Hillary Clinton's Psychopathic Lies

HILLARY CLINTON LYING PSYCHOPATHIC C*NT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c TelesurTV http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Are-the-Clintons-Serbias-Most-Hated-Couple-20160324-0007.html Are the Clintons Serbia's Most Hated Couple? By: Maria Markovic Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton in January 1999. | Photo: AFP Published 24 March 2016 With the full support of his wife, Hillary, Bill Clinton gave the orders for both the 1995 and 1999 NATO bombings of the former Yugoslavia. Bosnian War    President Bill Clinton’s involvement in the Balkans began in 1995 when he approved "Operation Deliberate Force," an air campaign conducted by NATO to undermine the military capabilities of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) during the Bosnia War.     RELATED: How Hillary Clinton Lied Her Way to War in Libya The Bosnian War, remembered for being the most devastating conflict in Europe since World War II, took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995 and was part of the breakup of Yugoslavia. More than 100,000 people were killed while 2.2 million people were displaced. In 1999, First Lady Hillary Clinton admitted that she phoned Bill from Africa. “I urged him to bomb,” she boasted, despite the Balkans posing no credible threat to U.S. security. Declassified documents of 2,346 pages show that it was difficult for Bill Clinton to persuade U.S. allies to intervene. The conflict was complex, involving various territorial disputes between different ethnic groups in the Balkans. But Clinton argued Bosnia lay at the "heart of Europe," spreading fears among U.S. allies that the conflict would spread to the rest of continent. Man at Anti-NATO protest | Photo: Serbianna Blog    The Clinton administration's Bosnian intervention resulted in the “Dayton Accord,” an agreement meant to create peace by dividing the state of Bosnia Herzegovina into the mainly Bosnian/Croat Muslim Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the Serbian, mainly Christian, Republika Srpska. While the agreement brought peace after three and half years of fighting, it created a dysfunctional state controlled by foreign capital, which suffered from one of the highest unemployment rates in the world and regular outbursts of nationalist tension. Kosovo War    Four years later, in 1999, President Clinton decided to launch a second war on Yugoslavia under the pretense of stopping Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic's "ethnic cleansing" of Albanians in the province of Kosovo. Despite the United Nations later ruling the alleged “genocide” never took place, Clinton strongly supported the Albanians and their Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in their fight against Yugoslav forces. During the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, thousands of protesters took to the streets of Belgrade. | Photo: Strategic Culture Website    The KLA was named a terrorist organization in 1998, responsible for killing thousands of Serbs in Kosovo before the war even started. Yet Clinton had Madeline Albright invite the KLA for training sessions to the U.S. As top Clinton administration official James Foley said: “(W)e believe that we have a lot of advice and a lot of help that we can provide to them if they become precisely the kind of political actor we would like to see them become.”     RELATED: US, NATO Lie to Justify Genocide and Destruction in Yugoslavia Aside from Clinton supporting a dubious group such as the KLA, over a 78-day period starting on March 24 his NATO campaign saw 2,300 missiles and 14,000 bombs falling on Serbian targets. The targets included civilian buildings such as monasteries, factories, television stations, hospitals and schools.  The intervention, which was never approved by the UN, devastated Yugoslavia, killed thousands of civilians and was strongly opposed by both Russia and China. Albright later admitted that the demands the U.S. presented Serbia with prior to the bombing were designed “to set the bar too high” for Belgrade and Moscow to accept. “They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get,” Albright said at the time. Ever Since    The end of the war did not mean the end of the Clinton administration's involvement in the area. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton said Kosovo is a personal matter for her. “For me, my family and my fellow Americans this is more than a foreign policy issue, it is personal,” Clinton stressed.  [comment:  speaking on behalf of a public that wouldn't even know where these c*nts were bombing.   Of course, she's lying.  Like she was lying about landing in Bosnia under fire.  'Sleep deprivation' is the ready excuse for the Bosnia lies.  Psychopaths like Hillary Clinton always have an excuse for the little people that catch them in their lies.  Trick is to look at the PATTERN of behaviour.  Hillary Clinton's pattern indicates a very disturbed and exceptionally dishonest character.  ] Hillary has met the President-Elect of the Republic of Kosovo, Hashim Thaci, multiple times. Thaci, who was branded "dangerous" and a leader of organized crime by the Council of Europe, has been accused of involvement in assassinations, drug smuggling and kidnappings during the Kosovo War, according to former U.N. war crimes prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte. Hillary Clinton meeting Hashim Thaci in Washington | Photo: State Department     Swiss Senator Dick Marty has also accused Thaci of harvesting human organs from Kosovo minorities including Serbs and Roma for profit as part of the KLA. But he is the most powerful political figure in Kosovo and has received the full support of the Clinton family. While many Kosovo Albanians celebrate the Clintons and have raised a statue of Bill as well as a possessing a dedicated clothing store to Hillary, celebrating her style, the Serb population in Kosovo and Serbia remembers the couple for their illegal bombing campaign and their support for the KLA, which caused thousands of deaths and the looting and burning of homes. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Are-the-Clintons-Serbias-Most-Hated-Couple-20160324-0007.html Other http://inserbia.info/today/2016/08/black-clinton-wanted-to-carpet-bomb-belgrade-serbia-is-now-vassal-state/ In Serbia Black: Clinton wanted to carpet bomb Belgrade, Serbia is now vassal state By InSerbia with agencies - Aug 20, 2016 BELGRADE – US Vice President Joe Biden visited Serbia this week, where he was greeted by protesters crowding the streets of Belgrade. Biden was a leading advocate of bombing in 1999. ... Some 28,000 bombs and missiles were dropped on the country within three months, inflicting damage that can be still seen today. Human rights attorney Christopher Black ... ... it is outrageous how there is no accountability for people like former US President Bill Clinton, who ordered the bombing of the republic. Meanwhile, Slobodan Milosevic, the former leader of Yugoslavia, was brought to trial and died in jail before it could be concluded. Black, who had been at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) defending people like Milosevic, claims that the Serbian ex-president “proved during the trial that all the charges against him were false,” and that the whole NATO-funded tribunal set up for a particular set of circumstances. “The whole purpose of the ICTY in my mind is threefold,” he said. “It’s to demonize the former government of Yugoslavia and make it look like they’re a bunch of criminals. It’s to justify the attack on Yugoslavia by presenting a false history of events during that time, which is all false propaganda. And thirdly, it covers up the role of NATO and their crime.” According to Black, the Yugoslavian government surrendered in June 1999 after it received a message from the US that, “unless you surrender, the Americans intend to carpet bomb Belgrade,” killing some 500,000 people. The capitulation was based solely on the desire to end the killings. “Bill Clinton was responsible for this aggression against the European state…Massive destruction was caused, thousands of people were killed, tens of thousands wounded. Yugoslavia disappeared; one of the founding members of the non-aligned movement was just crushed.” And now the wife of Bill Clinton, who is “responsible for one of the greatest war crimes of the 20th century” is the Democratic candidate for this year’s presidential elections in the US, Black noted. CONTINUED In Serbia HILLARY CLINTON E-MAIL LIES EXPOSED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z8pnk2rvYo DESTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY DOUBLE-TRACK JUSTICE SYSTEM While Hillary Clinton Secretary of State 17 of 20 countries that had donated to the Clinton Foundation received an increase in arms exports from the US. 2011 the US State Dept gave the green light to an arms deal in which Boeing delivered $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, one of the largest foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation network. Reports indicate the Clinton Foundation received at least $100 million from government officials from Middle Eastern nations and $30 million from four billionaire Saudis. Aside from the quid pro quo questions surrounding the Foundation's foreign donations, there has been controversy over how much of the Foundation's funds actually go towards charitable endeavours. In 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in over $140 million in grants and pledges ... BUT ONLY ABOUT 10% WENT TO CHARITY which is roughly the same amount that the Clinton Foundation spent travel expenses for staff and the Clintons, according to Judicial Watch organisation. [source:  recent video / apologies to whoever produced video ... I did not save URL ] That the Labor Party cow, Julia Gillard, is 'besties' with this psychopath says plenty about Julia Gillard, the Labour Party, the supporters of this pseudo 'left-wing', and whoever actually runs Australia behind the curtain.

