Group items tagged

I haven't been keeping up lately on the Doha Round of trade agreement negotiations. But generally speaking, the WTO series of trade agreements have been of, by, and for moneyed interests. Which is why their get-togethers get picketed a lot. Money talks at the WTO; not mere mortals.  When this round concludes, there will be in the U.S. a very large package of treaties delivered to the Senate for ratification, followed by ratification conditioned on the President certifying that certain Congressional limitations have been achieved, whereupon enabling legislation will automatically kick in. For example, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. 2501, et seq., , ushered in the following: [to be filled in on Diigo because the list is so long].  

List of WTO (and one agreement with Hungary) Agreements ratified and enabled by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979: (1) The Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (relating to customs valuation). (2) The Agreement on Government Procurement. (3) The Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. (4) The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (relating to product standards). (5) The Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI, and XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (relating to subsidies and countervailing measures). (6) The Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (relating to antidumping measures). (7) The International Dairy Arrangement. (8) Certain bilateral agreements on cheese, other dairy products, and meat. (9) The Arrangement Regarding Bovine Meat. (10) The Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft. (11) Texts Concerning a Framework for the Conduct of World Trade. (12) Certain Bilateral Agreements to Eliminate the Wine-Gallon Method of Tax and Duty Assessment. (13) Certain other agreements to be reflected in Schedule XX of the United States to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, including Agreements- (A) to Modify United States Watch Marking Requirements, and to Modify United States Tariff Nomenclature and Rates of Duty for Watches, (B) to Provide Duty-Free Treatment for Agricultural and Horticultural Machinery, Equipment, Implements, and Parts Thereof, and (C) to Modify United States Tariff Nomenclature and Rates of Duty for Ceramic Tableware.

Hawks on all fronts trying to blow up the negotiations with Iran, including inside Iran. However, the article errs somewhat in stating that the Iranian bill would violate the interim agreement between Iran and the PF+1 nations. The bill as reported would only take effect if new sanctions are adopted by the U.S. In the interim agreement, Obama committed to vetoing any new sanctions enacted during the period of the interim agreement. So the actual position of the Iranian legislators is that the U.S. has to violate the agreement before the bill would take effect.   But I think this is a blunder anyway. Iran has no need to enrich uranium beyond 20 per cent, which is the maximum allowed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Agreement. This bit of grandstanding will be used by Iran's enemies as "proof" that Iran has nuclear weapon ambitions.   However, I'm sensitive to the fact that this is an article in The Times of Israel, which often puts a rather overt Zionist spin on news. I'll be watching for less prejudiced sources on this issue.

In the U.S., we are led by psychopaths.

"Zarif noted that the deal would indeed be an international agreement adopted by the U.N. Security Council, which a new administration would be obliged to uphold - and that any attempt by the White House or Congress to abrogate, unilaterally modify or impede such an agreement would be a breach of U.S. obligations." Apparently, I was wrong. I thought Obama would work around the demand for Congressional input by letting the other P5+1 members ink the deal but the U.S. not signing. But a U.N. Security Council Resolution is even stronger medicine for the War Party, since the SC has the power to forbid economic sanctions as well. Take that, Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Boehner!

Could anything make it more clear that Netanyahu's speech to Congress was only to aid in his reelection in Israel? Israel has been briefed on the negotiations all along, so Netanyahu surely knew that the goal was a Security Council resolution that Congress could not affect. And while admittedly, the fact that it was a Security Council Resolution in the making was not widely known, are we to believe that the Speaker of the House of Representatives did not know that too? So are now not down to the entire spectacle of Netanyahu's speech being political, Netanyahu electioneering and Boehner mud-slinging the President?

Soundslike it's official. U.N. Security Council Resolution is the chosen route past the Israel Firsters in Congress. But notice that Reuters is saying that "Republicans" in Congress are the barrier. Is that a sign that Repubswill be painted as the bad guys here? As in Israel's wants are now a partisan issue? It's factually incorrect. Plenty of Democrats also bow toward AIPAC headquarters  five times a day while praying for Zionist campaign contributions. 

Here's hoping that the Jirga or Afghan Parliament will nix the deal as Iraq did, by refusing to grant U.S. troops and contractors immunity from Afghan criminal law. I read the leaked U.S. markup version of the deal two days ago. It would extend the U.S. Afghan War until 2024 or beyond. Kerry and Obama might be upset; both announced that Kerry had signed the deal this morning. According to Kerry, U.S. involvement will gradually wind down to about 15K troops plus who-knows-how-many contractors and subcontractors. Number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan when Obama took office: 26,607. Number of U.S. troops there as of October, 2013: roughly 51,000. Our Nobel Peace Prize Prez who jokes to his staff about how many people he kills. Ha, ha. Funny. Not.  Let's remember that as recently as June, Obama said that the U.S. could have all troops out before the present deal expires in 2014 if there's no new agreement. I can hope.

