SHS Presser with McMaster.

Announced that Broadcom Ltd. were coming back to the US from Singapore.  Claimed the tax reform plan was the reason.  All in on the tax plan from the House, will work “tirelessly”.

NSA McMaster will preview the trip, “please keep Qs on topic”.  We’ll see….

NK threat is topic 1, 43 calls to regional leaders.  “De-nuclearization” of the Korean peninsula is the first task.  All stuff we have heard before.  Bilateral trade deals and action against gov’ts that “unfairly subsidize” their industries (hello, PRC).  Freedom in the PI?  APEC and ASEAN (in Manila!) conferences.

DPRK is possibly going back on the state sponsor of terrorism status.   Language (President doesn’t modulate his language), meeting with Putin (not answered), human rights with Duterte (not answered **).  More sanctions on the DPRK.  China is doing better but needs to do more.

Death penalty question is turned into a safety for America rant.

** Good freedom question about whether the Kaiser still believes in actual Constitutional freedoms or is backing authoritarians.  McMaster is putting spin on it, but the Venezuela difference versus Turkey, PI, etc. is now an “effectiveness” standard (“how much does it help to yell about this”).

ROK concerns seem to be thrown under the bus.

Who leads the conversation on trade? The Trade Rep will be there but the Kaiser will lead those discussions.

SHS runs away so no Q’s on Mueller today.

George Papadopoulos
George is currently the director of the Center for International Energy and Natural Resources Law & Security at the London Center of International Law Practice. Before his current role, George worked as the senior policy and economy advisor for a U.S. presidential candidate. His policy experience also expands into the think tank sector. From 2011 to 2015, he worked as a research fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington D.C. His research predominantly focused on the geopolitics and energy security changes of both the Caspian and Eastern Mediterranean and their impact on U.S. strategy. George designed the first ever project in Washington, D.C. think tank history on U.S., Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and Israel relations at a symposium: “Power Shifts in the Eastern Mediterranean: The Emerging Strategic Relationship of Israel, Greece, and Cyprus.” The event was widely covered and has provided U.S. policymakers with an alternative approach to responding to the simultaneous political, security and energy changes in the region.
George has consulted for energy companies operating in the Eastern Mediterranean and Caspian and has written reports on both Israel’s and Cyprus’ upstream natural gas market structure that have been briefed to regulatory authorities. George’s work on the topics has been published and cited in the Washington Times, Jamestown Foundation, Hudson Institute, Jerusalem Post, Natural Gas Europe, Haaretz, Hurriyet, Arutz Sheva and Phileleftheros. He has been awarded by the U.S. State Department as a finalist to represent the United States at UNESCO in 2011.
He holds degrees from University College London, DePaul University and L’universite Catholique de Louvain.

from http://web.archive.org/web/20160424113758/http://www.lcilp.org/staff/3801-2

he left there after April and is not on their staff list afterwards

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.lcilp.org/staff/

Meanwhile, Paul Manafort’s attorneys are demonstrating their hope that Christmas will come early and that the court will believe their description of the thrice-passported Mr. Manafort, with funds scattered across several tax havens, and who is reportedly enjoying the arms of a mistress:

“Describing Gates as a “devoted husband and a very involved father”, [Gates’s attorney, Shanlon] Wu asked that the judge allow his client to travel domestically as well as abroad so he could maintain his current consulting clients and attract new ones. Without the ability to travel, he would not be able to support his wife and children, who range in age from six to 14 years old….It “is unthinkable that he would abandon his family, close friends and local community to flee to some other country, even in the face of these unproven allegations”.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/02/paul-manafort-court-robert-mueller-house-arrest

Flight might be unthinkable to Mr. Manafort’s attorneys, but I suspect it keeps Mr. Manafort up at night almost as much as contemplating how often Donald Trump breaks promises.

The “not be able to support his wife and children” line is rich. That might not be as much of a problem had he not had so many of his assets seized as alleged products of criminal activity, or had not spent so lavishly on suits and antiques. What goes around comes around might be an idea on the judge’s mind.

Mifsud speech in Moscow, 25 Oct 2016, at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMjPHJEQxEw :

I would like to start, I would like to start my, my discussion, I have shown—you, perhaps you can it at the back and you can see it in front there. It’s a painting from the National Gallery in London called The Two Ambassadors. There were two, one, as you can see, is wearing, uh, clerical robes and the other one is wearing princely robes. They used to be ambassadors not of one country; they used to sell themselves, almost, as ambassadors to city-states. Most of their work, or most of their instruments of work is seen behind them. So you can, you can see musical instruments. You can see a globe. You can see other things there. You can see a poetry book. Because they used to be, uh, chosen, or they used to, as part of their advertisement, let’s put it this way, they needed to be competent and skilled in many skills and in many areas. What is interesting, as well, um, most of the work that they did as diplomats was what is called marital diplomacy, which means finding, uh, good wives or good husbands to princes or princesses of warring or opposing nations, city-states. Most of these were city-states; they were not large states. Sometimes they were employed by, obviously, uh, the Vatican and sometimes by the Emperor, sometimes by a prince, sometimes by a king. Why have I shown this, uh, this slide? It is an interesting slide. By the way, there is also, uh, on the foot of the painting there is, um, an image of a skull, which is also put inside this picture by Holbein, uh, the Younger, who, who, who painted this.

