May 2, 2013

Juan Cole: Why Obama doesn’t want to intervene in Syria (He knows it will not work.)

After President Obama’s remarks about chemical weapons use in Syria, many newspaper articles appeared suggesting that he was rethinking his opposition to US involvement there. They were wrong, and weren’t listening. Obama said we don’t know who used the chemical weapons or to what extent. That isn’t building a case for intervention, it is knocking it down.

Everyone always forgets that if foreigners bomb a hated regime’s installations and accidentally thereby kill large numbers of innocent civilians, the dead civilians show up on the front page and everyone turns against the foreign air force. NATO only avoided this outcome in Libya by staying mostly away from the cities (it did not actually intervene in the Misrata siege). The few bombing raids on Gaddafi’s HQ, the Bab al-Aziziyah, did give the regime some propaganda points, since you can’t bomb downtown Tripoli without casualties.

Finding ways to help the refugees and displaced, and to get food to half-starving neighborhoods in places like Homs, are about the best the US could do. I think we’re on the verge of having a plausible humanitarian corridor in the north, and Jordan is considering a buffer zone in the south. ... sending a lot of weapons into Syria might end the war sooner (or might not; the regime has heavier weapons); but it could also prolong the violence and insecurity in the aftermath.

It is a horrible situation. It breaks our hearts every day. But here as in medicine, the first rule has to be to do no harm, to avoid making things worse. It would be very, very easy to make things worse.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/05/doesnt-intervene-syria.html

Cole has a handle on the situation in Syria, the constraints on what can be done and Obama's understanding of both.

May 2, 2013

"eliminating trade restrictions is a relatively small part of both agreements, since most tariffs

quotas have already been sharply reduced or eliminated."

Germany and other European nations have stronger union protections than does the U.S., and labor believes the trade talks could pressure U.S. officials into strengthening U.S. laws. “People in labor see this as an opportunity, not as a threat,” said George Kohl, a senior director at the Communications Workers of America (CWA).

European trade union representatives will be lobbying EU negotiators to pressure the U.S. to strengthen its labor laws in the context of the trade talks, said Owen Herrnstadt, director of trade and globalization for the International Association of Machinists. And with a labor-friendly White House, unions would have a president predisposed to helping them improve labor standards working on their side. Herrnstadt said he “fully expect that the European trade unions will voice their position with EU negotiators.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/283913-unions-hope-us-eu-trade-talks-can-be-lever-to-change-labor-laws

(One administration strategy) will be the pursuit of trade agreements that notably do not include China. The most important of these is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement among a growing list of nations bordering the Pacific. It is the Obama administration’s avowed aim to construct a TPP with standards so high — especially rules regarding behavior by state-owned enterprises — that China could never join without transforming its economic system.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/12/10/u-s-china-economic-relations-in-the-wake-of-the-u-s-election/

...the negotiation is subject to the U.S. domestic politics. At the very beginning of the negotiation, the United States reminded other countries that the U.S. Congress would not accept a TPP without strong labor and environmental measures. Obviously, the United States aims to lower the comparative advantages of developing countries so as to create more job opportunities for itself.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8113289.html

The point of these agreements is not to "eliminate trade restrictions" like tariffs. China does not like them because they perceive that the agreements contain "strong labor and environmental measures" that "lower the comparative advantages of developing countries" (specifically lower wages and weaker environmental regulations).

If these agreements are not primarily about lowering tariffs and other 'trade restrictions' (as the OP states) but about adding "strong labor and environmental measures" (as China fears), they could be a good deal. Since Canada and Mexico are part of these negotiations, "strong labor and environmental measures" would apply to our NAFTA partners as well, something missing in the original NAFTA and not added subsequently.

April 29, 2013

Krugman: ... why isn’t 2008- playing like 1929- ? Why no surge in protectionism this time?

The Protectionist Non-Surge

So why, exactly, aren’t we seeing more protection? Why aren’t politicians — especially conservative politicians like those responsible for Smoot-Hawley — looking at the situation and saying, hmm, a tariff won’t increase the deficit, it won’t involve debasing the currency, but it could clearly help create jobs?

One answer might be the “Smoot-Hawley caused the Depression” thing; this isn’t true at all, but it might be serving the purpose of a noble lie.

Or maybe it’s the structure of trade agreements. The countries that arguably could really, really use some protection right now are inside the European Union, so no go. Countries outside still know that any protection they impose will lead to big problems at the WTO; the United States has to know that a protectionist response would break up the whole world trading system we’ve spent almost 80 years building.

