Gender and Empire
Essential readings

I would add to the list:
Desiring Arabs by Jospeh Massad
This has been going on for decades.

The gender pay gap in Easyjet and British Gas, for example, is above 45%.

We should add that in a few workplaces unions are not allowed and that they have done little to fight the injustice because they have been weakened and "neoliberalised", and parliament knows about it. But it seems that at universities unions have been passive or complicit.

One can only wonder how many of these employees, workers, students, professors believe in "liberating" other women in far away countries. I've often heard white students in their teens studying in two elite universities, who want "to help and empower" women in Africa and the Middle East! Cultural arrogance has blinded them from seeing what is around them and how capitalism works.

Big university gender pay gap revealed

See also

You are not only exploited, you are more exploited than others

Ethnic academic minority pay
What is all the fuss about? Some "democrats" complaning about transparency?

The SAS has been involved in operations for decades. It has been "liberating people" and secure defense for "our regional partners." Just watch any documentary and you will how "the heroes" of SAS and how they defend 'our country' in far away countries and restore "peace" and "stability".

'Serious' questions over SAS involvement in Yemen
"Developing", "underdeveloped" or "uneven development"?

The following was written in 1973, but I think it is still something that should make us think of its argument and how (ir)/relevant it is today.

"In some quarters, it has often been thought wise to substitute the term ‘developing’ for ‘underdeveloped’. One of the reasons for so doing is to avoid any unpleasantness which may be attached to the second term, which might be interpreted as meaning underdeveloped mentally, physically, morally or in any other respect. Actually, if ‘underdevelopment’ were related to anything other than comparing economies, then the most underdeveloped country in the world would be the U.S.A, which practices external oppression on a massive scale, while internally there is a blend of exploitation, brutality, and psychiatric disorder. However, on the economic level, it is best to remain with the word ‘underdeveloped’ rather than ‘developing’, because the latter creates the impression that all the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America are escaping from a state of economic backwardness relative to the industrial nations of the world, and that they are emancipating themselves from the relationship of exploitation. That is certainly not true, and many underdeveloped countries in Africa and elsewhere are becoming more underdeveloped in comparison with the world’s great powers, because their exploitation by the metropoles is being intensified in new ways."

—Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, 1973, p. 25 (quote from 1983 ed.)

If today poor countries are developing rich countries, as Jason Hickel's research findings suggest, how relevant is it then to talk about "developing" countries, and "developng" in relation or relative to what?

The white curriculum

When I asked two students doing Gender Studies at LSE last year, one of them was doing an MA, and three students at UCL studying something similar, none of them could name an Arab feminist or author.

"The results indicated a grim reality. Non-Africa based scholars represented between 73.2 and 100 per cent of cited authors in surveyed reading lists. Out of the 274 assigned readings for a Development Studies course at a leading British university, only one reading was from an author based at an African institution.

The narrow dissemination of research from African institutions in ‘prestigious’ journals confines the repertoire of methodological tools that are available in research and limits learning and teaching. It also allows dominant approaches and paradigms in some disciplines to remain unchallenged. For instance, in the fields of economics, and particularly in US universities, orthodox paradigms became hegemonic to the extent of excluding different views, especially those from the global South."
"Britain is a racist country, and prejudice exists within all parties. Labour has attempted to deal with antisemitism in its ranks, not always successfully or adeptly. The Conservatives have ignored the problem. It is not whataboutery to argue that no political party should harbor racists of any hue. But the Conservatives have been able to ignore their own issues and problems because Islamophobia is more broadly acceptable among the public and the media class."

The Tories' Islamophobia problem
The Arab uprisings: an appraisal

Comparing the Arab uprisings with the revolutions of the 1970s like the ones in Yemen, Nicaragua and Iran, social theorist Asef Bayat, pinpoints some crucial differences between them. The Arab revolutions, he rightly, argues, lacked an intellectual anchor. In contrast also to the ideas and visions behind the English revolution, the American revolution, the French revolution, and more recently, the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Arab uprisings lacked  leadership strategies. 