Why am I showing this? I’m saying that, I am, I am showing this because my vision of Europe is perhaps a bit different from your vision of Europe. I wouldn’t put everything into the concept of Western. Many countries who joined the EU, the European Union and, I will be focusing most spec-, uh, specially or specifically on the European Union, which is the, at the moment the “sick person” of Europe. So Europe is larger than the EU, as we know. And the EU is very sick. It’s actually, some people, perhaps even the gentleman on my right, would call it terminally ill. Should we, uh, give it the opportunity of using euthan-, euthanasia, so that we finish it?

We have a big problem, because the EU had two principles. One, apart from the four freedoms, one is that of what is called “patient diplomacy”—so trying to achieve something by speaking first to one group, then the group enlarged and enlarged. And we know the reasons for enlargement, as well. I was one of the key people for the largest of, uh, enlargement of the EU. And for example, was for my country—uh, my country then—because I, I, uh, I am a Maltese citizen, a citizen of Malta. Our, uh, inclusion inside the EU was, had its reasons. Other countries, like the countries from the East, had their own reasons—reasons, by the way, which I will relate to—continue to dom-, to dominate the discussion of today. The other, the other theme the EU has always looked at was what I would call “crafted compromise.” So everything seems to come out in a way which is a compromise. And as you know, sometimes—not sometimes, I would say, most of the times—compromise makes very, how would I call it?, three-headed figures, not, uh, normal figures. So it makes things extraordinary, things which do not, cannot stand on their feet.

Coming back to Europe, what is Europe? Is Europe only the EU member states? Does it include, uh, the Russian Federation? Many inside the EU, insi-, in terms of discussion, when they speak about Europe, they always, always speak about a larger, wider EU. The EU itself—wider Europe, I mean. The EU itself so, um, specific in terms of what it does. It is not homogeneous—absolutely not. I don’t know if you’re aware, do you know that w-, there, uh, the blocs within the EU, for example, foreign ministers, have a prior meeting to where every foreign-minister meeting organized by the EU according to regional concentration. The Medit-, Mediterranean group is called the Olive Tree group. They work together, they specifically look at things together. They have very different views, and it could be seen.

Somebody mentioned the article and the page from The Economist, uh, which, uh, painted a, a picture of, uh, of, a photo of President Putin. There is at the same time, in print, Panorama, an Italian, uh, magazine, printed exactly the same picture, but changing the question, asking, “Are you really calling this person a devil?,” for example. Of course. What am I saying? Europe and the European Union, or the Western type of Europe, has different ways of working. Unfortunately, and this is something—that’s why I mentioned that the EU is the “sick person” at the moment—is dominated, the EU is dominated by people, for example, who? At every European Council, whenever the topic of working or dealing with the Russian Federation comes up, put up huge barriers. These are not the Mediterranean states. So I would like to make it very clear. Somebody mentioned today that, uh, Prime Minister Renzi of Italy, for example, even during the last European Council meeting, had to put his foot down, supported by other countries from the Mediterr-, from the M-, mostly from the Mediterranean, who said this can’t continue, because obviously set again the increase of sanctions was on the cards.

What am I saying? I mentioned in the previous session, as well, the fact that there is now what I would call “citizens’ power,” which is gaining more and more ground in Europe. There is almost an implosion of the way people think, in terms of Europe. I said before that sometimes we call these fringe parties or radical parties, but in fact they are thinking what many, many communities across Europe, north and south, not just in the Mediterranean, are thinking. I would—may I , if I may, suggest a, a, an, another version, perhaps not so ideologically rooted, but perhaps more real and pragmatic at this moment in time? We need, coming from, uh, diplomacy, we need more citizens’ diplomacy here. We need to continue speaking to each other at various levels. One of the terms that I had pushed for many, many years was that of what I called “academic diplomacy” or “scientific diplomacy.” Academics never stop speaking to each other. At this moment in time, this is much more needed. Why? Because it is not a one-way issue. It’s not about, uh, the, the West, or what has been called the West, thinking about its own survival. It’s also about hearing how other people think. Sitting here in Moscow and discussing this issue would be extremely different from sitting, for example, in Brussels and Berlin, in Rome or in London, and speaking exactly about the same issues. So even the positioning of how, of where a person speaks is important.