So here’s a thought: maybe the secret of our protectionist non-surge isn’t macroeconomics; it’s institutions.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/the-protectionist-non-surge/

April 25, 2013

Sherrod Brown Statement Following Senate Committee Hearing On Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Brown Continues to Urge Administration to put American Businesses, Workers First in TPP Negotiations

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership represents an opportunity for American workers and businesses to sell products and services to new markets, but the rules of the agreement will define whether the TPP begins a new era in fair trade policy,” Brown said. “In ongoing TPP negotiations, American workers and businesses must be put first and our jobs not traded away in exchange for foreign policy goals.”

The TPP is a proposed trade agreement that currently includes the United States, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, Canada, and Mexico. Last month, Japan expressed its intent to join the TPP. Congress has the constitutional authority to set the terms of trade and commerce with foreign nations. The Administration is conducting the TPP talks using authority which officially lapsed in 2007, suggesting it will seek renewed Trade Promotion Authority, known as “Fast Track,” to conclude TPP negotiations, as well as other trade initiatives.

Brown has long been an opponent of NAFTA-style agreements that undermine American workers and businesses. Last month Brown, U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), and U.S. Representative Sander Levin (MI-9), led a group of 49 of their colleagues in urging President Obama to put the best interests of American workers and businesses first as negotiations continued with Japan on its potential entry to the TPP. Brown and his colleagues specifically cited Japan’s longstanding efforts to impose trade barriers and block U.S. exports as actions that have hurt the American economy, domestic job creation, and specifically its auto-industry.

Earlier this month, Brown led a group of seven Senators in urging Acting United States Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis to craft disciplinary language in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations for actions taken by state-owned enterprises that discriminate and distort free markets. Failing to craft disciplinary language for these actions, Brown and his colleagues argued, would hurt the American economy and its workers and businesses by adversely affecting the United States’ ability to fairly compete in foreign markets as new nations enter the TPP.

http://politicalnews.me/?id=23179&pg=1&keys=TRANSPACIFIC-PARTNERSHIP-TPP-NEGOTIATIONS

Brown mentions action to deal with state-owned enterprises that receive government subsidies which give them an unfair advantage. "Failing to craft disciplinary language for these actions" "would hurt the American economy and its workers and businesses". "Disciplinary language" presumably would involve an enforcement mechanism that should be part of the treaty.

In this short statement Brown did not mention protections for unions, the environment and human rights but he has made previous statements that he wants to see these included in any eventual agreement.

Glad he is my senator. Wish my other one was not Portman. Talk about a schizophrenic state.

April 22, 2013

The wiki definiton of 'liberalism' is significantly different. You're right. It is important to keep

the terms separate.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade and private property.

April 22, 2013

From the "patriot" right: Internationalists dis sovereignty of nation-states and require cosmic

citizens to pledge their allegiance to a world community restructured around natural eco-systems (with surprisingly mystical nuances).

Politics of International Diffusion: Our Common Future

"It's one-world now" -- so said Leslie Gelb on the Charlie Rose Show (4 May 1993). President emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Gelb concedes that transnational paradigm shift is well underway. Indeed, the language of globalism is so deeply ingrained in American culture that definitions, and agendas supporting them, attract little attention beyond a knowing nod of placid approval. Whereas "national sovereignty," "free enterprise capitalism," and "traditionalism" are eschewed as "snarl" words, folks affirm as "purr" words "globalization," "harmonization," and "sustainability."

"International Diffusion" Purrs Pretty

... Professors, practitioners, and students from around the world recently gathered in San Francisco for the Fifty-fourth Annual Convention of the International Studies Association. Added to more than five thousand convention attendees were representatives from universities, non-profit organizations, publishing companies, and businesses from near and far. The ISA is a United Nations-recognized, nongovernmental organization that links directly to major UN conferences through which life altering global policies are determined.

Egalitarian Political-Economic Liberalism

... the ISA convention vigorously proselytized spread of political-economic liberalism across national borders with bogus promise of sustainable production and consumption, social justice, population control, and dispersion of power to a broader G-20.

One-world Reality, Not the American Dream

Be sure the one-world reality is no friend to our constitutional republic. Internationalists dis sovereignty of nation-states and require cosmic citizens to pledge their allegiance to a world community restructured around natural eco-systems (with surprisingly mystical nuances). Federalized global government redistributes the world's resources, thereby concentrating wealth and power into the hands of few.

http://patriotpost.us/commentary/17814

The right is prepared for any "political-economic liberalism" that these devotees of international studies may dish out on behalf of the dreaded United Nations (the coming One World Government).

I suppose if you are on the 'patriotic' right you gotta be suspicious of "political-economic liberalism across national borders with bogus promise of sustainable production and consumption, social justice, population control, and dispersion of power to a broader G-20". "National sovereignty," "free enterprise capitalism," and "traditionalism" are much more comfortable terms for those folks who believe in "political-economic conservatism within national borders".

