Archives: Articles

By William Blum
US Secretary of State John Kerry, July 8, 2014:

“In my travels as secretary of state, I have seen as never before the thirst for American leadership in the world.”

President Barack Obama, May 28, 2014:

“Here’s my bottom line, America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will.”

Nicholas Burns, former US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, May 8, 2014:

“Where is American power and leadership when the world needs it most?”

Mitt Romney, Republican Party candidate for President, September 13, 2012:

“The world needs American leadership. The Middle East needs American leadership and I intend to be a president that provides the leadership that America respects and keep us admired throughout the world.”

Paul Ryan, Congressman, Republican Party candidate for Vice President, September 12, 2012:

“We need to be reminded that the world needs American leadership.”

John McCain, Senator, September 9, 2012:

“The situation in Syria and elsewhere ‘cries out for American leadership’.”

Hillary Clinton, September 8, 2010:

“Let me say it clearly: The United States can, must, and will lead in this new century. Indeed, the complexities and connections of today’s world have yielded a new American Moment — a moment when our global leadership is essential, even if we must often lead in new ways.”

Senator Barack Obama, April 23, 2007:

“In the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good. I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth.”

Gallup poll, 2013:

Question asked: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?”

Replies:

United States 24%
Pakistan 8%
China 6%
Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea, each 5%
India, Iraq, Japan, each 4%
Syria 3%
Russia 2%
Australia, Germany, Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Korea, UK, each 1%

The question is not what pacifism has achieved throughout history, but what has war achieved?

Remark made to a pacifist: “If only everyone else would live in the way you recommend, I would gladly live that way as well – but not until everyone else does.”

The Pacifist’s reply: “Why then, sir, you would be the last man on earth to do good. I would rather be one of the first.”

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, 1947, words long cherished by a large majority of the Japanese people:

“Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

“In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”

This statement is probably unique amongst the world’s constitutions.

But on July 1, 2014 the government of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, without changing a word of Article 9, announced a “reinterpretation” of it to allow for military action in conjunction with allies. This decision can be seen as the culmination of a decades-long effort by the United States to wean Japan away from its post-WW2 pacifist constitution and foreign policy and set it back on the righteous path of being a military power once again, only this time acting in coordination with US foreign policy needs.

In the triumphalism of the end of the Second World War, the American occupation of Japan, in the person of General Douglas MacArthur, played a major role in the creation of this constitution. But after the communists came to power in China in 1949, the United States opted for a strong Japan safely ensconced in the anti-communist camp. For pacifism, it’s been downhill ever since … step by step … MacArthur himself ordered the creation of a “national police reserve”, which became the embryo of the future Japanese military … visiting Tokyo in 1956, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles told Japanese officials: “In the past, Japan had demonstrated her superiority over the Russians and over China. It was time for Japan to think again of being and acting like a Great Power.” 1

… various US-Japanese security and defense cooperation treaties, which called on Japan to integrate its military technology with that of the US and NATO … the US supplying new sophisticated military aircraft and destroyers … all manner of Japanese logistical assistance to the US in Washington’s frequent military operations in Asia … repeated US pressure on Japan to increase its military budget and the size of its armed forces … more than a hundred US military bases in Japan, protected by the Japanese military … US-Japanese joint military exercises and joint research on a missile defense system … the US Ambassador to Japan, 2001: “I think the reality of circumstances in the world is going to suggest to the Japanese that they reinterpret or redefine Article 9.” 2
… Under pressure from Washington, Japan sent several naval vessels to the Indian Ocean to refuel US and British warships as part of the Afghanistan campaign in 2002, then sent non-combat forces to Iraq to assist the American war as well as to East Timor, another made-in-America war scenario … US Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2004: “If Japan is going to play a full role on the world stage and become a full active participating member of the Security Council, and have the kind of obligations that it would pick up as a member of the Security Council, Article Nine would have to be examined in that light.” 3
…

In 2012 Japan was induced to take part in a military exercise with 21 other countries, converging on Hawaii for the largest-ever Rim of the Pacific naval exercises and war games, with a Japanese admiral serving as vice commander of the combined task force. 4
And so it went … until, finally, on July 1 of this year, the Abe administration announced their historic decision. Abe, it should be noted, is a member of the Liberal Democratic Party, with which the CIA has had a long and intimate connection, even when party leaders were convicted World War 2 war criminals. 5

If and when the American empire engages in combat with China or Russia, it appears that Washington will be able to count on their Japanese brothers-in-arms. In the meantime, the many US bases in Japan serve as part of the encirclement of China, and during the Vietnam War the United States used their Japanese bases as launching pads to bomb Vietnam.

The US policies and propaganda not only got rid of the annoying Article 9, but along the way it gave rise to a Japanese version of McCarthyism. A prime example of this is the case of Kimiko Nezu, a 54-year-old Japanese teacher, who was punished by being transferred from school to school, by suspensions, salary cuts, and threats of dismissal because of her refusal to stand during the playing of the national anthem, a World War II song chosen as the anthem in 1999. She opposed the song because it was the same one sung as the Imperial Army set forth from Japan calling for an “eternal reign” of the emperor. At graduation ceremonies in 2004, 198 teachers refused to stand for the song. After a series of fines and disciplinary actions, Nezu and nine other teachers were the only protesters the following year. Nezu was then allowed to teach only when another teacher was present. 6

Yankee Blowback

The number of children attempting to cross the Mexican border into the United States has risen dramatically in the last five years: In fiscal year 2009 (October 1, 2009 – September 30, 2010) about 6,000 unaccompanied minors were detained near the border. The US Department of Homeland Security estimates for the fiscal year 2014 the detention of as many as 74,000 unaccompanied minors. Approximately 28% of the children detained this year are from Honduras, 24% from Guatemala, and 21% from El Salvador. The particularly severe increases in Honduran migration are a direct result of the June 28, 2009 military coup that overthrew the democratically-elected president, Manuel Zelaya, after he did things like raising the minimum wage, giving subsidies to small farmers, and instituting free education. The coup – like so many others in Latin America – was led by a graduate of Washington’s infamous School of the Americas.

As per the standard Western Hemisphere script, the Honduran coup was followed by the abusive policies of the new regime, loyally supported by the United States. The State Department was virtually alone in the Western Hemisphere in not unequivocally condemning the Honduran coup. Indeed, the Obama administration has refused to call it a coup, which, under American law, would tie Washington’s hands as to the amount of support it could give the coup government. This denial of reality still persists even though a US embassy cable released by Wikileaks in 2010 declared: “There is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 [2009] in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch”. Washington’s support of the far-right Honduran government has been unwavering ever since.

The questions concerning immigration into the United States from south of the border go on year after year, with the same issues argued back and forth: What’s the best way to block the flow into the country? How shall we punish those caught here illegally? Should we separate families, which happens when parents are deported but their American-born children remain? Should the police and various other institutions have the right to ask for proof of legal residence from anyone they suspect of being here illegally? Should we punish employers who hire illegal immigrants? Should we grant amnesty to at least some of the immigrants already here for years? … on and on, round and round it goes, decade after decade. Those in the US generally opposed to immigration make it a point to declare that the United States does not have any moral obligation to take in these Latino immigrants.