I notice something else which is interesting, perhaps, to note here. When you take member states, or states individually, leaders of the states use, um, what I would call, or what, uh, President Arafat used to do, speaking in Arabic and saying one thing to his people and speaking in English and saying something completely different to the journalists who are listening to him. And this I can see in Europe happening more and more. Why? Leader of states do not want to tell the truth to their citizens. So once they agree, of course because of pressure—the United States was mentioned many, many times today, the pressure on many of the leaders, and you can see it even in countries which started one way and finished completely—leaders of countries—which started in one way and finished completely in a different position due to the pressure which was put on them.

So what am I saying? I’m saying that there needs to be more time. Europe at the moment—or what I would call Europe—including the twenty-eight, uh, twenty-seven, now, member states of the EU once Article 50 is activated—will need more time to come to terms with the changes that will be taking place. You’re already seeing it. Many, I wouldn’t, uh, be in, uh, anybody’s shoes here to predict what would be the future of countries like France and Germany, which are considered to be the two big leaders of the EU. But there are, I would say, eighty, eighty-five, ninety percent, even more, chance of big changes within the leadership of these countries, which would then completely change also the way states take decisions. One of, one of the most difficult things, and I would like, perhaps, us to, to reflect on this, the, where has the European project—or the EU project more than the European project—the EU project, where has this failed? The EU project, in my opinion, has become too grand, a Leviathan. You know, huge, impossible to control. It’s trying to control systems and areas from one or two cities, because, you know, f-, as a compromise, again, this was one of the European craft of compromise. We have two seats of the European Parliament, Brussels and, uh, and, uh Strasbourg. To say, to say the least, we need, and this is something which I think we, we need to lo-, to look at, is we need to look again at how, perhaps, we should have—and there are some in Europe already thinking about this—a leaner Europe, a more focused Europe, a Europe which takes care of the communities. It’s very, very, very important that one does not leave out the communities, because the communities have been one of the sources of building up this Europe. And also something else which I think is important is what are national or international relations of the new EU will look like.

We have to start thinking about this. Why? Because the kind of relationship that the EU currently has, for example, with its neighbors economically is not viable. This is one of the hugest things that is coming up. If you see the documents, for example, from the, uh, Economic Ministers’ Agenda of the EU, which are then transmitted to the Presidents or the Prime Ministers, the executive power of the, uh, at the European Council, there is a huge dichotomy. Economic ministers are saying we are falling behind. We have to continue to trade, we have to open up trade to the Russian Federation. Imposing sanctions, for example, is, uh, w-, w-, it’s suicidal in our case—and, because of the pressure, and I agree completely with what you said before, because the pressure from, uh, the United States, the leaders of Europe—the current leaders of Europe—are forcing the EU to take steps which are not consonant with what, with what it actually wants to be. May I just add something else, which I think is important. One question that, uh, the EU has been asking itself again, at various levels—especially the European Parliament has been one of the, is the question, has the EU beca-, bec-, become Americanized?—the question which you asked. Has it become strongly Americanized? Has it, ha-, has it become totally Americanized?—which is another big question.

And I must say that within the European Parliament, uh, and within the Committee of the Regions—looking at the institutions within the EU—there is, you know, we have been very pessimistic, perhaps, today, but on this, on these two levels, Parliament and the Committee of the Regions, which I consider to be the real voice of many of the communities scattered inside the European Union, there is a completely different view. And this is something which might help the European Union change. It’s not going to be an easy one. Time is not on the side—the huge issue, as you know, of migration has hit and has divided the European Union. Right now, for example, Mediterranean states and, uh, eastern, the eastern EU member states are not seeing eye-to-eye, putting it mildly. There is also the issue, as well, of i-, inter-EU migration or inter-EU mobility, which is one of the cardinal principles of the EU, which is also, in my opinion, under threat. Any, uh, discussion post-Brexit which will limit migration will be eating into the heart of one of the, uh, uh, four freedoms of the European Union, which is going to be very difficult to, to act. Then there is also one, uh, huge what I would call a trap that the EU has walked in, into, which is the sanctions. There has been a lot of discussions—I have been even here in Moscow with, uh, uh, one French minister who, to the business community, suggested absolutely, you know, we are open for business, why do, why have we put these sanctions in? So to me, there are a number of big issues that need to be, you know, Europe needs, or the EU needs time. It needs time post-Brexit. It needs time to come out of the, and look at a new—perhaps—American leadership, who might change or might remain the same. It might, it might need, as well, something as, which I think is also very, very important, to see how these fringe new movements—which have taken some of these, uh, some of the cities in Europe—start to act together. Will these become political parties? Will they remain as movements? Will they reconstitute and reconstruct the new EU?