Moreover, the Arab revolutions lacked that radicalism that marked the twentieth-century revolutions: anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, social justice, etc. Instead, the prevailing voices from Tunisia to Yemen, from Libya to Syria, were the voices of legal reform, accountability and human rights. The predominant secular and Islamist currents took the free market and neoliberal capitalism for granted and uncritically. 

Property relations and structure of power went unchallenged, except in Libya. The apparatuses of the state either restructured itself and survived or re-emerged largely intact. There was no plan to take over the social and economic institutions that shaped people's collective lives and reorganise them.

The context is one of "the end of history", "revolution is an outdated phenomenon", "capitalist realism", "there is no alternative",  and "globalisation"; a context in which "identity politics", "the politics of recognition", "individual rights" and "human rights" have become dominant and as substitution for class politics, exploitation, solidarity, real freedoms, etc. 

"The key issues raised by the Arab political class seemed to be with government accountability, democracy, and human rights," says Bayat. "I have to say these demands are very significant in our region, indeed. But they are often used and manipulated also by the authoritarian regimes and their western allies, who speak similar language. This language is often used to hide the ruling class linkages with social exclusion, economic deprivation, terrible inequality, and the regime of property." I would add the strive to co-opt and and contain the Arab revolts and at most to use them as an opportunity for social engineering. One of the roles was payed by Western imperialism, international institutions and media in confining the voices to the language of "human rights" "democratic institutions", "political freedoms" and channeling the anger into electoral processes. Thus extending the life of or resurrecting the dying regimes, maintaining the existing property and power relations through reform or without it. Relations which are in the interest of both the local bourgeoisie and its international backers.

Contra Jack Goldstone (Foreign Affairs, 2011), for instance, who believes that there have been "struggles for power between radicals and moderates", Bayat asks, "Did the notion of radicals and moderates have any meaningful relevance in the experiences of Egypt, Tunisia, or Yemen? Where were the radicals, and was the role played similar to those played in the French, Russian, or Iranian revolutions? —See Bayat, Revolution without Revolutionaries, 2017, pp. 11-15

Eight years later, the protests are having a come back (in Tunisia, Sudan, Iraq, Algeria), and the similarity of the protesters' demands and strategies echoes the Tunisian and the Egyptian ones. Peaceful, but not radical and of no threat to the structures of power.  

"The case would help shatter the nation’s two-party system, transform how the public viewed the people running the country and, eventually, bring down a government."

Spain's Watergate
Sixteen years after the United States invaded Iraq and left a trail of destruction and chaos in the country and the region, one aspect of the war remains criminally underexamined: why was it fought in the first place? What did the Bush administration hope to get out of the war?," asks Ahsen I Butt

Butt has tried to re-examine the motives of the U.S. in invasing Iraq: "Put simply, the Iraq war was motivated by a desire to (re)establish American standing as the world's leading power."

He has hit the nail once or twice, but he has not explored what this re-establishment of "the world's leading power" consists of. Nor does he he provide the historical conjuncture and context: the domestic sociology in the U.S., the continuation of 1991 invasion and the collapse of the Soviet Union and "globalisation". 

Reviewing Andrew Bacevich's American Empire, Peter Gowan draws a much better picture of the motives behind the invasion of 2003:

There has been a "very powerful, cross-class social constituencies in the  us with a direct stake in imperial expansion. It is arguable that something similar may have been at work in the steady escalation."

"The American economic expansionism that used to be expressed as ‘interdependence’ has been rebaptized: ‘globalization’ is essentially a radicalized synonym for this older term ... [A]s Thomas Friedman put it: ‘Globalization-is-Us’.

"Bacevich is right to stress that, in fact, the most complete and fulsome versions of America’s imperial mission in the world were the work of the Clinton regime, which wove its necessary internal and external, economic and military-political dimensions into a smooth whole after the rather lame efforts of its predecessor.