But the counter-argument to this last point is almost never mentioned: Yes, the United States does indeed have a moral obligation because so many of the immigrants are escaping a situation in their homeland made hopeless by American intervention and policy. In addition to Honduras, Washington overthrew progressive governments which were sincerely committed to fighting poverty in Guatemala and Nicaragua; while in El Salvador the US played a major role in suppressing a movement striving to install such a government. And in Mexico, though Washington has not intervened militarily since 1919, over the years the US has been providing training, arms, and surveillance technology to Mexico’s police and armed forces to better their ability to suppress their own people’s aspirations, as in Chiapas, and this has added to the influx of the oppressed to the United States, irony notwithstanding.

Moreover, Washington’s North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), has brought a flood of cheap, subsidized US agricultural products into Mexico, ravaging campesino communities and driving many Mexican farmers off the land when they couldn’t compete with the giant from the north. The subsequent Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) has brought the same joys to the people of that area.

These “free trade” agreements – as they do all over the world – also result in government enterprises being privatized, the regulation of corporations being reduced, and cuts to the social budget. Add to this the displacement of communities by foreign mining projects and the drastic US-led militarization of the War on Drugs with accompanying violence and you have the perfect storm of suffering followed by the attempt to escape from suffering.

It’s not that all these people prefer to live in the United States. They’d much rather remain with their families and friends, be able to speak their native language at all times, and avoid the hardships imposed on them by American police and other right-wingers.

M’lady Hillary

Madame Clinton, in her new memoir, referring to her 2002 Senate vote supporting military action in Iraq, says: “I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

In a 2006 TV interview, Clinton said: “Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn’t have been a vote. And I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.” 7

On October 16, 2002 the US Congress adopted a joint resolution titled “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq”. This was done in the face of numerous protests and other political events against an American invasion.

On February 15, 2003, a month before the actual invasion, there was a coordinated protest around the world in which people in some 60 countries marched in a last desperate attempt to stop the war from happening. It has been described as “the largest protest event in human history.” Estimations of the total number of participants involved reach 30 million. The protest in Rome involved around three million people, and is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history. Madrid hosted the second largest rally with more than 1½ million protesters. About half a million marched in the United States. How many demonstrations in support of the war can be cited? It can be said that the day was one of humanity’s finest moments.

So what did all these people know that Hillary Clinton didn’t know? What information did they have access to that she as a member of Congress did not have?

The answer to both questions is of course “Nothing”. She voted the way she did because she was, as she remains today, a wholly committed supporter of the Empire and its unending wars.

And what did the actual war teach her? Here she is in 2007, after four years of horrible death, destruction and torture:

“The American military has done its job. Look what they accomplished. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They gave the Iraqis a chance for free and fair elections. They gave the Iraqi government the chance to begin to demonstrate that it understood its responsibilities to make the hard political decisions necessary to give the people of Iraq a better future. So the American military has succeeded.” 8

And she spoke the above words at a conference of liberals, committed liberal Democrats and others further left. She didn’t have to cater to them with any flag-waving pro-war rhetoric; they wanted to hear anti-war rhetoric (and she of course gave them a tiny bit of that as well out of the other side of her mouth), so we can assume that this is how she really feels, if indeed the woman feels anything. The audience, it should be noted, booed her, for the second year in a row.

“We came, we saw, he died.” – Hillary Clinton as US Secretary of State, giggling, as she referred to the uncivilized and utterly depraved murder of Moammar Gaddafi in 2011.

Imagine Osama bin Laden or some other Islamic leader speaking of September 11, 2001: “We came, we saw, 3,000 died, ha-ha.”
Notes

1.Los Angeles Times, September 23, 1994
2. Washington Post, July 18, 2001
3. BBC, August 14, 2004
4. Honolulu Star-Advertiser, June 23 and July 2, 2012
5. Tim Weiner, “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA” (2007), p.116-21
6. Washington Post, August 30, 2005
7. Washington Post, June 6, 2014
8. Speaking at the “Take Back America” conference, organized by the Campaign for America’s Future, June 20, 2007, Washington, DC; this excerpt can be heard on the June 21, 2007 edition of Democracy Now!

William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2

13 July, 2014
Williamblum.org

 

By Palestinian Civil Society Groups

Besieged Gaza, Occupied Palestine–We Palestinians trapped inside the bloodied and besieged Gaza Strip call on conscientious people all over the world, to act, protest, and intensify the boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel until it ends this murderous attack on our people and is held to account.

With the world turning their backs on us once again, for the last four days we have in Gaza been left to face massacre after massacre. As you read these words over 120 Palestinians are dead now, including 25 children. Over 1000 have been injured including countless horrifying injuries that will limit lives forever – more than two thirds of the injured are women and children. We know for a fact that many more will not make it through the next day. Which of us will be next, as we lie awake from the sound of the carnage in our beds tonight? Will we be the next photo left in an unrecognizable state from Israel’s state of the art flesh tearing, limb stripping machinery of destruction?

We call for a final end to the crimes and oppression against us. We call for:

– Arms embargos on Israel, sanctions that would cut off the supply of weapons and military aid from Europe and the United States on which Israel depends to commit such war crimes;

– Suspension of all free trade and bilateral agreements with Israel such as the EU-Israel Association agreement; (1)

– Boycott, divestment and sanctions, as called for by the overwhelming majority of Palestinian Civil Society in 2005 (2)

Without pressure and isolation, the Israeli regime has proven time and time again that it will continue such massacres as we see around us now, and continue the decades of systematic ethnic cleansing, military occupation and apartheid policies. (3)

We are writing this on Saturday night, again paralyzed in our homes as the bombs fall on us in Gaza. Who knows when the current attacks will end? For anyone over seven years old, permanently etched on our minds are the rivers of blood that ran through the Gaza streets when for over 3 weeks in 2009 over 1400 Palestinians were killed including over 330 children. White phosphorous and other chemical weapons were used in civilian areas and contaminating our land with a rise in cancers as a result. More recently 180 more were killed in the week-long attacks in late November 2012.

This time what? 200, 500, 5000? We ask: how many of our lives are dispensable enough until the world takes action? How much of our blood is sufficient? Before the Israeli bombings, a member of the Israeli Knesset Ayelet Shaked of the far-right Jewish Home party called for genocide of the Palestinian people. “They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes.” she said. “Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.” Right now nothing is beyond the murderous nature of the Israeli State, for we, a population that is mostly children, are all mere snakes to them.(3)

As said Omar Ghraib in Gaza, “It was heart shattering to see the pictures of little boys and girls viciously killed. Also how an elderly woman was killed while she was having her iftar at Maghreb prayer by bombing her house. She died holding the spoon in her hand, an image that will need a lot of time to leave my head.” (4)

Entire houses are being targeted and entire families are being murdered. Early Thursday morning the entire Al-Hajj family was wiped out – the father Mahmoud, mother Bassema and five children. No warning, a family targeted and removed from life. Thursday night, the same again, no warning, 5 more dead including four from the Ghannam family, a woman and a seven year old child amongst them. (5)

On Tuesday morning the Kaware family did get a phone call telling them their 3 storey house would be bombed. The family began to leave when a water tank was struck, but then returned with members of the community, who all came to the house to stand with them, people from all over the neighbourhood. The Israeli jets bombed the building with a roof full of people, knowing full well it was full of civilians. 7 people died immediately including 5 children under 13 years old. 25 more were injured, and 8 year old Seraj Abed al-Aal, succumbed to his injuries later that evening. (6) Perhaps the family was trying to appeal to the Israeli regime’s humanity, surely they wouldn’t bomb the roof full of people. But as we watch families being torn apart around us, it’s clear that Israel’s actions have nothing to do with humanity.