Hillary Clinton Besties: Gulenists, Hizmet & Saudi Arabia

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgnxVGWvel4 DAILY CALLER - SUMMARY New Ties Emerge Between Clinton And Mysterious Islamic Cleric Reporter:  Chuck Ross 9:29 PM 07/13/2016 http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/13/new-ties-emerge-between-clinton-and-mysterious-islamic-cleric/ email and lobbying documents filed with Congress show new ties between 'Clintonworld' + members (Hizmet) network:  Turkish Islamic cleric, Fethullah Gulen, 74 1. IMPLICATIONS for US + Turkey (key NATO ally) should Clinton win election 2. PLUS:  raises questions whether Clinton has rewarded (or will reward) the Gulen supporters with favours Gulen followers donated to Hillary Clinton: 1.  various political campaigns 2.  to her family charity Recep Ozkan a Gulen movement (Hizmet) leader donated $500k to $1-million to:  CLINTON FOUNDATION Gokhan Ozkok Turkish Cultural Centre (network of businesses and non-profits) Turkish Cultural Centre annual banquet keynote speaker:  Hillary Clinton, then senator, New York prev. national finance co-chair: Ready PAC (pro Clinton) is a member of:  Clinton Global Initiative e-mail 01 April 2009 to:  Huma Abedin, Clinton deputy chief of staff shows:  "Gulen follower had direct access to Clinton’s staff, sought a favor" seeking to arrange Obama meeting with:  Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, academic Sec. General of Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) in Turkey Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu = ally of Fethullah Gulen 2014 - Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu lost presidential election to Erdogan Obama met Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu several days after e-mail in Istanbul Obama invited Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to visit White House 2009 - academic Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu visited White House reportedly asked Obama to create US ambassador to Muslim region Terrorism watchdog groups  flagged meetings with Obama due to Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu previous praise of: Hamas Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir (US opponent) but Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglue is reportedly unlike the radical Islamists US TAXPAYER FUNDED Gulenists promote cleric's teachings through multiple non-profit vehicles teachings described as 'relatively moderate and pro-Western' in addition to teachings, there is: money-making through TAXPAYER-FUNDED charter schools Gulen charter schools number over 150 note:  "partnerships between the schools and contractors allow taxpayer funds to remain within the Gulen network" in addition:  Hizmet is financed in part by Turkish teachers from abroad who are required to allocate large percentage of salary to Gulen network whistleblower 2012:  40% of husband's salary went to Gulen network Visa fraud accusations: work visas to bring Turkish citizens to US to teach taxpayer funds used to pay immigration and legal fees for family members of teachers taxpayer funds allocated to schools funnelled to contractors controlled by Turkish nationals such contractors:  links to Gulen movement Harmony Public Schools Gulenist schools operating in Texas contracted with company controlled by pro Gulen non-profit:  COSMOS FOUNDATION TEXAS GULF FOUNDATION founded by:  Alp Aslandogan given taxpayer-funded contracts to provide services to Gulen schools Alp Aslandogan former professor, Texas universities donor to Clinton campaign ALLIANCE FOR SHARED VALUES Executive Director:  Alp Aslandogan Turkey Pres. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan aggressive crackdown v. Gulenists Gulenists said to control Turkish institutions:  incl. media, courts, police seeks extradition of Fethullah Gulen (residing:  Pennsylvania, since 1999) Turkey govt lawyers:  Amsterdam & Partners used to undermine Gulen & Gulenists in court and in media Judicial Watch 2009 email released: Gokhan Ozkok (Gulen follower) asked Clinton deputy chief of staff:  Huma Abedin for assistance to hook up "one of his allies to President Obama" Gokhan Ozkok Turkish Cultural Centre network of businesses and non-profits annual banquet keynote speaker:  Hillary Clinton, then senator, New York prev. national finance co-chair: Ready PAC (pro Clinton) 2014 - donation to Ready PAC, $10,000 2015 - donation to Clinton campaign, $2,700 is a member of:  Clinton Global Initiative Ozkok also affiliations with Gulen connected education firms: Sema Education Apple Education Services Clinton Global Initiative a non-profit arm (of multiple non profits) of:  CLINTON FOUNDATION Gokhan Ozkok has donated to:  Clinton Global Initiative ($25k to $50k) Alp Aslandogan former professor, Texas universities donor to Clinton campaign ALLIANCE FOR SHARED VALUES Executive Director:  Alp Aslandogan US Senate lobbying registration