влияют. По словам Федора Дмитрука, гендиректора Брянского электромеханического завода, средство позволяет обнаружить воздушное судно, произвести захват-сопровождение и, в случае необходимости, поставить помеху.   Четвертая модель комплекса радиоэлектронной борьбы — усовершенствованная версия. Вместо аналога — цифра, вместо трех машин — две. Изделие «Красуха-4″ расположено на двух шасси, что является заметным преимуществом. Предыдудыщая модель располагалась на трех автомобилях. Каждая такая плата для «Красухи» изготавливается минимум две недели. Зато заменяет несколько громоздких шкафов с аппаратурой и километры проводов. Новые детали позволяют антеннам вращаться не просто на 360 градусов, а в абсолютно любых направлениях. Необычна и технология изготовления антенны. Форму тарелки ей придают в гидравлическом прессе. 400 литров воды и давление в 12 атмосфер обеспечивают идеальный силуэт приемного и передающего устройств. Первое антенное устройство обеспечивает прием сигнала, второе — передачу. Тарелка скрепляется с каркасом и устанавливается на колесную базу — четырехосный КАМАЗ-вездеход. Так что работать мобильный комплекс может и в Заполярье, и Аравийской пустыне. Надежность гарантирована при температурах от минус до плюс пятидесяти градусов.   «Красуха-4″ прошла государственные испытания. Выпущено и отдано в войска на сегодняшний день 10 комплексов. Это серьезная помощь для нашей стратегической авиации, истребительной авиации», — отмечает Николай Колесов.     Красуха в Сирии   Стало известно о прибытии в Сирию новейших комплексов радиоэлектронной борьбы «Красуха-4» вооруженных сил России. Так, новейшая и одна из самых высокотехнологичных разработок российского ВПК, комплекс «Красуха-4», был развернут в расположение российской военной базы вблизи населенного пункта Латакия в Сирии. А вот тут я вам подробно рассказывал про НЕВИДИМОЕ ОРУЖИЕ РОССИИ Вот еще РЛК «Барьер-Е» — нет аналогов в мире и РЭБ «Инфауна», «Лесочек» и «Дзюдоист» ну и конечно же ответ на вопрос Что делает «Ртуть» в войсках РФ ? Оригинал статьи находится на сайте ИнфоГлаз.рф Ссылка на статью, с которой сделана эта копия - http://infoglaz.ru/?p=79352

19 сентября 2015, 14:51

Пентагон и планы войны против России

В американском издании Foreign Policy вышла примечательная статья http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/18/exclusive-the-pentagon-is-preparing-new-war-plans-for-a-baltic-battle-against-russia/, где с ссылками на действующих и отставных сотрудников Пентагона рассматриваются актуальные планы войны США против РФ.Примечательные моменты:1. Вопросы военного противостояния с РФ за последнее время переходят у американцев из умозрительных построений к вопросам актуальной политики. Старые планы войны против РФ вновь стали актуальными. Россия открыто названа угрозой.2. В качестве возможного театра военных действий в статье рассматриваются страны Прибалтики, на территории которых идет "гибридная война", причем рассматривается как самостоятельное участие США, так и участие в составе НАТО.3. Утверждается, что еще в 2008 году после Олимпийской войны НАТО начало пересмотр своей стратегии в отношениях с РФ, однако США на тот момент продолжали рассматривать в качестве приоритетной угрозы "мировой терроризм", а не Россию.4. Длительное время, аналитики Пентагона ориентировались на то, что Россия слишком слаба, чтобы представлять угрозу, поэтому в качестве основных проблем указывался "терроризм" и возвышение Китая.5. Теперь же Россия называется "экзистенциальной угрозой" и политика в отношении нее должна выстраиваться как против безусловного соперника и даже врага. О концепции "партнерства" можно забыть.6. Недовольство Кремля расширением НАТО на восток не считалось чем-то существенным и этот порядок вещей считался на Западе вполне естественным по принципу "собака лает, караван идет".7. Олимпийскую войну в Пентагоне расценивали как разовую акцию Москвы и в повторение такого сценария не очень верили, потому что считали, что виноват Саакашвили, которого Россия поймала на военной авантюре.8. В целом же, в Пентагоне допускали, что Россия при определенных обстоятельствах может интегрироваться в западный мир и отношение к ней было "иногда боль в заднице, но не угроза".9. Крымская операция и "вежливые люди" как утверждается в статье, стали для Пентагона неприятным сюрпризом, их полностью проморгали и тут де-факто можно говорить о провале американской разведки.10. На военных играх, где прорабатывался сценарий боевых действий между американской и российской армиями на территории стран Балтии. Рассматривался сценарий задействования в боевых действиях всех американских сил в восточной Европе + переброски на ТВД 82-й воздушно-десантной дивизии.11. В процессе выяснилось, что даже в этом случае РФ сохранит на ТВД общее превосходство в силах и с военной точки зрения одержит безусловную победу. В ходе игры "красные" разгромили "синих" и Прибалтика была потеряна.12. На следующий день игру повторили с улучшенными для США и НАТО параметрами. Результат был примерно тот. Всего проводилось 16 игр, где обыгрывался сценарий войны США и НАТО против РФ в Прибалтике. Игры проводились в Пентагоне и на авиабазе в Рамштайне. Играло 8 разных команд. В подавляющем большинстве случаев результаты прямого столкновения были неблагоприятны для "синих".13. Были сделаны выводы, что в среднесрочной перспективе США и НАТО скорее всего потеряют Прибалтику в ходе прямого конфликта с РФ, но в долгосрочной перспективе ее как-нибудь да вернут в ходе дальнейшей войны.14. Отправка техники и войск США в Прибалтику, это элемент доктрины сдерживания России, хотя в Пентагоне особых иллюзий не питают насчет того, смогут ли эти войска защитить Прибалтику.15. В Пентагоне есть определенная оппозиция "конфронтационному сценарию" из числа желающих "вновь сотрудничать с Россией" и что несмотря на текущее положение дел, Россия лишь отвлекает США от более важных угроз, в первую очередь от Китая. И что совместные военные программы и распределение рынков оружия важнее, нежели суверенитет какой-то там Украины.16. По мнению этих условных "миротворцев", планы Пентагона и бряцанье оружием, лишь подпитывают "параноидальные фантазии Путина" и делают разборки РФ с США и НАТО из иллюзорных реальными. В итоге конфликт США и РФ стал реальностью. В этой связи постулируется, что Пентагон неизбежно будет планировать действия направленные против России.17. Под эту лавочку "ястребы" в Пентагоне и в Сенате уже ведут работу по приостановке процесса сокращения численности американских вооруженных сил и уменьшения их финансирования. Идущий конфликт, потенциал которого таков, что он может продолжаться годами, явно будет выгоден тем, кто зарабатывает на войне.В целом же, статья с одной стороны выражает обеспокоенность неготовностью США эффективно противостоять России (ветер тут конечно дует со стороны республиканцев обвиняющих Обаму в "неэффективной политике по отношению к России) и подспудно подводящая к мысли, что надо бы увеличивать армию и расходы на нее. С другой стороны, прослеживается мысль, что США слишком много времени уделяют России, которая конечно угроза, но не такая как Китай и в долгосрочной перспективе, эта холодная война с РФ может выйти боком. Разумеется, по одной только Прибалтике о ходе и исходе войны судить не стоит, все таки есть и другие потенциальные ТВД - Украина, Сирия, Арктика, Кавказ, страны Средней Азии и поэтому тут конечно надо смотреть в комплексе на возможные "гибридные" столкновения между США и РФ на территории других государств. В этом плане, открытый конфликт между США и РФ, который начался в ходе переворота на Украине ныне уже вышел за ее пределы и де-факто либо уже затрагивает, либо затронет в ближайшей будущем другие страны и народы.

