QOTD*: Hillary Clinton on Trade Deals

Updated the last post to reflect Hillary's belated opposition to the TPP deal, but I think this quote from her interview with Judy Woodruff merits highlighting.

...We've learned a lot about trade agreements in the past years.  Sometimes they look great on paper.  I know when President Obama came into office, he inherited a trade-agreement with South Korea.  I, along with other members of the cabinet, pushed hard to get a better agreement -- We think we made improvements -- Now, looking back on it, it doesn't have the results we thought it would have, in terms of access to the markets, more exports, et cetera.

And here I thought, listening to her at first, that she was just referring to the insane trade-deals her husband pushed through as president, but no, she's indicting her own competence & record as well.

She then goes on with some nonsense about how 'in order for us to have a competitive economy in the global marketplace', the US needs to 'raise wages' 'at home' (which the Republican meanies have blocked).  So, in other words, she doesn't get the fundamental complaint ordinary workers in the West have against these deals, nor why they are so favoured by the corporate elites, at all.  I sure am filled with confidence in Hill' as the Dem's candidate right now.


* Should really be QOYD for 'Quote of Yesterday', but I suppose that's not 'a thing.'**

** More and more, I feel like commas should be placed outside of quotation-marks, but it just doesn't feel right for the full stop/period.  I'm 'evolving' on the issue.

The Indy on the Madness that is TTIP

Not that it seems any amount of warning will interest or engage our citizenry over the outrageous extra-judicial anti-democractic monstrosities that are TTIP & TPP, and their related cohorts.  But, one can but try, futile as it may be.

Corporate vampires have tried to suck $4 billion out of Romania, and with TTIP the UK could be next

TTIP's opponents may be accused of speculation, but the impact of similar trade deals abroad is terrifyingly real

When it dared to halt the production of a gold mine, the government of Romania found itself facing a massive lawsuit from a corporate mining giant in a secret "court". There's nothing about the case that makes any sense – the corporation has said it may seek up to $4 billion in "compensation", which is half of Romania’s annual public healthcare budget.

How awful for Romania to be subject to such a corporate assault, you may think. However, under a controversial trade deal between the UK and America known as TTIP, such cases could become common in Britain. So why is our government one of the biggest cheerleaders of these "corporate courts"?*

What's happening in Romania is a terrifying sign of what could happen if TTIP is passed. The corporate vampires are out for blood, and won't rest until they've drained a sovereign state of its money, and destroyed large parts of its land. The mining giant Gabriel Resources originally wanted to develop an enormous gold mine that would involve flattening four mountain tops. There were fears that this would would leave behind a behind a toxic waste lake containing dammed water and cyanide. But in 2014 a critical environmental document that was required for the project to go-ahead was annulled in a Romanian court. In the face of mass protests inside and outside the country, Romania’s parliament decided not to push through a law that would have allowed the project to continue.

Gabriel Resources has recently admitted that they've lost hope of ever building their mine. But at the same time they submitted a request for arbitration at the World Bank, demanding compensation for all the gold and silver that they were unable to extract. The company is using a Jersey subsidiary to bring the case, so it can make use of a UK-Romania investment deal, even though it's based in Canada. The company claims they have spent nearly $500 million on the project, yet in an interview the company’s CEO claimed he was seeking up to $4 billion in "compensation".

This is exactly the kind of case which that TTIP would promote throughout Europe. Through something called the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, foreign corporations get access to a secret arbitration system to sue governments for "damaging" their profits. These cases are taking place with an alarming frequency using a variety of existing trade deals, but TTIP would massively expand the possibility of this taking place. It would do this by allowing all US corporations to sue EU member states and all EU corporations to sue the US government.

...

Yet despite all of this, the British government is fully signed up to the corporate courts. Last year it signed a letter that made clear that the secret court system shouldn’t be removed from the trade deal under any circumstances.

Sovereignty, who needs it ?  Says a 'Conservative' government that rants and raves about the European Union, and, to a lesser degree, the UN, but is more than happy to put unaccountable multi-national corporations above the law or oversight of any government, itself very much included.  Are the UN-'New World Order' nuts paying attention ?


* As with the question of why Osborne is selling off the taxpayers' stake in RBS at a loss, the answer is simple.  Whether you are naïve enough to think otherwise, or even stupid enough to vote for the bastards (not that the same couldn't be said about many Labour-supporters), the fact is, they don't work for you.  If they ever did, they certainly haven't for the last few decades.  And the longer it takes for the general public to wake up to that fact, the less likely it is that our circumstances will ever change.

