Death Blow to CETA?

SUBHEAD: Enough delegates hold firm against pro-corporate Canada-European Union Trade deal.

By Lauren McCauley on 21 October 2016 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/10/21/final-death-blow-ceta-delegates-hold-firm-against-pro-corporate-deal)


Image above: EU-Canada free trade agreement: opponents stage protest march in Paris. From (http://athavaneng.com/?p=261039).

"It's time for a fundamental shift toward international agreements that put people and the planet before corporate profits. That's the message from Europe today."

Dealing what campaigners say is the final "death blow" to the pro-corporate Canada-European Union trade deal, negotiations collapsed on Friday after representatives from the Belgian region of Wallonia refused to agree to a deal that continues ignore democracy in favor of multi-national corporations.

Canada's International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland reportedly walked out of talks with the Wallonia delegation, which had ruled to maintain their veto against the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) after the parties reached a stalemate over the controversial Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system.

"We made new significant progress, especially on the agriculture issues, but difficulties remain, specifically on the symbolic issue of arbitration, which is politically extremely important," Wallonia president Paul Magnette told the regional parliament. ISDS permits companies to sue governments over perceived loss of profits due to regulations or other laws.

Magnette had told reporters Thursday that the delegation had particular concerns over "matters affecting U.S. companies in Canada which will benefit from the system."

Campaigners who have led the fight against CETA and its sister trade deals—the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)—rejoiced over the news, saying the planned October 27 signing ceremony now looks "improbable."

"Canada's trade minister may be 'very, very sad', but there are millions of people in Europe who will be very, very happy," said Mark Dearn, senior trade campaigner with the UK-based War on Want.

And while many were happily toasting Magnette and the Wallonia delegation, critics of the deal also emphasized the growing movement against these anti-democratic agreements that helped lead to CETA's downfall.

"This major setback for CETA is not just because of Wallonia alone," said Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. "There is deep, widespread opposition to CETA and many millions of people agree with Wallonia's stance."

"Thousands across Europe and Canada spoke up and took action to make this happen," added Barlow, who is currently in Germany campaigning against CETA. "This collapse of attempts to reach a deal on CETA shows governments should listen to people instead of trying to push these deals through against the wishes of the people they're elected to represent."

As Dearn further explained, "Since talks first started on CETA back in 2009, the deal has sat alongside TTIP [referring to the U.S.-E.U. agreement] as an example of how not to do a trade deal—absolute secrecy, zero input from public interest groups, and sheer contempt for the very valid concerns of people across Europe."

"Today we have seen the European Commission's chickens come home to roost," he continued. "If the Commission fails at yet another trade deal, the fault lies wholly with its anti-democratic approach."

Speaking from the negotiations in Belgium, Sujata Dey, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians, agreed. "It's time to take a long hard look at CETA and what this breakdown means for corporate-led globalization, including for other controversial deals like the [12-nation TPP]."

"It's time for a fundamental shift toward international agreements that put people and the planet before corporate profits," she added. "That's the message from Europe today."


Friday's talks were held as a last-ditch effort to save the trade deal. After they fell apart, an emotional Freeland told reporters, "I've worked very, very hard, but I think it's impossible," referring to the impasse. "It's become evident for me, for Canada, that the European Union isn't capable now to have an international treaty even with a country that has very European values like Canada."

.

The Self Identified Elite

SUBHEAD: They will make Greater Depression worse than we ever thought it could be.

By Doug Casey on 14 October 2016 for The International Man -
(http://www.internationalman.com/articles/doug-casey-on-the-self-identified-elite)


Image above: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivers a foreign policy address at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, DC on July 15, 2009. Photo by Karen Bleier. From (http://www.gettyimages.com/event/secy-of-state-clinton-delivers-foreign-policy-address-88741762#secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-delivers-a-foreign-policy-address-picture-id89042022).

Mark Twain said, “If you don’t read the papers you’re uninformed. If you do read them, you’re misinformed.”

That’s why I want to draw your attention to a recent article called “The Isolationist Temptation,” in The Wall Street Journal, written by Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The piece wasn’t worth reading—except that it offers some real insight into what the “elite” are thinking. The CFR is one of about a dozen groups, like Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove, and Davos, where the self-identified elite gather.

These groups don’t have political power, per se. But their members are members of governments, large corporations, universities, the military, and the media. They all went to the same schools, belong to the same clubs, socialize together and, most important, share the same worldview.

What might that be? They believe in the State—not the market—as the best way to organize the world.

Believe it or not (I still don’t…) I was recently invited to one of these conclaves. Probably by mistake. I don’t expect to be a fox in the henhouse, but more like a skeleton at a feast. I’ll tell you all about it next month…

But back to the current topic. Like me, you’ve probably asked yourself, “Who are these people? Are they knaves, or fools, or both? What are they smoking? Are they actually crazy?”

Haass starts out by dividing the world of foreign policy observers into the “internationalists” and the “isolationists”—a false, misleading, and stupid distinction. They’re not “internationalists” (which are people who move between countries); they’re “globalists” (people who want to work for one world government, that they control).

He uses the term “isolationists” as a pejorative term for the enemy camp, conflating them with non-interventionists—who are a totally different group. Isolationists bring to mind a backward cult, hiding from the rest of the world. Non-interventionists simply don’t want to stick their noses in other people’s business.

He lauds so-called internationalists (i.e., globalists) as “those who want the U.S. to retain the leading international role it’s held since WW2.” By that he means minions of the U.S. government should roam the world to “spread democracy.” He assumes that democracy—which is actually just a more polite form of mob rule—is always a good thing.

Apart from the fact that democracy is only rarely the result of U.S. intervention.

Another division he makes (and here I admire his candor) is between the “elites”—like high government officials and people like those in the CFR—and the “non-elites.” He actually uses these words. He terms U.S. invasions and regime change efforts as “an ambitious foreign policy.”

He says, even after referencing disastrous U.S. failures like the Korean, Vietnamese, Afghan, and Iraq wars, and ongoing catastrophes in Libya and Syria, that we should continue on the same course.
He loves the idea of alliances, of course.

Despite the fact that alliances only serve to draw one country into another one’s war. Alliances just take relatively small local disputes, and move them up to catastrophic levels.

This has always been the case. But the classic example is World War 1, which signaled the start of the long collapse of Western Civilization. Alliances can only serve to draw the U.S. into wars between nothing/nowhere countries that few Americans can find on a map.

Then he goes on to discuss what he calls “free trade,” another dishonest misuse of the term. Free trade exists when there are no duties or quotas, when any business can buy and sell what it wants when and where it wants.

What these people actually want is government-managed trade, which they prefer to call “fair trade.” He implies that wise and incorruptible government officials are necessary to ensure that foolish and dishonest buyers and sellers don’t hurt themselves.

But shouldn’t we worry if foreigners subsidize their manufacturers, and disregard U.S. environmental and labor regulations? My answer is: No. It’s wonderful if a foolish, mercantilist government subsidizes U.S. consumers; we’re enriched while they’re impoverished by selling dollar bills for 50 cents.

And if the Chinese can make something cheaper than Americans, that’s wonderful. The Americans—who still have the world’s largest pool of capital, technology, and educated labor—are freed to do something more productive.

Anyway, the Haass article is horrible on every level. I’d reprint it here, but it’s too long and too boring. And it would violate the Journal’s reprint policy. But there’s another article, even more egregious, more stupid, and more destructive, that the Journal recently ran, by Kenneth Rogoff, called “The Sinister Side of Cash.” He is, of course, a Harvard “economist.”

You’ll have to get hold of it yourself, because of the newspaper’s reprint policy. But I urge you to do so. It lays out—in clear and well-written English—the “elite” rationale for negative interest rates, and the abolition of cash.

It literally beggars belief, and makes me think the author is criminally insane. I mean that literally, in the clinical sense.