29 января 2015, 15:22

Обострение интриг в Вашингтоне начало 2015

Кризис, поразивший правительственный аппарат США, представляет собой непосредственную угрозу для жизни Империи. И это не только мнение Тьерри Мейсана – теперь этот кризис наводит на правящий класс в Вашингтоне такой страх, что почётный президент Совета по международным отношениям (Council on Foreign Relations) требует отставки главных советников президента Обамы и назначения новой команды. Этот конфликт не имеет ничего общего с противостоянием демократов и республиканцев или голубей и ястребов. Под угрозой политика лидерства, проводимая Соединёнными Штатами и НАТО. Ракета «Смерч» угодила в жилой дом Собчак живьём. Александр Лукашенко В ПАСЕ издевались и ржали над Россией Бразильская полиция во время обыска склада обнаружила два танка Уже несколько месяцев я говорю и пишу о том, что у Вашингтона больше нет никакой внешней политики. Он разделён на две фракции, которые во всём противостоят друг другу, а их политические линии несовместимы и противоречивы [1]. Наибольшего обострения эта ситуация достигла в Сирии, где Белый Дом сначала поддержал организацию Даеш и направил её в Ирак для проведения этнической чистки, а затем стал её бомбить, хотя ЦРУ продолжало её поддерживать. Эта несогласованность постепенно дошла и до союзников. Франция, к примеру, вступила в коалицию по борьбе против Даеш, тогда как некоторые из её легионеров входят в состав руководства Даеш [2]. Когда министр Обороны Чак Хейгел затребовал письменное разъяснение, ему не только не дали никакого ответа, его просто послали куда подальше [3]. В самом НАТО, которое было создано для борьбы против СССР, а теперь используется против России, тоже воцарился беспорядок сразу после того, как президент Турции подписал масштабные экономические соглашения с Владимиром Путиным [4]. Нарушив молчание, почётный президент Совета по международным отношениям [5] Лесли Гелб бьёт тревогу [6]. По его мнению, «команда Обамы лишена основного инстинкта и не имеет решений по проведению политики национальной безопасности на ближайшие два года». И далее, от имени всего правящего класса США: «Президент Обама должен обновить свою команду сильными личностями и опытными специалистами. Он должен также заменить главных советников в министерстве Обороны и в Госдепе. Наконец, он должен проводить регулярные консультации с президентом Комиссии по международным отношениям Бобом Коркером и председателем Комиссии по вооружённым силам Джоном Маккейном [7]». Никогда за всё время своего существования с 1921 года Совет по международным отношениям не высказывал подобных суждений. Но теперь разногласия внутри государственного аппарата могут привести Соединённые Штаты к гибели. Среди главных советников, которые, по его мнению, должны уйти в отставку, г-н Гелб называет четырёх человек интеллектуально и эмоционально близких действующему президенту: Сьюзан Райс (советник по национальной безопасности), Денис Макдоноу (руководитель Администрации Белого дома), Бенжамин Родес (уполномоченный по связям) и Валери Джаретт (советник по внешней политике). Правящая верхушка Вашингтона обвиняет их в том, что они не представили президенту ни одного оригинального предложения, не противоречили ему, но всегда поддерживали его в заблуждениях. Единственный, кто пользуется благосклонностью в глазах Совета по международным отношениям, это «либеральный ястреб» Энтони Блинкен, второе лицо в госдепе. Совет по международным отношениям является двухпартийным органом, соответственно, г-н Гелб предлагает президенту Обаме ввести в своё окружение четырёх республиканцев и четырёх демократов, согласно приводимому им списку. Прежде всего, это демократы Томас Пикеринг (бывший представитель в ООН), Уинстон Лорд (бывший ассистент Генри Киссинджера), Френк Уиснер (официально один из руководителей ЦРУ и, между прочим, тесть Николя Саркози) и Мишель Флюрнуа (руководитель Центра новой американской безопасности) [8]. Затем республиканцы Роберт Зеллик (бывший патрон Всемирного Банка) [9], Ричард Армитидж (бывший ассистент Колина Пауэла) [10], Роберт Киммит (возможно, будущий патрон Всемирного Банка) и Ричард Берд (в прошлом, участник переговоров по сокращению ядерных вооружений). Для проведения бюджетных урезаний в министерстве Обороны г-н Гелб прочит раввина Доу Закгейма [11], адмирала Майка Мюллена (бывшего начальника межармейских штабов) и генерала Джека Кейна (бывшего начальника штаба Сухопутных войск). Наконец, г-н Гелб считает, что стратегия национальной безопасности должна быть разработана в тесном сотрудничестве с четырьмя «мудрецами»: Генри Киссинджером [12], Брентом Скоукрофтом, Збигневом Бжезинским [13] и Джемсом Бейкером [14]. При более тщательном анализе этого списка становится ясно, что Совет по международным отношениям не делает выбора между двумя фракциями, противостоящими друг другу в составе администрации Обамы, он лишь намеревается навести порядок на высшем уровне власти. В этом отношении нелишне упомянуть, что в стране, которой до последнего времени руководил белый англо-саксонский протестант, два советника, которых собираются отправить в отставку, являются чернокожими женщинами, а четырнадцать из пятнадцати предлагаемых кандидатур, являются белыми мужчинами, протестантами или ашкеназами. Таким образом, наведение порядка в политике сопровождается превращением власти в этническо-религиозную. [1] См. : « Есть ли у Обамы военная политика? », Тьерри Мейсан, Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов, Сеть Вольтер, 1 декабря 2014. [2] « D’"anciens" militaires français parmi les jihadistes de Daesh », интернет-издание Réseau Voltaire, 21 января 2015 г. [3] « Contre qui le Pentagone se bat-il en Syrie ? », интернет-издание Réseau Voltaire, 1 ноября 2014 г. [4] « Как Владимир Путин разрушил стратегию НАТО », Тьерри Мейсан, Однако (Российская Федерация), Сеть Вольтер, 8 декабря 2014. [5] « Как Совет по международным отношениям определяет дипломатию США », Сеть Вольтер, 25 июня 2004. [6] « This Is Obama’s Last Foreign Policy Chance », Лесли Гелб, The Daily Beast, 14 января 2015 г. [7] « Дирижёр «арабской весны» Джон Маккейн и халиф Ибрагим », Тьерри Мейсан, Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов, Сеть Вольтер, 18 августа 2014. [8] « ЦНАБ – демократический оплот колониального империализма », Тьерри Мейсан, Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов, Сеть Вольтер, 6 января 2015. [9] « Роберт Б. Золлик – идейный вдохновитель глобализации », Тьерри Мейсан, Сеть Вольтер, 10 марта 2005. [10] « Richard Armitage, le baroudeur qui rêvait d’être diplomate », Réseau Voltaire, 8 octobre 2004. [11] « Доув Закхейм, поручитель Пентагона », Поль Лабарик, Сеть Вольтер, 9 сентября 2004. [12] « Le retour d’Henry Kissinger », Тьерри Мейсан, интернет-издание Réseau Voltaire, 28 ноября 2002 г., 28 novembre 2002. [13] « Антироссийская стратегия Збигнева Бжезинского », Артур Лепик, Сеть Вольтер, 3 августа 2005. [14] « Джеймс А. Бейкер III, верный друг », Сеть Вольтер, 12 декабря 2003. Источник: http://www.voltairenet.org/article186521.html