Maybe the GOP is Right about Obama's Foreign Policy

This is pathetic.

Obama team, military at odds over South China Sea

Some U.S. naval commanders are at odds with the Obama administration over whether to sail Navy ships right into a disputed area in the South China Sea — a debate that pits some military leaders who want to exercise their freedom of navigation against administration officials and diplomats trying to manage a delicate phase in U.S.-China relations.

The Pentagon has repeatedly maintained it reserves the right to sail or fly by a series of artificial islands that China is outfitting with military equipment. The Navy won’t say what it has or hasn’t done, but military officials and congressional hawks want the U.S. to make a major demonstration by sending warships within 12 miles of the artificial islands and make clear to China that the U.S. rejects its territorial claims.

By not doing so, they charge, Washington is tacitly accepting China’s destabilizing moves, which are seen by U.S. allies in the region such as Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam as highly threatening.

“We continue to restrict our Navy from operating within a 12 nautical mile zone of China’s reclaimed islands, a dangerous mistake that grants de facto recognition of China’s man-made sovereignty claims,” Sen. John McCain, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told POLITICO.

I hate to agree with John McCain, but he's right here.

Sources in the military and within the administration acknowledge the difference of opinion privately, but would not go on the record to discuss the differences between Navy leaders and the administration.

...

The dispute is more than just a naval territorial dispute — there are global economic implications if China claims ownership of this part of the sea, which sees trillions in goods shipped between Asia and the rest of the globe.

...

China claims it has exclusive control over waters hundreds of miles off its coast, and U.S. officials say Beijing believes the man-made islands strengthen its claim to the disputed Spratly Islands chain, which China and several Southeast Asian countries claim as their own.

...

The artificial islands have added to a broader disagreement between Washington and Beijing over freedom of navigation. The United States and most other countries, citing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, maintain that a coastal nation has the right to regulate economic activities such as fishing and oil exploration within a 200-mile economic exclusionary zone and that it cannot regulate foreign military forces except within 12 nautical miles off its shores. China, however, has insisted it can regulate economic and military activities out 200 nautical miles.

...

More than $5 trillion worth of international trade, from Middle East oil bound for Asian markets to children’s toys bound for Wal-Mart stores in the U.S., pass through the South China Sea each year. If China can restrict the passage of ships through what today are considered international waters, that could cause shockwaves for the world economy, U.S. officials warn.

...

The National Security Council also declined to discuss the dispute or outline the White House’s view, referring questions to the Pentagon.

But the Obama administration is increasingly seen as eager to avoid a confrontation by actually doing so — at least publicly — and Republicans are trying to pressure President Obama ahead of the Chinese leader’s visit to more aggressively assert himself in the face of China’s controversial behavior.

Just think back at the reaction of the US, when Russia annexed its own historical territory in Crimea, with the agreement of most of the Crimean population.  The PRC is, with its ridiculous EEZ-claims*, and creation of military outposts out of open ocean, effectively claiming exclusive ownership of and control over an entire sea !  At the expense of the actual territorial waters of the countries in the area, and at the expense of the entire international community's rights of navigation.  And the US response ?**  'Pretty please, don't do that, huh ?  What if we ask you really, really nicely ?'  Which is pretty much what I'd expect from a government that puts short-term corporate profits ahead of all other interests.

The US can't be counted on to stand by the Philippines or Viet Nam, here, can't be counted on by its Asian allies generally, if it allows this to stand without even attempting to assert its own legal right of navigation.  Sailing in international waters is an act of provocation towards a country a thousand kilometres away ?  Is that really a precedent you want to set ?  No-one's asking you to go to war with China.  Just assert your damn legal rights, and let the PRC take the first shot, if that's really where they want to go with this.  Shit !

Oh, but they left the best piece for last in that article:

But at the same time U.S. military leaders are advocating for something else — for the U.S. Senate to ratify the UN Law of the Sea treaty that it repeatedly cites as as the international framework for navigation of the high seas.

“We undermine our leverage by not signing up to the same rule book by which we are asking other countries to accept,” Gen. Joe Dunford, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate earlier this month.

That's right, as with so many other international agreements, the US signs up for something, then won't fucking ratify it, 'cos historically, the US has kinda not given a shit, figuring it will just do what it wants, regardless of the international community.  Which becomes somewhat problematic, when it comes up across another country with the same arrogant attitude, and the muscle to stand up to the US.