Another motive has been "the opening of overseas economies and refashioning of financial institutions to  U.S.  advantage, with the requisite cultural trappings; on the other, the projection of military force to keep or restore order abroad, accompanied by diplomatic strategies to discipline the other main power centres of the world.

The U.S. "must also maintain ‘full spectrum dominance’—that is, decisive strategic superiority over all other major powers, to deter them from seeking to balance against the United States."

—Peter Gowan, Instruments of Empire, NLR, May-June 2003 
A page from Yemen's history: 1967

While the British and their allies supported the royalist North, the new government of South Yemen embarked on a programme of nationalisation, introduced central planning, put limits on housing ownership and rent, and implemented a land reform. By 1973, the GDP of South Yemen increased by 25 percent. 

And despite the conservative environment and resistance, women became legally equal to men, polygamy, child marriage and arranged marriage were all banned by law. Equal rights in divorce were also sanctioned. The Republic also secularised education and sharia law was replaced by a state legal code.

Asef Bayat, Revolution without Revolutionaries: Making Sense of the Arab Spring,  2017, p. 5. 
Maxine Molyneux, Aida Yafai, Aisha Mohsen and Noor Ba'aba, Women and Revolution in the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Feminist Review, issue 1, 1979, pp.4-20.

Canada and Israel

"Rather than pressure corporations to act more ethically – a concept that often seems in direct conflict with their bottom-line imperative of making a profit – campaigners might work for deeper reforms, such as public control or ownership of enterprises like Bombardier. Or, perhaps more radically, look to indigenous society itself for ideas on how to curb the capitalist profit motive."

Bombardier Abroad: Patterns of Dispossession
An excellent summary of Political Islam

Compare the following with the conventional, cultural arrogance of the gladiators of the international "liberal order" (i.e. Western imperialism) and the media pundits.

"Political Islam or Islamism is the consequence of the social frustrations, articulated around the social divisions of class and generation that followed from the economic crises of the global neo-liberal experiments of the 1970s and 1980s. The demographic revolution produced large cohorts of young Muslims, who, while often well educated to college level, could not easily find opportunities to satisfy the aspirations that had been inflamed by nationalist governments. Although these diverse studies of Islam are primarily concerned with the modern period, in order to understand such contemporary social movements as Islamism, we need to start in the nineteenth century. Broadly speaking we can identify four periods of Islamic political action in response to the social and cultural crises resulting from foreign domination and internal haemorrhaging. These movements have critically attacked contemporary political and military weakness in the name of the pristine Islam of the early community of the Prophet, and hence they have been labelled ‘fundamentalist’. In the nineteenth century, these reformist movements which were hostile to both traditional folk religion such as the Sufi lodges and external western threat included Wahhabism in Arabia, the Sudanese Mahdi, the Sanusi in North Africa, and Egyptian Islamic reform movements. The second wave of activism occurred in the 1940s with the development of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the third movement began in the aftermath of the Arab defeat in the 1967 war with Israel and reached a crescendo with the Iranian Revolution in 1978–9 and with opposition to the Russian incursion into Afghanistan. The contemporary fourth wave of resistance opened with the Gulf War in 1990, when the entry of American troops into Saudi Arabia created the resentment that eventually resulted in the Al Qaeda networks, September 11 and the war on terrorism.

Kepel’s study [Kepel 2002] remains the cornerstone of the debate about the social conditions that produced Islamism. What Kepel’s thesis lacks however is a clear articulation of how the neo-liberal phase of the global economy shaped the social conditions under which secular states were able to respond to the growth of Islamism. It is clear that neo-liberal policies intensified the internal conflicts between social classes as economic inequalities deepened, producing the social frustrations and dilemmas that propelled generations of university students towards fundamentalism. Because those global pressures are still in place, Kepel’s argument that radical Islamism is in decline may prove to be premature."