Criminal because he actively advocates aggression against other’s property, and in effect, their lives. And insane because his thoughts and beliefs are completely delusional and divorced from reality.

All in all, every day there are more indications on every front that the trailing edge of the gigantic financial hurricane we entered in 2007 is going to be very, very ugly.

The Greater Depression is going to be worse than even I thought it would be.


.

New Secret Trade Deal info

SUBHEAD: Wikileaks further exposes new TISA trade deal corporate/bankster plot documents.

By Jon Queally on 14 October 2016 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/10/14/posting-new-secret-trade-docs-wikileaks-further-exposes-corporate-plot)


Image above: Members of the Confederal Group of the European United Left hold posters with the slogan ‘STOP TISA’ (Trade in Services Agreement) during a voting session at the European parliament in Strasbourg, France. Photo by Vincent Kessler. From orifginal article.

[IB Publisher's Note: Another acronym another corporate/bankster trade deal to suck the marrow out of what is left of individual people's wealth. Welcome TISA to your comrades NAFTA, TTP and TTIP.]

Even as it continued to post new batches of emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, Wikileaks on Friday also published new draft chapters of the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) which shed new light on the pending deal that critics say puts global economies at further risk from powerful banks, financial institutions, and corporate greed.

The latest release follows a series of others by the pro-tranparency publication and comes just days ahead of the next round of TISA negotiations set to begin Monday in Washington, DC.

The leaked documents included in Friday's release include three draft chapters from the agreement—covering "Financial Services," "Localization Provisions," and "Bilateral Market Access." The chapters are from June of this year and bring the number of documents related to the TISA negotiations published by Wikileaks up to 70 total.

Along with the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the TransAtlantic Trade and Investement Partnership (TTIP), TISA is actually the largest of the "Three Big T's" of pending international agreements that seek to further shape the global economic and legal systems in favor of major corporations and elite interests.

TISA is the largest of the three deals, and according to World Bank figures cited by Wikileaks, services that would be covered by the massive agreement comprise around 75% of the EU economy, 80% of the US economy and the majority of economies of most countries.

However, notes Wikileaks, "despite its importance both the US Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have thus far given no position on the TISA Agreement."

According to one of the companion analyses by Wikileaks released alongside the TISA chapters, the current deal, if finalized, "would heighten risks of financial instability and handcuff governments’ ability to respond to a domestic or global financial crisis at a time when everyone (except the finance industry and its political allies) agree that we need more financial regulation, not less."

In response to the latest leaks on Friday, the leaders of organized labor unions said it was more clear than ever that TISA "is no more than a corporate power grab and that negotiations must be stopped."

In a joint statement, those unions said the wide scope of "the deregulatory agenda and attack on democratic governance" found in the TISA chapters "has been exposed" and criticized European Union governments for attempting to hijack control of every level of governance from the municipal to national levels of partner countries.

Their review of the chapters found clear evidence that European countries are demanding deeper liberalization of public services both within the EU and beyond.

"The EU position ignores the potential danger of exporting aggressive privatisation policies to the developing world, which have already been shown to be the cause of social and political instability in many EU countries," said Public Services International (PSI) General Secretary Rosa Pavanelli in a statement.

As Deborah James, Director of International Programs of the Center for Economy and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, DC, offered in her analysis of the leaks:

The leaked EU “requests” include asks that Costa Rica and Peru subject services offered at the subnational (local) level to the TISA liberalization rules. Unless the EU can demonstrate that all services offered in every municipality in these countries are already open to foreign suppliers, these are demands that would lock in any privatization of public services at the local level and open those services to competition from foreign services providers ― which the EU has constantly claimed it is not asking for.

The EU’s demands also include access to postal services in Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, and Turkey, and in several developed countries participating in the talks. Many countries maintain cross-subsidization programs that are an important part of enabling national communication from rural areas.

If countries make commitments in this sector, then they would have to provide the same subsidies to foreign corporations as their own domestic firms, and would not be able to renationalize the sector if privatization was found to have adverse impacts.

The EU’s demands also include access to sanitation, sewage, and other environmental services, which are often administered on a local level; telecommunications (including broadcasting); retail and distribution services; shipping; air and maritime transport; energy and mining services (which are extremely sensitive particularly in Latin America); and others.

In addition, the EU is requesting more commitments on financial services in nearly every country.

Fred van Leeuwen, General Secretary of Education International (EI), said that in addition to TISA's concerning contents, the secrecy surrounding how the deal is being negotiated remains troubling.

"These leaks give a clear indication of the dangerous direction of the TiSA negotiations," The fact that citizens and civil society are still obliged to rely on leaks for getting a sense of the direction of the negotiations is deeply unsatisfactory."

And Ron Oswald, General Secretary of the International Union of Food Workers (UIF), indicated that organized labor should really only have one set of demands at this point.

"It’s time to halt the negotiations, publish the secret texts and ensure the widest possible public debate to expose the full extent of the threat these treaties pose to democracy and the labour movement," Oswald said.

And as CEPR's James declared, "Globalization’s cheerleaders are all handwringing about the widespread opposition to trade pacts. But what they don’t acknowledge is that people around the world are not rejecting 'trade,' they are rejecting corporate control over our lives.

People want to live in a democracy; they want quality, accessible public services; a well-regulated financial sector; and decent jobs for all ― the opposite agenda of the deregulation, locked-in privatization, and antidevelopment fundamentals of the secret proposed TISA, according to today’s explosive leak."
.

Europe revolts against TTIP

SUBHEAD: United States faces major trade negotiation setback as Europeans revolt against TTIP.

By Andrei Akulov on 4 September 2016 for Strategic Culture -
(http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/09/04/us-faces-major-setback-as-europeans-revolt-against-ttip.html)


Image above: Europeans demonstrate against American corporatism of TTIP. From original article.

France wants to halt thorny EU-US trade talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) as President Francois Hollande underlined there would be no deal until after President Barack Obama leaves office in January. Matthias Fekl, the French minister for foreign trade, has said his country will call for an end to the deal.

France has been sceptical about the TTIP from the start and has threatened to block the deal, arguing the US has offered little in return for concessions made by Europe. All 28 EU member states and the European parliament will have to ratify the TTIP before it comes into force.

The statements came just a couple of days after German economy minister Sigmar Gabriel had said talks for TTIP had de facto failed. Gabriel, who leads Germany’s centre-left Social Democratic party and is vice-chancellor in the coalition government, said Europe mustn’t submit to the American proposals.

Mr. Gabriel’s statement is in contrast with the position of Chancellor Angela Merkel who supports the deal. Meanwhile, the US-German conflicts are growing. US courts and authorities took a hard line against the Volkswagen Group, Germany’s largest car manufacturer, in relation to its exhaust scandal. In a deal that does not include all damage claims, VW is required to pay up to 13.6 billion euros.

There is a growing chorus in Germany saying that the country should orientate more to Asia. This perspective shared by the organizers of the anti-TTIP lobby, including the German Trade Union Federation (DGB), the Left Party and the Greens.

The fact that former British Prime Minister David Cameron – an outspoken proponent of TTIP – is no longer involved in negotiations is another major setback for the deal, which at this point is believed by many to be dead in the water.

TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks that have lasted three years not a single common item out of the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on.

The United States has refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of «buy American».

The opponents of the deal believe that in its current guise the TTIP is too friendly to US businesses. One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively «sue» governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses.

Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states.

In Europe thousands of people supported by society groups, trade unions and activists take to the streets expressing protest against the deal.

Three million people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. For instance, various trade unions and other groups have called for protests against the TTIP across Germany to take place on September 17. A trade agreement with Canada has also come under attack.

US presidential candidate Donald Trump has promoted protectionist trade policies, while rival Hillary Clinton has also cast doubt on the TTIP deal. Congressional opposition has become steep. The lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have railed against free trade agreements as unfair to US companies and workers.

