July07, 2013, by FRANKLIN LAMB
According to well-connected Washington sources, one being a Congressional staffer whose job description includes following political events in Egypt, it did not take Mohamed Mustafa ElBaradei, the Sharia legal scholar, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, and for 12 years the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (1997-2009), very long at all to contact the Washington, DC law firm of Patton Boggs on 7/2/13. That is once it became evident that Egyptian President Mohamad Morsi might well be ousted by Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF). The next day, ElBaradei’s representatives reportedly also made contact with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations which claims to represent the 52 largest US based largest Jewish groups.ElBaradei, perhaps the current front-runner to replace his long-time nemesis, Mohammad Morsi, moved fast to organize some key allies in Cairo and Washington to pick-up where his earlier failed Presidential campaign left off shortly before the 1/25/2011 Egyptian Presidential election. Patton Boggs, the K Street, NW Washington DC law firm, which last year had 550 lawyers and 120 lobbyists and is arguably the firm closest to the White House in terms of securing for its clients what they want from the approximately 5000 key decision makers in the US Capitol. The other nearly 11,800 federally registered lobbyists in Washington (there were only 300 as recently as when Lyndon Johnson was US President) lag far behind Patton Boggs in terms of political influence.
Patton Boggs new client wants the Pentagon and the White House to squeeze Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) who deposed President Morsi and arrange for himself to be appointed the interim President of Egypt pending early elections.
ElBaradei wants the same thing from Israel and its US lobby, the former having developed close relations under Morsi similar to what Israel enjoyed under Mubarak. Read more…
Richard Miniter, OP/ED | 9/09/2011
George Soros is rich enough to buy his own foreign policy, but is it wise to let him have one?
Soros’ strange pattern of investments and gifts, especially in the former-Soviet states of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, amounts to a personal foreign policy.
While other rich men fund think tanks and charities abroad, the sheer scale of Soros’ spending sets him apart. Soros, through foundations and his Open Society Institutes, pours some $500 million per year into organizations in the former Soviet world, according to their own estimates. That, in many cash-starved countries, is enough capital to change who runs the capital.
And Soros gets results. Through strategic donations, Soros helped bring down the communist government in Poland, toppled Serbia’s bloodstained strongman Slobodan Milosevic, and fueled the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia. Soros has also funded opposition parties in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Croatia, Georgia, and Macedonia, helping them into either power or prominence. All of these countries were once Russian allies.
Of course, Soros doesn’t work alone. His investments often ride a populist wave of discontent or are made alongside American or European governments and non-profits. No amount of money can singlehandedly bring down a popular foreign leader. But a weak leader can be pushed from power—and Soros likes to give the humpty-dumpty shove to the world’s autocrats.
And that creates problems for the U.S. Since Soros’ most significant dictator-toppling efforts are concentrated in the post-Soviet world, Soros’ foreign policy creates friction between the U.S and Russia and generates hostility from a range of energy-rich Central Asian states, which provide key bases for the Afghan war. Some nations, including Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, have even banned Soros or his philanthropic front-groups.
The bigger problem: Russia and other nations tend to see Soros as a tool of U.S. policy. While Soros is not, his high-profile involvement in the domestic affairs of these faraway lands poses problems for Washington. Soros has made it harder for President Obama to “hit the reset button” with Russia and has complicated relations with a host of other nations. Getting Russia’s vote on the U.N. Security Council to halt Iran’s nuclear-weapons program or further isolate North Korea is made more difficult by Soros. Bases for U.S. special forces or Predator drones are harder to get in Central Asia. Worse still, Soros’ foreign policy draws America into a clutch of ethnic and land disputes in Central Asia that are more fraught and more violent than Israel-Palestine and, unlike Israel, do not involve a vital U.S. interest.
There are good reasons not to privatize the dictator-toppling business. Elected governments are supposed to balance competing national interests (hence the seeming incoherence of some aspects of America’s foreign policy) and officials can be held accountable for their actions, either by voters, courts, legislatures or other governments. And democracies forge their foreign policies in public debates.
Soros’ foreign policy is different. He pursues his own vision, undisturbed by his effect on other nations or the interests of his own. It is hard for foreign governments to hold him accountable and his goals and methods are usually kept secret.