High comedy from the office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The USTR's press release is here along with a link to its report. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2014/March/USTR-Targets-Telecommunications-Trade-Barriers The USTR is upset because the E.U. is aiming to build a digital communications network that does not route internal digital traffic outside the E.U., to limit the NSA's ability to surveil Europeans' communications. Part of the plan is to build an E.U.-centric cloud that is not susceptible to U.S. court orders. This plan does not, of course, sit well with U.S.-based cloud service providers.  Where the comedy comes in is that the USTR is making threats to go to the World Trade organization to block the E.U. move under the authority of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). But that treaty provides, in article XIV, that:  "Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where like conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on trade in services, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any Member of measures: ... (c)      necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement including those relating to:   ... (ii)     the protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and dissemination of personal data and the protection of confidentiality of individual records and accounts[.]" http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/26-gats_01_e.htm#articleXIV   The E.U., in its Treaty on Human Rights, has very strong privacy protections for digital communications. The USTR undoubtedly knows all this, and that the WTO Appellate Panel's judges are of the European mold, sticklers for protection of human rights and most likely do not appreciate being subjects o

In related news, the Dept. of Justice announced that it would begin using its "collateral consequences" analysis to decisions whether to charge human beings with crimes, taking into account the hardships imposed on innocent family members and other dependents if a person were sentenced to prison.  No? Sounds like corporations have more rights than human beings, yes?

"What You Can Do About Vote Fraud Posted on November 17, 2012 by Dr. Eowyn | 2 Comments excerpt: There is now massive compelling evidence that Democrats committed vote fraud in the 2012 presidential election, especially in the four battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. See FOTM's posts chronicling the extensive pervasive fraud by going to our "2012 Election" page below our FOTM masthead, and click on those post links colored neon green. But the Republican Party won't do anything about the fraud, because it is legally constrained by an agreement the Republican National Committee (RNC) made with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 1982, to settle a lawsuit. The agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limits the RNC's ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court's approval in advance. Nor can the RNC engage in "ballot security activities" - defined as "ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud." Read more about the agreement HERE. Simply put, the GOP is neutered. But we ordinary Americans can do something about vote fraud, in our separate states. FOTM's Hardnox has been urging us to contact our state's attorney general. Here's how." Dr. Eowyn provides a list of all 50 State Attorneys Generals for the purposes of direct mail.  Mailing addresses and phone numbers!  Get writing Patriots.  It's now or never.

Another take on it from EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/europes-court-justice-nsa-surveilance Expected since the Court's Advocate General released an opinion last week, presaging today's opinion.  Very big bucks involved behind the scenes because removing U.S.-based internet companies from the scene in the E.U. would pave the way for growth of E.U.-based companies.  The way forward for the U.S. companies is even more dicey because of a case now pending in the U.S.  The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is about to decide a related case in which Microsoft was ordered by the lower court to produce email records stored on a server in Ireland. . Should the Second Circuit uphold the order and the Supreme Court deny review, then under the principles announced today by the Court in the E.U., no U.S.-based company could ever be allowed to have "possession, custody, or control" of the data of E.U. citizens. You can bet that the E.U. case will weigh heavily in the Second Circuit's deliberations.  The E.U. decision is by far and away the largest legal event yet flowing out of the Edward Snowden disclosures, tectonic in scale. Up to now, Congress has succeeded in confining all NSA reforms to apply only to U.S. citizens. But now the large U.S. internet companies, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Dropbox, etc., face the loss of all Europe as a market. Congress *will* be forced by their lobbying power to extend privacy protections to "non-U.S. persons."  Thank you again, Edward Snowden.

The drive for a US/UK military strike on Syria is beginning to bog down. The UN Security Council could not reach agreement on a resolution to authorize the strike; resistance in Congress is rising with a call for full debate before launching such a strike, and I just watched the UK House of Commons forbid UK participation in the strike. ("Heated moments in the UK debate" video is on the linked page.) Unsurprising in the U.S. because last weekend's Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that public resistance to U.S. military action against Syria is actually stiffening, with only 9 percent supporting military action. Obama has scheduled a telephone conference with key members of Congress to encourage them not to interfere, but reportedly the phone conference will use non-secure connections so classified information will not be discussed.  Personally, I want the raw intelligence data on the alleged use of sarin by the Syrian government to be publicly released, including audio recordings, so that it can be subjected to debate by the public. Based on my monitoring of news on the Syrian conflict for more than a year, it seems clear that the Syrian foreign "rebels" have the ability to manufacture Sarin and have used it repeatedly in Syria. And the Syrian government has very strong incentives not to use Sarin, particularly at the moment the gas attack occurred. A UN team had just arrived, at Syria invitation, to investigate prior incidents involving alleged gas attacks in which both sides blamed the other. Not a good time for the Syrian government to launch such an attack but a great time for the rebels to stage a false flag attack, blaming the Syrian government.  So I want to see the evidence Obama claims to be relying upon. Supposedly, it is an intercept of a panicked conversation between a Syrian commander and a lower officer in the field. But that too could have been staged. Making it public would go a long way toward resolving the authenticity issue and determining whether it w