disclosure filed July 2016 Gulen-aligned group called ALLIANCE FOR SHARED VALUES hired:  Podesta Group (Clinton connected) to LOBBY CONGRESS outwardly, group claims to lobby for:  'peace, tolerance & interfaith dialogue' Podesta Group co-founded by John Podesta, 67  Tony Podesta, 72  (aka Anthony Podesta) (brother) John Podesta = Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta = Bill Clinton chief of staff in 1990s, during impeachment crisis John Podesta = adviser to President Obama John Podesta = found left-wing propaganda organ The Center for American Progress [breitbart] Tony Podesta = Clinton campaign bundler, major   Podesta Group controversial representations seeking to influence Clinton's State Dept. Podesta Group lobbied for: Uranium One Russian-controlled uranium co., ties with Canadian mining magnate Canadian mining magnate:  Frank Giustra = CLINTON FOUNDATION philanthropist Podesta Group lobbied for: BAE Systems, UK, defence contractor facing stiff US govt sanctions for illegal arms trading BAE Systems let off with slap on wrist for infractions Podesta Group lobbied for: Islami Bank Bangladesh Bengali bank linked to terrorist groups Podesta Group principal & Clinton bundler:  TONY PODESTA hired by Saudi government arm of the Saudi regime:  Center for Studies and Media Affairs paying the Podesta Group to lobby US lawmakers and federal agencies on its behalf Saudi govt paying  $140,000 a month for services = one of the several lobbyists at his firm personally handling Saudi account Saudi Royal Court’s contact with the Podesta Group = part of effort to block passage of a law allowing victims of terrorism to sue foreign govt     that is deemed to have aided & abetted terrorists *classified documents contained in the 9/11 Commission report *Saudi government officials had ties to some of the 9/11 hijackers *15 of 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia 2015 - Saudi Arabia doled out $9.4 million to prevent passage of the bill Podesta Group managing PR re execution of:  Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr (Shi'ite cleric) vocal critic of the Saudi royal family - pro free elections Podesta Group hooked up NYT with Saudi [mouthpiece] Saudi Arabia hires numerous firms for lobbying & PR purposes Saudi Arabia owns:   $750 billion in U.S. Treasuries (bonds?) and reportedly has threatened to sell off if law passed NOTE:  Saudi Arabia donated between $10 million and $25 million to Clinton family charity:  CLINTON FOUNDATION NOTE:  Friends of Saudi Arabia donated between $1-million & $5-million to:  CLINTON FOUNDATION NOTE:  individual Saudi royal family (x2) donated:  $200k to $500k to:  CLINTON FOUNDATION other source http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-bundler-is-directly-lobbying-for-saudi-arabia/ COMMENT That was my challenge for the day: trying to focus on the tangled web of influence in the Clinton camp. Not sure that this summary has helped me enormously, as I'm just an average, not too bright, person. What struck me about this is that taxpayer money (in my view) should not be going back to any religious (ie POLITICAL) groups, particularly in what is supposed to be secular society. It doesn't matter to me that like kickbacks go to other religious (ie POLITICAL) groups. I don't think host societies should be funding political (or personal) ambitions of groups that represent interests of outsiders to the host nation. Found myself wondering why the Clinton deputy chief of staff isn't Anglo-American or European (ie Huma Abedin, Islamic Indian-Pakistani), and why there seems to be so few Anglo-Americans in American politics. If I were the purported 62%, I would want to know why (a) my demographic has dramatically dwindled and (b) why my institutions are dominated by those that are not Anglo-Americans or those of European origin. I'm sure that if the demographic of the Turks in Turkey had dwindled to 62% and if the country and its institutions were dominated by those that are not Turks, the Turks would have cause for concern. However, the Turks aren't fools, and whatever you might think of Erdogan, at least Erdogan promotes Turkish interests. I don't know what kind of scam the Clinton Foundation is, but it sounds like some kind of scam to me. The sums of money being put through that are obscene, and the network of interconnecting shifty NGOs is mind-boggling. The average person would have a hard time getting a handle on all these NGOs, the influence, and the money moving through them. The average news reader who doesn't follow this very closely, would have no hope of seeing the bigger picture when it comes to American political figures and their various connections. I'm with the Saudis on stopping the sue-the-government law when terrorists strike. I think that's bullsh*t, and so is suing banks. The responsibility lies with terrorist groups, and this is just another American ambulance-chaser money-making scam.