In the case of the UNCLOS, the US finds itself in a club that also includes the likes of North Korea & Iran.  But not the PRC, which ratified the agreement...but then just ignores it anyway.


* And absurd territorial claims based upon a bullshit made-up map from nineteen-forty-fuckin'-seven.

** Never mind the EU's silence on the matter.

Maybe They Should Just Tow the Whole Island to the Caribbean

What with the United Kingdom turning into a tax-haven, foreigners buying up swathes of London as investment-property, and Cameron & Co. seemingly determined to turn Britain into a banana republic.

The Government is reviewing the Bribery Act after business leaders claimed it was making it difficult for British firms to export goods.

The Business Secretary, Sajid Javid, is inviting companies to comment on whether the tough anti-corruption measures are “a problem”.

Critics fear it is a way of weakening the law at a time when the Government should be clamping down on existing loopholes, and supporters of the Act say they are surprised by the move.

They warn that any attempt to water down the Act will seriously damage the UK’s credibility on corruption. They also claim it is undermining David Cameron’s tough personal anti-bribery message, which he reinforced during his visit to South-east Asia to drum up business for Britain.

Simply shameless.  Too difficult to do business without being able to more easily bribe people ?  In Britain ?  Oh, and what was that about a visit to South-east Asia ?

An investigation into alleged corruption worth hundreds of millions of pounds at Malaysia’s national investment company threatened to overshadow David Cameron’s arrival in Kuala Lumpur on 30 July.

Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Najib Razak, has been forced to deny allegations that he has personally benefited to the tune of $700m (£447.5m) from the investment fund that investigators have traced to what they allege are his own bank accounts.

...  

Mr Cameron, whose stop in Malaysia is part of a tour of South-east Asia, during which he hopes to open new markets for British business, said recently that “the wind of economic change is blowing east. “We still do more trade with Belgium than we do with Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam combined,” he said.

The Sarawak Report, an investigative website run by the sister-in-law of Gordon Brown, Clare Rewcastle Brown, which has reported on the allegations, called on Mr Cameron to cancel his visit.

“The British Prime Minister has made the issue of rooting out global corruption one of his key platforms as a world leader,” the website said.

Doesn't sound like it to me.  Well, maybe that's why Cameron was so eager to talk up the merits of doing business with countries with problems of corruption prior to the trip.  So glad British voters voted in the grown-ups in the last election.

David Cameron: We Need More Invisible Unaccountable Wealth

Britain should not shy away from doing business with countries where corruption is a problem, according to David Cameron.

Writing in The Daily Mail ahead of a trade mission to South East Asia, the Prime Minister said the “wind of economic change is blowing east – and not just to China and India”.

He argued that Britain had concentrated too much on trading with Europe, rather than countries in Asia.

He wrote that people were wrong to argue that “we should avoid doing business with countries with barriers to trade including corruption”.

“Many in South East Asia have led the battle against corruption, which costs the global economy billions of pounds a year,” Mr Cameron said.

“Britain is joining them in that fight – I’ve put the issue at the top of the global agenda.

“Given a level playing field, British businesses can out-compete anyone in the world.” *

Sigh. This is an obvious candidate for 'posted without comment', but I will say this:

1. Cameron is interested in certain groups/individuals profiting here.
2. Those groups/individuals are mostly not in Asia.
3. Those groups/individuals are inherently corrupt.
4. Those groups/individuals are Cameron's friends or friends of friends.
5. Those groups/individuals are not you or anyone you are ever likely to know.
6. That offshored 'wealth' is never coming back.

* 'Level playing field' !  Classic !

So How Will Auntie Hill Come Down on that Trade Deal ?

I can't believe* that stupid non-troversy about Hillary Clinton and the rope between her and the media in some parade is still getting such attention in the US media.  It's utterly absurd, and of no interest to the average American at all.  Any more than for that matter BENGHAZI!!!! & E-mail-gate.

But, that said, she hasn't given many, if any, interviews since declaring her run for the presidency, and as such, until she does give her first major interview, she'll inevitably be judged by whatever does come out, via her, her people, her husband...

The former president described how Vietnam has going from being a country where people made barely a dollar a day twenty years ago, when we normalized relations with them, has seen explosive economic growth and how its children are now among the highest in the world in basic math, science and literature.

Finally, he spoke of how President Obama is trying to add to this record of economic cooperation with the TPP negotiations. He said he hoped “more than anything else that there will be as much bipartisan support for it as there was 20 years ago for the normalization of relations between the U.S. and Vietnam.” He said if our country can get good labor, human rights and environmental standards, the TPP will command the support of a broad swath of the American people.