These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. The chances are really slim

The likely failure will be a great setback undermining the US credibility in the Asia Pacific region and the world. According to Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, for America’s friends and partners, ratifying the trade pact was a litmus test for US credibility and seriousness of purpose.

Both deals have been problematic, primarily because they contain clauses that would allow corporations to sue sovereign nations and are seen as a US attempt to assert political, diplomatic and corporate influence.

As illustrated above, even Americans reject them, blaming the North American Free Trade Agreement for the exodus of American manufacturing to cheaper destinations. But the failure to push through both agreements will put into doubt the US status of global superpower.

Inside the US wealth inequality is growing.

Student loans are up. So too are food stamps and health insurance costs. In the meantime, labor force participation, home ownership and median family incomes have plummeted. The US government's $19 trillion debt is a huge problem.

Long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have exacted an enormous price - immense financial expense, estimated to be as high as $6 trillion (£3.9tn). The detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, as well as the NSA and Wikileaks spying scandals, have undermined the belief in American values and American diplomacy.

The defense expenditure is huge, but its effectiveness is questioned. «We’re in a dramatic crisis now. There is no question that we’re capable against the threats on the counter-terrorism side, but we’ve reached a point where we’re in fact—not heading towards—but we’re already hollow against a high-end threat, said House Armed Services Committee majority staff director Bob Simmons speaking before an audience at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) on June 21.

We lack the capacity and capability that we need to effectively deter on the high-end.

Among the foreign policy disasters in the Middle East, the rise of the Muslim extremists in several nations has created a crisis for all of the West, including the United States but most immediately and especially for refugee-swamped Europe.

The West is reaping the results of America’s foreign policy failures as it struggles to cope with hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring out of Syria and the Middle East.

>There is scant evidence that this century the US has achieved any progress pursuing its foreign policy goals. And while the US has stagnated, some countries, like Russia, China and many others, have prospered. This combination of decline at home and rise abroad has reduced America’s international power markedly.

At the turn of the century few argued when the 20^th century was dubbed the «American Century». Over the past 16 years, America's fortunes have changed with dizzying speed. The safer bet is that the 21^st century will not be America’s. The TTIP’s rejection by European leaders and grass roots’ protests against the agreement testify to the fact.
.

Is the Deep State for Hillary?

SUBHEAD: The Neocons have failed and Hillary may not be a shoo-in for the Deep State.

By Charles Hugh Smith on 8 August 2016 for Of Two Minds -
(http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2016/08/could-deep-state-be-sabotaging-hillary.html)


Image above: Senator John McCaine and Hillary Clinton in Neocon lovefest. From (http://www.salon.com/2014/08/30/dont_do_it_hillary_joining_forces_with_neocons_could_doom_democrats/).

Maybe Hillary is the Deep State's shoo-in for president. But I suspect doubts in the Deep State have advanced to active sabotage for the reasons noted below.

Few would dispute that Hillary Clinton is the Establishment's candidate. It's widely accepted that the Establishment hews to a neoconservative (neo-con) foreign policy that is fully supported by America's Deep State, i.e. the centers of state power that don't change as a result of elections.

As a result, it's widely accepted that the Deep State fully supports Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency and will move heaven and earth to get her elected. While this is a logical premise, I suspect it's overly simplistic. I suspect major power centers in the Deep State are actively sabotaging Hillary because they've concluded she is a poisoned chalice who would severely damage the interests of the Deep State and the U.S.A.

Poisoned chalice: something that seems very good when it is first received, but in fact does great harm to the person/ institution/ nation that receives it.

I realize this may strike many as ludicrous, but bear with me as we work through the notion that the Deep State would prefer Trump to Hillary.

The consensus view seems to be that the Establishment and the Deep State see Trump as a loose cannon who might upset the neo-con apple cart by refusing to toe the Establishment's Imperial line.

This view overlooks the possibility that significant segments of the Deep State view the neo-con strategy as an irredeemable failure and would welcome a president who would overthrow the remnants of the failed strategy within the Establishment and Deep State.

To these elements of the Deep State, Hillary is a threat precisely because she embraces the failed strategy and those who cling to it. From this point of view, Hillary as president would be an unmitigated disaster for the elements of the Deep State that have concluded the U.S. must move beyond the neo-con strategic failures to secure the nation's core interests.

There are other reasons why elements of the Deep State view Hillary as a poisoned chalice.

1. Hillary is an empty vessel. Nobody seriously claims she has any core beliefs that she would make personal sacrifices to support. While at first glance this may seem to be a plus, the Deep State is not devoid of values. Rather, the typical member of the Deep State has strong values and distrusts/ loathes people like Hillary who value nothing other than personal aggrandizement.
   
   Hillary's sole supreme commitment is the further aggrandizement of wealth and power to her family. This makes her intrinsically untrustworthy to the Deep State, which has bigger fish to fry than the Clinton Project of aggrandizing wealth and personal power.
2. Hillary has exhibited the typical flaw of liberal Democrats: fearful of being accused as being soft on Russia, Syria, Iran, terrorism, etc. or losing whatever war is currently being prosecuted, liberal Democrats over-compensate by pursuing overly aggressive and poorly planned policies.
   
   The forward-thinking elements of the Deep State are not averse to aggressive pursuit of what they perceive as American interests, but they are averse to quagmires and policies that preclude successful maintenance of the Imperial Project.
3. The Deep State requires relatively little of elected officials, even the President. A rubber stamp of existing policies is the primary requirement (see the Obama presidency for an example).|
   
   But the Deep State prefers a leader that can successfully sell the Deep State's agenda to the American public. (President Obama has done a very credible job of supporting the Imperial Project agenda. I think it's clear the Deep State supported President Obama's re-election.) A politician who's primary characteristic is untrustworthiness is poorly equipped to sell anything, especially something as complex and increasingly unpopular as the Imperial Project.
4. Hillary suffers from the delusion that she understands power politics and the Imperial Project. The most dangerous President to the Deep State is one who believes he/she is qualified to set the Imperial agenda and change the course of the Deep State as their personal entitlement.
   
   For these reasons, elements of the Deep State might sabotage Hillary's campaign as the greater threat to American interests. Trump is as unpopular as Hillary, but his sense of self-aggrandizement and narcissism is of a different order than Hillary's. Elements of the Deep State may view Trump as more malleable (or more charitably, as more open to much-needed changes in U.S. policies) and a better salesperson than Hillary.

Although it's difficult to identify specific evidence for this, the Deep State is not as monolithic as the alternative media assumes. An increasingly powerful sector of the Deep State views the neo-con agenda as a disaster for American interests, and is far more focused on the Long Game of energy, food security, economic and military innovation and a productive response to climate change.

Trump is less wedded to the neo-con agenda than Hillary, less concerned with looking weak and more willing to cut new deals to clear the path for U.S. soft power (diplomacy, cultural influence, energy, food security, economic innovation and successful responses to climate change) rather than the neo-con obsession with hard power and the old-style Great Game of geopolitics.

So how could the forward-looking elements of the Deep State sabotage Hillary? I can think of several ways:

1. Engineer a protracted stock market decline that hits American voters in their pocketbooks before the election by gutting the "wealth effect." A plunging stock market would make a mockery of the claim that the economy is "recovering."
2. Continue to leak dirty laundry on Hillary, her health, the Clinton foundation scams, etc.
3. Put the word out to the corporatocracy, top-level media, etc., that the Deep State would prefer a Trump presidency, despite the widely held assumption that Clinton is the shoo-in Establishment candidate, and that those who cling to Hillary will pay a price later on as the neo-cons are cashiered or sent to Siberia for their failures.

Maybe Hillary is the Deep State's shoo-in for president. But I suspect doubts in the Deep State have advanced to active sabotage for the reasons noted above.

.

