Skip to main content

Home/ Socialism and the End of the American Dream/ Group items tagged agreement

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
3More

ITAR-TASS: World - WTO approves Bali package of agreements - 0 views

en.itar-tass.com/710687 WTO treaties trade agreements Doha-round
shared by Paul Merrell on 08 Dec 13 - No Cached
  • World Trade Organization member countries have approved the Bali package of agreements. The decision was traditionally taken by a consensus. The countries officially adopted the agreement on trade procedures, five agrarian documents, including a food security agreement and a declaration on export competition, and four documents to support least developed countries. The Bali package forms a basis to conclude the Doha round of WTO talks, deadlocked since 2008, to liberalize world trade. The talks are aimed at lowering tariffs on trade in agricultural products and industrial goods.
  • Paul Merrell on 08 Dec 13
     
    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].  
  • Paul Merrell on 08 Dec 13
     
    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.
7More

The secret corporate takeover of trade agreements | Business | The Guardian - 0 views

www.theguardian.com/...e-takeover-of-trade-agreements New-World-Order TTP
shared by Gary Edwards on 13 May 15 - No Cached
  • The US and the world are engaged in a great debate about new trade agreements. Such pacts used to be called free-trade agreements; in fact, they were managed trade agreements, tailored to corporate interests, largely in the US and the EU. Today, such deals are more often referred to as partnerships, as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But they are not partnerships of equals: the US effectively dictates the terms. Fortunately, America’s “partners” are becoming increasingly resistant. It is not hard to see why. These agreements go well beyond trade, governing investment and intellectual property as well, imposing fundamental changes to countries’ legal, judicial, and regulatory frameworks, without input or accountability through democratic institutions. Perhaps the most invidious – and most dishonest – part of such agreements concerns investor protection. Of course, investors have to be protected against rogue governments seizing their property. But that is not what these provisions are about. There have been very few expropriations in recent decades, and investors who want to protect themselves can buy insurance from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, a World Bank affiliate, and the US and other governments provide similar insurance. Nonetheless, the US is demanding such provisions in the TPP, even though many of its partners have property protections and judicial systems that are as good as its own.
  • The real intent of these provisions is to impede health, environmental, safety, and, yes, even financial regulations meant to protect America’s own economy and citizens. Companies can sue governments for full compensation for any reduction in their future expected profits resulting from regulatory changes. This is not just a theoretical possibility. Philip Morris is suing Uruguay and Australia for requiring warning labels on cigarettes. Admittedly, both countries went a little further than the US, mandating the inclusion of graphic images showing the consequences of cigarette smoking. The labeling is working. It is discouraging smoking. So now Philip Morris is demanding to be compensated for lost profits. In the future, if we discover that some other product causes health problems (think of asbestos), rather than facing lawsuits for the costs imposed on us, the manufacturer could sue governments for restraining them from killing more people. The same thing could happen if our governments impose more stringent regulations to protect us from the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
  • When I chaired Bill Clinton’s council of economic advisers, when he was president, anti-environmentalists tried to enact a similar provision, called “regulatory takings”. They knew that once enacted, regulations would be brought to a halt, simply because government could not afford to pay the compensation. Fortunately, we succeeded in beating back the initiative, both in the courts and in the US Congress. But now the same groups are attempting an end run around democratic processes by inserting such provisions in trade bills, the contents of which are being kept largely secret from the public (but not from the corporations that are pushing for them). It is only from leaks, and from talking to government officials who seem more committed to democratic processes, that we know what is happening.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Fundamental to America’s system of government is an impartial public judiciary, with legal standards built up over the decades, based on principles of transparency, precedent, and the opportunity to appeal unfavourable decisions. All of this is being set aside, as the new agreements call for private, non-transparent, and very expensive arbitration. Moreover, this arrangement is often rife with conflicts of interest; for example, arbitrators may be a judge in one case and an advocate in a related case. The proceedings are so expensive that Uruguay has had to turn to Michael Bloomberg and other wealthy Americans committed to health to defend itself against Philip Morris. And, though corporations can bring suit, others cannot. If there is a violation of other commitments – on labour and environmental standards, for example – citizens, unions, and civil society groups have no recourse. If there ever was a one-sided dispute-resolution mechanism that violates basic principles, this is it. That is why I joined leading US legal experts, including from Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley, in writing a letter to Barack Obama explaining how damaging to our system of justice these agreements are.
  • American supporters of such agreements point out that the US has been sued only a few times so far, and has not lost a case. Corporations, however, are just learning how to use these agreements to their advantage. And high-priced corporate lawyers in the US, Europe and Japan will likely outmatch the underpaid government lawyers attempting to defend the public interest. Worse still, corporations in advanced countries can create subsidiaries in member countries through which to invest back home, and then sue, giving them a new channel to bloc regulations. If there were a need for better property protection, and if this private, expensive dispute-resolution mechanism were superior to a public judiciary, we should be changing the law not just for well heeled foreign companies but also for our own citizens and small businesses. But there has been no suggestion that this is the case.
  • Rules and regulations determine the kind of economy and society in which people live. They affect relative bargaining power, with important implications for inequality, a growing problem around the world. The question is whether we should allow rich corporations to use provisions hidden in so-called trade agreements to dictate how we will live in the 21st century. I hope citizens in the US, Europe and the Pacific answer with a resounding no. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is a professor at Columbia University. His most recent book, co-authored with Bruce Greenwald, is Creating a Learning Society: A New Approach to Growth, Development, and Social Progress
  • Gary Edwards on 13 May 15
     
    Economist Joseph Stiglitz takes on the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) trade agreement, explaining how corporations will use the agreement to side step environmental and regulatory laws of sovereign nations. Amazing stuff. No doubt Wall Street Money is behind these trade agreement. The Banksters are said to own over 40% of the world's corporations and these agreements are designed to establish corporate sovereignty while greatly diminishing state sovereignty. It's the New World Order. "Terms such as 'investor' and 'partner' are taking on new meanings as multinationals manipulate deals to take legal action against sovereign states"
3More