While the risks of Soros’ foreign policy to the U.S. are clear, they are clearly ignored by Washington policy makers and the White House press corps. Why? Read more…
Thursday, 15 Sep 2011 04:47 PM
By Christopher Ruddy
I recently received a chain email with the subject line “George Soros — This Is an Evil Man.”
Once printed, the electronic epistle goes on for no less than nine pages, detailing the claim that the billionaire investor is one of the most sinister men on the planet who “controls President Obama’s every move” as well as the moves of the entire Democratic Party, not to mention the U.S. stock market and perhaps the global economy.
“He’s anti-God, anti-family, anti-American and anti-good,” the anonymous writer claims, rattling off a litany of claims against Soros, some true, some false, some bizarre.
I seriously doubt, for instance, that President Obama takes orders from Soros. Sometimes I wonder if the president listens to anyone these days.
For many conservatives, Soros is viewed as a major political opponent. But in dealing with such an opponent it’s necessary to fully grasp who this opponent is and what he is really about.
After observing Soros for some years now, I have concluded he’s neither evil nor completely liberal. He is, in my mind, a liberal partisan whose own political views don’t fit neatly into any box.
Rightfully, he has raised the ire of conservatives here in the U.S., not so much for his ideas but for his die-hard support of Democratic candidates and liberal causes.
Soros emerged as a star in the political firmament during the 2004 election when he spent an estimated $24 million in an effort to defeat President George W. Bush, saying removing him from office was the “central focus of my life” and a “matter of life and death.”
Soros was also an early supporter of Barack Obama, though he held back significant financial support for Obama’s presidential bid in 2008. In the 2010 congressional elections, Soros, wisely, largely sat out the race, saying the Republican “avalanche” couldn’t be stopped.
On the 13th of October, at 11:09 a.m., Reuters published an article titled “Who’s Behind the Wall Street Protests” that alleged that George Soros was the secret backer of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Immediately Reuters came under fire from various Left wing American news networks (New York Times, The Atlantic, The New York Observer, The Salon and of course Washington Post).
The backlash was so strong that after 6 hours only, at 5:45 p.m., Reuters totally withdrew it’s earlier accusations! In the re-edited version, Reuters changed the article completely! They even modified the title of the article to: Soros: not a funder of Wall Street protests, the new article starts with this very clear statement: “George Soros is NOT a financial backer of the Wall Street protests”!!!
Later on Reuters went on to explain that the original article was a result of: “technical glitch” and an editor’s mistake!!! Utterly shameful news reporting, even if the original report was wrong!
This goes to tell us of the amount of pressure that a man like Soros posses over the global media and news networks, even as big as Reuters itself! And of course goes to show the amount of Hypocrisy present in today’s media!
Well, Here we will publish the original Reuters report and leave it to your judgment to decide whether Soros is really connected to the Occupy Wall Street protests or not. Read more…
AFP, Saturday, 3 April 2010
A weekly magazine aiming to link Arab bloggers with politicians and the elderly was launched in Egypt on Thursday at the initiative of a women’s group backed by US billionaire George Soros.
The weekly Wasla – or “The Link” – is being touted as a first for the Arab world, with plans for articles by bloggers as a way of giving them a wider readership.
It is published by the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information and financially supported by the Open Society Institute created by Soros, said ANHRI director Gamal Eid.
“We want to challenge our audience, and open its eyes to the changes society is experiencing, particularly through youths and blogs in which they appear,” he said.
“The goal is to show the older generation that certain things exist,” he said, adding as an example: “Whether we agree or not, gay communities are a reality in Egyptian and Arab societies.”
The 16-page weekly will include two pages in English and will have an initial print run of 1,000 copies for distribution to political, academic, and literary circles. An electronic version will also be available.
View the complete SOROS FILES
Billionaire’s biggest single grant to an American organisation will allow HRW to expand its reach into developing nations.
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 7 September 2010
The billionaire financier George Soros is giving $100 million (£65 million) to America’s leading human rights organisation in a move that will enable the group to massively expand its operations around the world.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) will increase its staff of 300 by about a third on the back of the five-year Soros grant, using the new firepower to increase its advocacy in key emerging regions in the developing world. The donation, the largest in HRW’s history and bigger than any previous single grant from Soros to a US organisation, aims to help the group fulfil its ambition to boast a truly global reach.