TPA approved for TPP

SUBHEAD: Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) vote approved by Senate after some hope was raised Tuesday.

By Michael McCauliff on 14 May 2015 for Huffington Post -
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/senate-democrats-trade-promotion-authority_n_7267600.html)


Image above: Title of "TPP & TPA"A stock photo of a handshake is much like our economy will be after TPP passes - empty and fake. From (http://www.i2coalition.com/trans-pacific-partnership-and-trade-promotion-authority-reading-list/).

The Senate passed a pair of trade protection measures Thursday, and voted shortly afterward to start debate on the fast-track bill that President Barack Obama needs to secure his massive and controversial free-trade initiatives with Asia and Europe.

One measure, which reauthorizes trade preferences for some African countries, faced little opposition, and passed by a vote of 96 to 1. But the second, a customs and trade enforcement package, was approved more narrowly, with 78 voting in favor and 20 opposed.

The package was opposed by the Obama administration and many Republicans because it contains a measure that would crack down on currency manipulation -- particularly by China, the prime offender, but also by several other members of Obama's proposed sweeping Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement with 11 Pacific Rim nations.

With the currency crackdown passed, lawmakers were willing to let debate start on granting Obama what is known as trade promotion authority, voting 65 to 33 to proceed. TPA would allow the president to "fast-track" passage of the TPP deal and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a similarly massive agreement with Europe.

Opponents of the currency provision say it could spark a new trade war with China, and the administration argues that a number of the Asian trade partners would likely pull out of the broader TPP deal if currency manipulation is addressed.

But in the view of most Democrats, and some Republicans, there should be no new free trade deals if the United States is not going to address the advantages other countries and their businesses get from keeping their currencies artificially low.

"Now is the time to think deeply and comprehensively about this country's trade policy," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has taken the lead in fighting for the currency provision. "We have lost millions of jobs because of currency manipulation, which makes the imports of China about 33 percent cheaper."

While the White House opposes the measure -- and its future passage in the House of Representatives is far from certain -- Senate Democrats insisted that it be considered before they would debate giving Obama his fast track.

Democrats -- including staunch free-traders like Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden -- united to stall the fast-track bill earlier in the week by extracting a vote on the customs package. The package includes numerous other trade enforcement reforms, including bans on goods made with forced or child labor.

"I can't think of the last time the Senate spoke with such an emphatic voice on a trade issue," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), the prime architect of the Democrats' mini-revolt. "The simple message [is] we cannot have trade promotion without trade enforcement ... We shouldn't be passing new agreements while doing nothing to enforce existing laws and support American companies dealing with unfair competition."

Wyden, who made the entire push for the trade bills possible by cutting deals with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), insisted that the customs bill would ensure that the new trade deals are better than the failed pacts of the past.

"The NAFTA playbook, the playbook for trade in the 1990s, is gone, and it is a new day in trade policy," Wyden said before the votes. "The trade promotion act is not the trade policy of the 1990s, is not the North American Free Trade Agreement, and what we're going to do today is essentially starting with the question of how vigorous trade enforcement ought to be at the forefront of America's trade policy in 2015 and beyond."

With passage of the two measures on Thursday, the Senate was set to start debating the TPA bill that had been stalled earlier in the week. It was unclear how long that debate and amendment process would last, but fast-track backers were hoping to get it passed by June.

TPA faces an uncertain future in the House, where nearly all Democrats are opposed, as well as a strong contingent of Republicans.

---

No fast track for TPP
SUBHEAD: Senate Democrats, lead by Elizabeth Warren, knock down Obama's trade bill.

By Jennifer Bendery on 12 May 2015 for Huffington Post -
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/senate-democrats-trade-promotion-authority_n_7267600.html)


Image above: Senator Elizabeth Warren says President Obama has deceived the American people on the purpose of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. From (https://www.popularresistance.org/desperate-obama-administration-deceives-on-fast-track-tpp/).

Senate Democrats dealt a stinging blow to President Barack Obama Tuesday by blocking legislation that would grant him authority to fast-track international trade deals.

Democrats, including several who favor Obama's trade agenda, banded together to prevent the Senate from considering legislation that grants the president so-called Trade Promotion Authority, which would bar Congress from amending or filibustering trade agreements negotiated by the administration.

Fifty-two senators voted to start debate on the bill, short of the 60 needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Forty-five senators voted against the plan.

The fast-track bill is seen as essential to passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a secretive trade deal the Obama administration is negotiating with 11 other Asian-Pacific countries. Obama's rejection at the hands of his own party follows his bitter public feud with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) over his trade agenda. Republican leaders in the House and Senate support both TPA and TPP.

In the final hours before the vote, even Democrats who support the president’s trade agenda concluded that they could cut a better deal with Republicans by preventing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) from opening debate on the TPA bill. "We're telling everyone, 'Don't be a cheap date,'" said one Democratic aide who spoke anonymously to discuss strategy.

Tuesday's filibuster isn't the first setback for fast track. The TPA bill had been stalled in the Senate Finance Committee for months before Obama and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) cut a deal with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) that offered a handful of concessions in exchange for Democratic votes.

All of those concessions, however, were not attached to the TPA bill itself, but packaged into three other pieces of legislation that cleared the committee during the same hearing in late April.

On Tuesday, McConnell showed some willingness to vote on two of the bills together -- TPA and a bill on Trade Adjustment Assistance, a program that provides job training and financial aid to workers who lose their jobs from international trade.

"We can't debate any of the provisions senators want to consider if they vote to filibuster even getting on this bill," McConnell said.

McConnell also said he would allow votes on the other bills with Democratic support, but moving them as separate bills would give Obama and Republican leaders opportunities to torpedo those provisions without taking down the TPA bill.

Most of the Democratic concessions from the Wyden-Hatch talks are included in a trade enforcement bill. Some of the most important include a ban on imports made with forced labor, which is opposed by some Republicans, and a provision to fight currency manipulation by foreign governments, which is opposed by Obama.

"Our special concern this afternoon is about a lack of commitment on trade enforcement," Wyden said Tuesday. He accused Republicans of "legislative malpractice" for separating the bills with strong Democratic support from the TPA legislation.

"All they have to do is put the enforcement part into this," Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told HuffPost. "And there's a good reason that you want this enforced. You don't want child labor. You don't want people working 24 hours a day. I mean, this has to be part of the agreement. So to leave it out is a concern to us."

Speaking from the Senate floor, however, a visibly irritated Hatch said that separating the bills had been necessary. The currency manipulation provision authored by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) would ultimately undermine TPA, according to Hatch, and needed to be included in a separate bill, which could be dismembered, ignored or vetoed without touching TPA.

"Everybody knew that putting the Schumer amendment on the one bill would not be acceptable in the House and would not be acceptable to the president," Hatch said.

Earlier Tuesday, the White House downplayed the significance of the vote, but wouldn't say whether it supports Democrats' push to bundle the four bills.

"It is not unprecedented, to say the least, for the United States Senate to encounter procedural snafus," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in his daily briefing. “We're pleased to see Democrats and Republicans both indicating a willingness to work through these procedural challenges."

Fast track authority is not necessarily dead. McConnell has the authority to bring the legislation back after cutting deals with Democrats, but it now faces an uphill battle in the Senate and an even tougher fight in the House, where a substantial bloc of Republicans and the overwhelming majority of Democrats don't back the measure.

McConnell wants the trade deal to pass, but will be able to relish a round of headlines focused on Democratic in-fighting in the short-term. "Maybe he wanted to kill it," Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) said of fast track.

The Democratic blockade of the measure intensifies a long-simmering conflict with the president, who has made securing trade deals a key element of his legacy and his final two years in office.
The president and backers of the effort say it will open more markets for U.S. goods, level the playing field for American manufacturers, and serve as a check on China's global advance.

And they argue the Obama administration has figured out how to solve the problems of the much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement.