The Effort to Destroy the Iran Agreement: Chapter Two « LobeLog - 0 views

www.lobelog.com/the-iran-agreement-chapter-two war & peace Iranian-nukes-myth deal Israel-lobby Republicans Auction 2016
shared by Paul Merrell on 03 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • The voting and possible vetoing that will take place later this month thus will mark only the end of one chapter in a continuing political contest. Opponents of the agreement will continue to try to subvert it even after it enters into force. The partisan divide in sentiment on the issue, which, as Jim Lobe points out, has become increasingly sharp as reflected in opinion polls over the past year, will be one of the drivers of continued opposition. The issue has exhibited a familiar pattern in which members of the public who have little substantive knowledge of the matter of question take their cues from leaders of the party with which they most identify. A self-reinforcing cycle of adamant opposition by Republican politicians and consequent opposition by a cue-taking Republican base has put the Iranian nuclear issue on a similar trajectory as the Affordable Care Act—i.e., endless preoccupation by the Congressional portion of half the political spectrum with killing it rather than implementing it, no matter what experience may show is working or not working.
  • Efforts to kill the agreement, after the votes this month that will determine whether the agreement will go into effect, will center on getting the United States not to live up to its end of the agreement. Given that the United States has no obligations under the agreement other than to end some of the punishment it has been inflicting in the form of economic sanctions, the agreement-killing strategy will entail slapping new sanctions on Iran until Tehran is pressed passed the limits of its tolerance for such accord-circumventing behavior. The specific tactics may involve in effect restoring some of the nuclear-related sanctions that are due to be relaxed under the agreement, but under some new label such as terrorism or something having to do with other Iranian behavior. Ideas have already been advanced along these lines. Other creative ideas of opponents include having states rather than the federal government sanction Iran. All such maneuvers will make it difficult for Iranian leaders committed to observance of the agreement to deflect charges from their domestic opponents that the United States snookered Iran and that it is not in Iran’s interests to continue to live up to the agreement.
  • The U.S. presidential election calendar has given diehard opponents of the nuclear agreement added incentive to inflict lethal sabotage on the agreement within the next 16 months. The prospect of a Republican entering the White House in January 2017 may in this respect present more of a vulnerability than an opportunity for opponents. Republican presidential candidates have been competing with each other in telling the primary-voter party base how quickly and peremptorily they would renounce the agreement with Iran—with the only differences being whether it would be on the very first day in office, whether renunciation would take place before or after consulting with advisers, etc. It would be tough for any of these candidates, if elected, to back down from such an oft-repeated pledge. But such a presidential renunciation would be a more direct and blatant unilateral U.S. reneging on a multilateral accord than even some of the more aggressive sanctions-restoring tactics mentioned earlier. And such a renunciation would come after three years (counting from when the JPOA came into effect) of Iran living up to its commitments under the agreement and notmoving to make a nuclear weapon. The discomfort that the future president would be feeling in this situation would reflect what has been the underlying concern of confirmed opponents of the nuclear agreement all along: not that the accord will fail, but that it will succeed.
6More

Corrupt "Secret" Global Trade and Investor Agreements: EU Facilitating Corporate Plunde... - 0 views

www.globalresearch.ca/...5372796 banksters trade agreements arbitration vulture-capitalism
shared by Paul Merrell on 12 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • Since the economic crisis hit Europe, international investors have begun suing EU countries struggling under austerity and recession for a loss of expected profits, using international trade and investment agreements. Speculative investors are claiming more than 1.7 billion Euros in compensation from Greece, Spain and Cyprus in private international tribunals for the impact of measures implemented to deal with economic crises. This is the conclusion from a new report released by the Transnational Institute (TNI) and Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO). The report, ‘Profiting from Crisis – How corporations and lawyers are scavenging profits from Europe’s crisis countries’ (1), exposes a growing wave of corporate lawsuits against Europe’s struggling economies, which could lead to European taxpayers paying out millions of euros in a second major public bailout, this time to speculative investors. These lawsuits provide a warning of the potential high costs of the proposed trade deal between the US and the EU, which has just begun its fourth round of negotiations in Brussels.
  • Pia Eberhardt, trade campaigner with CEO and co-author of the report says: “Speculative investors are already using investment agreements to raid the cash-strapped public treasuries in Europe’s crisis countries. It would be political madness to grant corporations the same excessive rights in the even more far-reaching EU-US trade deal.”  The report examines a number of investor disputes launched against Spain, Greece and Cyprus in the wake of the European economic crisis. In most cases, the investors were not long-term investors, but rather invested as the crisis emerged and were therefore fully aware of the risks. They have used the investment agreements as a legal escape route to extract further wealth from crisis countries when their risky investment didn’t pay off.
  • For example, in Greece, Poštová Bank from Slovakia bought Greek debt after the bond value had already been downgraded and was then offered a very generous debt restructuring package, yet sought to extract an even better deal by suing Greece, using the bilateral investment treaty between Slovakia and Greece. In Cyprus, a Greek-listed private equity-style investor, Marfin Investment Group is seeking €823 million in compensation for their lost investments after Cyprus had to nationalise the Laiki Bank as part of an EU debt restructuring agreement. In Spain, 22 companies (at the time of writing), mainly private equity funds, have sued at international tribunals for cuts in subsidies for renewable energy. While the cuts in subsidies have been rightly criticised by environmentalists, only large foreign investors have the ability to sue.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Growing controversy around the EU-US trade talks has forced the European Commission to temporarily halt negotiations on the investor rights chapter in the proposed transatlantic deal and announce a public consultation on the issue expected to start this month. ‘Investor rights’ is essentially a big business agenda that constitutes little more than a recipe for the further plundering of economies by powerful corporations. This agenda allows big business to bypass democracy and bully sovereign states into instituting policies that trample over ordinary citizens’ rights in the name of even higher profits (2).  However, the Commission has already indicated that it does not want to abandon these controversial corporate rights, but rather reform them.
  • This whole scenario is but one more ploy to facilitate what has been the biggest shift of wealth from the poor to the rich in modern history (3). The authors state that it is time to turn a spotlight on the bailout of investors and call for a radical rewrite of today’s global investment regime. In particular, European citizens and concerned politicians should demand the exclusion of investor-state dispute mechanisms from new trade agreements currently under negotiation, such as the proposed EU-US trade deal. A total of 75,000 cross-registered companies with subsidiaries in both the EU and the US could launch investor-state attacks under the proposed transatlantic agreement. Europe’s experience of corporate speculators profiting from crisis should be a salutary warning that corporations’ rights need to be curtailed and peoples’ rights put first.
  • Paul Merrell on 12 Mar 14
     
    In my lifetime, I have encountered only a single trade agreement, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, that I would have supported had I been given the opportunity, and its mandates have been trashed in their implementation. Beware "trade agreements" in general. They are almost uniformly the tools of banksters seeking greater profits at the expense of non-banksters. 
2More