Sweden vs Morocco -- Another Swedish Diplomatic Blunder?

ꕤ Article SOURCE as marked Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) partially recognized state controls thin strip of Western Sahara region claims sovereignty over entire territory of Western Sahara Western Sahara -- a former Spanish colony SADR proclaimed by the Polisario Front - 1976, in Bir Lehlou, Western Sahara SADR government controls about 20–25% of the territory it claims territories under SADR control referred to as "the Liberated Territories" or "the Free Zone". Morocco controls and administers the rest of the disputed territory and calls these lands its Southern Provinces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic Polisario Front aka , Frente Polisario, FRELISARIO or POLISARIO "Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro" Sahrawi rebel national liberation movement working to end Moroccan presence in Western Sahara militating for independence of Western Sahara since 1973 originally against Spanish rule but after 1975: against Mauritania & Morocco 1979 onwards:  against Morocco only Polisario Front is based in Algeria, Algeria Polisario Front is responsible for the Tindouf refugee camps Polisario Front maintains a cease-fire with Morocco since 1991 (see Settlement Plan) Polisario Front is outlawed in parts of Western Sahara under Moroccan control Sahrawi Sahrawis are Sunni Muslims of the Maliki rite or school As with most Saharan peoples living in the Sahara, the Sahrawi culture is mixed. Shows mainly Berber-Tuareg characteristics eg privileged position of women identical to the neighbouring Berber-speaking Tuaregs plus:  some additional Bedouin Arab and black African characteristics strong tribal & cultural links between the Sahrawis and Mauritanian populations, incl. historical allegiance to some Moorish emirates 1975 - Internatinal court ruling recommended the UN to continue to pursue self-determination for the Sahrawis, enabling them to choose for themselves whether they wanted Spanish Sahara to turn into an independent state, or to be annexed to Morocco or Mauritania. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polisario_Front https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_people Morocco 99% Muslim Sunni majority at:  67% Official languages:  Arabic & Berber  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco Algeria 99% Muslim Majority Sunni - Maliki tradition EXTRACTS Morocco has blocked the opening of Ikea’s first store in the kingdom In Retaliation Of Sweden’s Plans to:  recognise a republic sought by the Polisario Front in the Western Sahara. SADR is recognized by a number of states and is a member of the African Union, no Western country has formally recognized it, and activists have accused a number of states – including France and Spain – of backing Morocco in the dispute. United Nations recently renewed a peacekeeping force that’s been there since 1991. Morocco claims Western Sahara, which is rich in offshore fishing, phosphates and potentially large reserves of crude oil, as its territory and has controlled most the sparsely populated stretch of desert since 1975. By Jack Phillips on Oct 03, 2015 http://www.jewocity.com/blog/morocco-blocks-ikea-store-opening-in-retaliation-of-sweden-s-plans-to/88017 Western Sahara: The Historical Commitment Sweden Should Remember Friday 2 October 2015 - 18:51 EXTRACT Sweden among the signatories of the Treaty of Algeciras Yet there exists a solid historical and legal argument that has to be brandished in the face of the Swedish government to show them that by siding with the Polisario, they fail to respect the commitment they made over a century ago with regards to Moroccan territorial integrity. This argument will demonstrate to Swedish politicians and its public opinion that their position on the conflict over the years is based on a false historical assumption. Not only did the SADR not exist before 1976, but Sweden signed an international treaty with respect to Morocco in which it committed along with all Western powers to preserve Moroccan territorial integrity. By virtue of the Treaty of Algeciras of April 7, 1906, all Western powers, including Sweden, committed to preserving Moroccan territorial integrity. Was the so-called Western Sahara part of Moroccan sovereignty at the time? The answers is yes. The spirit of the Treaty of Algeciras was based on the international agreements signed between Morocco and some Western powers, mainly the United Kingdom, which recognized that this territory was an integral part of Morocco. According to Frank E. Trout, author of the book Moroccan Saharan Frontier, in accordance with the agreement signed between Morocco and the UK in March 1895, the British government recognized that the territory between Cap Juby (the area near Tarfaya) and Cap Bojador (present day so-called Western Sahara), belonged to Morocco. Since then until 1904, when the UK signed an agreement with France, the British, as well as the French and Spanish recognized that this territory was under Moroccan sovereignty. The premise on which the Swedish government bases its position is that the so-called Western Sahara never belonged to Morocco before 1975, and as such Morocco can lay no claim of sovereignty over this territory. However, this premise itself is false. Contrary to common belief in the West, Spanish occupation of the territory was in total violation of international law at the time. When the British government accepted the principle of a French and Spanish protectorate over Morocco, it clearly insisted in article 3 of the secret accord signed between Paris and London in April 1904 that Spain could not undertake any action that would alienate the sovereignty of territory of its