Money Buys Qatar Influence and Interdependence

The tiny Gulf sheikdom of Qatar, comprised of 300,000 citizens and one million foreign workers, is increasing its financial, economic and media footprint in the United States, the Washington Post reported.

Experts say Doha does not have a unified strategy behind its expansion into America other than to create strong cultural, political and economic bonds with countries that could help protect its interests.

"You'll drive yourself mad trying to find an overarching plan behind all the Qatari moves," said author David Roberts, according to the Post.

Qatar previously invested in Britain. Europe's tallest building funded by Qatari investors is the 72-story Shard located near London Bridge. 

Qatar has a major stake in Heathrow Airport. It also owns the Harrods department store. Since 2007, Qatar has invested $33 billion in Britain, according to the Post.

Qatar has established Al Jazeera America.

The original media outlet Al Jazeera in Arabic has been influential in forming public opinion in the Middle East. 

Obviously, you won't be seeing preachers teaching the Koran and ridiculing those not of the faith on the American version.

In fact, Al Jazeera in English -- shown in Israel -- looks a lot like the BBC. (Take that any way you care to.)

In January, Qatar purchased Al Gore's Current TV for $500 million in order to secure access to cable television channels for Al Jazeera America which is now hiring hundreds of reporters.

Besides Washington, Qatar has real estate interests in Chicago's Radisson Blu Aqua hotel and it is a majority owner of Golden Pass Products, a Houston-based importer of natural gas.

Qatar Airways is a significant customer of Boeing having recently purchased 50 Boeing 777 aircraft for $19 billion. It is the second biggest airline in Mideast behind Turkish Airlines.

Through its Qatari Foundation, the sheikdom has donated $100 million to Hurricane Katrina relief and is investing $5 million to spread Arab language and culture in America, the Post reported.

Like Saudi Arabia, which is controlled by the family Saud, Qatar is a family concern. The emir— who took over in June from his father— is Tamim Bin Hamad al-Thani, 33, who trained at Sandhurst, Britain's Royal Military Academy.

Qatar's foreign policies are not easy to pigeonhole.

Israeli ministers have quietly visited Doha.

Since 2003 it has allowed the U.S. to station a major military base on its soil. At the same time, it is a prominent backer of the Muslim Brotherhood and a generous donor to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Qatari-supported clerics have tried to make peace between Hamas and more radical Moslems based in the Strip.

With the eruption of the Syrian civil war, Qatar broke with the Assad regime and Hezbollah, supporting the Islamic opposition including groups associated with al-Qaeda. It has now reportedly stepped back from the Syrian morass ceding its influence to Saudi Arabia.

 

How is President Barack Obama Like George W. Bush & Bill Clinton?

Following in the footsteps of predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, President Barack Obama suspended for another six months a law passed by Congress in 1995 that required the U.S. Embassy in Israel to be relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, according to a White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/03/presidential-determination-jerusalem-embassy statement Tuesday.

Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act, Congress empowered the president to waive the law on grounds of national security.

Obama formerly instructed Secretary of State John Kerry not to move the embassy. The president must issue the order on six month intervals or the law goes into effect.

As a candidate in 2008, Obama referred to Jerusalem as Israel's capital saying, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

He subsequently clarified his position saying, "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations."

During the 2012 presidential campaign Mitt Romney promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem. "Every nation has the right to choose its capital," he declared.

Prior to his election candidate George W. Bush had also promised that he would move the embassy.

While the Israeli government is seated in Jerusalem, since Israel's establishment in 1948, Washington has never recognized the Jewish state's sovereignty over any part of the city.

-------

BBC: NSA Pathetic Giant That Can't Keep a Secret

I found it interesting that National Security Agency spymasters pleaded ignorance in front of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, saying they didn't understand their agency's activities well enough to precisely describe them to the judges, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304200804579164083658333034 The Wall Street Journal reported.

Since Edward Snowden -- who I would call a traitor not a whistle-blower -- escaped with the digital equivalent of truckloads of NSA secrets, the agency has seemed more feeble than omnipotent.

 "I cannot help wondering if the NSA is as powerful as its critics have claimed, why has it been so useless at protecting its secrets," writes http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24707558 Mark Urban, the diplomatic and defense editor for the BBC's Newsnight program.

Good point.

Despite its global eavesdropping capabilities the NSA is apparently helpless in silencing Snowden and his confederates.

No worm viruses have been unleashed against the computer systems of newspapers that have revealed U.S. secrets. No applications for court orders have been filed to block further disclosures. And – as far as is known – no missions have been launched to retrieve the stolen material or silence their owners, Urban writes.

Reaction comes only after the damage is done: Bradley Manning being prosecuted and sentenced to a long period of incarceration for providing classified material to Wikileaks, for example. In contrast, according to Urban, British intelligence has been more robust in its response to the exposure of secrets – watching as journalists destroyed http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-files-drives-destroyed-london computers at London's Guardian newspaper, and searching http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/detainment-greenwald-partner-justified/2013/08/21/id/521545  the partner of Glenn Greenwald – one of Snowden key enablers – at Heathrow Airport.

British newspapers have widely ignored a "D-Notice" or Defense Advisory issued to restrain publication of the Snowden material. American authorities have not even bothered to try. "There have been no US legal attempts to force journalists to destroy or turn over what they have," according to Urban.

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif), one of NSA's most consistent defenders on Capitol Hill, appears to have lost patience with the agency and is calling for a "major review into all intelligence-collection programs," according to the Journal.

"We're really screwed now," one NSA official told Foreign Policy http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/28/were_really_screwed_now_nsas_best_friend_just_shivved_the_spies magazine. "You know things are bad when the few friends you've got disappear without a trace in the dead of night and leave no forwarding address."

I'm not suggesting that the US security establishment does not need civilian oversight. And I am not convinced the Obama administration is managerially capable of providing that oversight. At the same time, friends of democracy need to be more careful in their criticism.

You don't want to go to the opposite extreme and make it impossible for the intelligence community to do what needs to be done. 

Why not a combined Muslim force to intervene in Syria for humanitarian purposes?

I need to confess that I do not understand why there is a full court press for a Western (read US – European) strike on Syria.

I do not understand the American national interest at stake. 

Though I appreciate President Obama put his foot in his mouth with talk of red lines. Still, the president's credibility is not reason enough to intervene.

I do not understand why the forces of toleration should side with either the fanatical Shi'ites or the extremist Sunnis in this terrible conflict. 

Naturally, I agree that inventories of unconventional weapons in Syria should be taken out.

But what I don't understand is why this is America's job. Or Britain's.

Turkey is a major regional power and NATO member with a massive army, navy and air-force. Its Islamist government has been outspoken against Assad.

So why doesn't Ankara act? 

Saudi Arabia has state-of-the-art US warplanes and AWACS; it has the best German tanks money can buy.

Let's see a combined Muslim force intervening for humanitarian purposes.

Instead of calling the British parliament into emergency session, why isn't the Turkish parliament gathering in emergency session?

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan talks tough but, he not President Obama or Prime Minister Cameron should be taking the lead in trying to stop Muslims from using weapons of mass destruction to kill other Muslims.

The world should not sit by and do nothings as innocents are killed. Agreed.

All I'm saying is that militarily and economically powerful Turkey and Saudi Arabia should be in the vanguard. It is their moral duty.