Other places hit include a clearly marked media vehicle killing the independent journalist Hamed Shehab, injuring 8 others, a hit on a Red Crescent rescue vehicle and attacks on hospitals which caused evacuations and more injuries. (7)

This latest session of Israeli barbarity is placed firmly in the context of Israel’s inhuman seven-year blockade that has cut off the main life-line of goods and people coming in and out of Gaza, resulting in the severe medical and food shortages being reported by all our hospitals and clinics right now. Cement to rebuild the thousands of homes destroyed by Israeli attacks had been banned and many injured and ill people are still not being allowed to travel abroad to receive urgent medical treatment which has caused the deaths of over 600 sick patients.

As more news comes in, as Israeli leaders’ give promises of moving onto a next stage in brutality, we know there are more horrors yet to come. For this we call on you to not turn your backs on us. We call on you to stand up for justice and humanity and demonstrate and support the courageous men, women and children rooted in the Gaza Strip facing the darkest of times ahead. We insist on international action:

– Severance of diplomatic ties with Israel

– Trials for war crimes

– Immediate International protection of the civilians of Gaza

We call on you to join the growing international boycott, divestment and sanction campaign to hold this rogue state to account that is proving once again to be so violent and yet so unchallenged. Join the growing critical mass around the world with a commitment to the day when Palestinians do not have to grow up amidst this relentless murder and destruction by the Israeli regime. When we can move freely, when the siege is lifted, the occupation is over and the world’s Palestinian refugees are finally granted justice.

ACT NOW, before it is too late!

Signed by

Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions

University Teachers’ Association in Palestine

Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations Network (Umbrella for 133 orgs)

General Union of Palestinian Women

Medical Democratic Assembly

General Union of Palestine Workers

General Union for Health Services Workers

General Union for Public Services Workers

General Union for Petrochemical and Gas Workers

General Union for Agricultural Workers

Union of Women’s Work Committees

Pal-Cinema (Palestine Cinema Forum)

Youth Herak Movement

Union of Women’s Struggle Committees

Union of Synergies—Women Unit

Union of Palestinian Women Committees

Women’s Studies Society

Working Woman’s Society

Press House

Palestinian Students’ Campaign for the Academic Boycott of Israel

Gaza BDS Working Group

One Democratic State Group

References:

(1) http://www.enpi-info.eu/library/content/eu-israel-association-agreement

(2) http://www.bdsmovement.net/call

(3) http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.599422

(4) http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-im-on-the-brink-of-burning-my-israeli-passport-9600165.html

(5) http://gazatimes.blogspot.ca/2014/07/day-2-of-israeli-aggression-on-gaza-72.html

(6) http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=711990

(7) http://dci-palestine.org/documents/eight-children-killed-israeli-airstrikes-over-gaza

(8) http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/palestinian-journalists-under-israeli-fire-201471011727662978.html

13 July, 2014
Countercurrents.org

By Nora Barrows-Friedman

Israeli warplanes fired a series of “warning rockets” at the al-Wafa Geriatric Hospital in Gaza City on Friday, sending patients and nurses into a panic.

According to the executive director of the hospital, who spoke with The Electronic Intifada on Saturday morning, there is no safe place to move the patients if Israel strikes it again with the kind of weaponry it is using wantonly across the Gaza Strip.

“If we want to move them [anywhere], assuming that we find a place, it will take six to seven hours to move them, and on the road from place to place is extremely dangerous,” Basman Alashi said. He added that he and the hospital staff are doing as best they can to protect the patients and their caregivers.

International activists in the Gaza Strip stayed in the hospital overnight and into this morning in solidarity, acting as human shields to protect the hospital, its patients, caregivers and staff.

In a press release issued by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), Swedish activist Fred Ekblad said: “The civilian population of Gaza is being bombed. We will stay with them in solidarity until the international community and our governments take action to stop Israel’s crimes against humanity.”

ISM adds in their press release:

The first barrage of missiles hit the fourth floor of the hospital at 2am [Friday].

At approximately [5pm] a fifth missile hit the hospital. “Windows and doors were blown out, broken glass everywhere, damage to the stairs, there’s a big hole at the impact area and the wall is burnt,” reports Joe Catron, ISM activist, from the US.

At around [8pm], Basman Alashi, executive director of the hospital, received an unidentified call from a person with a “heavy Israeli accent,” asking if there were any injuries, whether there was any one in the top floor, and whether they were planning to evacuate the hospital.

As The Electronic Intifada reported today, the Israeli military bombed a home for people with disabilities in northern Gaza on Friday night, killing two women, Suha Abu Saada, 47, and Ola Wishaa, 30.

International aid agency Oxfam reported Friday that “An Oxfam-supported mobile health clinic that provides primary healthcare to several thousand families in northern Gaza yesterday had to suspend all its services because routes there had become too dangerous to travel. A health center run by an Oxfam partner in Beit Hanoun that specializes in pre and post natal care was badly damaged and is now unable to operate.”

And the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stated that “Fears of an imminent Israeli ground operation in Gaza have been on the rise; some 300,000 people in areas close to the border have been warned to leave their homes.”

Basman Alashi, executive director of al-Wafa Geriatric Hospital in Gaza City, described the rocket strikes by the Israeli army on the hospital Friday.

Basman Alashi: My name is Basman Alashi. I am the executive director of the al-Wafa rehab hospital in Gaza City. Yesterday, we were hit by a rocket on the eastern side of the hospital. Two of our nurses went to check out the noise that came from the eastern side. One of them decided not to investigate the issue anymore, so he started walking back. A second rocket hit the same area, so they were saved by the grace of God. Then, they went back. Then, a third rocket came in at the same area; then, fifteen minutes later, a fourth rocket hit on the roof.

Many of our patients were panicking, the nurses were panicking, because they had not been in this situation before. They did not know what to do, so they started calling the management asking what to do. They were instructed to move down to the first floor. None were hurt, thank God, and they were all safe. They were moved to be hosted on the first floor, men and women in the same section. In the morning, I went to them and I saw the panicking of the nurses — and one of the patients, her name is Hiba, she’s 85 years old, she was acting normally. The minute she heard the bomb, it was if a back memory just woke up in her and she remembered things, so she started screaming, acting abnormally, and shrunk into her hands and around her, trying to hug herself, as if she was trying to hide from something.

I tried to comfort her because she knows me by voice and by face. She was comforted a little bit, but the minute I leave her or get away from her sight, she started screaming. These are the kinds of patients we are taking care of at the hospital, and many of them are in chronic situations, unable to move, unable to take care of themselves, so we have to [keep] the hospital open, and the nurses have to stay in the hospital 24 hours to take care of these patients.

By saying this, eight of the foreigners in Gaza, they heard that we are protecting these patients, so they decided to deal with us as human shields. So yesterday until this morning, they stayed with us in the hospital as human shields, they spread the word around in local media and international media that they are here in al-Wafa hospital as human shields, to tell the Israelis that al-Wafa cannot be used as a target, al-Wafa is in our hearts and do not target al-Wafa with any more bombs.

Nora Barrows-Friedman Basman Alashi is the executive director of al-Wafa Geriatric Hospital in Gaza City. Basman, can you update us on the situation of the patients, after this incredibly traumatic series of missile strikes against the hospital yesterday?

BA: We decided to move sixteen out of the thirty patients back to their homes, because they are in a condition that their families can take care of them for their safety. The other fourteen, we have to leave them at the hospital because they are in a helpless situation that they have to be maintained by nurses in terms of feeding, they have bed ulcers on their body, so we have to change these wounds and clean them every time.