11 января 2015, 17:18

ЦНАБ (CNAS) – демократический оплот колониального империализма (Ястребы США против Обамы)

Вашингтон не проводит единую внешнюю политику - он действует противоречиво и лишь в ответ на внешние вызовы, а «либеральные ястребы» объединяются вокруг генерала Дэвида Петреуса и Центра новой американской безопасности (ЦНАБ). Тьерри Мейсан представляет нам этот мозговой центр, который сегодня играет ту же роль, что и Проект нового американского века при Буше – обеспечивать американскую экспансию и доминирование над всём миром. Сирийский кризис, выход из которого был предложен ещё во время первой конференции в Женеве в июне 2012 г., продолжается, несмотря на все соглашения, заключённые с США. По-видимому, администрация Обамы не подчиняется президенту, и она разделена на две политические линии: с одной стороны, империалисты, склонные к разделу мира с Китаем и, возможно, с Россией (это позиция президента Обамы), а, с другой стороны, империалистические экспансионисты, объединившиеся вокруг Хиллари Клинтон и генерала Дэвида Петреуса. Ко всеобщему удивлению, отставка директора ЦРУ и госсекретаря после переизбрания Барака Обамы не только не положила конец разногласиям в администрации, но и обострила их. Именно экспансионисты возобновили войну против Корейской народной республики под предлогом кибер-атаки против Sony Pictures, якобы предпринятой Пхеньяном. Президент Обама, в конечном счёте, согласился с их доводами и подписал декрет о «санкциях». Представляется, что сторонники имперской экспансии первоначально объединились вокруг Центра новой американской безопасности, который в Демократической партии играл роль ту же самую роль, что и Проект нового американского века (а сегодня также и Foreign Policy Initiative) в Республиканской партии. Важную роль они играли и во время первого мандата Барака Обамы, и по некоторым данным образовали «глубинное государство», откуда продолжают дёргать за верёвочки. Либеральные ястребы Центр новой американской безопасности был создан в 2007 г. Куртом Кэмпбеллом и Мишель Флурнуа. Ранее оба эти интеллектуала работали в Центре стратегических и международных исследований (ЦСМИ - Center for Strategic and International Studies). В нём спустя два месяца после событий 11 сентября они руководили публикацией книги To Prevail : An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism (Всё для победы: американская стратегия по борьбе с терроризмом) [1]. В книге развивалась идея о том, что необходимо атаковать не только террористические группировки, о чём говорил президент Буш, но и государства, если им самим не удавалось эти группировки уничтожить на своей территории. Вдохновившись работами оперативной группы по борьбе с терроризмом из ЦСМИ, они выступали за значительное увеличение разведывательных агентств для наблюдения за всем миром. Короче, Кэмпбелл и Флурнуа принимали официальные представления о терактах и оправдывали «войну против терроризма», которая на целое десятилетие погрузила в траур весь мир. В 2003 году Кэмпбелл и Флурнуа вместе с другими тринадцатью демократами-интеллектуалами подписали документ под названием Progressive Internationalism : A Democratic National Security Strategy (Прогрессивный интернационализм: демократическая стратегия национальной безопасности) [2]. Этот манифест поддерживал все войны после 11 сентября и критиковал дипломатическую слабость президента Буша. После выборов кандидата-демократа в 2004 г. подписанты намеревались продвигать американский имперский проект (сторонником которого был Джордж Буш-младший) при этом критикуя его за то, что он оказывал пагубное влияние на руководителей, и, в частности, сеял сомнения среди союзников. Всем подписантам тогда приклеили ярлык «либеральных ястребов». ЦНАБ Во время своего создания в 2007 г. ЦНАБ выражал стремление обновить американскую стратегическую мысль после Комиссии Бейкера-Гамильтона и отставки министра Обороны Дональда Рамсфельда. На открытии центра присутствовали такие лица как Мадлен Олбрайт, Хиллари Клинтон и Чак Хейгел. В ту пору Вашингтон пытался выпутаться из трясины, в которую он попал в Ираке. Кемпбелл и Флурнуа выступали за военное решение, которое позволило бы американским войскам продолжать оккупировать Ирак, не истощая при этом свои силы. Для продолжения имперской экспансии американский империализм должен был прежде всего выработать определённую антитеррористическую стратегию, которая позволила бы сократить численность американских войск в Ираке. Нет никакого противоречия в том, что Кемпбелл и Флурнуа работали совместно с генералом Дэвидом Петреусом, которого только что назначили командующим военной Коалицией в Ираке, потому что он был автором пособия по предотвращению смуты в сухопутных войсках США. Они склоняют на свою сторону австралийского эксперта Дэвида Кикуллена, который станет гуру генерала Петреуса и разработчиком плана Surge (Удар). Согласно этому плану переориентация иракских повстанцев должна осуществляться путём использования двух факторов (пряник и кнут): с одной стороны, платить деньги боевикам, которые перейдут на сторону агрессора и будут устанавливать порядок на своей территории, а, с другой стороны, оказывать на них принудительное воздействие путём временного усиления военного присутствия США. Эта стратегия будет успешно использована: страна вначале погружается в фазу интенсивной гражданской войны, а затем после глубокой разрухи она медленно возвращается в состояние покоя. Но на самом деле частичная переориентация иракского сопротивления стала возможной лишь потому, что оно было организовано на племенной основе. Весь этот период ЦНАБ и генерала Петреуса водой не разлить. Килкуллен становится сначала советником Петреуса, а затем госсекретаря Кондолизы Райс. Сплав этот настолько прочен, что полковник Джон Нейгл, советник Петреуса, станет президентом ЦНАБа после того, как Кемпбелл и Флурнуа войдут в администрацию Обамы. Особенность ЦНАК состоит в том, что он является мозговым центром демократов, но с ним сотрудничают и в него входят республиканские ястребы. Впрочем, он не отказывается от встреч и дебатов с членами Проекта нового американского века. Финансирование центра осуществляется производителями вооружений и компаниями, сотрудничающими с оборонным ведомством (AccentureFederal Services, BAE Systems, Boeing, DRS Technologies, Northrop Grumman), финансовыми компаниями (Bernard L. Schwartz Investments, Prudential Financial), фондами (Carnegie Corporation of New York, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, PloughsharesFund, Smith Richardson Foundation, ZakFamily Charitable Trust) и иностранными правительствами (Израиль, Япония, Тайвань). Во время предвыборной кампании