Press Release - Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) - Financial Services Annex - 0 views

wikileaks.org/...press.html banksters deregulation Trade-In-Services-Agreement secret-treaties Wikileaks
shared by Paul Merrell on 22 Jun 14 - No Cached
  • Today, WikiLeaks released the secret draft text for the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) Financial Services Annex, which covers 50 countries and 68.2%1 of world trade in services. The US and the EU are the main proponents of the agreement, and the authors of most joint changes, which also covers cross-border data flow. In a significant anti-transparency manoeuvre by the parties, the draft has been classified to keep it secret not just during the negotiations but for five years after the TISA enters into force. Despite the failures in financial regulation evident during the 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis and calls for improvement of relevant regulatory structures2, proponents of TISA aim to further deregulate global financial services markets. The draft Financial Services Annex sets rules which would assist the expansion of financial multi-nationals – mainly headquartered in New York, London, Paris and Frankfurt – into other nations by preventing regulatory barriers. The leaked draft also shows that the US is particularly keen on boosting cross-border data flow, which would allow uninhibited exchange of personal and financial data. TISA negotiations are currently taking place outside of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework. However, the Agreement is being crafted to be compatible with GATS so that a critical mass of participants will be able to pressure remaining WTO members to sign on in the future. Conspicuously absent from the 50 countries covered by the negotiations are the BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China. The exclusive nature of TISA will weaken their position in future services negotiations. The draft text comes from the April 2014 negotiation round - the sixth round since the first held in April 2013. The next round of negotiations will take place on 23-27 June in Geneva, Switzerland.
  • Paul Merrell on 22 Jun 14
     
    "Today, WikiLeaks released the secret draft text for the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) Financial Services Annex, which covers 50 countries and 68.2%1 of world trade in services. The US and the EU are the main proponents of the agreement, and the authors of most joint changes, which also covers cross-border data flow. In a significant anti-transparency manoeuvre by the parties, the draft has been classified to keep it secret not just during the negotiations but for five years after the TISA enters into force. Despite the failures in financial regulation evident during the 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis and calls for improvement of relevant regulatory structures2, proponents of TISA aim to further deregulate global financial services markets. The draft Financial Services Annex sets rules which would assist the expansion of financial multi-nationals - mainly headquartered in New York, London, Paris and Frankfurt - into other nations by preventing regulatory barriers. The leaked draft also shows that the US is particularly keen on boosting cross-border data flow, which would allow uninhibited exchange of personal and financial data. TISA negotiations are currently taking place outside of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework. However, the Agreement is being crafted to be compatible with GATS so that a critical mass of participants will be able to pressure remaining WTO members to sign on in the future. Conspicuously absent from the 50 countries covered by the negotiations are the BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China. The exclusive nature of TISA will weaken their position in future services negotiations. The draft text comes from the April 2014 negotiation round - the sixth round since the first held in April 2013. The next round of negotiations will take place on 23-27 June in Geneva, Switzerland."
5More

Beltway Foreign Policy Groups to Congress: Stay Out of the Way on Iran! « Lob... - 0 views

www.lobelog.com/ss-stay-out-of-the-way-on-iran war & peace Iranian-nukes-myth negotiations Congress Obama
shared by Paul Merrell on 26 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • The November 24 deadline for Iran and world powers to reach an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program is quickly approaching.
  • If there is a deal on Nov. 24, the White House indicated, in an article authored by David E. Sanger in Sunday’s New York Times, that it would not seek an immediate vote on the agreement or sanctions relief, instead asserting that the administration can, and may need to, roll back some sanctions unilaterally as part of immediate sanctions relief guarantees in a possible agreement. Hawks in Congress may want to portray their position as representing the mainstream consensus but a letter signed by thirty-seven organizations and sent to members of Congress on Thursday offers some indication that many foreign policy groups in the beltway are concerned by Congress’ latest effort to meddle in the final weeks of sensitive diplomacy before the November deadline. The signatories—which include the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation; J Street; MoveOn.org; the National Iranian American Council; Progressive Democrats of America; the United Methodist Church and VoteVets— expressed “deep concern with inaccurate and counterproductive rhetoric from a handful of Members of Congress regarding possible outcomes of the current negotiations.”
  • They continue: Particularly irresponsible are threats to oppose any comprehensive agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program that initially suspends US sanctions on Iran through lawful executive action. Congress’ authorization of the President’s power to suspend and re-impose US sanctions on Iran is clear and unmistakable in each piece of legislation it has passed on the subject. Use of these provisions by the President to implement the initial phase of an agreement that ensures Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon would reflect an affirmation, not a subversion, of Congress’ will. The echo chamber on Capitol Hill may give members of the House and Senate the impression that only the threat of military action or crushing sanctions are effective tools in bringing Iran to the negotiating table. (My colleague Ali Gharib and I discussed the disproportionate voice given to individuals from neoconservative organizations at congressional hearings on Iran in a July article in The Nation.)
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • But the letter sent out on Thursday might give some congressional Democrats pause. Congress may lean hawkish but progressive groups in the beltway are throwing their weight behind the White House’s efforts to reach a diplomatic agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and are urging Congress to stay out of the way.
  • Paul Merrell on 26 Oct 14
     
    There's more behind this story than appears in its words. "Progressive" organizations have largely stood silent on the topic of war since Obama was elected because they are Obama fans and Obama has been anything but peaceful. But now they turn out because Obama needs Congress to stay out of the Iran situation until negotiations are complete and for some time afterward. The pressure on Congress to intervene is coming from the Israel Lobby. Keep in mind that it's been the consensus position of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies for many years that Iran has no plans to create a nuclear weapon capability. Several Israeli intelligence and military leaders have said the same thing. The Iranian nukes myth is a propaganda theme of the ultra-right wing Israeli government leadership that has been used for several years in efforts to persuade the U.S. to invade Iran and bomb it back into the Stone Age. And their excuse for involving the U.S. military evaporates if the Obama Administration successfully negotiates an agreement with Iran that limits its lawful development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes that will safeguard from any change of mind in Iran on development of nuclear weapons via, e.g., production limits and on-site inspections. The counter-argument is that such an agreement would have to be ratified by the Senate on grounds that it would be a treaty. But that argument falls short of the mark because: [i] the Executive has always had the unfettered right to negotiate and sign treaties; [ii] the U.S. government is not bound by treaties unless and until the Senate ratifies the treaty; and [iii] Congress already explicitly gave Obama authority to impose and suspend economic sanctions at his discretion. Meanwhile, part of the interim agreement with Iran so that negotiations can take place is a promise by the Obama Administration that it would veto any legislation imposing further sanctions on Iran during the period of negotiation. Because of the Israel Lobby'
5More