The situation right now is calm but yesterday at five o’clock in the afternoon, the Israelis hit the hospital again with a larger missile, as if they’re giving us a warning. So we have to continue protecting our patients — and these foreigners are from the United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Spain, France, Switzerland, Belgium, they are right now at the hospital, showing the world that we will be joining hand by hand with our friends in the Wafa hospital to protect them and to protect the patients.

NBF: Basman, where can these patients be moved to if, in fact, the Israeli army intends to hit and strike and destroy this hospital again?

BA: We have no places in Gaza. All the hospitals are full of wounded people, people that need immediate care. So we have no choice to move the patients anywhere else. We have to keep them there, stay there, and moving them — the hospital is located at the far north-east side of Gaza, which is about less than a kilometer away from the border. So if we want to move them to anyplace, assuming that we find a place, it will take six to seven hours to move them, and on the road from place to place is extremely dangerous. Transportation is rare, so the choice of moving them out, if not there, we are not having this on the table at all.

We will stay there, we will protect our patients, we will protect our nurses, and the human shield that was built by volunteers in the hospital, its purpose is to protect these patients and the nurses and the hospital itself.

Nora Barrows-Friedman is a staff writer and editor with The Electronic Intifada, and has contributed to Al-Jazeera English, Inter Press Service, Truthout.org, Left Turn magazine, and various other international media outlets.

13 July, 2014
Electronicintifada.net

By Ali Abunimah

Sahir Salman Abu Namous was just four years old, soon to turn five.

“Everyone who saw him loved him because he was always smiling,” his first cousin Diaa Mahmoud recalls in an email he sent me from Gaza.

“One month before Sahir died, his father was sitting and talking to the boy’s aunt,” Mahmoud says.

“He looks so clever,” Mahmoud remembers the boy’s proud father saying, “even more clever than his siblings.”

Sahir was killed on Friday afternoon when an Israeli warplane bombed his family home in the Tal al-Zaatar neighborhood in northern Gaza.

“He was playing and smiling next to his mother when missile shrapnel divided his head,” Mahmoud writes.

“His father took him to the hospital screaming ‘Wake up my son! I bought toys for you, please wake up!’”

The photo that Mahmoud sent of Sahir with little left of his head, cradled in the arms of his anguished father Salman Abu Namous, is too graphic to show here.

But Mahmoud sent me some other photos of his cousin Sahir in happier times.

“He was just kid who wanted to play and be happy,” Mahmoud says, “he wasn’t just a number.”

Since Monday, Israel has targeted hundreds of private homes, banks, social institutions and mosques with relentless bombardment.

Sahir Salman Abu Namous was one of 21 children who had been killed in the onslaught by Friday.

Two disabled women among dead in unrelenting massacre

By Saturday, the toll had exceeded 130 people killed and more than 1,000 injured, almost 80 percent noncombatant civilians.

In a particularly horrifying attack, Israeli warplanes last night bombed a home for people with disabilities in northern Gaza, killing two women, Suha Abu Saada, 47, and Ola Wishaa, 30.

Residents of the home “were barely mobile,” neighbors told The Guardian, “spending their time in bed or in wheelchairs, and could not escape the building.”

None of them are just numbers.

Ali Abunimah is Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of The Battle for Justice in Palestine , now out from Haymarket Books.

13 July, 2014
Electronicintifada.net

By Megan Darby

Protest is ramping up against a transatlantic trade treaty critics say could weaken environmental protection.

The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership is intended to boost commerce between Europe and the US , by cutting tariffs and aligning regulations.

Green groups on both sides of the ocean have expressed fears this could mean watering down environmental safeguards and increasing fossil fuel consumption.

A national day of action is planned for today [Saturday 12 July] in the UK to highlight concerns with the TTIP ahead of further negotiations in Brussels next week. This will include a protest outside the business department building in London .

The UK Green Party, which supports the protests, said the TTIP was a “corporate power grab” that “must be stopped”.

Keith Taylor MEP said: “Though huge chunks of this trade deal are shrouded in secrecy what we do know is that TTIP poses a very real threat to the quality of life of people in the UK .

“This deal, favored by multinationals, threatens to slash regulations that protect our environment and health. But, most worryingly, it represents a serious threat to democracy in our country.”

It follows an anti-TTIP demonstration in Brussels two months ago that resulted in 240 arrests.

Climate impact

One concern of greens is that loosening regulations could increase oil and gas exports from America , increasing European reliance on polluting fossil fuels.

A European position paper leaked earlier this week endorsed lifting restrictions on trade in gas and crude oil. It argued this would help with security of supply, an increasingly hot topic since tensions in the Ukraine highlighted Europe ‘s heavy dependence on Russian gas.

Natacha Cingotti, campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, said: “This leaked proposal further confirms our concerns that, while the public is being kept in the dark, the EU-US trade deal is being used to trade away regulations that protect us from dangerous climate change…

“ Europe needs to end its high import dependency and make an urgent transition to clean, renewable energy and greater energy efficiency.”

US grassroots environmental network the Sierra Club also raised concerns. Ilana Solomon, director of its responsible trade program, said: “The EU wants a free pass to import dirty fossil fuels from the US , a run-around US law that would result in more dangerous fracking for oil and gas in our backyards and more climate-disrupting pollution globally.”

Steve Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, called the proposals “climate denial, pure and simple”. German-based Power Shift executive director Peter Fuchs said communities and the environment would suffer.

German think-tank the Heinrich Boll Foundation, in contrast, said in a report the treaty presented an opportunity to phase out fossil fuel subsidies [FFS]. That would benefit low carbon sectors.

In principle, the European Commission has argued, increased economic cooperation should facilitate greater climate and environmental protection.

In practice, the think-tank pointed out a 2013 impact assessment from Brussels predicted an 11.8 million tonne increase in carbon emissions, in the most liberalized scenario.

The report added: “In the absence of FFS reform, the TTIP will be a step in the wrong direction.”

Precautionary principle

The other core concern for European environmentalists is the treaty could erode the precautionary principle. This is the tenet, long held in Europe , that an action or policy must be proved not harmful before it goes ahead.

In America , on the other hand, it must normally be proved something is harmful before it can be banned.

The philosophical divide is one reason that shale gas fracking has been slower to take off in Europe than the US , for example.

Blogging for the European Greens’ campaigning website against TTIP, MEP Jose Bove said: “Under TTIP, big business is teaming up on both sides of the Atlantic to challenge the precautionary principal, claiming it creates unnecessary ‘technical barriers to trade’. We are fundamentally against this dangerous assumption.

“If anything, we need to do more in the EU to safeguard our citizens and our environment from untested or risky substances or processes.”

The European Commission acknowledges the different approaches on its TTIP website, but insists the high level of environmental protection in Europe is “non-negotiable”.

“Both the EU and the US are committed to high levels of protection for our citizens, but we go about it in different ways. The EU sometimes relies more on regulations, the US more on litigation. Both approaches can be effective, but neither is perfect,” it says.

“This is not a race to the bottom. Making our regulations more compatible does not mean going for the lowest common denominator, but rather seeing where we diverge unnecessarily.”

Transparency

Protestors’ concerns around the treaty have been compounded by a perceived lack of transparency around the negotiations, which are led by unelected officials.