Кемпбелл и Флурнуа издают для будущего президента рекомендации The Inheritance and the Way Forward (Наследие прошлого и путь в будущее) [3]. Начиная с периода президентства Буша они ставят под сомнение принцип «превентивной войны» и использование пыток. Кроме того, они выступают за переориентацию войны с терроризмом с тем, чтобы избежать «столкновения цивилизаций», которое могло бы лишить Вашингтон его мусульманских союзников. Администрация Обамы После избрания президентом Барак Обама поручает Мишель Флурнуа контроль за перестройкой оборонного ведомства. По логике, она становится заместителем министра Обороны по политической части, то есть она должна вырабатывать новую оборонную стратегию. Она при этом считается вторым лицом в министерстве и распоряжается бюджетом в 200 миллионов долларов. Курт Кемпбелл, в свою очередь, назначается в госдепартамент и руководит в нём отделом по Дальневосточному и Тихоокеанскому регионам. И Кемпбелл, и Флурнуа придерживаются стратегии типа «оплот». Согласно этой стратегии США должны готовиться к будущему столкновению с Китаем. С этой точки зрения, они должны постепенно передислоцировать свои вооружённые силы из Европы и Большого Среднего Востока на Дальний Восток. ЦНАБ настолько популярен, что его сотрудники скоро войдут в состав администрации Обамы: Ренд Бирс станет секретарём госбезопасности, Эштон Картер, замминистра Обороны по закупкам, а затем министр Обороны, Сьюзан Райс, представитель ООН, а затем советник по национальной безопасности, Роберт Уорк, заместитель министра Обороны и далее: Шон Бримли, специальный советник министра Обороны, а затем директор по планированию в Совете национальной безопасности, Прайс Флойд, ассистент помощника министра Обороны по связям с общественностью, Элис Хант, специальный ассистент в министерстве Обороны, Колин Кал, ассистент министра Обороны по Ближнему Востоку, затем советник по национальной безопасности при вице-президенте, Джеймс Миллер, заместитель помощника министра обороны США по вопросам политики, Эрик Пирс, заместитель министра Обороны, ответственный за связи с Конгрессом, Сара Сьюэлл, назначена в 2014 году заместителем госсекретаря по вопросам демократии и прав человека, Уэнди Шерман, назначена в 2011 году заместителем госсекретаря по политическим вопросам, Викрам Сингх, специальный советник министра обороны по Афганистану и Пакистану, Гейл Смит, директор по развитию и демократии при Совете национальной безопасности, Джеймс Стейнберг, заместитель госсекретаря, Джим Томас, заместитель помощника министра Обороны США по финансам, Эдвард (Тед) Уорнер III, советник министра Обороны по контролю над вооружениями. В настоящее время ЦНАБ уже готовит программу для будущего президента США. Влияние ЦНАБ Мишель Флурнуа всё время стремилась занять пост министра Обороны, но не была допущена на эту должность в 2012 году, так как считалось, что она слишком тесно связана с Израилем. Однако сегодня она присутствует почти во всех инстанциях министерства Оброны, занятых планированием: она является членом научного Совета Обороны (Defense Science Board), политического Совета Обороны (Defense Policy Board) и консультативного президентского совета по разведке (President’s Intelligence AdvisoryBoard). Видно, что все её политические рекомендации учитываются как по «Большому Среднему Востоку», так и по Дальнему Востоку. ЦНАБ поддержал усилия Уэнди Шермана по возобновлению дипломатических отношений с Тегераном. Было отчётливо заявлено, что проблема Ирана в большей степени связана не с ядерным вопросом, а с экспортом иранской революции. Им была предложена серия чрезвычайно суровых мер по урезанию иранских трубопроводов в Африке, Латинской Америке и на Ближнем Востоке [4]. В отношении Сирии ЦНАБ считает, что невозможно свергнуть власть в республике в короткий срок. Поэтому он выдвинул «стратегию турникета» : использовать сложившийся против Исламского государства консенсус и принудить все вовлечённые в конфликт государства оказать давление на Дамаск и оппозиционные формирования для того, чтобы добиться военной деэскалации, при этом не вступая в коалицию с президентом аль-Ассадом против Исламского государства. Будут предприняты усилия по включению в состав правительства республики представителей проатлантической оппозиции и предоставлению гуманитарной и материально-технической помощи в районы, занятые повстанцами, с тем, чтобы привлечь к ним внимание. После того, как проатлантисты войдут в правительство, их задача будет состоять в том, чтобы распознать все секреты государственного аппарата, чтобы после этого уничтожить его. Но главная цель этого плана состоит в том, чтобы потребовать для повстанцев, которые отказываются войти в правительство, всю сирийскую пустыню. А эта пустыня представляет около 70% всей территории, и в ней расположены основные газовые месторождения [5]. Особое внимание в ЦНАБ уделяется Интернету. Речь идёт об ограничении правительственной цензуры с тем, чтобы облегчить контроль со стороны АНБ [6]. Вместе с тем там обеспокоены тем, что народный Китай защищает себя от шпионажа со стороны АНБ [7]. В тихоокеанском регионе ЦНАБ выступает за сближение с Индией, Малазией и Индонезией. С этой целью разработан план совершенствования механизма, направленного против Северной Кореи. Ответственные лица ЦНАБ из бывшего органа по сотрудничеству демократов с республиканскими неоконсерваторами постепенно превратился в главный исследовательский центр колониального империализма. Кроме Курта Кемпбелла и Мишель Флурнуа в состав администрации входят: генерал Джон Аллен, командующий Коалицией сил по борьбе с ИГИЛ, Ричард Эрмитейдж, бывший помощник госсекретаря, Ричард Данциг, вице-президент компании Rand Corporation, Джозеф Либерман, бывший пресс-секретарь израильского Сената, генерал Джеймс Маттис, бывший командующий ЦентрКома. ЦНАБ и в дальнейшем будет развиваться, потому что теперь он является главным мозговым центром, способным повлиять на оборонный бюджет и перевести экономику страны на военные рельсы. [1] To Prevail: An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism, Csis Significant Issues Series, CSIS, ноябрь 2001. [2] Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, Институт прогрессивной политики (Progressive Policy Institute), 30 октября, 2003 г. [3] The Inheritance and the Way Forward, Курь Кемпбелл, Мишель Флурнуа, ЦНАБ (CNAS), 2007. [4] Pushback Countering the Iran Action Network, Скотт Модель и Дэвид Ашер, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), сентябрь 2013 г. [5] The Tourniquet. A Strategy for Defeating the Islamic State and Saving Syria and Iraq, Марк Линч, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), октябрь 2014. А также How This Ends. A Blueprint for De-Escalation in Syria, Дафна Ранд и Николас Герас, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), ноябрь 2014 г. « Американский «мирный план» для Сирии », Тьерри Мейсан, Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов, Al-Watan (Сирия), Сеть Вольтер, 1 января 2015. [6] Bringing Liberty Online. Reenergizing the Internet Freedom Agenda in a Post-Snowden Era, Ричард Фонтен, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), сентябрь 2014 г. [7] Warring State: China’s Cybersecurity Strategy, Эми Чанг, Центр новой американской безопасности ( Center for a New American Security), декабрь 2014г. http://www.voltairenet.org/article186374.html