The New York-based organisation, formed in 1978 as Helsinki Watch, has built its reputation as a leading watchdog on governmental abuses around the world. But it has tended to focus its energies on western capitals, believing the best way to improve human rights was to persuade developed countries to use their muscle to effect change.
Increasingly, though, the group has become aware of the strength of developing nations such as Brazil, South Africa and India, who may now hold more sway in their regions than Washington, London or Berlin. The Soros grant will be used to beef up operations in those countries.
“Think of Zimbabwe,” Kenneth Roth, HRW’s director, said. “The US and European Union all have great policies on Zimbabwe, but it’s not enough: the key to changing Mugabe is South Africa.”
Roth also gave the example of Sri Lanka, where both the United States and the European Union have strong human rights policies but have failed to prevent president Mahinda Rajapaksa “thumbing his nose at the West”. A HRW focus on India and other Asian countries, including China, could have more impact.
Announcing the grant, Soros said he was drawn to the idea of helping the group extend its global influence as part of his philanthropic mission to use his huge wealth, obtained through interventions in the money markets, to forward the cause of open societies.
“Human rights underpin our greatest aspirations: they’re at the heart of open societies,” he said. “Human Rights Watch must be present in capitals around the globe, addressing local issues, allied with local rights groups and engaging with local government officials.”
The grant, Soros said, would inspire a sea-change in the organisation that would result in its largely New York-based management having up to half its board members outside the US.
So far this year Soros has handed out about $800m through his Open Society Foundations. Despite the economic downturn, which has caused a dip in philanthropic giving, Soros has been increasing his largesse recently, partly, he has said, out of recognition of his age – he turned 80 last month – and a desire to distribute much of his wealth during his lifetime.
Soros was born in Hungary. He is a consummate player of international currencies, and is famous for having made about $1 billion during the Black Wednesday crisis in the UK in 1992.
His donation comes at an opportune moment for HRW. The group has had a turbulent year, sustaining criticism for its reporting on Gaza war crimes, which it said amounted to a disinformation campaign by the Israeli government. Its own co-founder, Robert Bernstein, has accused the group of bias against Israel in its handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
by Rick Moran on Mar 28th, 2011
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorizes a no-fly zone over Libya and the protection of civilians by all means necessary, is the culmination of a decade-long effort to radically strengthen the ability of the UN to intervene in sovereign nations through the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine. Behind the initiative are, unsurprisingly, some of the usual suspects: National Security Council adviser Samantha Power and her patron George Soros. Their call to prevent human rights abuses through military intervention masks an agenda to alter drastically the concept of state sovereignty and to allow the United Nations to essentially co-opt the US military.
A 2008 backgrounder produced by The Heritage Foundation on the Responsibility to Protect articulates one of the most dangerous aspects of the doctrine: “R2P would effectively cede U.S. national sovereignty and decision-making power over key components of national security and foreign policy and subject them to the whims of the international community.” What we are seeing unfold in Libya today may very well be a test case for this doctrine: the United Nations has “borrowed” the US military to enforce its idea of Gaddafi’s “responsibilities.” And one question of grave concern is: Might the UN also “borrow” the U.S. and other Western militaries in future to impose its will on member states it feels are not living up to the UN’s nebulous idea of state responsibilities?
Before we examine the ingredients of this potentially catastrophic scenario, a bit of historical background is necessary. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which is deliberately nebulous and ill-defined, is not new. In fact, Hitler’s intervention in the Sudetenland was justified by “humanitarian reasons.” Hitler’s propaganda machine created mass hysteria in Germany by falsely accusing Czechoslovakia of carrying out atrocities against ethnic Germans. Hitler negotiated with Neville Chamberlain on the basis that he was only going to intervene to save lives. Chamberlain may not have bought Hitler’s lies, but Munich occurred nonetheless.
The doctrine was applied sporadically for the next 50 years because military intervention of any kind during the Cold War risked nuclear confrontation. Although the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was justified by Moscow as a “humanitarian” endeavor, there were few other cases. Read more…