"Most people don't realize that we actually fixed a lot of what was wrong with NAFTA in the course of this," said Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), one of the few Democrats to stick with Obama on the vote. "We need to be negotiating in the present, in the present tense, and not the past."

But many Democrats and some Republicans fear the TPP in particular will facilitate currency manipulation by foreign competitors, erode labor and environmental standards at home and abroad, and shrink domestic jobs for the middle-class. The Obama administration treats the TPP negotiating texts as classified information, making it a crime for his trade critics to detail their concerns in public.

While Carper and Obama emphasize that TPP will include enforceable labor and environmental protections, both labor unions and environmental groups remain steadfastly opposed to the deal, citing lax enforcement of such trade safeguards under Obama's tenure.

Obama's feud with Warren has centered around the TPP's enforcement mechanism, known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement. The process allows foreign corporations to sue a country over laws or regulations that they believe unfairly threaten their investments. The cases are heard before an international tribunal with the power to levy financial penalties against nations.

While Obama has insisted that the process will not jeopardize U.S. standards, Warren and others worry it will curb future rulemaking, and indeed concerns that new rules would violate past trade agreements have become part of congressional debate in recent years.

The Obama administration has been in open war with Warren over this issue, with the president calling some of her concerns "pure speculation," "bunk" and "dishonest." Warren told The Washington Post on Monday she has yet to see a draft "that would do what the president says he has already accomplished."

Currency manipulation has been another major sticking point. In the past, a number of countries, including Japan, Malaysia and Singapore, which are all part of TPP, have kept the value of their currencies artificially low, which costs American jobs by making foreign goods cheaper. Two efforts to combat currency manipulation garnered bipartisan support in the Finance Committee.

The one authored by Brown and Schumer was approved as part of the trade enforcement bill, while another, authored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), was defeated.

Schumer predicted trouble for the administration if it didn't promise to protect the bill his amendment was attached to.

"Unless the administration says they won't veto it, they're going to lose a lot of votes on TPA, on the regular trade bill," Schumer told HuffPost earlier this month.

Unlike other Democratic demands, several Republicans support efforts to combat currency manipulation, as do many corporations, particularly in the steel and auto industries. Obama has warned that a poorly written currency provision could hamper the Federal Reserve's ability to conduct monetary policy, but many economists believe it would be simple to craft effective language that would give the Fed plenty of leeway.

The Schumer-Brown bill would require the U.S. Department of Commerce to consider the effects of currency manipulation on trade complaints brought by U.S. companies. Those calculations would be included in international trade cases.

"If you represent a state like mine and you see what's happened in the last 25 years, you have to be very skeptical of arguments that seem to say, 'Just go away, your concerns are unwarranted, we're gonna fix all the problems of the past,'” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.). "It's just a basic disagreement."


.

TPP/ TTIP trade strategy blowback

SUBHEAD: Democrats' frustration with President Obama boils over as trade bills' "fastrack" advances.

By Michael McAuliff/Laura Barron Lopez on 23 April 2015 for HuffPo  -
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/democrats-fast-track_n_7129276.html)


Image above: Grassroots resistance to these trade deals seem to be gaining momentum. From (http://bullhorn.nationofchange.org/grassroots_resistance_finally_overcome_fast_track_push).

Democrats' frustration with President Barack Obama's trade agenda bubbled over Thursday, with key opponents accusing their party's leader of putting more effort into a bid to aid corporate America than anything he's done for the middle class.

Calling it "maddening," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) told reporters that the Obama administration was putting on a full-court press unlike anything Democrats have ever seen in his presidency in order to win the authority to fast track enormous trade deals.

"I think if you could get my colleagues to be honest, on the Democratic side, with you -- and I think you can mostly -- they will say they've been talked to, approached, lobbied and maybe cajoled by more cabinet members on this issue than any issue since Barack Obama's been president," Brown said.

"That's just sad," he added.

Brown and Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) spoke to reporters about their frustrations a day after the Senate Finance Committee advanced a package of legislation that would grant Obama Trade Promotion Authority, as fast track is more formally known.

With it, the president would be able to use expedited procedures to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership with a dozen Pacific Rim nations and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe. Together, those two deals represent about two-thirds of the world's economy. Once Obama signs the pacts, Congress would then have no ability to amend or filibuster them, having only an up-or-down vote.

"I wish they put the same effort into minimum wage. I wish they put the same effort into Medicare at 55. I wish they put the same effort into some consumer strengthening on Dodd-Frank," Brown said.
Casey added that he thought it would be better if the administration took "that intensity to lobby folks on trade" and applied it to the Democrats' efforts to focus on the middle class.

"My God, we should be spending our time on that, not having the debate we're having," Casey said.
On the other side of Capitol Hill, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she is “disappointed” with the current bill, sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah.).

Pelosi backs a substitute version offered by Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), who vehemently opposes the current bill backed by Obama. But Ryan blocked Levin's measure Thursday as their committee debated the trade legislation, ruling Levin's proposal out of order.

“I've said I'm looking for a path to yes. We recognize there will be bumps in that road, that path,” Pelosi said, calling the bill put forward by Hatch, Wyden and Ryan “more like a pothole” on the path to yes.

Still, pressed on whether she was lobbying against the president, Pelosi said she isn’t.
“I'm not lobbying against anything. I'm lobbying for a positive trade promotion and a positive bill,” she said. “So I'm not lobbying anything except for us to arrive at an agreement where we can have 150 Democratic votes for the bill. But that may not be possible.”

The administration and GOP backers say the massive trade deals are needed to boost U.S. exports, increase foreign markets and combat the growing influence of China. They also argue that the increased economic activity will boost jobs and the economy, and say the TPA measure includes formal negotiating objectives that will ensure U.S. workers compete on a level playing field.
Yet most Democrats want obligations written into the law that trading partners must live up to, not just objectives.

Pelosi added that she and other Democrats within her caucus are concerned with currency manipulation, environment, food safety, agriculture and conflict resolution within the current bill.
The minority leader aims to unify Democrats behind the ideas in Levin's competing measure, hoping they can bring Republicans to the negotiating table. The effort pits her against Obama.

Brown wasn't willing to guess why Obama as president had come so far from his stance on trade as a candidate.

"I was sitting in Cleveland with my wife in Cleveland State University watching the debate between Obama and Clinton, and they both said they were going to renegotiate NAFTA," Brown said. "So ask him about his evolution on this."

UPDATE: Wednesday night at 9:56 p.m. -- The House Ways and Means Committee passed its version of the trade legislation later Thursday, setting the stage for both the full House and the Senate to take up the measures.

Like with the Senate Finance Committee, a number of Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee crossed the aisle to back Obama and vote with the GOP, but most expressed frustration.
"I am convinced that President Obama would not have supported this six years ago when he was in the Senate," said Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), before the fast-track bill passed 25 to 13.


.

Regime change in Cuba

SUBHEAD: The Cuban Revolution intended to free Cubans from foreign domination and from exploitation.

By Craig Roberts on 19 December 2014 for WOrld News Trust-
(http://worldnewstrust.com/regime-change-in-cuba-paul-craig-roberts)


Image above: Front end of a Studebaker taxi in Havana as old as a US senior citizen. From Huffington Post article below.

Normalization of relations with Cuba is not the result of a diplomatic breakthrough or a change of heart on the part of Washington.

Normalization is a result of U.S. corporations seeking profit opportunities in Cuba, such as developing broadband Internet markets in Cuba.

Before the American left and the Cuban government find happiness in the normalization, they should consider that with normalization comes American money and a U.S. Embassy. The American money will take over the Cuban economy.

The embassy will be a home for CIA operatives to subvert the Cuban government. The embassy will provide a base from which the United States can establish NGOs whose gullible members can be called to street protest at the right time, as in Kiev, and the embassy will make it possible for Washington to groom a new set of political leaders.