Iranians draft bill to up enrichment to 60 percent | The Times of Israel - 0 views

www.timesofisrael.com/to-up-enrichment-to-60-percent war & peace Iran Iranian-nukes-myth Israel negotiations
shared by Paul Merrell on 27 Dec 13 - No Cached
  • Iranian parliamentarians have proposed a bill to increase uranium enrichment to 60 percent in the event of new Western sanctions, the Iranian Press TV reported Wednesday. In addition to raising the enrichment level significantly, the draft, signed by 100 legislators, would resume activity at the Arak heavy water reactor.
  • “If the bill is approved, the government will be obliged to complete nuclear infrastructure at the Fordo and Natanz [enrichment facilities] if sanctions [against Iran] are ratcheted up, new sanctions are imposed, the country’s nuclear rights are violated and the Islamic Republic of Iran’s peaceful nuclear rights are ignored by members of the P5+1,” Seyyed Mehdi Mousavinejad, an Iranian lawmaker, said on Wednesday, according to Press TV.
  • The new bill would be in direct violation of the November 24 interim agreement forged between Iran and six world powers, under which Tehran agreed to halt work at Arak, cap its enrichment at five percent, and neutralize its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium. That agreement has not yet been implemented, because the sides still have to resolve “technical details.” The proposal also serves as a message to world powers about the Iranian commitment to advancing the nuclear program, lawmakers said. “The bill is aimed at giving an upper hand to our government and the negotiating team… It will allow the government to continue our nuclear program if the Geneva deal fails,” Hossein Taghavi Hosseini, spokesman for parliament’s National Security and Foreign Affairs committee, said, according to IRNA.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • The bill was presented to the parliament’s presiding board and will be voted on at a later date, Iranian media reported. The drafting of the bill came days after a group of US senators proposed The Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, which would ramp up sanctions against Iran in the event that the Islamic Republic violates the interim deal, or should later nuclear talks fail to produce a long-term agreement.
  • Paul Merrell on 27 Dec 13
     
    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.
2More

Iran Deal in Geneva: Hold the Cheers | Global Research - 0 views

www.globalresearch.ca/...5359245 war & peace Iran P5+1 agreement-texts Iranian-nukes-myth
shared by Paul Merrell on 24 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • Fars News published the full text of the deal. It’s provisions are as follows:
  • Paul Merrell on 24 Nov 13
     
    Stephen Lindman unwinds the mainstream media/U.S. political spin on the Iran/P5+1 interim agreement, summarizing and linking the actual text. As suspected, Iran got way more from the deal and gave up less than reported by mainstream media. My analysis: The spin is mainly based on provisions that are largely meaningless to Iran because it had and has no nuclear weapon ambitions. I now have a strong sniff that the P5+1 negotiation is aimed at removing Israel's excuse (Iranian nuclear weapon threat) for pushing the U.S. and NATO to commence war against Iran and that is the real reason for the War Party's rage against the interim deal. Obama is trying to do this as an executive agreement among the negotiation parties, rather than as a treaty that would require Senate super-majority approval.  But he may face a problem in that regard because of a single agreement provision: "The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions." That carefully crafted sentence would seem to leave Congress free to enact further sanctions if it can overcome an Obama veto, which requires a supermajority in both houses of Congress. The sentence is, however, susceptible to deliberate misportrayal as a provision tying the hands of Congress too in order to attack the agreement as requiring approval by the Senate, cries of outrage about Obama usurping the Congressional role, etc. But there is a body of case law holding that some classes of "executive agreements" do not rise to the level needed to invoke the Constitution's Treaty Clause. Personally, I think that body of case law constitutes unlawful judicial amendment of the Constitution, but it exists. So litigation over the issue in regard to this agreement is unlikely to get any traction.  
5More

Endless Afghanistan? US-Afghan agreement would keep troops in place and funds flowing, ... - 0 views

worldnews.nbcnews.com/...s-flowing-perhaps-indefinitely war & peace Afghanistan U.S.-Afghan-Agreement perpetual-war
shared by Paul Merrell on 20 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • While many Americans have been led to believe the war in Afghanistan will soon be over, a draft of a key U.S.-Afghan security deal obtained by NBC News shows the United States is prepared to maintain military outposts in Afghanistan for many years to come, and pay to support hundreds of thousands of Afghan security forces.The wide-ranging document, still unsigned by the United States and Afghanistan, has the potential to commit thousands of American troops to Afghanistan and spend billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.The document outlines what appears to be the start of a new, open-ended military commitment in Afghanistan in the name of training and continuing to fight al-Qaeda. The war in Afghanistan doesn’t seem to be ending, but renewed under new, scaled-down U.S.-Afghan terms. Advertise | AdChoices “The Parties acknowledge that continued U.S. military operations to defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates may be appropriate and agree to continue their close cooperation and coordination toward that end,” the draft states.
  • The 25-page “Security and Defense Cooperation Agreement Between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan” is a sweeping document, vague in places, highly specific in others, defining everything from the types of future missions U.S. troops would be allowed to conduct in Afghanistan, to the use of radios and the taxation of American soldiers and contractors.The bilateral security agreement will be debated this week in Kabul by around 2,500 village elders, academics and officials in a traditional Loya Jirga. While the Loya Jirga is strictly consultative, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said he won’t sign it without the Jirga’s approval.
  • The copy of the draft -- the full text is available here --  is dated July 25, 2013. As a working draft, it is particularly revealing because it shows the back and forth negotiations, as U.S. and Afghan officials added words and struck out paragraphs. The changes are marked by annotations still revealed in the text. The document is a work in progress. US officials say there have been more changes since July. The draft, however, does indicate the scope of this possible agreement with major implications for Washington, Kabul, U.S. troops and the continuation of America’s longest war.Taken as a whole, the document describes a basic U.S.-Afghan exchange. Afghanistan would allow Washington to operate military bases to train Afghan forces and conduct counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaeda after the current mission ends in 2014. For that foothold in this volatile mountain region wedged between Pakistan and Iran, the United States would agree to sustain and equip Afghanistan's large security force, which the government in Kabul currently cannot afford. The deal, according to the text, would take effect on Jan. 1, 2015 and “shall remain in force until the end of 2024 and beyond.” It could be terminated by either Washington or Kabul with two years advance written notice.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • There is however what U.S. officials believe is a contradiction in the July draft, which would effectively ask American troops to provide training and confront al-Qaeda from the confines of bases. While it says operations against al-Qaeda may be necessary, it also says US troops will not be allowed to make arrests or enter Afghan homes. Advertise | AdChoices “No detention or arrest shall be carried out by the United States forces. The United States forces shall not search any homes or other real estate properties,” it says.“[The contradiction] was a matter of serious consternation at the highest levels” of the Obama administration over the weekend, according to one senior defense official. “It is the one remaining issue that could ultimately kill the deal." However, US officials believe that in a more recent draft, which was circulated among key Pentagon officials and US lawmakers on Monday, the US has won its position on this point.The document doesn’t specifically say how many U.S. and NATO troops would remain in Afghanistan beyond 2014. Afghan officials tell NBC News they hope it will be 10 to 15 thousand. U.S. officials tell NBC News the number is closer to seven to eight thousand, with an additional contribution from NATO. Factoring in troop rotations, home leave, and breaks between deployments, the service of tens of thousands of American troops would be required to maintain a force of seven to eight thousand for a decade or longer. The anticipated costs would likely run into the billions quickly.
  • Afghan officials tell NBC NEWS the agreement is critical to Afghanistan’s future stability. Without ongoing military assistance, training and funding, those officials say the government could collapse and Afghanistan would enter a civil war. If the agreement passes, the draft says Washington would commit to a long -term, indefinite military involvement in this land-locked Asian nation.A spokesperson for the White House National Security Council did not comment on the draft version of the agreement, but said that "the President is still reviewing options from his national security team and has not made a decision about a possible U.S. presence after 2014."The agreement circulating this week is unlikely to be the last. It first must pass through the Loya Jirga, then go onto parliament for final approval. “We’re looking at 60-days or more” before the US and Afghanistan sign any agreement, defense officials said. Here are highlights of the July draft of the bi-lateral agreement:
6More