06 мая 2013, 05:45

Американский журнал Foreign Policy опубликовал список 500 самых влиятельных людей мира, в который вошли 23 россиянина

...Это российские политики и крупные бизнесмены, один военный и один криминальный авторитет. В список самых влиятельных людей по версии Foreign Policy вошли президент России Владимир Путин, глава правительства Дмитрий Медведев, министр иностранных дел Сергей Лавров, глава Мифина Антон Силуанов и глава Минобороны Сергей Шойгу, председатель Банка России Сергей Игнатьев, директор ФСБ Александр Бортников, мэр Москвы Сергей Собянин и другие.Из российских бизнесменов в список вошли также основатель USM Holdings Алишер Усманов (№1 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $17,6 млрд), совладелец «Альфа-Групп» Михаил Фридман (№2 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $16,5 млрд), председатель правления «Новатэка» Леонид Михельсон (№3 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $15,4 млрд), владелец «Реновы» Виктор Вексельберг (№4 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $15,1 млрд), президент нефтяной компании «Лукойл» Вагит Алекперов (№5 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $14,8 млрд), председатель совета директоров «Еврохима» Андрей Мельниченко (№6 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $14,4 млрд), глава холдинга «Интеррос» Владимир Потанин (№7 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $14,3 млрд), председатель совета директоров НЛМК Владимир Лисин (№8 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $14,1 млрд), глава «Газпрома» Алексей Миллер (№2 в рейтинге самых высокооплачиваемых топ-менеджеров России), совладелец Mail.ru Group Юрий Мильнер (№102 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $1,1 млрд), президент «Роснефти» Игорь Сечин  (№3 в рейтинге самых высокооплачиваемых топ-менеджеров России). Из иностранных политических лидеров журнал включил в список президента Палестины Махмуда Аббаса, лидера австралийской оппозиции Тони Эбботта и премьер-министра Японии Синдзо Абэ. По мнению издания, влиятельными также являются исполнительный директор газеты The New York Times Джил Абрамсон и "король игорного бизнеса", американский магнат Шелдон Адельсон. Список составлен в алфавитном порядке, в нем преобладают американцы — 142 человека. При составлении перечня редакция Foreign Policy пользовалась всеми доступными рейтингами влиятельности, в том числе публикациями Forbes, Times, Vanity Fair, Wall Street Journal, Global Finance и другими. Mahmoud Abbas President, Palestinian Authority West Bank Tony Abbott Liberal Party leader Australia Shinzo Abe Prime minister Japan Jill Abramson New York Times executive editor USA Sheldon Adelson Las Vegas Sands CEO and chair USA Aga Khan IV Ismaili Muslim imam Britain Daniel Akerson General Motors CEO and chair USA Rinat Akhmetov System Capital Management owner Ukraine Karl Albrecht Aldi Süd owner Germany Vagit Alekperov Lukoil president Russia Keith Alexander National Security Agency director USA Paul Allen Microsoft co-founder and Vulcan Inc. chair USA Yukiya Amano International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Japan Shlomo Amar Sephardic chief rabbi Israel Mukesh Ambani Reliance Industries chair and managing director India Yaakov Amidror National security advisor Israel Celso Amorim Defense minister Brazil Marc Andreessen Andreessen Horowitz co-founder USA A.K. Antony Defense minister India Catherine Ashton European Union foreign minister Britain Taro Aso Finance minister Japan Bashar al-Assad President Syria Ibrahim bin Abdulaziz al-Assaf Finance minister Saudi Arabia Aung San Suu Kyi Opposition leader Burma Jean-Marc Ayrault Prime minister France Alberto Baillères Grupo Bal chair Mexico John Baird Foreign minister Canada Bernard Bajolet Directorate-General for External Security head* France Steve Ballmer Microsoft CEO USA Ban Ki-moon United Nations secretary-general South Korea Mario Barletta Radical Civic Union president Argentina José Manuel Barroso European Commission president Portugal Bartholomew I Ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople Turkey Omar Hassan al-Bashir President Sudan Fatou Bensouda International Criminal Court prosecutor Gambia Ben Bernanke Federal Reserve chair USA Pier Luigi Bersani Democratic Party secretary Italy Jeff Bewkes Time Warner Inc. CEO and chair USA Jeff Bezos Amazon CEO USA Ted Bianco Wellcome Trust acting director Britain Joseph Biden Vice president USA Carl Bildt Foreign minister Sweden Robert Birgeneau U.C. Berkeley chancellor USA Tony Blair Former prime minister Britain Lloyd Blankfein Goldman Sachs CEO and chair USA Len Blavatnik Access Industries chair USA Michael Bloomberg New York mayor USA John Boehner Speaker of the House of Representatives USA Jean-Laurent Bonnafé BNP Paribas CEO and director France Alexander Bortnikov FSB director Russia Leszek Borysiewicz Cambridge University chief executive Britain John Brennan CIA director USA Sergey Brin Google co-founder USA Andrew Brown Church Commissioners CEO and secretary Britain Warren Buffett Berkshire Hathaway CEO USA Ursula Burns Xerox CEO USA David Cameron Prime minister Britain Bob Carr Foreign minister Australia Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Juárez cartel leader Mexico John Chambers Cisco CEO and chair USA Margaret Chan World Health Organization director-general China Norman Chan Hong Kong Monetary Authority CEO Hong Kong Stephen Chazen Occidental CEO and president USA Dhanin Chearavanont Charoen Pokphand Group chair Thailand Chen Yuan China Development Bank chair China Cheng Yu-tung Investor Hong Kong Palaniappan Chidambaram Finance minister India Jean-Paul Chifflet Crédit Agricole CEO France James Clapper Director of national intelligence USA Helen Clark U.N. Development Program administrator New Zealand Joseph Clayton Dish Network CEO and president USA Bill Clinton Former president USA Hillary Clinton Former secretary of state USA Tim Cook Apple CEO USA Jean-François Copé Union for a Popular Movement president France Michael Corbat Citigroup CEO USA Ertharin Cousin U.N. World Food Program executive director USA James Cuno J. Paul Getty Trust CEO and president USA Siyabonga Cwele State security minister South Africa Ophelia Dahl Partners in Health executive director USA Dai Xianglong National