The Corporate Europe Observatory accused the European Commission of favoring big business in its consultations around the treaty. It found that of the 560 lobbyist meetings and communications the Commission had with stakeholders, 92% were with business and just 4% with public interest groups.

Pia Eberhardt, trade campaigner at the Corporate Europe Observatory, said: “[The trade directorate] actively involved business lobbyists in drawing up the EU position for TTIP while keeping ‘pesky’ trade unionists and other public interest groups at bay.

“The result is a big-business-first agenda for the negotiations which endangers many achievements that people in Europe have long struggled for, from food safety rules to environmental protection.”

A European Court of Justice ruling last week could result in more TTIP documents being made public, but a lawyer told Euractiv it was a “modest step forward”.

The sixth round of negotiations on TTIP takes place in Brussels from 14 to 18 July.
12 July, 2014
© RTCC

 

By Ron Forthofer

U.S. transnational corporations are working behind the scenes to change the rules governing them. You may say ‘big deal, this doesn’t affect me’. However if you use the internet, view movies, take pharmaceuticals, want a clean and safe environment, believe in democracy, etc., you likely will be negatively impacted.

Media’s Failure to Inform

Negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), based on the fatally flawed NAFTA model, currently involve twelve nations in the Pacific region and have been underway since 2010. Mainstream media’s coverage about these negotiations has been essentially nonexistent. When mentioned, the media reports that the negotiations are about trade instead of being about easing rules governing transnational corporations.

Why the Lack of Transparency?

This May, Senator Elizabeth Warren said: “From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill,” Warren said. “I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed.’”

Undue Corporate Influence on U.S. Negotiating Positions

In 2012 Senator Ron Wyden, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, whose office is responsible for conducting oversight over the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and trade negotiations, said: “Yet, the majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations—like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America—are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement.”

In a May 2012 letter, thirty law professors from multiple countries involved with the TPP negotiations made the same point about corporate representation. They said:

“The only private individuals in the US who have ongoing access to the US proposals on intellectual property matters are on an Industry Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) which is dominated by brand name pharmaceutical manufacturers and the Hollywood entertainment industry.

There is no representation on this committee for consumers, libraries, students, health advocacy or patient groups, or others users of intellectual property, and minimal representation of other affected businesses, such as generic drug manufacturers or internet service providers. We would never create US law or regulation through such a biased and closed process.”

Investor-State Dispute Settlements Threaten Sovereignty

In June 2012 a draft of the TPP’s Investment Chapter was leaked. According to Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch: “Via closed-door negotiations, U.S. officials are rewriting swaths of U.S. law that have nothing to do with trade, and in a move that will infuriate left and right alike, have agreed to submit the U.S. government to the jurisdiction of foreign tribunals that can order unlimited payments of our tax dollars to foreign corporations that don’t want to comply with the same laws our domestic firms do. U.S. trade officials are secretly limiting Internet freedoms, restricting financial regulation, extending medicine patents and giving corporations a whole host of other powers.”

State legislators are greatly concerned about the threat to states’ ability to maintain their sovereignty and to protect rules protecting their citizens. For example, Maine State Representative Sharon Treat, one of the drafters of a July 2012 letter from 130 members of state legislatures from all 50 states, said: “The U.S. government should not be negotiating trade deals that undercut responsible state and federal laws enacted to protect public health and the environment, preserve the stability of our financial system, or make sure working conditions are safe and healthy.”

In addition, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) strongly opposes this investor-state dispute resolution process. Its position is:

“NCSL will not support Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) or Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with investment chapters that provide greater substantive or procedural rights to foreign companies than U.S. companies enjoy under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, NCSL will not support any BIT or FTA that provides for investor/state dispute resolution. NCSL firmly believes that when a state adopts a non-discriminatory law or regulation intended to serve a public purpose, it shall not constitute a violation of an investment agreement or treaty, even if the change in the legal environment thwarts the foreign investors’ previous expectations.

NCSL believes that BIT and FTA implementing legislation must include provisions that deny any private action in U.S. courts or before international dispute resolution panels to enforce international trade or investment agreements. Implementing legislation must also include provisions stating that neither the decisions of international dispute resolution panels nor international trade and investment agreements themselves are binding on the states as a matter of U.S. law.”

More Financial Deregulation

Given the recent financial crisis, it’s alarming that financial deregulation will likely be pushed in the TPP. A letter from 100 economists to the TPP negotiators expressed concern and stated:

“We, the undersigned economists, write to you regarding the capital transfers provisions in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). We are concerned that if recent U.S. treaties are used as the model for the TPPA, the agreement will unduly limit the authority of participating parties to prevent and mitigate financial crises.”

They went on to point out the importance of capital controls. “While capital controls and other capital management techniques are no panacea for financial instability, there is an emerging consensus that they are an important part of the macro-economic toolkit. Indeed, all G-20 leaders endorsed the following statement at the 2011 Cannes Summit:

“Capital flow management measures may constitute part of a broader approach to protect economies from shocks. In circumstances of high and volatile capital flows, capital flow management measures can complement and be employed alongside, rather than substitute for, appropriate monetary, exchange rate, foreign reserve management and prudential policies.””

Fast Tracking of the Agreement

President Obama has sought trade promotion authority (‘fast track’) to get TPP through Congress. Fast track usurps Congress’s constitutional authority over trade issues. Congress would have a very limited time to debate the deal and would not be allowed to make any changes. Fortunately, Congress has not yet abrogated its responsibility over trade issues. It is important to keep pressure on Congress to deny Obama this authority.

Represent Public Interest, not Transnational Corporations

Let your representative and senators know that you want them to oppose both fast track and the TPP. If they fail to do this, they are sending a clear message to voters.

Ron Forthofer is a retired professor of biostatistics and am now a volunteer working for peace and social justice.

12 July, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

By Nile Bowie

South Korea must seize the opportunity to improve relations with Pyongyang and lay the groundwork for détente between the two sides based on mutual respect and cooperation.

To mark the 20th anniversary of the passing of the country’s founder, Kim Il-sung, North Korea issued a high-level statement last week calling for improved inter-Korean relations and an end to military hostilities with its southern neighbor.

Pyongyang’s recent proposal has been relatively consistent with demands it has voiced on previous occasions, such as calling for the suspension of US-South Korea joint military drills, for both sides to settle all issues bilaterally, and an end to the exchange of slanderous language. It also called on Seoul to halt cooperation with other countries on the issue of North Korean nuclear weapons.

In a reference to the June 15th joint declaration signed by both sides at the first inter-Korean summit in 2000, Pyongyang reaffirmed calls for moving toward a federation with South Korea aimed at the eventual goal of reunification, in a way that benefits both sides and allows for differing ideological and social systems.

Since the beginning of this year, Pyongyang has attempted to call greater attention to its preference for improving relations with South Korea. The National Defense Commission (NDC), the North’s top military organ, has made several proposals throughout the year, all of which the government in Seoul has dismissed.

The recent statement is significant in that it was issued directly by the North Korean government after Seoul rejected a special proposal by the NDC issued in late June, stating that the North “keeps making the same irrational claims.” South Korea has, however, accepted Pyongyang’s proposal to send a cheerleading squad to the upcoming Asian Games scheduled to be held in Incheon this September.

While there are certainly some areas of the proposal, such as international cooperation against Pyongyang’s nuclear program, that the South would find inherently problematic, but for the government in Seoul to entirely dismiss as ‘irrational’ the current proposal by the North is a serious misstep.