—Bryan S. Turner, Class, Generation and Islamism: towards a global sociology of political Islam, the London School of Economics, 2003.

I should add that the fifth "movement" sprung from the Russian slaughter in Chechnya, the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 and the defeat of the Syrian uprising of 2011, and that the "the large cohorts of young Muslims" were led by mainly middle-class militants.

Revolution without Revolutionaries

"People may or may not have ideas about revolution for it to happen. For the outbreak of a revolution has little to do with any idea, and even less with a 'theory,' of revolution. Revolutions 'simply' happen. But having or not having ideas about revolution does have critical consequences for the outcome when it actually occurs.

Having lived in both Iran and Egypt just prior to their revolutions, I was struck by how different these experiences were. I was enthralled by the Arab Spring's more peaceful, open, pluralistic, and less repressive texture but was perplexed by its nonradical, loosely organised, exposed, and perilous quality."
—Asef Bayat, Revolution without Revolutionaries: Making Sense of the Arab Spring, 2017, Preface, xi (in paperback ed.)

"The speed, spread, and intensity of the recent revolutions extraordinarily unparalleled, while their lack of ideology, lax coordination, and absence of any galvanzing leadership and intellectual precepts have almost no precedent. But even more striking is that they lacked the kind of radicalism that marked the earlier revolutions and that the ideas of deep democracy, equity, fair property relations, and social justice paled or were more rhetorical than driven by genuine concern anchored on startegic visions or concrete programs. Indeed, it remains a question if what emerged during the Arab Spring were in fact revolutions in sense of their twentieth-century counterparts." Ibid., p. 2

"Nonradical, loosely organised, exposed, and perilous quality." Will the Algerians carry out a radical revolution or get coopted? One should keep a close eye on the manoeuvres of the ruling class in Algeria and the role of the major Atlantic states, their regional allies/subordinates, their internationally-dominated institutions and their corporate, and even the so-called liberal, media.

A very recent example is how el-Sisi has urged for 'stability' in Algeria while Macron is trying to teach him that both 'stability and 'human rights' go together. Like other "democractic" imperialists who use the cloak of "human rights" while shaking hands and making business deals with a military dictatorship. 'Stability' for them means that capital accumulation goes on unhindered, but when the client becomes a liability they either put pressure on him to make concessions or look for a substitute that they, and their media, endorse as a new leader whom they define as "moderate" and who would respect "then will of the people" and "establish the rule of law". Thus guarantteing that the international financial instituions too pour loans in the regime's coffers.

Certainly, minor changes/concessions would be beneficial for both the regional bourgeoisie and its international backers. More importantly, el-Sisi is more worried of a genuine change/revolution in Algeria and how that might threaten his regime. After all, in both countries the army is a decisive factor, and any split within the military might usher in a downfall of the regime or restructuring of the repressive state apparatus to save the very same regime.

Reminiscent of the Carter and Reagan era

"By implicitly authorizing the Honduras security deals, the US “deputized” Israel to gallop into the region and whip up a posse of right-wing proxy reinforcements in Central America that the US could count on when needed."

Israeli arms industry 'great leap' in Central America

New Zealand

"[W]hat it is not is shocking. There is nothing shocking about it. How can there be? Have you not been paying attention? Much of his rhetoric and references are borrowed from the political and mainstream media.

“People who can only condemn racism and Islamophobia — being ‘horrified’ and ‘shocked’ — only when so much blood is spilled are part of the problem,” the Cambridge academic Priyamvada Gopal observed on Twitter on Friday. “Because the rest of the time, they are busy normalising and minimising them.” 

—Mehdi Hasan

Hasan though seems to legitimise the very same people he is condemning by appealing to them "to stop their anti-Muslim rhetoric."

"The fact that there is resistance and striving for justice, for which these several hundred mothers stand, does not really fit into this picture. Whatʹs more, the defence of human rights has become institutionalised – like for instance in Germany. We are no longer living in the 1970s or 1980s, when thousands of people took to the streets for democracy and human rights. Today, people prefer to sign petitions on the Internet."