Council for Social Security Fund chair China Dalai Lama Tibetan spiritual leader Aliko Dangote Dangote Group CEO and president Nigeria Kim Darroch National security advisor Britain Ahmet Davutoglu Foreign minister Turkey Henri de Castries AXA CEO and chair France Michael Dell Dell CEO USA Leonardo Del Vecchio Luxottica chair Italy Thomas de Maizière Defense minister Germany Christophe de Margerie Total CEO and chair France Martin Dempsey Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff USA Hailemariam Desalegn African Union chair Ethiopia Cobus de Swardt Transparency International managing director South Africa Philip de Toledo Capital Group Companies president USA Michael Diekmann Allianz CEO and chair Germany Jeroen Dijsselbloem Dutch finance minister and Eurogroup president Netherlands Sheila Dikshit New Delhi chief minister India Jamie Dimon JPMorgan Chase CEO, chair, and president USA Daniel Doctoroff Bloomberg L.P. CEO and president USA Tom Donilon National security advisor USA Thomas Donohue Chamber of Commerce CEO and president USA Jack Dorsey Twitter founder and Square Inc. CEO USA Mario Draghi European Central Bank president Italy Abu Dua al Qaeda in Iraq leader Iraq Jean-François Dubos Vivendi chair France Bob Dudley BP CEO USA Mike Duke Walmart CEO and president USA Mark Dybul Global Fund executive director USA Nabil Elaraby Arab League secretary-general Egypt Mohamed A. El-Erian Pimco CEO and co-CIO USA John Elkann Exor chair Italy Larry Ellison Oracle CEO and chair USA Erik Engstrom Reed Elsevier CEO Sweden Recep Tayyip Erdogan Prime minister Turkey Sergio Ermotti UBS CEO Switzerland Laurent Fabius Foreign minister France Richard Fadden Canadian Security Intelligence Service director Canada Teuku Faizasyah International affairs advisor Indonesia Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi Nuclear scientist Iran John Fallon Pearson CEO Britain Fan Changlong Central Military Commission vice chairman China Fang Fenghui People's Liberation Army chief of general staff China Drew Gilpin Faust Harvard University president USA Jon Feltheimer Lionsgate CEO and co-chair USA Hakan Fidan National Intelligence Organization undersecretary Turkey Laurence Fink BlackRock CEO and chair USA Chris Finlayson BG CEO Britain Jürgen Fitschen Deutsche Bank co-chair Germany James Flaherty Finance minister Canada Maria das Graças Silva Foster Petrobras CEO Brazil Mikhail Fradkov Foreign Intelligence Service head Russia Pope Francis Head of Catholic Church Vatican City Vagner Freitas Unified Workers' Central president Brazil Mikhail Fridman Alfa Group Consortium chair Russia Fu Chengyu Sinopec chair China Osamu Fujimura Chief cabinet secretary Japan Robert Gallucci MacArthur Foundation president USA Sonia Gandhi Indian National Congress party president India Bill Gates Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation co-chair and Microsoft co-founder USA Melinda Gates Gates Foundation co-chair USA Valery Gerasimov Armed forces chief of general staff Russia Rostam Ghasemi Iranian oil minister Iran Carlos Ghosn Nissan and Renault CEO and chair France Julia Gillard Prime minister Australia Ivan Glasenberg Glencore CEO South Africa Robert Glasser Care International secretary-general USA Pravin Gordhan Finance minister South Africa Terry Gou Foxconn CEO Taiwan Mario Greco Assicurazioni Generali CEO Italy Brad Grey Paramount Pictures CEO and chair USA William Gross Pimco co-CIO and managing director USA Sérgio Guerra Brazilian Social Democracy Party president Brazil Abdullah Gul President Turkey Fethullah Gulen Muslim religious leader Turkey Stuart Gulliver HSBC group CEO Britain Guo Jinlong Beijing Communist Party secretary China Guo Shengkun Minister of public security China Ángel Gurrí­a OECD secretary-general Mexico António Guterres U.N. high commissioner for refugees Portugal Javier Gutiérrez Ecopetrol CEO Colombia Joaquín Guzmán Loera Sinaloa drug cartel leader Mexico Fernando Haddad São Paulo mayor Brazil Chuck Hagel Defense secretary USA William Hague Foreign minister Britain Tony Hall BBC director-general Britain Andrew Hamilton Oxford University chief executive Britain Ingrid Hamm Robert Bosch Stiftung executive director Germany John Hammergren McKesson CEO, chair, and president USA Philip Hammond Secretary of state for defense Britain Han Zheng Shanghai Communist Party secretary China Jalaluddin Haqqani Haqqani network leader Afghanistan Stephen Harper Prime minister Canada Toru Hashimoto Osaka mayor Japan Gerald Hassell Bank of New York Mellon CEO and chair USA Jimmy Hayes Cox Enterprises CEO and president USA John Hennessy Stanford University president USA Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert Defense minister Netherlands Stephen Hester Royal Bank of Scotland CEO Britain Christoph Heusgen National security advisor Germany Marillyn Hewson Lockheed Martin CEO and president USA Hisashi Hieda Fuji Media Holdings CEO and chair Japan Nobuyuki Hirano Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group CEO and president Japan Ho Ching Temasek CEO and executive director Singapore Reid Hoffman LinkedIn co-founder and executive chair USA François Hollande President France Jan Hommen ING CEO Netherlands Mahabub Hossain BRAC executive director Bangladesh Hyun Oh-seok Finance minister South Korea Carl Icahn Icahn Enterprises chair USA Robert Iger Walt Disney Co. CEO and chair USA Sergei Ignatiev Central Bank of Russia chair Russia Jeffrey Immelt General Electric CEO and chair USA Naoki Inose Tokyo governor Japan Zaheer ul-Islam Inter-Services Intelligence director-general Pakistan Jonathan Ive Apple senior VP for industrial design Britain Paul Jacobs Qualcomm CEO and chair USA Mohammad Ali Jafari Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Iran Anshu Jain Deutsche Bank co-chair Britain Paul Jean-Ortiz Diplomatic advisor France Antony Jenkins Barclays Group CEO Britain Jiang Jianqing Industrial and Commercial Bank of China executive director and chair China Jiang Jiemin State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission chair* China Jiang Zemin Former president China Edward Johnson Fidelity Investments CEO and chair USA Goodluck Jonathan President Nigeria Alok Joshi Research and Analysis Wing chief India Banri Kaieda Democratic Party of Japan president Japan Unni Karunakara Médecins Sans Frontières president India Hamid Karzai President Afghanistan Ashfaq Parvez Kayani Chief of army staff Pakistan Muhtar Kent Coca-Cola CEO and chair USA Neal Keny-Guyer Mercy Corps CEO USA John Kerry Secretary of state USA Ali Khamenei Supreme leader Iran Salman Khurshid Foreign minister India Paal Kibsgaard Schlumberger CEO Norway Kemal Kilicdaroglu Republican People's Party chair Turkey Kim Jang-soo National security advisor South Korea Jim Yong Kim World Bank president USA