sphere of influence. This British position was based on the understanding that the so-called Western Sahara belonged to Morocco and was not to be alienated by any Western power. However, in accordance with the French-Spanish accord of October 1904, Spain was given possession, but not sphere of influence, of the disputed territory, without informing Morocco or seeking the approval of the British, who had signed an agreement recognizing Morocco’s sovereignty over the territory. The arrangements made between Western powers were carried out without consulting with Morocco, which was the main party in interest in the agreements signed between France and Spain on the one hand and the France and the UK on the other hand. Without a renunciation of the agreement signed between the UK and Morocco in 1895, the agreement signed between Western powers in 1904 by virtue of which they defined their spheres of influence in Morocco contravened international law. According to Frank E. Trout, even in the event London gave its formal approval and recognition that Seguia El Hamra (present-day so-called Western Sahara) was to become Spanish territory outside of the limits of Spanish sphere of influence in Southern Morocco, ”it would have meant a unilateral — and presumably secret — renunciation of the agreement signed with Morocco in 1859, [which would have been meaningless since Morocco was not informed of the renunciation.” Additionally, Spain was given possession of the Sahara based on a secret accord of which neither Morocco nor the other Western powers were informed. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the Swedish government is taking a stance against Morocco, without taking cognizance of the historical fact that it was among the signatories of the Treaty of Algeciras, which committed those signatory countries to preserving Morocco’s territorial integrity. Instead, as a signatory of the treaty, the Swedish government should seek to help Morocco secure its historical and legal rights over the territory. That the predominant narrative on the conflict omits mention of this fact gives no license to the Swedish to dismiss the fact that they have failed to fulfill their commitment to preserving Moroccan territorial integrity. Morocco was the victim of Western colonialism and Moroccans have paid a costly price to regain the independence of their country and restore its territorial integrity. By going down this path, Sweden deepens the wound and turns its back on the commitment it made to the Moroccan people over a century ago. On the other hand, the Swedish government should not disregard the growing consensus among both diplomats and scholars in recent years that the concept of self-determination as it was perceived in the 1960’s is not a one-size fit-it all approach that can be applied to every territorial conflict, and that the UN settlement plan of 1991 has proved to be unworkable. Sweden’s Erik Jensen, who served as Head of MINURSO between 1994-1998 said in his book that the 1991 settlement plan has showed its limits, and there is a need to find an alternative likely to help the parties to reach a settlement. According to Jensen, Javier Pérez de Cuellar and Boutros Ghali, the two former UN Secretary Generals, were intimately convinced that the settlement plan was unworkable, and called on the Security Council to explore other ways. “Perez De Cuellar’s memoirs show that he had doubts about certain aspects of the settlement plan, and Boutros Ghali repeatedly hinted to the Security Council that it might consider an alternative way forward,” said Jensen. Therefore, rather than taking sides with one of the parties, it would be wiser for Sweden to help the parties explore the possibility of working out a middle ground solution where none of the parties would come out as loser. Samir Bennis     Samir Bennis is a political analyst. He received a Ph.D. in international relations from the University of Provence in France. He also holds a Master’s degree in political science from the University of Toulouse I, a Master’s degree in Iberian studies  EXTRACT source http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2015/10/169343/western-sahara-the-historical-commitment-sweden-should-remember/ Morocco weighs boycott of Swedish firms REUTERS RABAT Morocco said it was considering a boycott of Swedish companies operating in the North African kingdom because of Sweden's position on the conflict over Western Sahara. The territory has been disputed since a war two decades ago. The government said Sweden has been campaigning to boycott products from Western Sahara and international companies with a presence there. Morocco has controlled most of Western Sahara since 1975 and claims the sparsely populated stretch of desert, which has offshore fishing, phosphate reserves and oilfield potential, as its own. However, the Algeria-backed Polisario Front seeks independence, and a United Nations mission was formed more than 20 years ago anticipating a referendum, which has never taken place, on Western Sahara's political future. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries have backed Western Saharan self-determination, while France and Spain have been accused by activists and human rights organisations of supporting the Moroccan line. Moroccan authorities have already blocked the opening of IKEA's first store this week, citing a lack of permits. source http://www.dailysabah.com/money/2015/10/03/morocco-weighs-boycott-of-swedish-firms United Nations Current strength (30 June 2015) 210 total uniformed personnel: 26 troops 6 police officers 178  military observers 84 international civilian personnel* 162 local civilian staff* 12 United Nations Volunteers Fatalities 5 troops 1 police 1 military observer 3 international civilian personnel 5 local civilian personnel _____ 15 total  Approved budget (07/2014– 12/2014): $55,990,080 source http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/facts.shtml ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT A United Nations 'mission' was formed over 20 years ago, on the basis that a referendum would take place ... but it hasn't. Why not? It looks like there's been a UN 20-year military presence and, apparently, the parties are no closer to resolving this dispute. Check out what is spent on interfering in the Western Sahara region.  