Iran: the summer of 1988
A dark chapter in Iranian history
We are all in it together: one people, one nation with great values.

The Price of Austerity in England

See also

Robin Hood in Time of Austerity
Two extremist, radicalised, Algerian women from the Revolutionary Spartacist League of World Revolution, Genuine Democracy and Global Justice are conspiring on how to overthrow the regime!

Source: Journal el Bilad, 15 March 2019

Violence in New Zeland

Some extremists (Clinton, May, Modi, Erdogan, el Sisi ...) are condemning other extremists.
"Hobbes once remarked that if you are forced at gunpoint to go through a door, you are still free to go through it: you can be forced and be free. For most of us today this is a perversity that smacks of Stalinism. But what if someone throws walls around you on three sides and then leaves you to decide for yourself what to do? Are you still free to determine your future, assuming that the wall builder has at least as much right to build the walls as you do? ... [U]unfortunately most conventional discussion ... either fails to spot the walls or assumes that they are natural structures deriving from the very substance of market economics, rather than the work of political hands. As a result, conventional wisdom does not for a moment doubt that ... peoples ... have at last entered the realm of freedom and self-determination...

[W]hat right do a handful of capitalist states assert their political power over the world economy? It is in this field of what conventional liberal thought presents as a depoliticized world market, that the West’s decisive political power lies, largely hidden, today. Military strength is, if understood politically, merely an ancillary buttress to this power over world economics: it steps in to preserve this system of domination, and has a defensive or regulatory quality."

—Peter Gowan, 1990

Many Algerians taking part in the on-going social-political movement are crazy and uneducated. They speak about "a colonialism that has been oppressing them for decades." They don't know that in prestigious universities in the West students are taught about "Post-colonialism" and "Development". Algerians should learn from "the highly educated" Westerners and stop blaming the Other for their ills. The Other has been trying to help them in all sorts of manners: "aid, loans, NGOs, weapons, support of regime to guarantee stability, bying their resources at fair price, spreading liberal values," etc. Algerians should learn from the "experts" and listen to the heads of international institutions like the World Bank and the IMF.

الدول العربية بحاجة الى ثورات حقيقية لا لتغيير ما يسمى رئيس الدولة، بل لاجتثاث الدولة العميقة واستخبارات وعسكر وحيتان المال والنفوذ الخارجي، بحاجة إلى ثورات لإنجاز الاستقلال الحقيقي عن الاستعمار الجاثم منذ عشرات السنين  حذارِ من تكرار سيناريوهات مصر وليبيا وسوريا واليمن  

Translation: "The Arab countries are in need of genuine revolutions, not a change of the so-called head of state; they need to uproot the deep state, the intelligence services, the army, the financial sharks and external influence; they need revolutions to achieve a genuine independence from decades-long colonialism. Beware, do not repeat the scenarios of Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen."
Algeria 09 March 2019

All signs indicate so far that another social movement will be co-opted (by the regime and the imperial powers), diverted (through a manoeuvre by the military) and if not, crushed.

"The people want the overthrow of the gangster regime"

"Leave" (one of the slogans that had been raised in the Tunisian uprising)

Algeria's angry youth (the Guardian)

and a view of an Algerian activist:

"A few thoughts on developments in Algeria as well as the way they are being represented in both Algerian and international (social) media. 
First, it goes without saying that we are living through incredibly exciting times. Just yesterday, 15 MILLION Algerians took to the country's streets and even more if we take into consideration protests taking place in solidarity elsewhere across the world. Second, it also goes without saying that for those of us who have been involved in social movements over the past several years that our optimism is always cautious- we know there are always powerful forces out there seeking to co-opt, depoliticize, de-radicalize and take advantage of the new space created by this mobilization to destabilize and infiltrate (e.g. just two days ago a US navy ship docked in the Algiers port for ‘scheduled visit’ but we know from past experience and what’s happening today in places like Venezuela, Syria, etc. that an imperial military can and will only act to further imperial interests). 