In short, normalization of relations means regime change in Cuba. Soon Cuba will be another of Washington’s vassal states.

Conservatives and Republicans such as Peggy Noonan and Senator Marco Rubio, have made it clear that Castro is “a bad man who turned an almost-paradise into a floating prison” and that normalizing relations with Cuba will not “grant the Castro regime legitimacy.”

Noonan forgets about Guantanamo, Washington’s offshore torture prison in Cuba where hundreds of innocent people have been held and tortured for a large part of their lives by the exceptional Americans.

The Cuban Revolution intended to free Cubans from foreign domination and from exploitation by foreign capitalists. Whatever the likelihood of success, a half century of Washington’s hostility has as much to do with Cuba’s economic problems as communist ideology.

The self-righteousness of Americans is extreme. Noonan is happy. American money is now going to defeat Castro’s life work. And if the money doesn’t do it, the CIA will. The agency has long been waiting to avenge the Bay of Pigs, and normalization of relations brings the opportunity.

• Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

---

Cuban tourism expected to rise

By Ben Fox on 22 December 2014 for Huffington Post - 
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/cuba-tourism_n_6365884.html)

As the U.S. and Cuba begin to normalize relations for the first time in half a century, some Americans are already roaming the streets of Old Havana, attending dance exhibitions and talks on architecture as they take part in scripted cultural tours that can cost more than a decent used car back home.

The U.S. visitors are participants in the highly regulated "people-to-people" travel that President Barack Obama permitted in 2011 in one of his first moves toward detente with Cuba. The program aims to increase interaction with ordinary Cubans without creating uncomfortable images of Americans lounging on beaches in a single-party state. The tours tend to attract people sympathetic to improving ties with President Raul Castro's government.

"It's pre-selected for people who already want there to be change," said Jonathan Anderson, a 33-year-old from Denver on an eight-day excursion that cost $6,000 per person. "People aren't coming here to see how evil Castro is. They are coming here to reinforce ties."

Travel experts said Sunday that the new opening to Cuba that Obama announced four days earlier goes far beyond the 2011 reform and could sharply increase U.S. tourism in the coming years.
Among the changes, Obama directed the Treasury Department to expand the categories of travelers who can go to Cuba without requesting a license from the department first.

Soon to be covered by a standing, blanket travel permit are participants in educational activities, the category that covers most people-to-people travel. Experts said that eliminating the licensing requirement could greatly reduce the costs of organized tours by cutting paperwork. It also could, perhaps more importantly, allow huge numbers of Americans to legally travel on their own to Cuba.

In the past, people-to-people travelers could only go to Cuba under a license obtained by a travel company in a time-consuming process followed by lengthy government verification that travelers weren't engaging in inappropriate leisure tourism.

"We can't go to the beach and drink mojitos all day," said Tony Pandola, who was leading Anderson's trip with Global Expeditions of San Francisco, California. "That doesn't have any sort of objective as an educational or cultural exchange."

Now, according to travel experts awaiting regulations expected within weeks, it appears tour companies will be able to head to Cuba and simply give the U.S. government their word that they're engaging in educational travel and not ordinary tourism. Some think the new "general license" travel permits would apply to individuals, allowing people to go on their own.

"As long as with integrity they can say they're going to engage with the Cuban people and learn about Cuba and talk about the United States then they don't have to do anything other than say that's what they're doing," said John McAuliff, executive director of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development, which has organized trips in the past.

The easing of tourism regulations is a gamble for both the U.S. and Cuba.

Obama said Wednesday that people-to-people travel was a way to "empower the Cuban people." At the same time, a U.S. tourism surge could funnel sorely needed cash to a tourism industry run mostly by what Obama described Friday as "a regime that represses its people."

Experts don't expect American tourists to flood Cuba immediately after the new regulations are published. The daunting complexity of the legal details and the possibility, even remote, of fines for violations will probably mean most new travel to Cuba will still go through tour organizers. Those organizers are currently required to do business with state-run travel companies, meaning tour agendas are now almost entirely under the purview of the Cuban government.

People-to-people travel can cost $2,000 to $6,000 per person and tour organizers are supposed to keep the formal itinerary full to meet U.S. regulations. "We can go out and see things but we have to conform to the rules," Anderson said.

General tourism to Cuba is still prohibited by the half-century old trade embargo, and it would take an act of Congress to lift it. But that hasn't stopped many Americans from traveling to Cuba through a third country and keeping quiet about it when they go through immigration and customs upon arrival back in the United States.

The number of U.S. travelers to Cuba has increased steadily each year, from about 245,000 in 2007 to nearly 600,000 last year, according to a report by the U.S.-based Havana Consulting Group. The most recent statistics from Cuba's government show that about 73,500 Americans visited in 2011, but that doesn't include dual citizens who it counts as Cuban.

Tom Popper, president of tour organizer Insight Cuba, said he thinks many new travelers to Cuba will take organized tours because it can be difficult for an individual to organize a trip that meets Treasury Department requirements.

Still, eliminating the license requirement will remove a significant bureaucratic hurdle, according to Popper, whose last application was more than 700 pages long.
"This is such welcome news to us," Popper said.

And the appeal of visiting Cuba goes beyond education to some Americans.

"I'm looking for a warm climate, it's historical obviously and it's also a place that most Americans don't go," said Katja Von Tiesenhausen, a 41-year-old emergency room doctor from Boston, taking part in another tour.


.

The Dollar & the Deep State

SUBHEAD: Only senior military or intelligence officers have any realistic grasp of the Deep State and its Empire.

By Charles Hugh Smith on 24 February 2014 for Of Two Minds -
(http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/the-dollar-and-deep-state.html)


Image above: Illustration showing corporate, military, political operatives of the Deep State - formerly known as the Military-Industrial Complex that now includes media, consumerism, food production, energy, etc.. From (http://voicesweb.org/nsa-surveillance-and-military-industrial-complex-9531).

At a very superficial level, some pundits have sought a Master Control in the Trilateral Commission or similar elite gatherings. Such groups are certainly one cell within the Empire, but each is no more important than other parts, just as killer T-cells are just one of dozens of cell types in the immune system.

One key feature of the Deep State is that it makes decisions behind closed doors and the surface government simply ratifies or approves the decisions. A second key feature is that the Deep State decision-makers have access to an entire world of secret intelligence.

Here is an example from the late 1960s, when the mere existence of the National Security Agency (NSA) was a state secret. Though the Soviet Union made every effort to hide its failures in space, it was an ill-kept secret that a number of their manned flights failed in space and the astronauts died.

The NSA had tapped the main undersea cables, and may have already had other collection capabilities in place, for the U.S. intercepted a tearful phone call from Soviet Leader Brezhnev to the doomed astronauts, a call made once it had become clear there was no hope of their capsule returning to Earth.

Former congressional staff member Mike Lofgren described the Deep State in his recent essay Anatomy of the Deep State: 

 There is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.

The term “Deep State” was coined in Turkey and is said to be a system composed of high-level elements within the intelligence services, military, security, judiciary and organized crime.

I use the term to mean a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.

 I would say that only senior military or intelligence officers have any realistic grasp of the true scope, power and complexity of the Deep State and its Empire.

Those with no grasp of military matters cannot possibly understand the Deep State. If you don't have any real sense of the scope of the National Security State, you are in effect touching the foot of the elephant and declaring the creature is perhaps two feet tall.

The Deep State arose in World War II, as the mechanisms of electoral governance had failed to prepare the nation for global war. The goal of winning the war relegated the conventional electoral government to rubber-stamping Deep State decisions and policies.

After the war, the need to stabilize (if not "win") the Cold War actually extended the Deep State. Now, the global war on terror (GWOT) is the justification.

One way to understand the Deep State is to trace the vectors of dependency. The Deep State needs the nation to survive, but the nation does not need the Deep State to survive (despite the groupthink within the Deep State that "we are the only thing keeping this thing together.")