Nearly $56-million in a mere 6-months was approved. If that's chewed up in 6-months, imagine how much money's gone down the tubes since 1991. Taxpayer funds of these countries are being spent on this: Image Source  |  Wikipedia ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Twenty-four years of taxpayer funds being blown on this, why? So it's austerity for European taxpayers, while taxpayer funds are funnelled to futile UN projects. Article Detailing The Involvement Of The Un In Western Sahara And Morocco. EXTRACT (United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara) The UN operation in Western Sahara between 1991 and 1997 was so ineffectual that it became one of the main symbols of UN waste and inefficiency for a hostile US Congress. It cost more than five million dollars a month yet did little useful work. UN staff were paid inflated salaries due to the 'hardship' conditions. It is claimed that some UN staff would overstay their tour of duty by a day so as to qualify for a second tranche of 'hardship' money. source http://newint.org/features/1997/12/05/un/ Clinton Foundation is reportedly getting cash from 'one of the world's most controversial mining companies' Colin Campbell May 8, 2015, 1:19 AM Another one of the Clinton Foundation’s major donors is drawing new scrutiny amid former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. A joint investigation by ABC News and Yahoo published Wednesday accuses the Clinton Foundation’s Global Initiative of “being hosted this week at a five-star luxury hotel in Morocco by one of the world’s most controversial mining companies.” According to the report, the Moroccan government-owned mining company Office Cherifien des Phosphates (OCP) has been criticised for “serious human rights violations” by the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice. The company reportedly operates in Western Sahara, disputed territory the Moroccan government seized after Spain withdrew in 1975. The Washington Post reported that both human rights activists and US lawmakers have slammed OCP’s mining operation because it “does not have the consent of the indigenous population there.” ABC reported that OCP is “criticised for removing the resources without adequately compensating the impoverished people who live there.” David McKean, a Kennedy Center official, said the inhabitants of Western Sahara are being “systematically suppressed.” “OCP’s operations in Western Sahara are only appropriate under international law if they are acting in the best interests of the people of Western Sahara, and right now they are not,” McKeon told The Post. “The fact that OCP carries out its operations in Western Sahara so publicly seems intended to send the message that they feel they can do so with impunity.” Accordingly, OCP’s financial support for the Clinton Foundation raises questions about whether it is trying to curry favour with the US government. Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania) called the arrangement a “blatant conflict of interest.” “Morocco would like nothing more than having a possible future First Family condone its illegal exploitation of natural resources,” Pitt told The Post. Indeed, according to ABC, OCP has has “sharply accelerated its lobbying of US government officials in recent years — more than quadrupling its spending — as the Moroccan government was pressing its case for sovereignty over Western Sahara.” For its part, OCP defended both its operations in West Africa and its support for the Clinton Foundation. The firm told ABC that, despite its critics’ claims, it actually reinvests money into Western Sahara. OCP executives also reportedly said “their involvement in the Clinton Foundation was intended to help make phosphate-based fertiliser available to needy farmers in Africa — work the foundation has helped make possible.” “We have good spots and bad spots, and when we have a bad spot we try and improve it as much as we can,” said the company’s spokesman. “That’s all I can say, I guess.” The foundation also defended its connections to OCP by touting the nonprofit’s projects around the world. “Our sponsors made it possible for hundreds of CGI members to come together in Morocco to launch new programs designed to help hundreds of thousands of people,” a foundation spokesman told ABC. OCP is just the latest in a series of controversies related to the Clinton Foundation, some of which were spurred by a new book by conservative author Peter Schweizer, “Clinton Cash.” Schweizer accuses Hillary Clinton of trading State Department favours for money to her family foundation. Her campaign has aggressively dismissed Schweizer’s work as a unsubstantiated partisan smear. However, as Schweizer himself likes to point out, a number of mainstream news organisations have investigated the foundation based on information in his book. Notably, The New York Times published an in-depth story linking undisclosed donations to the Clinton Foundation to the sale of US uranium production to a Russian government agency. source http://www.businessinsider.com.au/clinton-foundation-funded-by-controversial-mining-company-2015-5 ꕤ