April 22, 2013

Doesn't mean much. Republicans now hate it. They were also for the Civil Rights Act, the EPA,

a guaranteed annual income, cap-and-trade and high tariffs at one time or another in the past, but republicans hate them all now. If we jettison every policy that a republican has ever supported - even in the distant past - we will be throwing out a lot of good with the bad. We have more to worry about from the positions of modern day far-right, tea party-intimidated republicans than we do from those of the old republican party.

April 21, 2013

CBS Twitter accounts hacked by 'pro-Damascus group'

Source: BBC

Fake messages appearing on the @60Minutes account criticised US support for "terrorist" rebels in Syria and others accused Barack Obama of trying to "take away your guns". A group calling itself the Syrian Electronic Army claimed to have been responsible for hijacking the accounts.

The SEA group has previously put out messages in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It appeared to behind the takeover of several BBC Twitter accounts last month and some of NPR's accounts last week.

A CBS spokeswoman confirmed that the accounts had been compromised. CBS said it was working with Twitter to "resolve the issue".

The fake messages that appeared on the @60Minutes account reportedly included:

"The US government is hiding the real culprit of the Boston bombing"
"The US government is sponsoring a coup in Venezuela and a terrorist war in Syria"
"Your duty is to protect your nation from the parasites that have taken your government"
"Obama wants to destroy the Syrian and American people. We must stop this beast"

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22237458

---

Love the:


Sounds like the hackers may have a tea party connection.

April 9, 2013

Not again- from the far right: accusations of 'amnesty', 'open borders' and a 'North American Union'

In Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite and heir apparent to a leadership role among constitutionally conservative Republicans, has softened his stance against amnesty. The New York Times reported on March 19 that, in a speech before the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Paul outlined his position on immigration, “including an implicit pathway to citizenship.” ... As with many other issues, the GOP-Democrat divide is not always very deep.

But why should a place be found for those who sneak across the border and do not want to assimilate? Why can’t borders be enforced? In truth, the policy of providing repeated amnesties without enforcing the border does not make any sense — unless the intent is to eventually eliminate the border as part of a broader agenda to establish a North American Union. The evidence demonstrates this is exactly what’s happening.

Our internationalist-minded leaders have not ceased their efforts to create “more stable, more cooperative units.” During his recent State of the Union address (SOTU), President Obama promoted the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TAP) — which would combine the United States and the rest of NAFTA with some Pacific Rim nations and the EU.

In response to Obama’s plug for the trans-oceanic partnerships, investigative reporter Jerome Corsi noted: “Obama’s open discussion of the two-oceans TPP and TAP free trade agendas during his recent SOTU attests to the persistence of globalists. ... In order to prevent this, both sides of the internationalists’ agenda must be countered simultaneously: Illegal immigration must be controlled and amnesty denied, and new “free trade” pacts between the United States and other nations must be stopped and existing ones, such as NAFTA, repealed.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/15010-permanent-amnesty-temporary-border

Their tune never changes.

April 8, 2013

France's Marine LePen continues to oppose the EU with its continent-wide open borders and free trade

"European people are realizing that the European Union is an empire, a Soviet Union, that in fact is destroying their freedom and doesn't protect them from economic, social or migratory difficulties. And I think that the increase in patriotism, to managing a country’s own affairs, to control of borders, whether it's human, capital, or product flows is irreversible."

"The worst thing that is happening now is the free trade agreement that is being negotiated with the United States. It will put an end to French agriculture. This is not 'his' mistake because he's not deciding anything. He's just serving globalization and applying decisions taken in Brussels."

"I even asked the French President to organize a big referendum in January 2014 to ask the question to the French people: do they want to stay in the European Union? Do they want to stay with open borders? Do they want to take the risk of having Romania and Bulgaria in the Schengen, with the arrival of millions of Roma who are attracted by a social system that is very advantageous, which is the French system. Do they want to go on with free trade? Do they want to forbid economic patriotism? Do they want European laws to be stronger than national laws? And I want to salute Hungary who decided to change the constitution so that it prioritizes national rights over European rights."

"I mean, I'm not going to stop bringing the truth because a few leftists are trying to stop me from doing that. In fact, they pretend to be eurosceptic, those leftists, but they participate in the system, they implement the system! They themselves are in favor of immigration when they know that immigration is used to lower salaries. They are themselves defenders of Europe. Oh they always explain that they want a "different Europe", but it is still the European Union with open borders, so one cannot sincerely be the defender of a nation while at the same time be for totally free trade and totally free immigration."

http://rt.com/op-edge/eu-destroys-freedom-marine-le-pen-488/

Have to give LePen "credit" for sticking to her eurosceptic position despite finishing third in the last presidential election and despite the National Front winning just 2 seats in the parliament.