EU votes to support suspending U.S. data sharing agreements, including passenger flight... - 0 views

www.zdnet.com/ssenger-flight-data-7000017677 surveillance state NSA blowback EU
shared by Paul Merrell on 06 Jul 13 - No Cached
  • The European Parliament on Thursday adopted a joint, cross-party resolution to begin investigations into widespread surveillance of Europeans by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Read this EU to vote to suspend U.S. data sharing agreements, passenger records amid NSA spying scandal Read more In the vote, 483 voted for the resolution, 98 against, and 65 abstained on a vote that called on the U.S. to suspend and review any laws and surveillance programs that "violate the fundamental right of EU citizens to privacy and data protection," as well as Europe's "sovereignty and jurisdiction." The vote also gave backing to the suspension of data sharing deals between the two continents, should the European Commission take action against its U.S. ally.
  • The U.S. government faces continued criticism and pressure from its international allies following news that its intelligence agencies spied on foreign nationals under its so-called PRISM program. The U.K. government was also embroiled in the NSA spying saga, after its signals intelligence intercepting station GCHQ tapped submarine fiber optic cables under its own secret program, code named Tempora. Reuters reported on Wednesday that the Commission is examining whether the U.K. broke EU law, which could lead to fines imposed by the highest court in Europe.
  • Should the Commission decide it necessary to suspend the data sharing agreement of passenger details — including personal and sensitive individual data — it could ultimately lead to the grounding of flights between the EU and the U.S. Dutch MEP Sophie in 't Veld said in a statement after the vote: "We must consider now if the PNR and SWIFT agreements are still tenable in the circumstances." Critics say PNR data has never helped catch a suspected criminal or terrorist before. SWIFT data sharing, which provides U.S. authorities with secure banking details in a bid to crack down on terrorist financing, could also be suspended. A spokesperson for the D66 delegation in Brussels confirmed by email that the English version of the joint motion is "the right one and is leading," despite claims that there were "translation error[s]" between the different versions of the joint resolution.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in a plenary session in Strasbourg voted in favor of a section of the resolution that called on the Commission to "give consideration to all the instruments at their disposal in discussions and negotiations with the U.S. [...] including the possible suspension of the passenger name record (PNR) and terrorist finance tracking program (TFTP) agreements."
  • An EU source familiar with proceedings confirmed that the Commission now has the authority from the Parliament to suspend PNR and TFTP, but it falls at the Commission's discretion. Resolutions passed by the Parliament are not legally binding, but give backing to the Commission should the executive body wish to enact measures against a foreign power or entity. A Commission spokesperson confirmed that there are "no deadlines" on deciding whether it will follow up on the Parliament's resolution.
  • The Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee was given the authority by Thursday's vote to set up an inquiry to gather evidence from both U.S. and EU sources to assess the impact of the surveillance activities on EU citizens' fundamental right to privacy and data protection.
4More

Russia suspends cooperation in Nuclear Energy Sectors with the USA - nsnbc internationa... - 0 views

nsnbc.me/...ar-energy-sectors-with-the-usa war & peace Russia U.S.-foreign-policy disarmament nuclear-cooperation
shared by Paul Merrell on 06 Oct 16 - No Cached
  • The decree, published on the Russian Cabinet’s website, states that: “In connection with the imposition of restrictions on cooperation with the Russian Federation in nuclear energy by the United States of America … to suspend the agreement between the government of the Russian Federation and the government of the United States of America on cooperation in research and development in the nuclear and energy sectors of September 16, 2013″. The Russian Foreign Ministry has been instructed to send a written notification of the suspension of the agreement to the United States. An explanatory note in the decree explains that “the actions taken by the US in connection with imposing sanctions against Russia have directly affected the areas of cooperation envisaged by the agreement. … The regular extension of anti-Russian sanctions by the US, which include the suspension of the Russian-US cooperation in nuclear energy, requires countermeasures against the American side”.
  • The decree also announces the termination of an agreement between the Rosatom State Corporation and the US Department of Energy. “To accept the proposal of the Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corporation and the Russian Foreign Ministry agreed with the Russian Defense Ministry, the Russian Federal Security Service and the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service on terminating the executive agreement between the Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corporation and the US Department of Energy on cooperation in conducting research of the possible conversion of Russian research reactors for the use of the low enriched uranium fuel of December 7, 2010,” the decree reads. The agreement was signed on June 14, 2013. The bilateral framework on threat reduction aimed at long-standing US – Russian partnership on nonproliferation. This framework of the agreement was built on the 1992 Agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation Concerning the Safe and Secure Transportation, Storage and Destruction of Weapons and the Prevention of Weapons Proliferation, commonly known as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Umbrella Agreement, which expired on June 17, 2013.
  • The, now suspended, agreement also stipulates future joint nuclear security activities in the Russian Federation that will be conducted under the 2003 Framework Agreement on a Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme in the Russian Federation (MNEPR) and a related bilateral Protocol signed on June 14, 2013 in Washington, D.C.
  • Paul Merrell on 06 Oct 16
     