'Good labor, human rights, and environmental standards'... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


* Who the fuck am I kidding ?  Of course, I can.



Update: Yeah, that CNN thing was a total softball puffpiece.  No hard questioning, no mention of TPP or trade generally.  And in so far as there was any approach at discussing anything remotely controversial, they just rehashed the same stupid nontroversies with which the US media is perpetually obsessed.  Basic takeaway: The Republicans are mean, nothing is Hillary's fault, and Hillary has a super-duper economic plan, but she can't tell you anything about it yet.

And since Hillary won't speak to TPP, I will on her behalf: She's for it.  Every bit of it.  Even the bits she may have criticised in the past.  Even the bit whereby the rightful constitutional authority of the government of the United States is made secondary to unaccountable tribunals run by multinational corporations.  Because she wants more wealth and power than she currently has, and the best way to ensure that happens is to suck up to and shill for her even-more powerful and wealthy friends on Wall Street.  But until the General Election at least, you get to enjoy folksy faux-populist Hillary.  As I hinted at in passing before, the woman knows how to act.

Auntie Hill Gets Burned By Ted

Someone...really, really hates Hillary.  Not complaining, but ouch...http://rall.com/comic/hillary-instagram.  Tell us what you really think, Ted ?...

TISA !

Meant to link to this yesterday.


Another secretive trade-deal to go with TTIP & TPP.  Yay !

An enormous corporate-friendly treaty that many people haven’t heard of was thrust into the public limelight Wednesday when famed publisher of government and corporate secrets, WikiLeaks, released 17 documents from closed-door negotiations between countries that together comprise two-thirds of the word’s economy.

Analysts warn that preliminary review shows that the pact, known as the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), is aimed at further privatizing and deregulating vital services, from transportation to healthcare, with a potentially devastating impact for people of the countries involved in the deal, and the world more broadly.

...

Under secret negotiation by 50 countries for roughly two years, the pact includes the United States, European Union, and 23 other countries—including Israel, Turkey, and Colombia. Notably, the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—are excluded from the talks.

...

Bypassing democratic regulations: “Preliminary analysis notes that the goal of domestic regulation texts is to remove domestic policies, laws and regulations that make it harder for transnational corporations to sell their services in other countries (actually or virtually), to dominate their local suppliers, and to maximize their profits and withdraw their investment, services and profits at will,” writes OWINFS. “Since this requires restricting the right of governments to regulate in the public interest, the corporate lobby is using TISA to bypass elected officials in order to apply a set of across-the-board rules that would never be approved on their own by democratic governments.”

Such fun, fun, fun to live in the twenty-first century.  We will get those (more importantly driverless) flying cars soon enough, and maybe one-day the jetpacks.  But any regard for the economic wellbeing or basic rights of actual humans went out the window decades ago.

Oh well.  Back to Candy Crush or whatever the game du jour may be.

Press-release on TPP Fast-track Deal

Via Gaius Publius, more information on the fast-track deal for TPP (and other trade-deals ?) currently being rushed through Congress, from individuals far better informed and less sweary than myself: https://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-fast-track-introduced-april-2015.pdf.

I skimmed it myself, but it does amongst other things seems to indicate that this abdication of responsibility by the US Congress on trade-deals could continue at least through the next presidency if not into the one after that, as indicated on her show recently by Rachel Maddow.  Hillary still seems oddly quiet on the whole thing, huh ?

Tyranny !

So...how is the Republican-led 114th Congress currently fighting back against the evil tyranny of the Muslim Marxist Kenyan Dictator-in-chief, that libtard Demoncrat Barack Hussein Obama ?  Oh that's right, by not doing their job.

Never mind the usual bullshit of obstructing or holding up Obama's executive nominees, such as with current nominee to be Attorney General, Loretta Lynch whose confirmation has been held up for five months now as Republicans try to tie the confirmation into a variety of completely unrelated issues.

No, I'm talking about things like exercising their constitutionally established powers 'to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations' or 'to declare War.'  With the former, we have TPP, an agreement that would (probably unconstitutionally) restrict the government's ability to regulate international trade and commerce, and for which Barack Obama requested 'fast-track authorization' in which Congress would have no ability to make any changes or amendments to said deal.  And for the latter, we have the ongoing war against ISIS, one of many undeclared and likely illegal wars in which the United States is currently engaged.  A war for which Barack Obama has previously claimed he doesn't need any new authorisation, and yet for which he was eventually cowed into requesting authorisation from Congress.  So, how are we doing ?

