Saturday, July 25, 2015

Yemen.U.S.,UK.Israel Sell Missiles To War Criminals - Women Beheading (BANKRUPT?) Saudi Regime

Yemen.U.S.,UK.Israel Sell Missiles To War Criminals - Women Beheading  (BANKRUPT?) Saudi Regime

We Cannot Defeat ISIS Until We Stop Iran and Saudi From Pouring ...
In-Depth-Huffington Post-Jul 22, 2015

  1. Story image for yemen from Press TV

    US to sell Saudis 355 missiles amid war on Yemen

    Press TV-16 hours ago
    The US Defense Department has awarded major weapons maker Raytheon to provide the Persian Gulf Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with 355 ...



Saudi Arabia Having to Borrow Billions – Could Be Bankrupt by End of the Decade

Over the past year, Saudi Arabia – once among the richest nations on the planet – has wound up having to sell some $4 billion in bonds. It has been necessary in order to maintain levels of spending on public works and continue financing the war against Yemen. The Saudi government has also had to draw on its reserves of foreign currency. Falad al-Mubarak, who heads the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (the nation’s equivalent of the U.S. Federal Reserve), predicts “an increase in borrowing” in the face of a projected $130 billion deficit.
The primary cause is the drastic decline in the price of crude oil. Since hitting a peak of around $125 in February 2011, the price of a barrel of oil is currently under $50. It’s not going to get better anytime soon. Oil company executives predict it may be years before petroleum prices rebound. In order for the Saudi government to balance its budget, oil would need to be at least $105 a barrel. According to Dr. John Sfakianakis, an economist who oversees [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council funds for the U.K.-based Ashmore Group, “reality is hitting home, and necessity is also hitting home.” Given the current state of the crude oil market, Dr. Sfakianakis predicts that Saudi Arabia will be broke by the end of the decade.
Prior to the 1930s, Saudi Arabia was among the poorest nations in the world. The people existed on subsistence farming and herding; most were nomads, wandering from one place to another in search of water and food sources. This all changed with the outbreak of the Second World War. Officially, the Saudis were neutral. However, because of its oil resources, President Franklin D. Roosevelt made the defense of Saudi Arabia a priority. The U.S. started supplying weapons under the Lend-Lease Act in 1943. Eventually, King Abdul Aziz declared war on Germany in early 1945, though by that point, Germany was all but defeated. The U.S. remained the dominant influence in the region for decades..................

  1. Story image for yemen from Press TV

    Latest Yemen ceasefire means more fatalities: Activist

    Press TV-8 hours ago
    They just want to take the coverage over this massacre and this crime that has been done today against civilians in Yemen. All the media is ...
  2. Story image for yemen from

    Evidence Grows of Saudi-led Forces in Yemen 23, 2015
    ABU DHABI — Evidence of Saudi-led coalition land forces operating in Yemen has been mounting since the initiation of Operation Golden ...
    Yemen needs all the help it can get for fresh start 24, 2015

From Yemen to Gaza and beyond: UK arms export 

controls are broken

UK support for Saudi Arabia and Israel
We are forever being told of the 'rigorousness' and 'robustness' of UK arms export controls, but 
the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth.
The problem is less to do with legislation and more to do with a lack of political will. In theory UK 
arms exports are supposed to work on the basis of a risk assessment. This means that arms 
should never be licensed if there is a 'clear risk' of them being used in violation of international 
humanitarian law or for internal repression. By any reasonable interpretation this should block all 
arms sales to Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi regime is one of the most oppressive in the world, and Israel's treatment of people in 
the occupied territories has been both immoral and illegal. Both states have regularly been 
accused of flouting international law and both have a history of aggression towards their 
neighbours. At the same time, both have enjoyed close political and military relationships with 
the UK.
Saudi Arabia is the largest buyer of UK weapons, and has been for a number of years. Saudi 
forces haveused UK weapons in Bahrain and are using UK aircraft against the people of Yemen. Unfortunately this isn't even the first time UK aircraft have been used against Yemen. Research from Amnesty International shows that UK weapons were very likely to have been used by Saudi Arabia in the 2009 bombing too.
Last August a report from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) found that the 
UK had approved 12 export licences to Israel for weapons that may have been used in attacks 
on Gaza. In response, the then Business Secretary, Vince Cable, concluded that the licences 
should be suspended, but only with the unacceptable caveat that this should only be in the event 
of any 'resumption of significant hostilities.' In effect, the government's policy was that even more 
people would need to die before anything could be done.
People, a new report published by Campaign Against Arms Trade, War on Want and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, shows 
that the UK government approved over £4 million worth of military export licences in the four 
months immediately following last summer's 
Arms export controls are broken
What these examples have in common is that they are representative of an arms control policy 
that is broken. They are the inevitable result of a policy that focuses on maximising arms sales 
rather than limiting them. This is because the government is not merely a dispassionate observer
in the arms trade, it is an active participant.
There is even a government department, UK Trade & Investment's Defence & Security
Organisation (UKTI DSO), that exists solely to promote the sale of weapons abroad. This year 
the 130 strong body will be key to the organisation of DSEI, the world's biggest arms fair, which 
will be rolling into East London this September. Among attendees will be some of the biggest 
arms companies in the world and many of the most oppressive dictatorships. How can the 
government credibly claim to be fighting for 
human rights and democracy when it is actively courting and arming tyrants?
UK weapons haven't just being used against Yemen and Gaza, in recent years they have also 
been linked to abuses in BahrainEgyptHong Kong and Kuwait. These are only the examples 
we know about, and the only reason we know about any of them is because of the brave work of 
activists and journalists in uncovering them. None have been brought to light by the government 
off its own accord and nor have they resulted in changes to legislation.
When countries like the UK sell weapons it not only facilitates the attacks they are used in, it also 
sends a message of support to the governments that are carrying them out. For this to change it 
will require more than the cancellation of a few licences, it will need a complete overhaul of 
government priorities and an end to the hypocrisy that is at the heart of foreign policy.
About the author
Andrew Smith is a spokesperson for Campaign Against Arms Trade and 
tweets @CAATuk


Speaking in the House of Commons in January 2003, just two months before the US-UK invasion of Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated “The very reason why we are taking the action that we are taking is nothing to do with oil or any of the other conspiracy theories put forward.”
Blair’s analysis was amplified by newspaper columnist David Aaronovitch who, ironically, would go on to write a book dismissing popular conspiracy theories. Addressing the more than one million people who marched through London in opposition to the impending war on 15 February 2003, Aaronovitch asked “Do you really believe that this parroted ‘war about oil’ stuff is true? If so, what were the interventions in oil-less Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan about?”
In contrast, in 2011 Zogby International polled 3,000 people in the Arab world, asking what they thought were the most important factors driving American policy in the Middle East. The top answer, given by 53% of respondents, was “controlling oil”. Suggesting that the hackneyed phrase “people are the same the world over” is actually pretty accurate, a 2003 YouGov poll of the British public found the most popular answer to a question asking why the US and UK wanted to invade Iraq was also “to secure and control oil supplies”.
So, who’s right? Blair and his highly-educated supporters in the media like Aaronovitch or ordinary people across the world? Let’s look at the evidence.

“We’re not there for figs”

As early as December 2001 the Chief of MI6’s private secretary wrote to Sir David Manning, Tony Blair’s foreign policy adviser, explaining that the “removal of Saddam remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies.” Oil also seemed to be on Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’s mind when he addressed 150 ambassadors in January 2003, telling them “bolster[ing] the security of British and global energy supplies" was one of the UK’s top foreign policy objectives.

No comments:

Post a Comment