    In the U.S., we are led by psychopaths.
5More

What GOP Senators Don't Understand About Iran | Al Jazeera America - 0 views

america.aljazeera.com/...not-understand-about-iran.html war & peace U.S.-foreign-policy Iranian-nukes-myth Security Council Obama negotiations
shared by Paul Merrell on 13 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • There’s a charming naiveté to the open letter [PDF] by 47 Republican senators that condescendingly seeks to explain features of the U.S. constitutional system to Iran’s leaders that they otherwise “may not fully understand.” The missive warns that, with respect to “your nuclear negotiations with our government ... any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress” could be revoked by the next president “with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
  • Beyond the amusing inaccuracies about U.S. parliamentary order, it seems there are some features of the nuclear negotiations that the signatory senators don’t fully understand — not only on the terms of the deal, but also on who would be party to an agreement. There are no negotiations on Iran’s “nuclear-weapons program” because the world’s intelligence agencies (including those of the U.S. and Israel) do not believe Iran is currently building nuclear weapons, nor has it made a strategic decision to use its civilian nuclear infrastructure to produce a bomb. An active Iranian nuclear-weapons program would render moot the current negotiations, because Iran would be in fundamental violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As things stand, Tehran remains within the terms of the NPT, which allows nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but monitors member states to prevent weaponization. Tehran and the IAEA remain in dispute over full compliance with all transparency requirements of the NPT, particularly over alleged previous research into weapons design. But Iran’s nuclear facilities remain under constant monitoring by international inspectors who certify that no nuclear material is being diverted.
  • The current negotiations are focused on strengthening verifiable safeguards against weaponization over-and-above those required by the NPT, yet the Republican-led Congress, egged on by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is warning that those goals are insufficient, and the terms and time-frame of the deal are unacceptable. The key element missing from the GOP Senators’ letter, however, is that the deal is not being negotiated between Iran and the United States; it is being negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 group, in which the U.S. is joined by Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Even if the U.S. is the key player in that group, the deal being pursued reflects an international consensus — the same consensus that has made sanctions against Iran so effective. This was likely in the mind of Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, who dismissed the letter as “of no legal value” and a “propaganda ploy.” 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. 
  • Paul Merrell on 13 Mar 15
     
    "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!
  • Paul Merrell on 13 Mar 15
     
    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?
4More

Embassy of Cuba in NZ Newsletter - No.4 31st January 2015 | Scoop News - 0 views

www.scoop.co.nz/...tter-no4-31st-january-2015.htm U.S.-foreign-relations Latin-America Caribbean CELAC Cuba China
shared by Paul Merrell on 01 Feb 15 - No Cached
  • Agreement China-CELAC a ‘Costa Rican achievement’ — Correa Ecuador president Rafael Correa has said that the Celac agreement with China, was probably the greatest achievement of Costa Rica during its presidency, adding that among the main achievements was reaching concrete agreements with China in the bilateral forum recently held there.In an interview with several local television channels, the Ecuadorian president said that for its size, China can be considered as a region, and deepening the relationship would be beneficial for the Celac countries.Beijing was the “principal financier of the world” and to achieve agreements to finance projects aimed at the development of Latin America and the Caribbean Project was “a great success,” he said.Correa, now pro tempore president of the regional bloc, said that at the current stage of development of the region, what was needed was financing.“We no longer need,” he said, “the alms like those given by NGOs who come to construct little schools, because we can do that.“What we need is science, technology, technology transfer to help us create our human talent, and China can give those to us,” he added.
  • Correa considered it was a complementary relationship between equals, given that China needs energy, oil and food, which could be obtained from Latin American and Caribbean countries.Four priority areas were identified for the work of the new presidency: reducing extreme poverty, establishment of a new international financial architecture, development of science and technology, and road, productive and energy infrastructure.
  • Cuba and China strengthen economic relations Cuba and China have signed five new agreements — in agriculture, telecoms, trade, finances, industry and transportation — confirming both countries’ interest in strengthening and expanding their economic relations.This was the result of the 27th Intergovernmental Commission Cuba-China held last week which also made official the postponement of the starting date of payment of the credit given by China through the Economic and Technical Cooperation agreement.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Both parties agreed to carry out a special session in four months to examine the bilateral economic agenda and the processes of implementation of the signed documents.The 27th Intergovernmental Commission also reviewed 29 cooperation and economic agreements signed during the visit of Chinese President, Xi Jinping on July 22 last year.The documents dealt with the concession of a line of credit for the construction of the multipurpose terminal in the port of Santiago de Cuba, in the eastern region of the island, among other facilities.Deputy minister of foreign trade and investment Ileana Nuñez said the agreements would attract more revenues to sectors like tourism, mining and construction.She underlined the favourable conditions and level of mutual relations, which grow, deepen and expand the interest of more Chinese investors.China is the second biggest trading partner of Cuba and Cuba is China´s major partner in the Caribbean, while Cuban tobacco and marine products gain ground in Asia.Assistant trade minister of China Zhang Xiangchen ratified their intention to honour commitments and strengthen economic and trade relations with Cuba.The trade relationship of both nations exceeded 1.4 billion dollars in 2013 and after signing the latest agreements, it could increase by 26 percent, according to official estimates.
4More

TASS: Russian Politics & Diplomacy - Russia does not rule out strikes against Jaysh al-... - 0 views