There are growing sentiments among various analysts and academics in South Korea who believe that President Park Geun-hye’s government is not taking a proactive and meaningful approach toward developing inter-Korean relations, which have ceased to improve since Park came to power in early 2013 following her predecessor, Lee Myung-bak.

The Hankyoreh, South Korea’s leading independent daily, recently issued an editorial calling for a new approach from Seoul to ease frictions with the North. “If we want things to turn around, what we need most are a firm commitment and creative effort from the South Korean government. It’s easy to criticize the North, but it doesn’t fix anything,” the editorial said.

To be sure, there is much in Pyongyang’s recent statements that the South can work with, certainly in the North’s call for the opening of “a broad avenue for contacts, visits, cooperation and dialogue,” on both government and civilian levels. While contentious issues remain, there is clearly a window of opportunity for both sides to implement previous joint agreements.

Engaging in practical dialogue and trust-building measures can allow for more frequent reunions of families and relatives separated by the Korean War, in addition to a cooling of military tensions on the Korea Peninsula. While voices in western capitals readily dismiss Pyongyang’s sincerity, the South Korean government is unwilling to create conditions for that sincerity to be tested.

In late March, President Park unveiled her ‘Dresden Declaration’ proposal during an official visit to Germany. Pyongyang took immediate offense, as the plan was unveiled in the former East German city of Dresden, which implies the South’s intention of achieving unification by absorption along the German model, which is contrary to positions taken by previous South Korean administrations.

Park offered major inter-Korean infrastructure building projects and other investments on the condition that Pyongyang agrees to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Seoul, following the position taken by Washington, has placed the North’s voluntary denuclearization as a “pre-condition” for dialogue, a measure that essentially ensures that meaningful negotiations never take place.

Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program and missile defense systems are a reaction to the asymmetry created by the entrenched US military presence in South Korea. North Korea views UN resolutions against its military programs as attempts by the outside world to criminalize its legitimate right to self-defense.

One cannot deny that North Korea is a nation under siege: it is subjected to one of the world’s harshest international sanctions regimes that has invariably exacerbated the suffering of its civilian population; it also faces a southern neighbor armed with the same sophisticated missile technology that it is internationally prohibited by the UN from indigenously developing.

Most significantly, it faces the largest military power in human history, which does not hesitate to use nuclear-capable strategic bombers and massive nuclear-powered carriers during its annual joint exercises on the Korean Peninsula, which are undeniably aimed at Pyongyang.

If any progress can be made on the nuclear issue, it will require the waiving of preconditions-for-dialogue and genuine political will to change the status quo of inter-Korean relations by both Seoul and Washington, who have until now preferred to elbow Pyongyang into a confrontational stance that deepens mistrust and negates any opportunity for peaceful development and co-existence.

If any denuclearization could ever conceivably take place, it should be achieved through restarting the now-defunct mechanism of the six party talks, with the aim of prohibiting all nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula – including the US nuclear umbrella. All other issues should be handled bilaterally between Seoul and Pyongyang as agreed upon in joint declarations.

The opportunity exists for both Korean nations to engage in peace-building efforts to find common ground and responsibly move forward for the sake of future generations. Until a platform for engagement based on mutual benefit and mutual respect can be reached, any talk of reunification at this stage is entirely premature and unrealistic.

However, the success of any nascent rapprochement depends upon both sides identifying and agreeing to the principles of reunification, which would need to accommodate two different systems and governments within one nation and one state.

In order for progress to be made in this area, both sides must cease disparaging and incendiary language, even if the other side fails to cooperate. Pyongyang’s olive branches are simply not seen as genuine when it violates diplomatic norms by referring to members of the South Korean and American governments in offensive and pejorative ways.

North Korea should make a conscious effort to reign in these voices and maintain a consistent and restrained line, which will invariably help its international image and help build momentum for détente with the South.

Even with past transgressions between the two sides considered, preconditions and moralizing judgements must be aside to allow both parties to more effectively and straightforwardly engage in high-level dialogue. Any other concerns regarding human rights and internal issues can only begin to be broached once both sides reach a common understanding on the way forward.

Nile Bowie is a columnist with Russia Today, and a research affiliate with the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), an NGO based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

12 July 2014

By Seumas Milne

The international revival of public ownership is anathema to our City-led elite. But it’s vital to genuine economic recovery

Privatisation isn’t working. We were promised a shareholding democracy, competition, falling costs and better services. A generation on, most people’s experience has been the opposite. From energy to water, rail to public services, the reality has been private monopolies, perverse subsidies, exorbitant prices, woeful under-investment, profiteering and corporate capture.

Private cartels run rings round the regulators. Consumers and politicians are bamboozled by commercial secrecy and contractual complexity. Workforces have their pay and conditions slashed. Control of essential services has not only passed to corporate giants based overseas, but those companies are themselves often state-owned – they’re just owned by another state.

Report after report has shown privatised services to be more expensive and inefficient than their publicly owned counterparts. It’s scarcely surprising that a large majority of the public, who have never supported a single privatisation, neither trust the privateers nor want them running their services.

But regardless of the evidence, the caravan goes on. David Cameron’s government is now driving privatisation into the heart of education and health, outsourcing the probation service and selling off a chunk of Royal Mail at more than £1bn below its market price, with the government’s own City advisers cashing in their chips in short order.

No amount of disastrous failures or fraudulent wrongdoing, it seems, debars companies such as G4S, Atos and Serco from lucrative new contracts in what is already an £80bn business – and one with an increasingly powerful grip on Westminster and Whitehall.

You might think this would be an open goal for the opposition – and no case more so than the scam for siphoning off public money that is Britain’s privatised rail system. Rail has been the ultimate dysfunctional selloff. Shoehorning private markets into a natural monopoly has delivered fragmentation, rock-bottom investment, annual costs of £1.2bn, the most expensive train fares in Europe, and more than double the level of state subsidy than under British Rail.

The East Coast mainline, by contrast, has provided a far better service under public ownership and delivered £800m to the exchequer (not unlike the publicly owned Scottish Water). So naturally the coalition is going to sell it off, while Labour is in a tailspin over whether to back the highly popular demand for renationalisation.

Ed Balls, now keeper of the flickering New Labour flame, insists public ownership would be “ideological”. The rail profiteers and corporate barons, alarmed by Ed Miliband’s plans to freeze privatised energy prices, agree. So Labour is toying with a halfway house, where franchises continue but the public sector is allowed to bid to run them as well as the privateers.

That sounds like an expensive dog’s breakfast. Rail renationalisation has the advantage of being not just popular but entirely free – as each franchise can be brought back under public control as it expires. To resist it in those circumstances can only be about the power of corporate lobbies or market ideology.

But the need to break with 30 years of cash-backed dogma against public ownership goes well beyond rail. The privatised industries haven’t only failed to deliver efficiency, value for money, accountability or secure jobs. They have also sucked wealth, rentier-style, out of sitting-duck monopolies, concentrated economic decision-making in fewer and fewer hands, deepened inequality and failed to deliver the investment essential to sustainable growth.

At a time when the entire corporate sector is sitting on an uninvested cash mountain and productivity is actually falling as a result, the lack of a publicly owned economic motor to drive recovery is dire. In the case of energy, the privatised system is failing to deliver the most basic goal of investing – to keep the lights on.

The alternative of tougher regulation, seen as the acceptable political alternative, means trying to do by remote control what’s far better done directly and won’t fix the problem on its own. Experience has shown that you can’t control what you don’t own.