What say you Congress on preventing the evil dictator from wresting trade-making decisions away from you ?

Why, no problem at all Mister Obama.  Please take that onerous burden from our hands.

WASHINGTON — Key congressional leaders agreed on Thursday on legislation to give President Obama special authority to finish negotiating one of the world’s largest trade accords, opening a rare battle that aligns the president with Republicans against a broad coalition of Democrats.

In what is sure to be one of the toughest fights of Mr. Obama’s last 19 months in office, the “fast track” bill allowing the White House to pursue its planned Pacific trade deal also heralds a divisive fight within the Democratic Party, one that could spill into the 2016 presidential campaign.

... 

It would give Congress the power to vote on the more encompassing 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership once it is completed, but would deny lawmakers the chance to amend what would be the largest trade deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994, which President Bill Clinton pushed through Congress despite opposition from labor and other Democratic constituencies.

What about war then ?  After all the stink the Republicans in Congress made about the proposed deal with Iran, you'd think there's no chance at all they wouldn't take advantage of Obama handing them on a silver platter a chance to have their say officially on the war with ISIS.

Ah, who gives a shit ?  What's one more undeclared war ?

But remember, Obama is a TYRANT !  And it is imperative that you vote Republican in the next elections so that we can TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK !

What a fucking joke.

Behold, the latest triumph of the 'free market'...

Chinese vehicle maker Ninebot has bought iconic US rival Segway, the company announced on Wednesday.

The Beijing-based firm did not disclose the amount of the acquisition, but did say that it received $80m (£54m) in funding from smartphone maker Xiaomi and investment firm Sequoia Capital.

Ninebot also makes two-wheeled electric vehicles, designed for standing riders, that resemble Segways.

Segway had sought an import ban against Ninebot in the US in September.

The Chinese company was one of several that Segway had accused of infringing on its patents.

Part of me just lives in hope of seeing the eventual downfall of companies like Apple & GM.

TPP & TTIP

And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Revelation 17:1-2

TPP & TTIP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership & the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) don't seem to get much coverage in the media, despite their likely impact on so many countries, likely because a) the deals are complicated, and b) the deals are being worked in secret behind closed doors.  These are just 'trade deals' remember, not exactly a nuclear deal with Iran; Totally innocent stuff, and the reason the US, UK, and other governments don't want you to know about what's being discussed, is simply that it's so boring.  They'll tell you all about it eventually, such as...four years after the deals are already done and dusted.

In the meantime, you're just gonna have to trust them that the deals are in your best interest and will result in more jobs, more prosperity, and rising wages, just like...say NAFTA...or say...the MFN deal Clinton pushed with China.  Those worked out really well, didn't they ?  And the PRC is going to turn into a flourishing democracy with respect for the human rights and civil liberties of all its citizens any day now, right Bill ?

Basically, like all 'free trade' deals, the idea is to maximise corporate profits at the expense of labour costs (i.e. your paycheck), civil liberties, national sovereignty, safety, and the environment; to drag every nation slowly down to the lowest-common denominator.  To drag the EU standards down to those of the US, down to those of South America, down to those of east Asia, down ultimately one would imagine to those of Somalia.  And if any national government gets in the way of corporate profits by passing pesky laws to, say protect the safety & wellbeing of its citizens, well fuck 'em. !  They can just be sued, in trans-national arbitration tribunals, run by said corporations, and outside of national law.  Bye-bye national sovereignty.  And you think the EU is the threat, Ukippers ?


Here's a nice summary of the deals for the uninitiated (yes with Russell Brand, sorry):

Sounds good, huh ?

Remember this bit from Last Week Tonight ?  (Might want to skip to 8'05).  Think Philip Morris is the only corporation that does this stuff ?  Think making this shit even easier is a good idea ?

What to do, other than try to find some non-corporatist non-fascist non-cocksucker politicians to vote for ?  Well the first video has some suggestions towards the end.  I don't hold out much hope myself, but you never know.

For the American Sparkle-pony crowd, here's a bonus video, with not-going-to-be-the-Democratic-nominee-for-president-any-time-soon Elizabeth Warren on TPP and the ISDS tribunals back in February.

And if you really want lots more details on TPP, check out Gaius Publius' writings on the subject.  Don't know if Gaius has a dedicated page, but Hullabaloo & Americablog are probably good starting points.