Vietnam's Cam Rahn Bay facilities - Vietnam looking to East or West?

 The Japan Times Article

China removes oil rig that triggered Vietnam riots from disputed waters

AP

... 

It said oil and gas has been discovered during the operation, but was assessing the data gathered before deciding its next move. It has always been unclear whether the Beijing deployed the rig for genuine exploration reasons or geopolitical ones. When it announced the deployment, Beijing said it would withdraw it on Aug. 15, also citing the typhoon season.

Ha Le, deputy director of Vietnam’s fisheries resources surveillance department, said China began removing the rig and escorting vessels Tuesday night, and by 8 a.m. Wednesday it was 40 nautical miles northwest of its original location and continuing to move toward Hainan island.

Le said 30 vessels from Vietnam’s coast guard and fisheries patrol forces that were sent to try to force the Chinese oil rig away will return to port to avoid the incoming Rammasun typhoon.

China’s unwillingness to move the rig exposed Vietnam’s lack of options when dealing with its giant neighbor. The workings of the Vietnamese government are shrouded in secrecy, but it has long been assumed that the Communist Party is split between a faction that favors a tough line against Beijing — and consequentially stronger ties with the United States and its allies in Asia — and those members who believe a compromise can be reached with their ideological allies to the north.

As a result of the rig placement, Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung has said the country was preparing to file a legal challenge to China’s claims in an international tribunal, something that risks angering China. It remains to be seen whether Vietnam will go ahead with that now the rig has been withdrawn.

Former Vietnamese Ambassador to Beijing Nguyen Trong Vinh said China’s removal of the rig didn’t signal a change of attitude on behalf of the country.

“The removal of the oil rig from our continental shelf and exclusive economic zone is only temporary. Maybe they pulled out the oil rig ahead of the typhoon season. It does not mean that they have abandoned their resolve to take control of most of the East Sea,” he said, using the Vietnamese term for the South China Sea.

EXTRACT ONLY - Source - The Japan Times - here.

--------------------------------------------
Article Publisher Background

Toshiaki Ogasawara has been Chairman of The Japan Times Ltd. since 2001 and serves as its Chief Executive Officer and Publisher. ... He served as an Advisory Director with Bank of America. Mr. Ogasawara ...

Board Members Memberships*

Trustee

University of Southern California

Unknown/Other Education

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs  - [Princeton University]

 Other Affiliations*

University of Southern California

...

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs [Princeton University]

Business Breakthrough, Inc. [Educational services - Tokyo Japan]

...

Source - Business Newsweek - here. 

--------------------------------------------
Vietnam Government

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, along with China, Cuba, and Laos, is one of the world's four remaining single-party socialist states officially espousing communism. Its current state constitution, which replaced the 1975 constitution in April 1992, asserts the central role of the Communist Party of Vietnam in all organs of government, politics and society.

[wikipedia]

 --------------------------------------------
Japan Government

Japan is a member of the G8, APEC, and "ASEAN Plus Three", and is a participant in the East Asia Summit. Japan signed a security pact with Australia in March 2007 and with India in October 2008.

It is the world's third largest donor of official development assistance after the United States and France, donating US$9.48 billion in 2009.


Japan has close economic and military relations with the United States; the US-Japan security alliance acts as the cornerstone of the nation's foreign policy.  A member state of the United Nations since 1956, Japan has served as a non-permanent Security Council member for a total of 20 years, most recently for 2009 and 2010. It is one of the G4 nations seeking permanent membership in the Security Council.

Japan is engaged in several territorial disputes with its neighbors: with Russia over the South Kuril Islands, with South Korea over the Liancourt Rocks, with China and Taiwan over the Senkaku Islands, and with China over the EEZ around Okinotorishima.  Japan also faces an ongoing dispute with North Korea over the latter's abduction of Japanese citizens and its nuclear weapons and missile program (see also Six-party talks).


Japan maintains one of the largest military budgets of any country in the world.  Japan contributed non-combatant troops to the Iraq War but subsequently withdrew its forces.

[wikipedia]

--------------------------------------------
COMMENT

[NOTE - The above background info is largely for my own benefit, trying to make out who's who.]

China pulling its oil rig from the contested waters is a development which may -- or may not -- influence current negotiations purportedly taking place between Vietnam and both US and Russia, in respect of the Cam Rhan Bay port -- a deep sea port 'seven miles from open sea', which has recently been upgraded to the tune of millions of dollars and is capable of accommodating aircraft carriers as well as docking and maintaining sea vessels.

So the question is, which way will Vietnam turn and:  is the Communist Party in Vietnam divided when it comes to deciding how to best address maritime territorial interests?

Vietnamese Communist Party factional divisions (if any) can only be guessed at.

However, I suspect that alliance-shy Vietnam is looking to make the best deal it can negotiate and, as mentioned, discussions are purportedly 'well under-way' with both Russia and the US.

From the US perspective, Vietnam has common interests with with the US who:

... also wants to protect what is, according to a 2012 U.S. estimates, $1.2 trillion in U.S. trade transiting along South China Sea shipping lanes. 

[Source - stripes.com]

Of course, the US also has military interests in the Asia-Pacific region, so Cam Rahn Bay access is also of wider strategic military value to the US.

At this stage (June 2014), it appears that the US is quietly hopeful that the Vietnam's attitude has warmed towards the US in more recent times:

“There have been remarkable strides already made in last few years, and it’s been very rapid since 2010 in terms of U.S.-Vietnam military relationships,” said Christian Le Mière, senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “Continued assertiveness by China in the South China Sea will only further convince the Vietnamese that they should be expanding their international alliances, and that includes the United States.”