tass.com/901445 war & peace Syria cease-fire targets
shared by Paul Merrell on 24 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • Russia does not rule out strikes against groups that have merged with the terrorist organization Islamic State (outlawed in Russia), Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told reporters on Thursday. "We are witnesses to the continuing merger of these groups [Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar Al-Sham - TASS] with the organizations that have been universally recognized as terrorist. It goes without saying that the task of struggle against terrorism remains a key one for us," he said, when asked if these groups might now be regarded as legitimate targets for the Russians Aerospace Force. "I would not rule out any options in that sphere. But normalization of the situation requires implementation of what has been agreed on." 
  • The diplomat reminded reporters about statements from the US side, including from Pentagon, that the US allegedly had confirmation of Russia’s involvement in an attack on a humanitarian convoy near Aleppo. "We utterly and completely deny it and say that such far-reaching statements without analysis of objective facts, without a bid to look into other versions.... it is simply inadmissible to speak like this," the top diplomat said. "We should not put the carrier before the horse, but sit down calmly and look what has to be done to keep the agreements afloat, how to give them a new lease of life, as we see no alternative in this sphere," the high-ranking diplomat told reporters.
  • At a session of the UN Security Council on Syria at the level of the heads of delegations taking part in the 71st session of the UN General Assembly, US Secretary of State John Kerry said facts furnished by Russia as to an attack on a humanitarian convoy at Aleppo on September 19, were allegedly contradicting one another. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia had presented all available information on the attack. The minister said Russia urged a thorough and professional investigation into that. Since the news on an attack on the convoy came, the Russian Defense Ministry has stressed in its statements that Russian and Syrian warplanes conducted no strikes on the convoy. An attack drone Predator, capable of hitting targets on the ground, was registered in the area where the UN humanitarian convoy came under attack near Aleppo in the evening of September 19, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Igor Konashenkov, said after the ministry analyzed objective air situation monitoring data. "In the evening of September 19 an attack drone of the international coalition was registered in that area at an altitude of 3,600 meters. It was flying at a speed of about 200 kilometers per hour. The drone had taken off from Turkey’s Incirlik air base. Our air situation monitoring means identified the drone as Predator," Konashenkov said.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Ryabkov pointed out that Russia was not walking out of the agreement with the United States on Syria. "We are not about to quit that agreement. On the contrary, we believe that the events of the past few days have underscored its super-relevance," he said. "Regrettably, the agreement has too many opponents, if not foes. We cannot but feel concern and alarm as we see this agreement defied by a number of actors - anti-government forces in Syria and their foreign sponsors." "Regrettably, the US Administration is still unable to do what is required for the full implementation of the agreement," Ryabkov said. "To be more precise, to bring about the separation of the moderates and the terrorists. Nor can the United States guarantee the implementation of a number of other components of this agreement which we’ve been witnesses to over the past few days." Ryabkov said he was referring to several incidents, including the strike against Syrian government troops. "It is not a tragedy, it is a very dramatic development regarding the agreement as such. It is a heavy blow on its groundwork," he said.
1More

KeepTheWebOpen.com - 0 views

keepthewebopen.com/open OpenWeb ACTA
shared by Gary Edwards on 17 Mar 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 17 Mar 12
     
    Keep the Web Open and out of the hands of Agenda 21 UN socialists and the tyranny of ACTA. California Representative Darryl Issa has proposed  OPEN - the Online Protection & ENforcement of Ditital Trade Act.  Join the movement to keep the Web Open and sign on today. The background to this urgency is that Obama is trying to run an end around Congress, claiming that he has the authority to sign ACTA: From the Vanguard of Freedom: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. ACTA is supposed to strengthen intellectual property rights; that is, the rights of artists to protect their creations from being copied and counterfeited, essentially stolen and reproduced without consent. However, many including Congressman Darrel Issa (via his website on this subject) has called ACTA "an unconstitutional power grab started by President George W. Bush and completed by President Barack Obama - despite the White House's January 14 criticism of legislative solutions that harm the Internet and erode individual rights." Says Issa: "…The Constitution gives Congress the power to pass intellectual property legislation - like SOPA and PIPA - and gives the Senate the power to ratify treaties. But the Obama Administration maintains that ACTA is not even a treaty, justifying the exclusion of both American citizens and their elected representatives. It is a practice Vice President Joe Biden decried as a U.S. Senator…" Maira Sutton and Parker Higgins, writing for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an "electronics" rights advocacy organization, say in an article they authored, that "…We Have Every Right to Be Furious About ACTA." Sutton and Higgins write: "…Negotiated in secret, ACTA bypassed checks and balances of existing international IP norm-setting bodies, without any meaningful input from national parliaments, policymakers, or their citizens. Worse still, the agreement creates a new global institution, an 'ACTA Committee' to ove
1More

A New Reserve Currency to Challenge the Dollar | Veterans Today - 0 views

www.veteranstoday.com/...ng-on-in-the-straits-of-hormuz Banksters GOLD David-Malone Oil Islamic-Wars
shared by Gary Edwards on 13 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 13 Jan 12
     
    Author David Malone digs into world events, suggesting that all the saber rattling over Iran and nuclear weapons is really about GOLD!   He argues that the dollar is rapidly being replaced as the world's "settlement" currency.  As a function, "settlement" is different than "reserve", but since WWII and the Basel Conference, the USA Dollar has been both the currency of "reserve" and settlement".  That is now changing, and fast! David further suggests that the Iraqi wars with Saddam Hussein were also about his use of the Euro to "settle" oil purchases.  It could also be argued that Muamma Gaddafi in Lybia was removed because he was organizing all of Africa to "settle" oil and other commodity purchases in GOLD, and not the USA Dollar. Are the Islamic wars really about oil?  Or are they about how oil purchases are "settled"? David further argues that Russia, India, China and Japan are actively pursuing a GOLD based settlement currency agreement series where the Chinese Yuan plays a central role.  Interestingly, all of these countries have cut agreements with Iran.  Which seems to have triggered the December 2011 Obama response banning any banks, both private and government controlled, from dealings with Iran.   It's increasingly looking like it's not the Iranian nuclear weapons program that is upsetting to Obama and his Bankster buddies.  It's the rapid replacement of the worthless paper USA dollar as a settlement currency. One of the interesting points the venerable "Veterans Today" news sight is making is that our military is being used to forcefully prop up an inflationary Bankster Dollar, and force oil producing countries into accepting that inflated Bankster Dollar as payment.  The one thing the International Bankster Cartel doesn't want is for the trade of important commodities, especially energy, to be paid for in GOLD instead of the worthless paper they control. excerpt: I think the stand-off with Iran in the Straits of Hormuz over sanctions is a
1More

Google News - 0 views

news.google.com/?ar=1378752090 Obama-Muslim-Brotherhood Obama-Bribes
shared by Gary Edwards on 09 Sep 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 09 Sep 13
     
    An incredible story is unfolding in Egypt where the new military government is digging through volumes of documents seized in raids on the Muslim Brotherhood. The documents are said to show that Barak Obama has been funneling Billions of dollars into the Muslim Brotherhood. excerpt: "Bare Naked Islam has done extensive reporting on the "bribes." The ... Evidence we have obtained lends credibility to the charges of "gifts" (bribes) being taken in U.S. dollars from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" that were distributed to top ministerial level officials in the Mursi government. Via Almesryoon: "A judicial source stated that over the past few days, a number of complaints have beenfiled with the Attorney General Hisham Barakat. These complaints accuse the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and leaders of the centrist party of receiving gifts from the American embassy in Cairo. The sponsors of these complaints stated that among these leaders are Mohamed Badie, General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Khairat Al-Shater, deputy leader and businessman, Mohamed Beltagy leading the group, Essam el-Erian, deputy head of the Freedom and Justice Party of, and Abu Ela Mady, head of the Wasat Party, Essam Sultan, deputy head of the Wasat Party." The strength of these allegations is seemingly bolstered by another case alluded to by the newspaper in which a document is referenced. This document reportedly reveals monthly "gifts" being paid to Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt by the Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor Al Thani, Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Mursi government. These monthly payments were said to be denominated in U.S. dollars to each leader. Evidence for such allegations are substantiated by a document we have obtained. It includes the names of several recipients of funds and even includes their signatures acknowledging receipt of the funds. This ledger, obtained from inside the Mursi government, lends additional credibility to the rep
1More