As the Glasgow academic Andrew Cumbers argues in a paper for the thinktank Class, it’s only by huge incentives and perverse subsidies – such as those paid to Danish and Swedish state-owned companies to meet renewable targets – that the government is able to coax the privatised monoliths to do what the public sector could have done itself far more cheaply.

The case for new forms of public ownership in the banking sector and utilities – energy, water, transport and communications infrastructure – is compelling. A core of socially owned and democratically controlled enterprises could set the pace of investment, reconstruction and the shift to a greener economy.

It’s a policy that has support from the majority of the public but is regarded as beyond the pale by the business-as-usual elite. It would be prohibitively expensive, they claim, and a throwback to a better yesterday. In reality, there need be no net cost to the public purse. Even if full market compensation is paid, that would be in the form of a government bonds-for-shares swap. Interest would have to be paid on the bonds of course, but it could be funded with a slice of these companies’ profits.

But Britain’s City-focused governing class has also failed to notice what’s happening in the rest of the world. From Latin America and the United States to western Europe, in both the global south and north, privatised public services, utilities and resources are being steadily brought back into public ownership. In the past decade, 86 cities have taken water back into social ownership. In Germany alone, more than 100 energy concessions have been returned to public ownership since the 2007-8 crisis.

Even as austerity is being used to try to breathe new life into privatisation, the tide has started to flow in the other direction. The new wave of public ownership is taking innovative, sometimes hybrid, forms, and overcoming weaknesses that hobbled earlier nationalised industries.

But in Britain the power of City and corporate vested interests engorged on the profits of privatisation is a powerful obstacle to this essential shift. Pressure for a genuinely mixed economy – something previously regarded as the commonsense mainstream – is bound to grow as the costs and failures of unbridled capitalism mount. Rail can only be the first step.

9 July 2014
The Guardian

By Lambert Strether

Quietly, subtly, almost imperceptibly, the rules governing global trade and financial markets are changing. It is not happening by accident, but by wilful design. Despite the enormous impact it will have on all our lives, the public is not being consulted on any aspects of the process. Most people are not even aware it is happening.

The main driver of this change are the bilateral and multilateral trade and investment treaties being negotiated in complete secrecy and behind closed doors between corporate lobbyists, free trade activists and our own elected “representatives” (a term I use in the loosest possible sense, especially given the context). The ultimate goal of these treaties is to reconfigure the legal apparatus and superstructures that govern national, regional and global trade and business – for the primary, if not exclusive, benefit of the world’s largest multinational corporations.

Corporations have long been powerful economic and political entities, but in recent decades some have grown to dwarf even middling-sized national economies. According to a ranking published by Global Trends, 58 percent of the world’s biggest 150 economic entities in 2012 were corporations. They include oil, natural gas, and mining majors, banks and insurance firms, telecommunications giants, supermarket behemoths, car manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies.

Changing the Law

Right now, the representatives of many of these firms are engaged in late-stage negotiations with the U.S. and European political leaders that would make it financially calamitous for a nation-state to take any actions against the interest of corporations. If passed — and at this rate, it almost certainly will be — it will be the biggest bilateral trade deal in the history of mankind.

What’s up for grabs in the innocuously named “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership” (TTIP) is nothing short of the control and ownership of virtually every economic sector and public service in both Europe and the U.S. – with the exception, at the insistence of the U.S. government, of the financial services industry. Unbeknownst to almost all Europeans, the European Commission has shown a keen interest in opening up all public services to foreign corporate ownership, from health care to education, pensions to water provision.

Wikileaks also revealed that a group of 50 nations, fronting themselves as “Really Good Friends of Services” (who said lobbyists don’t have a sense of humour?), is secretly negotiating the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA). The countries taking part in negotiations include the U.S., the member nations of the EU (who are naturally leading the proceedings), and U.S.-aligned nations of Australia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, South Korea, and Switzerland. Conspicuously absent from the list are the five BRICS nations Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa and Latin American members of Mercosur.

Based on the draft copy recently released by Wikileaks, the treaty seeks to (among many other things):

“Lock in” the privatisations of services – even in cases where private service delivery has failed – meaning governments can never return water, energy, health, education or other services to public hands.
Restrict a government’s right to regulate stronger standards in the public’s interest. For example, it will affect environmental regulations, licensing of health facilities and laboratories, waste disposal centres, power plants, school and university accreditation and broadcast licenses.
Specifically limit the ability of governments to regulate the financial services industry at exactly the time when the global economy is still recovering from a crisis caused by financial deregulation.
The trade treaties are not just about rewriting laws; they are also about enforcing them. As the author of Debt Generation, David Malone, explained in a recent talk on bilateral and multilateral trade agreements (essential viewing for anyone interested in the subject), what gives trade treaties such as TTIP and TISA their “claws and teeth” is the inclusion of an innocuous-sounding provision called the “investor-state dispute settlement.” This effectively allows private companies to sue entire nations if they feel that a law lost them money on their investment.

No Trial, No Judge, No Jury

Say, for example, a newly elected government decides — not unreasonably — that the involvement of price-gouging U.S. firms in the nation’s health service is not such a good idea after all. Each and every one of those U.S. firms will now be able to launch expensive legal battles, potentially for billions of pounds, in the name of foregone profits.

The case would not be heard in a court of law, under the scrutiny of a judge and jury, but rather in front of arbitration panels made up of three professional arbitrators — one representing the company, one representing the country and the other chosen by the first two to sit as president of the panel. None of these arbitrators are trained judges; they are private individuals often representing some of the biggest international corporate law firms, mostly from the U.S. and Europe.

The secrecy of the arbitration process is, in Malone’s words, “mind-blowing.” No citizen of any affected country can demand leverage or accountability over the proceedings. The arbitrators meet behind closed doors and do not even need to inform the people of a country that their government has been taken to arbitration.

Advocates of the system claim that international arbitration is needed because national courts are not sufficiently neutral. While there may be some truth in that, investment arbitrators themselves are hardly neutral guardians, as Corporate Europe reports:

Arbitrators, to a far greater degree than judges, have a financial and professional stake in the system. They earn handsome rewards for their services. Unlike judges, there is no flat salary, no cap on financial remuneration.

Arbitrators’ fees can range from $375 to $700 per hour depending on where the arbitration takes place. How much an arbitrator earns per case will depend on the case’s length and complexity, but for a $100 million dispute, arbitrators could earn on average up to $350,000. It can be far more. The presiding arbitrator in the case between Chevron and Texaco v. Ecuador, received $939,000…

Evidence shows that many of the arbitrators enjoy close links with the corporate world and share businesses’ viewpoint in relation to the importance of protecting investors’ profits. Given the one-sided nature of the system, where only investors can sue and only states are sued, a pro-business outlook could be interpreted as a strategic choice for an ambitious investment lawyer keen to make a lucrative living.