The nation would survive without the Federal Reserve, but the Federal Reserve would not survive without the Deep State. The Fed is not the Deep State; it is merely a tool of the Deep State.

This brings us to the U.S. dollar and the Deep State. The Deep State doesn't really care about the signal noise of the economy--mortgage rates, minimum wages, unemployment, etc., any more that it cares about the political circus ("step right up to the Clinton sideshow, folks") or the bickering over regulations by various camps.

What the Deep State cares about are the U.S. dollar, water, energy, minerals and access to those commodities (alliances, sea lanes, etc.). As I have mentioned before, consider the trade enabled by the reserve currency (the dollar): we print/create money out of thin air and exchange this for oil, commodities, electronics, etc.

If this isn't the greatest trade on Earth--exchanging paper for real stuff-- what is?While I am sympathetic to the strictly financial arguments that predict hyper-inflation and the destruction of the U.S. dollar, they are in effect touching the toe of the elephant.

The financial argument is this: we can print money but we can't print more oil, coal, ground water, etc., and so eventually the claims on real wealth (i.e. dollars) will so far exceed the real wealth that the claims on wealth will collapse.

So far as this goes, it makes perfect sense. But let's approach this from the geopolitical-strategic perspective of the Deep State: why would the Deep State allow policies that would bring about the destruction of its key global asset, the U.S. dollar?

There is simply no way the Deep State is going to support policies that would fatally weaken the dollar, or passively watch a subsidiary of the Deep State (the Fed) damage the Deep State itself.

The strictly financial arguments for hyper-inflation and the destruction of the U.S. dollar implicitly assume a system that operates like a line of dominoes: if the Fed prints money, that will inevitably start the dominoes falling, with the final domino being the reserve currency.

Setting aside the complexity of Triffin's Paradox and other key dynamics within the reserve currency, we can safely predict that the Deep State will do whatever is necessary to maintain the dollar's reserve status and purchasing power.

Understanding the "Exorbitant Privilege" of the U.S. Dollar (November 19, 2012)

What Will Benefit from Global Recession? The U.S. Dollar (October 9, 2012)

Recall Triffin's primary point: countries like China that run trade surpluses cannot host reserve currencies, as that requires running large structural trade deficits.

In my view, the euro currency is a regional experiment in the "bancor" model,where a supra-national currency supposedly eliminates Triffin's Paradox. It has failed, partly because supra-national currencies don't resolve Triffin's dilemma, they simply obfuscate it with sovereign credit imbalances that eventually moot the currency's ability to function as intended.

Many people assume the corporatocracy rules the nation, but the corporatocracy is simply another tool of the Deep State. Many pundits declare that the Powers That Be want a weaker dollar to boost exports, but this sort of strictly financial concern is only of passing interest to the Deep State.
The corporatocracy (banking/financialization, etc.) has captured the machinery of regulation and governance, but these are surface effects of the electoral government that rubber-stamps policies set by the Deep State.

The corporatocracy is a useful global tool of the Deep State, but its lobbying of the visible government is mostly signal noise to the Deep State. The only sectors that matter are the defense, energy, agriculture and international financial sectors that supply the Imperial Project and project power.

What would best serve the Deep State is a dollar that increases in purchasing power and extends the Deep State's power. It is widely assumed that the Fed creating a few trillion dollars has created a massive surplus of dollars that will guarantee a slide in the dollar's purchasing power and its demise as the reserve currency.

Those who believe the Fed's expansion of its balance sheet will weaken the dollar are forgetting that from the point of view of the outside world, the Fed's actions are not so much expanding the supply of dollars as offsetting the contraction caused by deleveraging.

I would argue that the dollar will soon be scarce, and the simple but profound laws of supply and demand will push the dollar's value not just higher but much higher. The problem going forward for exporting nations will be the scarcity of dollars.

If we consider the Fed's policies (tapering, etc.) solely within the narrow confines of the corporatocracy or a strictly financial context, we are in effect touching the foot of the elephant and declaring the creature to be short and roundish. The elephant is the Deep State and its Imperial Project.

See also:
Huffington Post: The Quiet Coup - No, not Egypt. Here. 7/9/13

.

TPP is NAFTA on steroids

SOURCE: Brad Parsons (mauibrad@hotmail.com)
SUBHEAD: Nations would be held to much stricter and more extremes intellectual property rights... like on GMOs.

By Henry Curtis on 23 November 2013 for Ililani Media -
(http://ililanimedia.blogspot.com/2013/11/nafta-on-steroids.html)


Image above: Demonstration against the TPP agreement. From article below.

Secret negotiations are occurring among Asian and American political and corporate elites that could increase the gap between the powerful and the rest of society. The

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the latest in a series of treaties to make the world more profitable for multinational corporations.

Back in 1974 Congress limited their own power by enacting legislation which stated that they could approve or disapprove trade treaties negotiated by the President, BUT they could not amend them or delay the process with a filibuster.

In 2007 Congress ended the Fast Track Negotiating Authority or trade Promotion authority(TPA) process.

President Obama wants Congress to reauthorize the TPA for both the current Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and the future United States-European Community Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

TPP talks involve trade negotiations between twelve countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Peru, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States.

The TPP is being pushed by multinational special interests meeting in secret. Multinational CEOs get to see documents and mix with politicians, the public does not.

On November 12, 2013 twenty-two House Republicans announced their opposition to giving the president Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority for approving the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The next day 151 House Democrats including Hawaii Representatives Tulsi Gabbard and Colleen Hanabusa also sent a letter to President Obama announcing that they too opposed fast track authority.

On November 13, 2013 WikiLeaks released one chapter of the secret TPP negotiations and also the positions of each of the 12 negotiating nations. The Chapter focuses on internet services, civil liberties, medicines, publishers and biological patents.

An analysis of positions reveals that the U.S. and its allies Japan and Australia are taking extreme hard-line positions.

The TPP negotiations have resumed in Salt Lake City, Utah. The governments of the countries involved in the negotiations are not able to view the text while it is being discussed by the multinational corporations and their corporate lawyers, meaning that the public has little to no input on what will be included in the final version.

November 21, 2013 the Fair Deal Coalition sent an open-letter to all participants, noting that “the TPP is one of the most far-reaching international free trade agreements in history. We know from leaked TPP draft texts that participating nations would be held to much stricter and more extreme copyright laws than now exist under current national laws. These new rules would criminalize much online activity, invade citizens’ privacy, and significantly impact our ability to share and collaborate online.”

The Fair Deal Coalition favors greater access to knowledge, innovation, and economic opportunity, respect for fundamental rights like due process, privacy, and free speech and recognizing the realities and opportunities of the Internet. (https://openmedia.org/news/broad-coalition-tpp-governments-pull-provisions-restrict-access-knowledge-and-open-innovation)

The TPP Welcoming Committee, a broad coalition of consumer, environmental and labor groups, will be demonstrating behind police barriers.

A few years ago Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiators met in Hawaii as part of the 2011 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings.

At that time I interviewed a number of Hawaii State Legislators. None of them had any inkling of what was being discussed in the TPP negotiations, but the general consensus was that we should trust our political leaders.

As a member of Congress, Neil Abercrombie strongly opposed free trade agreements. As Governor he did a 180º turn.

Governor Abercrombie held a press conference at the Hawai`i Convention Center on November 7, 2011, the first day of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings. He stressed high tech, the military, astronomy, and the politically connected. He concluded by saying that everything is rosy and to ignore those who say otherwise. He did not mention labor, workers, or the general public.

I asked the Governor: “Are there any downsides to APEC?” and he replied “Not for us.” He noted that “There are a whole lot of people, I'm sorry to say, [with] a vested emotional interest in always seeing us on the losing side.”