Congress Just Gave the President Power to Adopt a Binding Legal Agreement with Iran | J... - 0 views

justsecurity.org/...t-binding-legal-agreement-iran war & peace Iranian-nukes-myth negotiations legislation
shared by Paul Merrell on 15 May 15 - No Cached
  • With a veto-proof majority, Congress has now adopted the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which is purportedly designed to enforce Congress’ constitutional prerogatives. How so? By insisting that the President give Congress a chance to review any Iranian nuclear deal that emerges from the negotiations in Vienna. Yet, Congress may be surprised when it reflects upon the constitutional implications of what it has done. Rather than helping recover Congress’ constitutional prerogatives, the Act instead transforms whatever agreement the President obtains from what would have been a constitutionally dubious exercise of unilateral executive authority (a “sole executive agreement”) into a constitutionally unimpeachable exercise of joint legislative and executive power (a “congressional-executive agreement”). Perversely, in fact, it goes further. Not only does it validate such an agreement, but it also extends the President’s powers beyond what even the Obama Administration was claiming: the Act cedes the President authority to conclude a legally binding nuclear agreement, not just an informal political pact. That what Congress has done seems to fly in the face of what it wished to accomplish is certainly ironic, but perhaps also typical of legislative attempts to rein in excessive presidential claims to unilateral power. Though hiding in plain sight in the Act’s text, no one yet seems to have noticed these implications.
2More

Iceland the first European Nation to sign Free Trade Agreement with China | nsnbc inter... - 0 views

nsnbc.me/...ree-trade-agreement-with-china China Iceland free-trade-agreements
shared by Paul Merrell on 17 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • A Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been signed in Beijing by Mr. Össur Skarphéðinsson, Minister for Foreign Affairs and External Trade of Iceland, and Mr. Gao Hucheng, Minister of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, in the presence of the Prime Minister of Iceland and the Premier of China. The agreement, signed on September 15, made Iceland the first European nation to sign and FTA with China. 
  • The central aim of the Iceland-China Free Trade Agreement is to promote trade by abolishing tariffs on imports and to further enhance economic ties between the two countries, reports the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) of Iceland, adding that it is in essence similar to other FTAs that Iceland, as a member of European Free Trade Association (EFTA), has already concluded. The new bilateral FTA covers trade in goods and services, rules of origin, trade facilitation, intellectual property rights, competition and investment. Furthermore, the FTA entails that the two states should enhance their co-operation in a number of areas, including on labor matters and the environment, reports the MoFA of Iceland. A Joint Free Trade Commission will supervise the functioning of the FTA and establishes a framework for resolving trade issues that may arise in the future. The Iceland-China Free Trade Agreement will enter into force when legal procedures of acceptance in both countries have been concluded.
5More

What Really Matters About the Extended Negotiations with Iran « LobeLog - 0 views

www.lobelog.com/xtended-negotiations-with-iran war & peace Iranian-nukes-myth negotiations
shared by Paul Merrell on 26 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • The single most important fact about the extension of the nuclear negotiations with Iran is that the obligations established by the Joint Plan of Action negotiated a year ago will remain in effect as negotiations continue. This means that our side will continue to enjoy what these negotiations are supposed to be about: preclusion of any Iranian nuclear weapon, through the combination of tight restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program and intrusive monitoring to ensure the program stays peaceful. Not only that, but also continuing will be the rollback of Iran’s program that the JPOA achieved, such that Iran will remain farther away from any capability to build a bomb than it was a year ago, and even farther away from where it would have been if the negotiations had never begun or from where it would be if negotiations were to break down. Our side—the United States and its partners in the P5+1—got by far the better side of the deal in the JPOA. We got the fundamental bomb-preventing restrictions (including most significantly a complete elimination of medium-level uranium enrichment) and enhanced inspections we sought, in return for only minor sanctions relief to Iran that leaves all the major banking and oil sanctions in place. If negotiations were to go on forever under these terms, we would have no cause to complain to the Iranians.
  • But the Iranians do not have comparable reason to be happy about this week’s development. The arrangement announced in Vienna is bound to be a tough sell back in Tehran for President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif. The sanctions continue, and continue to hurt, even though the Iranian negotiators have conceded most of what they could concede regarding restrictions on the nuclear program. There will be a lot of talk in Tehran about how the West is stringing them along, probably with the intent of undermining the regime and not just determining its nuclear policies.
  • That the Iranian decision-makers have put themselves in this position is an indication of the seriousness with which they are committed to these negotiations. This week’s extension is of little use to them except to keep alive the prospect that a final deal will be completed. Also indicating their seriousness is the diligence with which Iran has complied with its obligations under the JPOA. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed today Iran’s compliance with its final pre-November 24th obligation, which had to do with reducing its stock of low-enriched uranium in gaseous form.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Because the P5+1 got much the better side of the preliminary agreement, the P5+1 will have to make more of the remaining concessions to complete a final agreement. The main hazard to concluding a final deal is not an Iranian unwillingness to make concessions. The main hazard is a possible Iranian conclusion that it does not have an interlocutor on the U.S. side that is bargaining in good faith. We push the Iranians closer to such a conclusion the more talk there is in Washington about imposing additional pressure and additional sanctions, as people such as Marco Rubio and AIPAC have offered in response to today’s announcement about the extension of negotiations. We have sanctioned the dickens out of Iran for years and are continuing to do so, but the only time all this pressure got any results is when we started to negotiate in good faith. Surly sanctions talk on Capitol Hill only strengthens Iranian doubts about whether the U.S. administration will be able to deliver on its side of a final agreement, making it less, not more, likely the Iranians would offer still more concessions. Any actual sanctions legislation would blatantly violate the terms of the JPOA and give the Iranians good reason to walk away from the whole business, marking the end of any special restrictions on their nuclear program.
  • Indefinite continuation of the terms of the existing agreement would suit us well, but completion of a final agreement would be even better—and without one the Iranians eventually would have to walk away, because indefinite continuation certainly does not suit them. And besides, the sanctions hurt us economically too. To get a final agreement does not mean fixating on the details of plumbing in enrichment cascades, which do not affect our security anyway. It means realizing what kind of deal we got with the preliminary agreement, and negotiating in good faith to get the final agreement.
1 - 20 of 626 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page