We have learned from past and ongoing revolutionary struggles (including Algeria’s own anti-colonial resistance, Palestinian liberation movement, as well as more recent regional experiences) that the battle is not only fought on the street, but also in who gets to interpret, frame, represent and narrate the popular demands (e.g. look how the dominant framings focus on the refusal of Boutaflika’s 5th mandate and silence more radical demands. This could end up serving the interests of anti-Boutaflika status quo forces).
With this in mind, let us highlight and amplify the more radical voices of this mobilization that stand on the shoulders of our ancestors- across the Maghreb/Africa, Asia, Latin America- who fought the colonizers and have continued even once the colonial militaries and administrations left to fight the forms of (neo)colonial exploitation, resource extraction and dispossession that they brought with them. 
Let us amplify the voices demanding political-economic structural transformation but rooting these claims in the solid defence of our sovereignty. Let's amplify the voices calling for cultural, intellectual and epistemological decolonization. We can only honor our mujahideen/mujahidette by fulfilling their dreams and ensuring their lights are not dimmed… It is our generation’s calling to bring their struggle to fruition and keep their torch ablaze. 
Today more than ever, I am so proud of my people."
—Brahim Rouabah, 09 March 2019
From the archive

A reply to the liberal logic of Fred Halliday

Still useful for today's geo-economic politics whether for the recent American categorazation of Hizbollah as "a terrorist" organisation or the one-sided view on the Bolivarian revolution.
Macron and co.

"If any anti-Jewish expression in the world always worries me, I feel a certain disgust at the flood of hypocrisy and manipulation orchestrated by those who now want to criminalize anyone who criticizes Zionism." —Shlomo Sand

Semites, Anti-Semites, Zionists, Anti-Zionists
"All citizens are supposed to be equal but citizens from minority ethnic communities are, in fact, less equal than others."

When do you become "British enough"?
An alternative to Emmeline Pankhurst, a defender of the British Empire, celebrated by the London School of Economics and Manchester City Council.

Freda Bedi
"Human Rights" in Tunisia

Context: it was during an era the Tunisian regime was hailed as "the best student" by the IMF and a "liberal secular" regime under Bourgiba (1956-1987), and was in good relations with the US, France, Britain, Italy and others while torture, repression and plunder went on. Now any complicity is forgotten. From the liberal  Guardian to the Financial Times and the Economist, the talk now is about a "nascent though weak democracy" and "transitional justice". Meanwhile, the international financial institutions carry on with their debt enslavement programme and "restructuring". 
From the archive

We tried to help the "Libyans" get rid of a mad man and organise  the first 'free' elections. But, they didn't understand what 'democracy' mean. So, they started killing each other in a civil war.

The disaster in Libya


Who said Gaddafi had to go?


Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya

"There is a powerful impulse within the electorates of the NATO states for their governments to give a lead to the world and really help the less fortunate overwhelming majority of humanity to improve their lives and strengthen their security and welfare. But we must bear in mind two unfortunate facts: first, that the NATO states have been and are hell-bent on exacerbating the inequalities of power and wealth in the world, on destroying all challenges to their overwhelming military and economic power and on subordinating almost all other considerations to these goals; and second, the NATO states are finding it extraordinarily easy to manipulate their domestic electorates into believing that these states are indeed leading the world’s population towards a more just and humane future when, in reality, they are doing no such thing." 