The U.S. Navy has been making port visits to Da Nang in recent years, engaging in activities that started with sports and ship tours with Vietnamese sailors, and developed into a joint search-and-rescue exercise last year. Greater U.S. Navy access to Cam Ranh Bay, further south near Nha Trang, would represent a bigger step in the military-to-military relationship.

The deep water port is about seven miles from open sea and is capable of accommodating aircraft carriers, and its facilities recently underwent millions of dollars in upgrades. Its airport is used by both Vietnamese military forces and by commercial carriers.

U.S. Military Sealift Command ships have visited for repairs — the first came along with former U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in 2012 — but no active U.S. Navy ship has visited the port since the Vietnam War.

[Source - stripes.com] 

What is also interesting is that the US has set up the PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative) which received over 50% UN support since its inception:

Launched by United States President George W. Bush in May 2003 at a meeting in Kraków, Poland, the PSI has now grown to include the endorsement of 103...nations around the world, including Russia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, New Zealand, Republic of Korea and Norway. Despite the support of over half of the Members of the United Nations, a number of countries have expressed opposition to the initiative, including India, China and Indonesia.
[wikipedia]

Vietnam, along with China, appears to have opposed the PSI initiative -- until Vietnam backed off last month:

PSI was created by the U.S and Poland in 2003 as an international effort to interdict [prohibit] vessels carrying weapons of mass destruction, and it has since garnered signatories from more than 100 countries.

Vietnam joined with China in strenuously arguing that PSI violated international law, until Hanoi changed its mind last month.

“It’s a bait on the hook to request the United States to assist in standing up their ability to conduct maritime reconnaissance and surveillance, and link to shore-based radars and other technical equipment,” Thayer said.

The additional U.S. presence could force China to act less aggressively in the area, while at the same time allowing Vietnam to show that it took no provocative action against China.

[Source - stripes.com]

If I have that straight, it would seem that Vietnam backing off from opposing the PSI is perhaps signalling it may be inclined towards making way for US presence at the Cam Rahn Bay facilities -- or it may simply be one of the concessions Vietnam is willing to make in the interim, towards forwarding its Cam Rahn negotiations.

Uncertain what the 'bait in the hook' request is & too lazy to re-visit article (LOL).  Expect Vietnam has requested the US to assist in Vietnam with reconnaissance and surveillance, if I'm reading that right.

Whatever the outcome of negotiations, the US are purportedly keen on getting a foot in the Cam Rahn door.

One suspects that even if negotiations fail, the US would not be averse to creating an 'international logistics hub' via a less 'threatening' option (to Vietnam) -- ie the 'Places Not Bases' initiative -- where it would be envisaged that the Cam Rahn Bay facilities would provide the US with assured access for repair, refuelling, restocking and so on (as well as presence in the region), on an informal "partner" arrangement basis, such as the one the US has apparently negotiated with Singapore.

The 'Places Not Bases' strategy is explained below:

... the Pentagon fashioned a policy of “places, not bases,” whereby the U.S. military sought access to naval facilities of “partner” countries.

Compared to “bases” run by formal allies such as South Korea and Japan, “places” in Singapore — and other countries such as Malaysia and Brunei — enabled the U.S. military to maintain its presence in the region ...

Singapore is the quintessential example of such a “places, not bases” strategy.

SOURCE - The China Post (Taiwan) - here.

So will Vietnam look towards the east or the west when it comes to negotiating maritime concerns in the region?

If The Japan Times is correct, the final decision may depend on intra-party politics in Vietnam.

Politics aside, Vietnam's decision may well pivot on how attractive the commercial prospects are for Vietnam.

Or ... on how impressed they may be with Bill Clinton's visit (LOL):


--------------------------------------------
Thanhnien News

Bill Clinton to visit Vietnam again

Thanh Nien News

July 16, 2014 17:13

Former US President Bill Clinton will return to Vietnam on Friday (July 18) as part of his Asia-Pacific trip to visit the work of the Clinton Foundation and deliver remarks at the 20th International AIDS Conference, according to a release by the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton, who visited Vietnam for the first time in November 2000, is scheduled to visit India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Australia from July 16-23.

The trip highlights Clinton’s longstanding commitment to the Asia/Pacific region, as well as the work of the Clinton Foundation on a number of issues that are critical to the region, including global health and improved access to medicines, climate change and economic development, the release said.

In Vietnam, he will visit an orphanage outside of Hanoi to view a Clinton Health Access Initiative program that aims to prevent tuberculosis among children living with HIV.

Clinton's November 2000 visit to Vietnam was the first by a US President since the two countries normalized diplomatic relations in 1995, 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War.

He later returned to Vietnam in several occasions to promote work of the Clinton Foundation in the country.

Source - Thanhnien News - here.

--------------------------------------------

Hmmm ... what a coincidence Bill's in town.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but it looks like the US are pulling out all stops to win over Vietnam -- and Clinton's charity tour schedule just happens to coincide.

Charity foundations really are the way to go; good access, favourable impressions etc.