He then went over to the HECO booth. “Have you talked to the Chinese about money?” Abercrombie asked, and seeing perplexed faces, he added “They have money.” He then left to talk to others.

An alternative view was presented by Reverend Samuel Lawrence Domingo, Pastor of Keolumana United Methodist Church, and President of Faith Action for Community Equity (FACE Oahu).

We welcome all of the delegates to APEC 

with Aloha. However we cannot keep silent about the subject of the talks that world leaders are engaging in while they are here. APEC is the Pacific version of an emerging system of supra-national governance – economic globalization - that is eroding the basis of national identity and sovereignty. Free Trade Agreements subject the laws that cities, states, provinces, and even nations make to an unelected set of international financiers. These finance capitalists from Goldman Sachs to Singapore’s Sovereign Wealth Fund are gathering in Hawaii next week and making plans that could, if passed without changes, restrict our ability to govern ourselves. This is an area of grave concern for churches, temples and other institutions of civil society.

When billionaire candidate Ross Perot ran for office he predicted that after passage of NAFTA, we’d hear a giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the country — and 20 years later there are 2 million less American manufacturing jobs thanks mostly to NAFTA, GATT, and their successor agreements. The net effect of these agreements has been to create a worldwide race to the bottom, so that investors move factories to the countries with the least restrictions on child or slave labor, the least environmental and safety standards. Meanwhile the terms of the trade deal forces us to accept these goods as if they were made in our own country.…


The effect of the economic globalization represented by APEC is to flatten the difference between nations and cultures. It disintegrates values, customs and beliefs that are local. In Hawai’i we highly value the sense of local; it is a word charged with meaning for us. And we’ve all watched over the years as that sense of local identity has weakened. Liberty House becomes Macy’s, Hyatt becomes Goldman Sachs, the Wisteria disappears, and Honolulu gets another Cheesecake Factory. When an international hedge fund buys Turtle Bay, they ban the shaka and try to close the beaches to local people

Lauren Ballesteros of UNITE HERE! Local 5 noted that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on steroids. As a result of NAFTA, almost one in four American manufacturing jobs were outsourced.

The flip side of this statement was made by business leaders at the APEC CEO Summit and the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) meeting.

Tony Nowell, Chairman of the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) Regional Economic Integration Working Group asserted that labor should be moved across countries with temporary work visas.

"What we find as business people as we cross boarders and move around economies, one of the greatest impediments to effective trade and to efficient business is that we are dealing with different regulations in almost every economy that we move into. We’re not asking for every regulation to be the same.

We are asking for …the issue of what we call labor mobility.

As economies grow they don’t all grow at the same rate, and of course you have labor at times, which is in surplus in one economy, and a deficit in another economy, and there needs to be the opportunity for labor mobility across the region, so that the labor can go to where the demand is. Too often this comes up against a roadblock because our officials immediately see this as an immigration issue. It is not an immigration issue. This is about the temporary flow of labor that is a key focus for us

Native Rights
Free prior and informed consent (FPIC) and indigenous rights have come under attack during negotiations and in implementation of several free trade agreements. To multinationals, indigenous rights are trade barriers and need to be struck down at the international level.

Mexico, Canada and the United States negotiated the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As a precondition for Mexico to enter NAFTA, the Mexican government was forced to amend its national constitution. The key provision that had to be amended dealt with the rights of outsiders to buy communal native lands and kick natives off the land for illegally occupying their own land.

NAFTA was ratified in 1994. Following an uprising by the Zapatistas, the Mexican Government signed the
San Andrés Accords which in theory granted autonomy, recognition, and rights to the indigenous population of Mexico. However what is on paper has largely been ignored.

---

TPP and Monsanto
SUBHEAD: There appears not to be a specific agricultural chapter in the TPP. Instead, rules affecting food systems and food safety are woven throughout the text.

By Barbara Chicherio on 24 June 2013 for Nation of Change -
(http://www.nationofchange.org/trans-pacific-partnership-and-monsanto-1372074730)

Something is looming in the shadows that could help erode our basic rights and contaminate our food. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has the potential to become the biggest regional Free Trade Agreement in history, both in economic size and the ability to quietly add more countries in addition to those originally included. As of 2011 its 11 countries accounted for 30 percent of the world’s agricultural exports. Those countries are the US, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Viet Nam. Recently, Japan has joined the negotiations.

Six hundred US corporate advisors have had input into the TPP. The draft text has not been made available to the public, press or policy makers. The level of secrecy around this agreement is unparalleled. The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark while representatives of US corporations are being consulted and privy to the details.

The chief agricultural negotiator for the US is the former Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddique. If ratified the TPP would impose punishing regulations that give multinational corporations unprecedented right to demand taxpayer compensation for policies that corporations deem a barrier to their profits.

NationofChange is a 501(c)3 nonprofit funded directly by our readers. Please make a small donation to support our work.

There appears not to be a specific agricultural chapter in the TPP. Instead, rules affecting food systems and food safety are woven throughout the text. This agreement is attempting to establish corporations’ rights to skirt domestic courts and laws and sue governments directly with taxpayers paying compensation and fines directly from the treasury.

Though TPP content remains hidden, here are some things we do know:

• Members of Congress are concerned that the TPP would open the door to imports without resolving questions around food safety or environmental impacts on its production.
• Procurement rules specifically forbid discrimination based on the quality of production.  This means that public programs that favor the use of sustainably produced local foods in school lunch programs could be prohibited.
• The labeling of foods containing GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) will not be allowed.  Japan currently has labeling laws for GMOs in food.  Under the TPP Japan would no longer be able to label GMOs.  This situation is the same for New Zealand and Australia.  In the US we are just beginning to see some progress towards labeling GMOs.  Under the TPP GMO labels for US food would not be allowed.
• In April 2013, Peru placed a 10-year moratorium on GMO foods and plants.  This prohibits the import, production and use of GMOs in foods and GMO plants and is aimed at safeguarding Peru’s agricultural diversity.  The hope is to prevent cross-pollination with non-GMO crops and to ban GMO crops like Bt corn.  What will become of Peru’s moratorium if the TPP is passed?
• There is a growing resistance to Monsanto’s agricultural plans in Vietnam.  Monsanto (the US corporation controlling an estimated 90% of the world seed genetics) has a dark history with Vietnam.  Many believe that Monsanto has no right to do business in a country where Monsanto’s product Agent Orange is estimated to have killed 400,000 Vietnamese, deformed another 500,000 and stricken another 2 million with various diseases.

Legacies of other trade agreements that serve as a warning about the TPP have a history of displacing small farmers and destroying local food economies. Ten years following the passage of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) 1.5 million Mexican farmers became bankrupt because they could not compete with the highly subsidized US corn entering the Mexican market.

In the same 10 years Mexico went from a country virtually producing all of its own corn to a country that now imports at least half of this food staple. Mexican consumers are now paying higher prices for Monsanto’s GMO corn.

With little or no competition for large corporations Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta now control 57 percent of the commercial food market.

While the TPP is in many ways like NAFTA and other existing trade agreements, it appears that the corporations have learned from previous experience. They are carefully crafting the TPP to insure that citizens of the involved countries have no control over food safety, what they will be eating, where it is grown, the conditions under which food is grown and the use of herbicides and pesticides.

If the TPP is adopted the door will be open wider for human rights and environmental abuse. Some of the things we should expect to see include:

• more large scale farming and more monocultures;
• destruction of local economies;
• no input into how our food is grown or what we will be eating;
• more deforestation;
• increased use of herbicides and pesticides;
• increased patenting of life forms;
• more GMO plants and foods; and
• no labeling of GMOs in food.

Together these are a step backwards for human rights and a giant step towards Monsanto’s control of our food.

Please pass the word to others about the TPP as most Americans are unaware of this trade agreement or its ominous effects if passed.


See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Obama's Third World USA 5/18/13


.