One final thing, which I think is important. I must pass a message, which I feel is extremely important, and this is something that the, not, it’s not just the people who are the intellectuals. I mentioned, in my previous, uh, intervention, the media. The media within—again here I would agree with the previous speaker—has a absolutely, in my opinion, westernized, and westernized in the way that you explained it. The media is doing its best to break any sort of changes within the, the EU, any sort of changes within the, uh, approaches, for example, to the Russian Federation. But it is succeeding? This is a question which I have put on the table. I, personally, do not believe it is. Thank you.

Professor Joseph Mifsud

Prof. Joseph Mifsud is the honorary Director of the London Academy of Diplomacy and the former President of EMUNI. He was elected President of the Euro-Mediterranean University by European and Mediterranean, Rectors and Presidents of Universities in November of 2008 after the Paris Summit established Emuni and Euro-Mediterrranean higher education and research as one of the priority projects of the Union for the Mediterranean. He is a full professor at the University of Stirling and an Honorary Professor at the University of East Anglia.

Joseph has lectured extensively throughout the world on international relations, public administration and management, public private partnerships, diplomacy and euro-mediterranean studies in Europe, Russia, Africa, USA and throughout the Mediterranean region. He has worked in a number of European and International Universities as Guest Professor, International Director and International Adviser. He has attended and chaired conferences on higher education, intercultural studies and research in Europe, USA, Russia, the Mediterranean and the Gulf. He has also been invited as a keynote speaker by the EU Parliament, the European Council, the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, the Union of the Mediterranean and many of the the major schools of Management, Security Studies, International Studies and Diplomacy around the world.

Joseph has also served prominently in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malta especially in relation to the Commonwealth and in the Mediterranean including the hosting of the Euro-Arab summit in Malta. He has also worked for the Ministry of Education in Malta as Chief Advisor between 1996 and 1998 and as Malta’s representative to the Council of Europe in Education and at Unesco where he has also organised major Ministerial and institutional meetings on pan-meditarranean intercultural dialogue. He was also vital to the EU accession of Malta, being in charge of the establishment of the European Programmes Unit. He has served as Head of Department, and as a member of the Senate of the University of Malta and was also Malta’s representative to the Bologna Follow Up Group.

Joseph has attended and presented papers at the European University Association (EUA) and European Universities and Higher Education Institutions. He sits on a number of Boards in higher education and diplomacy, both in Europe and in the Commonwealth. He is a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) and of the Valdai Group. He is also the author of a number of contributions on higher education, public and private adminstration and on Diplomacy in the Mediterranean and has recently produced the chapter on higher education and research in the Mediterranean published by the Mediterranean Annual in Spain. He has also been the convener of the London Diplomatic Forum organised every week in London and the organiser of Rome Diplomatic Week.

Joseph is also one of the key contributors to the Moroccon Centre of Strategic Studies based in Rabat. Joseph is considered to be the founding father of the term ‘Academic Diplomacy’. His current research interests focus on the EU especially accession and enlargement, the OAS and EU relations, FDI and Diplomacy, and Diplomacy and Security, the Commonwealth, the GCC, Development, Management and Strategic Studies in the Maghreb and Mashrek regions, EU – Russia Relations, and the workings of the Organisation of American States. He is also focusing on a number of countries/regions out of Europe – the Gulf, the Middle East and North Africa, Angola, Kazakhastan, Vietnam and Myanmar. The London, Rome and Washington diplomatic journals have run features of his work in the January and February editions of 2015.

Regions of Experience

Europe
USA
The Middle East
Africa
Asia
Areas of Expertise

International Diplomacy
Security
Public Administration and Management

fwiw also from Wayback Machine

http://web.archive.org/web/20160316160003/http://www.lcilp.org:80/staff/professor-joseph-mifsud/

“What force turned Conservative Hawks like Sessions and Clovis into Russian sympathizers? Were they just “paid off” or, are they representing a deep rift in the American political/business elite over Russia?”

Uh, no. The same force that turned them into the busboys for the Kochs. The Republican party is already bought and sold. You think they really care all that much where the money comes from? They want to remain in power so that they can give all the money to the rich.

There’s no moral behind this story. Putin isn’t a communist and the Republican donors are jealous as fuck that he stole half of Russia’s money. HALF

Bmaz:
A couple of questions:
Do you think Flynn has already been indicted and the unsealing awaits the perfect time?
If Mueller finds money laundering in the Trump Org, can he refer to another department and skirt the Red Line (not the Boston Transit System)?