Kim Jong Un Supreme leader North Korea Kim Kwan-jin Defense minister South Korea Ian King BAE Systems CEO Britain Mervyn King Bank of England governor Britain Cristina Fernández de Kirchner President Argentina Fumio Kishida Foreign minister Japan Henry Kissinger Former secretary of state USA Susanne Klatten Investor Germany Bill Klesse Valero CEO and chair USA Philip Knight Nike chair USA Charles Koch Koch Industries CEO and chair USA David Koch Koch Industries executive VP USA Nobuaki Koga Japanese Trade Union Confederation, president Japan Larry Kramer Hewlett Foundation president USA William Kumuyi Deeper Christian Life Ministry general superintendent Nigeria Haruhiko Kuroda Bank of Japan governor Japan Raymond Kwok Sun Hung Kai Properties co-chair Hong Kong Thomas Kwok Sun Hung Kai Properties co-chair Hong Kong Oh-Hyun Kwon Samsung CEO South Korea Christine Lagarde IMF managing director France Arnaud Lagardère Lagardère CEO and chair France Pascal Lamy World Trade Organization director-general France Ryan Lance ConocoPhillips CEO and chair USA Germán Larrea Mota-Velasco Grupo México president Mexico Carol Larson Packard Foundation president USA Risa Lavizzo-Mourey Robert Wood Johnson Foundation CEO and president USA Sergei Lavrov Foreign minister Russia Jean-Yves Le Drian Defense minister France Lee Shau-kee Henderson Land Development chair Hong Kong Thierry Lepaon General Confederation of Labor secretary-general France Richard Levin Yale University president USA Jacob Lew Treasury secretary USA Li Hongzhi Falun Gong founder China Li Jianguo All-China Federation of Trade Unions chair China Li Ka-shing Hutchison Whampoa chair Hong Kong Li Keqiang Premier China Li Lihui Bank of China president China Robin Li Baidu CEO China Alfredo Lim Manila mayor Philippines Lim Siong Guan Government of Singapore Investment Corp. president Singapore Vladimir Lisin NLMK chair Russia Liu Zhenya State Grid Corp. president China Andrés Manuel López Obrador Opposition leader Mexico Hernán Lorenzino Economic minister Argentina Peter Löscher Siemens CEO and president Austria Lou Jiwei Finance minister China Emilio Lozoya Austin Pemex CEO Mexico Helge Lund Statoil CEO and president Norway Michael Lynton Sony Entertainment CEO and chair USA Peter MacKay Defense minister Canada Andrew Mackenzie BHP Billiton CEO South Africa Gregory Maffei Liberty Media CEO and president USA Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Defense minister UAE Miguel Ángel Mancera Mexico City mayor Mexico Guido Mantega Finance minister Brazil Lutz Marmor ARD chair Germany John Mars Mars Inc. chair USA Agus Martowardojo Finance minister Indonesia Masayuki Matsumoto NHK president Japan Isao Matsushita JX Holdings CEO and president Japan Shigeo Matsutomi Intelligence chief Japan Peter Maurer International Committee of the Red Cross president Switzerland Marissa Mayer Yahoo! CEO USA Timothy Mayopoulos Fannie Mae CEO USA Lowell McAdam Verizon CEO and chair USA Margot McCarthy National security advisor Australia Mitch McConnell Senate minority leader USA William McNabb Vanguard CEO and chair USA James McNerney Boeing CEO and chair USA José Antonio Meade Foreign minister Mexico Mourad Medelci Foreign minister Algeria Dmitry Medvedev Prime minister Russia Hakimullah Mehsud Pakistani Taliban leader Pakistan Andrey Melnichenko Siberian Coal Energy Co. chair Russia Shivshankar Menon National security advisor India Angela Merkel Chancellor Germany Khaled Meshaal Hamas leader West Bank Gérard Mestrallet GDF Suez CEO and chair France Yona Metzger Ashkenazi chief rabbi Israel Leonid Mikhelson Novatek executive director Russia Carolyn Miles Save the Children CEO and president USA Ed Miliband Labour Party leader Britain Alexey Miller Gazprom CEO and chair Russia Yuri Milner Digital Sky Technologies founder Russia Le Luong Minh Association of Southeast Asian Nations secretary-general Vietnam Lakshmi Mittal ArcelorMittal CEO and chair India Semion Mogilevich Mafia boss Russia Nadir Mohamed Rogers Communications CEO and president Canada Moon Hee-sang Democratic United Party leader South Korea Pedro Morenés Defense minister Spain Mohamed Morsy President Egypt Pierre Moscovici Finance minister France Heydar Moslehi Intelligence minister Iran Brian Moynihan Bank of America CEO USA Fahad al-Mubarak Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency governor Saudi Arabia Alan Mulally Ford CEO and president USA Tom Mulcair New Democratic Party leader Canada Rupert Murdoch News Corp. CEO and chair USA Elon Musk PayPal, SpaceX, and Tesla Motors founder USA Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foreign minister UAE Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan Abu Dhabi crown prince UAE Ali al-Naimi Minister of petroleum Saudi Arabia Hiroaki Nakanishi Hitachi president Japan Nam Jae-joon National Intelligence Service chief South Korea Janet Napolitano Homeland security secretary USA Óscar Naranjo National security advisor Mexico Hassan Nasrallah Hezbollah secretary-general Lebanon Marty Natalegawa Foreign minister Indonesia Mohammed bin Nayef Interior minister Saudi Arabia Benjamin Netanyahu Prime minister Israel Maite Nkoana-Mashabane Foreign minister South Africa Indra Nooyi PepsiCo CEO and chair USA Phebe Novakovic General Dynamics CEO and chair USA Christian Noyer Bank of France governor France Barack Obama President USA Michelle Obama First lady USA Frances O'Grady Trades Union Congress general secretary Britain Mullah Mohammed Omar Taliban leader Afghanistan Keith O'Nions Imperial College London rector Britain Itsunori Onodera Defense minister Japan Amancio Ortega Inditex founder Spain George Osborne Chancellor of the Exchequer Britain Paul Otellini Intel CEO and president USA Michael Otto Otto Group chair Germany Ricardo Paes de Barros Secretary of strategic affairs Brazil Larry Page Google CEO USA Tamir Pardo Mossad director Israel Park Geun-hye President South Korea Park Won-soon Seoul mayor South Korea Antonio Patriota Foreign minister Brazil Nikolai Patrushev National Security Council secretary Russia Enrique Peña Nieto President Mexico Yves Perrier Amundi CEO France Stefan Persson H&M chair Sweden Navi Pillay U.N. high commissioner for human rights South Africa François-Henri Pinault Kering CEO and chair France Juan Carlos Pinzón Defense minister Colombia Georges Plassat Carrefour CEO France Vladimir Potanin Interros owner Russia Scott Powers State Street Global Advisors CEO and president USA Sunil Prabhu Mumbai mayor India Vladimir Putin President Russia Yusuf al-Qaradawi Sunni cleric Egypt Thomas Rabe Bertelsmann CEO and chair Germany Bertrand Ract-Madoux Army chief of staff France Baba Ramdev Hindu spiritual leader India Rafael Ramírez PDVSA president Venezuela Anders Fogh Rasmussen NATO secretary-general Denmark Sumner Redstone Viacom