Enemy of the stated

That is sometimes the case and I got that alert yesterday. It took me a while to get on board with some of the items, yet on the other side there is more and there is something else at that. So lets start with that part as it matters. Last year, almost 1 year ago I wrote an article (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/07/18/for-those-not-seeing-the-oil-field/) with the title ‘For those not seeing the oil field’. In that Article I wrote “China could sell the Chengdu J-20 at a nice price to Saudi Arabia (I admit I was trying to get my foot in the door and make a play for a simple 3.75% commission), and when you consider that this bill might go up to 15 billion, my 3.75% makes for a nice half a billion (we all have overly big dreams), and merely to play the courier? You have got to be kidding, I am so ready for that part!” And that stage as already underway at that time (alas, not for me). In an age where in Australia we see nearly the entire nation ripe with age discrimination, I was aiming for a nice job getting 3.75% (an internal joke from 1996) of whatever comes up and recently I learned that this might be as high as $23.8 billion over 2 years. This would have gotten me a $892,500,000 pay-check (over 2 years). Would I accept that? Hell yes! For being a simple courier for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? I would have been so there. Australia has no enemy relationships with either country. Is it my best case scenario? Not exactly, I am a commonwealthian after all, as such I preferred to be courier to documents for the British Typhoon. Yet British Parliament gave it up for British tea grannies and their CAAT. The Americans made a mess of everything pushing their own solutions away from a decent revenue taxable future. So I was looking out for me and I would have taken that job, no hesitation about it. 

So now you have the background, lets dig into the article that sets this off. It was the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66160979) who gives us ‘US think tank founder charged with acting as Chinese agent’. In that article we are given a few parts. First there is “Gal Luft “agreed to covertly recruit and pay” an unnamed ex-US official to publicly support certain Chinese policies, federal prosecutors say. The 57-year-old allegedly attempted to broker arms sales involving customers in China, Libya, the UAE and Kenya.” Here we have two issues. Was he a broker? Did he connect to people, who via him conducted business? Broker is a bit of a lose term. And we aren’t talking two parties, we are looking at at least 3 channels, optionally more, but what is relevant and what matters? For Americans it is a setting for courts and good luck with that evidence. The second allegation is “In 2016, officials say he failed to register as a foreign agent while acting to advance Chinese interests in the US. He is alleged to have lobbied an ex-US official who was an adviser to then President-elect Donald Trump to convince him to “publicly support certain policies with respect to China”.” Here, in the first, was he a foreign agent, or was he a (technical) consultant? They are very different and evidence is bringing that up (I never saw any for that matter). And as the ‘activity’ happened in 2016, why did it take 7 years for anyone to take actions? Which policies was he catering to? Is that not the job of any stake holder in the political field? Was the policy a legal one or a illegal one? Three questions that blow away the setting if the court doesn’t have a proper deck of Trump cards (pun intended). Then we get a very specific one “Prosecutors also accuse him of attempting to broker arms sales without a US permit. He allegedly worked to help Chinese companies sell anti-tank launchers, grenade launchers and mortar rounds to Libya.” The short and sweet is, can it be proven that he was a broker, or was he an un-sided courier? Person A and Person B do not know each other (good enough), but they both know Person C and that person couriers the papers between the two. Isn’t that what DHL does? Is DHL a courier of an arms broker? Then we get “Federal officials say he attempted to bypass US sanctions on Iranian oil by directing an associate to say that the oil was Brazilian. According to prosecutors, Mr Luft was arrested in Cyprus on US charges on 17 February this year and fled after being released on bail pending extradition.” This is a specific allegation and a big ‘no no’ Iran is on the naughty list of many nations and there they might have a case. I reckon it is stupid to do what he did as the sulphur content of Brazilian and Iran are very different, did he not think this through? Well that is a case that might stick on him and the fact that he allegedly fled to Cyprus does not help him much. So what is the difference between George Luft and me? I am not American and I will not do business with Iran. But as we are both optional couriers I am still in a much better place that he is (alas a very poor one for now). As such in the end we get “He is charged with eight counts, including failing to register as a foreign agent, evading oil sanctions, two counts of making false statements to investigators and three counts of illicit arms trafficking.” What is true? What is legal? What is unacceptable? That is for the courts to decide, but I reckon that George Luft as the head of a think tank was already making a fair amount of coins, so why endanger it all? I never get invited to US Energy Security Council conferences, so I am a little clueless at present. But it seems that America is seemingly still out to declaw whatever China does and at present I cannot say that they did anything do wrong, the courts will decide on George Luft. I look forward to seeing that evidence. In the meantime, my delusional side will dream of getting his 3.75%, as all delusional people do.

Enjoy the middle of the week.