Revolving Doors, Conflicts of Interests

The arbitration industry, very much like our political systems, is rife with conflicts of interest and revolving doors. To wit, from the Transnational Institute:

Arbitrators tend to defend private investor rights above public interest, revealing an inherent pro-corporate bias. Several prominent arbitrators have been members of the board of major multinational corporations, including those which have filed cases against developing nations.
Law firms with specialised arbitration departments seek out every opportunity to sue countries – encouraging lawsuits against governments in crisis, most recently Greece and Libya, and promoting use of multiple investment treaties to secure the best advantages for corporations… In short, investment lawyers have become the new international ‘ambulance chasers’, in a similar way to lawyers who chase hospital wagons to the emergency room in search for legal clients.
Arbitration law firms as well as elite arbitrators have used positions of influence to actively lobby against any reforms to the international investment regime, notably in the US and the EU. Their actions, backed by corporations, succeeded in preventing changes that would enhance government’s policy space to regulate in the US investment treaties that had been proposed by US President Barack Obama when he came to office.
The rise of investor-state dispute settlements and the broad application of arbitration procedures are the ultimate victory in the global corporatocracy’s decades-long coup d’état. If allowed to take universal effect, the system will impose above you, me, and our governments a rigid framework of international corporate law designed to exclusively protect the interests of corporations, relieving them of all financial risk and social and environmental responsibility. From then on, every investment they make will effectively be backstopped by our governments (and by extension, you and me); it will be too-big-to-fail writ on an unimaginable scale.

And yet, in the most perverse of ironies, it is a system that appears to be almost universally endorsed by our political leaders. It is an irony that was not lost on the Spanish arbitrator Juan Fernandez-Armesto, who had the following to say:

When I wake up at night and think about arbitration, it never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all […]. Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament.

As I warned in early November 2013, the global corporatocracy is almost fully operational. The intentions of those negotiating the multiple trade treaties are now crystal clear: to place complete power and control over our economies in the hands of the largest global corporations, many of which bear the lion’s share of responsibility for the economic and environmental mess we’re already in.

In the meantime, the clock continues to tick down. At any moment, a few quiet strokes of a pen behind the tightly closed doors of a luxury conference room could usher in a new age of corporate domination. With it will come a new kind of dystopia, bearing an uncanny likeness to the inverted totalitarianism foreseen by Sheldon Wolin.

22 June 2014
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/

 

By Paul Craig Roberts

Alone among the governments in the world, Washington requires sovereign governments to follow Washington’s laws even when Washington’s laws contradict the laws of sovereign countries.

The examples are endless. For example, Washington forced Switzerland to violate and to repeal Switzerland’s historic bank secrecy laws. Washington executes citizens of other countries, as well as its own citizens, without due process of law. Washington violates the sovereignty of other countries and murders the countries’ citizens with drones, bombs, and special forces teams. Washington kidnaps abroad citizens of other countries and either brings them to the US to be tried under US law or sends them to another country to be tortured in secret torture centers. Washington tells banks in other countries with whom they can do business and when the banks disobey, Washington blackmails them into compliance or imposes fines that threaten their existence. Last week Washington forced a French bank to pay Washington $9 billion dollars or be banned from its US operations, because the bank financed trade with countries disapproved by Washington.

Washington issues ultimatums to sovereign nations to do as they are told or “be bombed into the stone age.”

Washington violates diplomatic immunity and forces down the planes of presidents of sovereign countries to be illegally searched.

Washington ordered its UK vassal to violate the laws and conventions governing political asylum and to refuse free passage to Julian Assange to Ecuador.

Washington ordered Russia to violate its laws and to hand over Edward Snowden.

Russia is strong enough to refuse to comply with Washington’s orders.

So what did Washington do?

The city upon the hill, the light unto the world, the “indispensable, exceptional government,” kidnapped Roman Seleznyov, the son of a Russian MP, in a foreign country, the Republic of the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean. Seleznyov was seized by Washington as he boarded a flight to Moscow and was spirited away on a private plane to US controlled territory where he was arrested on bogus fraud charges.

The Russian Foreign Ministry accused Washington of kidnapping a Russian citizen in “a new hostile move by Washington” against the Russian people.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Seleznyov’s kidnapping is illegal–as is everything Washington has done since the Clinton regime. Seleznyov’s father, a member of the Russian legislative body, believes that Washington kidnapped his son in order to exchange him for Edward Snowden.

Seleznyov was immediately, without any evidence, charged with imaginary offenses amounting to 30 years in prison. The fascist head of Homeland Security declared that the completely illegal action by the Washington Gestapo is an “important arrest” that “sends a clear message” that “the long arm of justice–and this Department–will continue to disrupt and dismantle sophisticated criminal organizations.”

The US Secret Service declared the Russian MP’s son to be “one of the world’s most prolific traffickers of stolen financial information.”

What utter bullshit!

As the entire world now knows, the greatest thief of financial information is Washington’s National Stasi Agency. Washington’s Stasi Agency has stolen for the benefit of US corporations that make generous political contributions financial information from companies in Brazil, Germany, France, China, Japan, indeed, everywhere. Washington’s Stasi have even stolen the Chancellor of Germany’s private cell phone conversations.

The world was stupid to trust American information systems which serve as spy devices. Anyone who purchases an American brand name computer, or relies on American Internet services, can know for a fact that Washington’s National Stasi Agency has complete information about them. The other governments thought that they had a free ride on US capital investment, but what this free ride meant was that no government and no population had proprietary information and secrets.

The US National Stasi Agency can blackmail the entire population of the world.

According to the neoconservatives, the right to spy on the world is the right of the “indispensable” people, as represented by the “exceptional government” in Washington.

The world is stupid in many other ways in the trust misplaced in Washington. NGOs funded by Washington operate in many countries and serve as Washington’s Fifth Columns. Washington can call out its NGOs into the streets to challenge and overthrow non-cooperating governments or to create for Washington propaganda against targeted governments, as Washington did when it called out its Russian NGOs to protest in the Russian streets that Putin stole the election. These NGOs are proud of the blood that they have, or soon will have, on their hands. It shows that they are important agents of the Empire.

With a captive Western media and European governments plus Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, S. Korea and the Philippines, Washington can brazen out its lies and false charges. “Saddam Hussein has weapons of Mass Destruction.” No one has been punished for this costly lie. “Assad of Syria used chemical weapons against his own people.” No one has been punished for this costly lie. “Russia invaded Ukraine.” No one has been punished for this costly lie. “Edward Snowden is a Chinese/Russian/someone’s spy and a traitor to boot for telling Americans about the illegal actions of their government.” No one has been punished for this lie. “Julian Assange is a spy for making leaked documents of Washington’s crimes available on the Internet.” No one has been punished for this lie.

Every American opposed to Wall Street’s and Washington’s hegemony has been declared to be persona non grata. Such Americans are “domestic extremists,” who are now the focus of the Gestapo Homeland Security, a well armed military force, in contravention of the Posse Comitatus Act. Homeland Security is an illegal and unconstitutional force directed at the American people. The sheeple American people are forced to pay for it as their homes are foreclosed and those that aren’t foreclosed are invaded by goon thug SWAT teams.

Environmentalists are in the way of capitalist profits, and the capitalists rule, not the environmentalists. Environmentalists are “domestic extremists.”

War protesters are investigated as “agents of foreign powers.”

People concerned with the fate of animals and the decline of species due to habitat destruction by greedy, short-term motivated corporations, are on the list of “domestic extremists.”

The Supreme Court is owned by the private interest groups who have bought our government. The US Supreme Court is the great enemy of the US Constitution.

Law is misused to send millions of innocents, especially the young, and Americans whose violations are inconsequential to prison in order to support the revenue needs of the privatized prison system and the career needs of prosecutors.

It is difficult to imagine a country as wrong as the US, where government serves not the people but a tiny handful of the one percent, a government incapable of delivering any kind of justice, a government that if it uttered truth would destroy itself.

Washington reeks of evil. And the world is beginning to realize it.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.

10 July, 2014
Paulcraigroberts.org