and CBS chair USA Olli Rehn European Commission finance minister Finland Harry Reid Senate majority leader USA L. Rafael Reif MIT president USA Stephen Rigby National security advisor Canada Rebecca Rimel Pew Charitable Trusts CEO and president USA Georgina Rinehart Hancock Prospecting chair and director Australia Brian Roberts Comcast CEO and chair and NBCUniversal chair USA John Roberts Supreme Court chief justice USA Virginia Rometty IBM CEO, chair, and president USA Kenneth Roth Human Rights Watch executive director USA Dilma Rousseff President Brazil David Rubenstein Carlyle Group co-CEO USA George Rupp International Rescue Committee CEO and president USA Bader al-Saad Kuwait Investment Authority managing director Kuwait Alfredo Sáenz Banco Santander CEO Spain Joseph Safra Grupo Safra chair Brazil Atsuo Saka Japan Post Holdings CEO Japan Sheryl Sandberg Facebook COO USA Norio Sasaki Toshiba president Japan Yasuhiro Sato Mizuho Financial Group CEO and president Japan Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud King Saudi Arabia Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Crown prince Saudi Arabia Saud bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Foreign minister Saudi Arabia John Sawers Secret Intelligence Service chief Britain Paolo Scaroni Eni CEO Italy Wolfgang Schäuble Finance minister Germany Gerhard Schindler Federal Intelligence Service president Germany Dieter Schwarz Schwarz Group owner Germany Igor Sechin Rosneft president and chair Russia Pierre Servant Natixis CEO France Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Hindu spiritual leader India Mohamed Raafat Shehata General Intelligence Service chief Egypt Abdul-Aziz al-Sheikh Grand mufti Saudi Arabia Salil Shetty Amnesty International secretary-general India Sergei Shoigu Defense minister Russia Faisal Al Shoubaki General Intelligence Department director Jordan Radoslaw Sikorski Foreign minister Poland Anton Siluanov Finance minister Russia Mehmet Simsek Finance minister Turkey Manmohan Singh Prime minister India Carlos Slim Helú Grupo Carso founder Mexico Yngve Slyngstad Norges Bank Investment Management CEO Norway James Smith Thomson Reuters CEO and president USA Stephen Smith Defense minister Australia Sergei Sobyanin Moscow mayor Russia Michael Sommer Confederation of German Trade Unions president Germany Masayoshi Son SoftBank Mobile CEO Japan George Soros Soros Fund Management chair USA Sterling Speirn Kellogg Foundation CEO and president USA Richard Stearns World Vision president USA Peer Steinbrück Social Democratic Party leader Germany Randall Stephenson AT&T CEO and chair USA John Strangfeld Prudential Financial CEO and chair USA Megawati Sukarnoputri Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle chair Indonesia Bandar bin Sultan General Intelligence Presidency chief Saudi Arabia Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. New York Times Co. chair USA William Swanson Raytheon CEO and chair USA Sushma Swaraj Bharatiya Janata Party opposition leader India Alwaleed bin Talal Kingdom Holding Co. chair Saudi Arabia Ahmed al-Tayeb Grand sheikh of al-Azhar Egypt Johannes Teyssen E.ON CEO and chair Germany Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani Foreign minister Qatar Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani Emir Qatar Thein Sein President Burma Peter Thiel PayPal co-founder USA David Thomson Thomson Reuters chair Canada Shirley Tilghman Princeton University president USA Rex Tillerson Exxon Mobil CEO and chair USA Héctor Timerman Foreign minister Argentina Robert Tjian Howard Hughes Medical Institute president USA Alexandre Tombini Central Bank of Brazil governor Brazil Akio Toyoda Toyota CEO Japan Miguel Ángel Treviño Morales Zetas drug cartel leader Mexico Richard Trumka AFL-CIO president USA Kazuhiro Tsuga Panasonic president Japan Kevin Tsujihara Warner Bros. Entertainment CEO USA Yoshinobu Tsutsui Nippon Life Insurance president Japan Donald Tusk Prime minister Poland Luis Ubiñas Ford Foundation president USA Hiroo Unoura Nippon Telegraph and Telephone CEO Japan Alisher Usmanov Investor Russia Herman Van Rompuy European Council president Belgium Viktor Vekselberg Renova Group chair Russia Luis Videgaray Finance minister Mexico Antonio Villaraigosa Los Angeles mayor USA Ignazio Visco Bank of Italy governor Italy Peter Voser Royal Dutch Shell CEO Switzerland Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb emir Algeria Jimmy Wales Wikipedia founder USA Peter Wall Chief of general staff Britain S. Robson Walton Walmart chair USA Wan Qingliang Guangzhou Communist Party secretary China Wang Yi Foreign minister China Wang Yilin CNOOC chair China Nick Warner Australian Secret Intelligence Service director-general Australia Rick Warren Evangelical pastor USA John Watson Chevron CEO and chair USA Jens Weidmann German Federal Bank president Germany Bob Weinstein Weinstein Company co-chair USA Harvey Weinstein Weinstein Company co-chair USA Justin Welby Archbishop of Canterbury Britain Guido Westerwelle Foreign minister Germany Guy Weston Garfield Weston Foundation chair Britain Meg Whitman Hewlett-Packard CEO and president USA Joko Widodo Jakarta governor Indonesia Steve Williams Suncor CEO and president Canada Oprah Winfrey Harpo Productions and Oprah Winfrey Network CEO and chair USA Martin Winterkorn Volkswagen CEO Germany Penny Wong Finance minister Australia Carolyn Woo Catholic Relief Services CEO and president USA George Wood Assemblies of God general superintendent USA Nasir al-Wuhayshi al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula emir Yemen Xi Jinping President China Xu Qiliang Central Military Commission vice chairman China Moshe Yaalon Defense minister Israel Yang Jiechi State councilor China Yi Gang Foreign exchange reserves administrator China Ismet Yilmaz Defense minister Turkey Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono President Indonesia Yun Byung-se Foreign minister South Korea Syed Hashim Raza Zaidi Karachi administrator Pakistan Lamberto Zannier Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe secretary-general Italy Ayman al-Zawahiri al Qaeda leader Egypt Dieter Zetsche Daimler CEO Germany Zhang Jianguo China Construction Bank president and executive director China Zhang Yuzhuo Shenhua Group CEO and president China Zhou Jiping China National Petroleum Corp. and PetroChina chair* China Zhou Xiaochuan People's Bank of China governor China Helen Zille Democratic Alliance leader South Africa Robert Zimmer University of Chicago president USA Mark Zuckerberg Facebook CEO and founder USA Jacob Zuma President South Africa http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/29/the_500_most_powerful_people_in_the_worldhttp://www.forbes.ru/news/238657-prezident-lukoil-stal-samym-vliyatelnym-v-mire-rossiyaninom