—Peter Gowan, NLR, March-April 1999
British researcher Alex de Waal has written the following about the famine in Yemen:

"Yemen, however, stands out. A UN report published last month estimated that 80 per cent of the population – 24 million people – required some sort of humanitarian assistance. The number in ‘acute’ need is now estimated at 14.3 million, 27 per cent higher than in 2018. The famine is the world’s worst since North Korea in the 1990s and the one in which Western responsibility is clearest. Even before the war, Yemen was poor, dependent on food imports and suffering from water scarcity. Coalition aircraft now strike military and civilian targets, including agricultural project offices, irrigated farms and terraces, fishing ports and fishing boats, clinics and hospitals, busy markets teeming with vendors and shoppers. Fishing on the Red Sea coast, formerly a major livelihood – fish exports were Yemen’s second biggest earner after oil – is almost at a standstill. The coalition blockade extends to the commercial food imports essential to the country, including 80 per cent of its grain. Equally calamitous is the general economic collapse, including a shutdown of markets and the non-payment of public sector salaries, leaving middle-class families destitute. More than a million people have contracted cholera – the worst epidemic of modern times.

The clearest demographic consequence of famine is usually migration: in the short term, over short distances; in the long term, further. When the blockade eases, how many ‘distress migrants’ from Yemen will follow the people-smuggling routes up the Red Sea to Egypt and the Mediterranean? And how will our political leaders account for their arrival on our shores? Responsibility for Yemen goes beyond Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to London and Washington. Britain has sold at least £4.5 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia and £500 million to the UAE since the war began. The US role is even bigger: Trump authorised arms sales to the Saudis worth $110 billion last May. Yemen will be the defining famine crime of this generation, perhaps this century."

What is his solution?

Instead of analysing power relations, how imperialism works directly or indirectly in protecting an ally or spheres of influence, how capital accumulation is a priority and "human rights" is a cloak in strategical interests or how to prevent future famines, he is suggesting erecting monuments.

"The memorial should leave space available to inscribe the names of famines in which British government complicity might come to play a part. ‘Yemen’ will be the first to be added."

That is what I call a liberal who acknowledges complicity in crimes by "his own government", but shies away from suggesting that the problem is systemic.

Monuments of Famine

A background summary

What is common in these two stories?

1. Canadian PM "Trudeau has denied wrongdoing and says any lobbying by him or his inner circle for engineering giant SNC-Lavalin was done to protect jobs.

SNC-Lavalin is one of the world's largest engineering and construction companies.

The company faces fraud and corruption charges in relation to approximately C$48m ($36m; £28m) in bribes it is alleged to have offered to Libyan officials between 2001 and 2011, when Muammar Gaddafi was in power."
2. "UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia ruled lawful. Equipment sold to Saudi Arabia includes Typhoon and Tornado fighter jets, as well as precision-guided bombs.
The sales contribute to thousands of engineering jobs in the UK, and have provided billions of pounds of revenue for the British arms trade."
"Fittingly for the fact that Assad has maintained his firm grip on power, an emotionally charged story of a child and his fate satiates the middle-class, very white desire to carry the weight of the evil world on our shoulders, albeit without consequences or responsibility. Oh what a dreadful place the rest of the world is!"

The white perspective
Breaking news

We have never been so close to equality, global justice, development and prosperity for all.
Now both the IMF and the World Bank are headed by women! That will certainly make a radical change in the operation of global capitalism. 
"The British never had the capacity to reshape coercively the internal arrangements of other capitalist  states. Their speciality was taking over and reshaping pre-capitalist societies, defeating traditionalist forces of resistance within them. So the principle of absolute states’ rights and non-interference was perfectly acceptable to the British, once they had reached the limits of their empire. 

But Washington had a different and more advanced agenda: first, to penetrate existing capitalist states and reorganize their internal arrangements to suit US  purposes; and second, to defeat any social forces there that rejected the American path to modernity in the name, not of traditionalism, but of an alternative modernity. The UN model simply did not address these issues which were so central for Washington. Indeed, it offered a notional defence against American interference in its emphasis on national sovereignty. As a result, the UN politico-legal order was a cumbersome obstacle to a great deal of US post-war activity, forcing much of its drive for internal regime-change to be organized covertly."

—Peter Gowan, US : UN, A Calculus of Power, 2010, p. 68

Global Poverty

The Science of (Not) Ending Global Poverty