Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – Strategic Culture Foundation

President Putin’s Valdai Speech: Obama’s Legacy Can Be Rectified

Sun, 30 Oct 2016 03:45:00 +0000

At a meeting of the Valdai international discussion club, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he hoped for improvement of Russia-US relationship after a new president takes office in Washington.

According to the president, Russia and the United States should «break out of this vicious circle» and proceed to a new level of relations. He asked the US to abstain from provoking Russia into taking an active stand to defend its national interests. Mr. Putin would welcome reaching agreements with the US on various issues of common interest. The Russian president has dismissed as 'improper' the behavior of the US politicians, who put the blame on Russia for whatever goes wrong in the world, including Syria.

Indeed, with Barack Obama's second presidential term approaching an end, the inability to successfully deal with Russia is one of foreign policy failures to wreck his legacy. Washington’s efforts to resolve the Syrian crisis jointly with Moscow are a complete debacle. From Russia’s point of view the US is an unreliable partner.

On October 27, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published the document called «Comparative Analysis of Russia-US Agreements Implementation» on Syria.

The paper will be circulated as a United Nations document. It lists all the US violations of the agreements reached with Russia on Syria.

From the very start, the administration was divided over the deal with Russia on cessation of hostilities. There was a wide gap between the positions of US Department of State and the Defense Department. The US military did not want to work with their Russian partners. The US has been mulling abandoning all the agreements in favor of military options.

Washington has many times blamed Russia for striking civilians in Syria. Over 60 civilians were killed and at least 200 injured during first three days of the Mosul offensive launched by the US-led coalition. Nobody apologized. It’s not even in the media spotlight!

There are many other areas where the bilateral relationship is almost on the rocks.

Despite Assistant State Secretary Victoria Nuland activities, Ukraine has remained a divisive issue with no progress achieved.

The arms control disintegration continues. Nothing has been done to change the tide during Obama’s tenure.

The 2010 New START (the Prague Treaty) expires in 2020 without any prospects for a new agreement coming into force. The future of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty is in doubt.

The Treaty is threatened by ballistic missile defense (BMD) deployment with the use of naval Mk-41 launchers capable of firing long-range cruise missile. It constitutes a violation of the treaty. The US has blatantly breached the bilateral Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PDMA).

The current administration has launched the program of upgrading B61-12 nuclear warheads to be installed on tactical aircraft of NATO countries in Europe.

The upgrade is a violation of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons from NWS (nuclear weapons states) to other states.

It’s just part of the picture as the US has provoked arms control erosion on global scale. President Obama has done nothing to have the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) ratified 20 years after it was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1996. The 2016 Washington Nuclear Summit ended without producing any tangible results. The non-proliferation regime is eroding and nothing is done to turn the tide. Under the administration, no effort has been applied to ratify the UN 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The US political clout in the world is waning.

In Europe, the US faces major setback as Europeans revolt against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Germany and France have already said disagreements have killed off prospects for reaching a deal.

The United States’ policy of pivot to Asia has failed to bring positive results. The prospects for ratification of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) are dim.

The failure to ratify this fundamental agreement will be a great setback undermining the US credibility in the region.

The US Middle East policy is in doldrums.

Iraq has been ravaged by sectarianism, spread of Islamic State (IS) extremist movement, a refugee crisis and economic woes.

The meddling into Libya has resulted in devastation, suffering and chaos with Russia asked for help.

The administration was blindsided by the emergence of the Houthi rebellion in Yemen. The wisdom of US meddling into the conflict is doubted with many questions raised about the violations of human rights.

The relationship between the United States and Egypt has deteriorated with Cairo looking for other partners.

President Obama’s efforts to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians have gone down the drain with new Israeli settlements built, moderate Palestinians discredited and Hamas growing stronger.

The situation in the Middle East has become worse than it was when then US president took office. Under President Obama’s watch, IS has made significant gains in the heart of Middle East. Nothing like a US strategy to fight it exists. The president’s policy in the region has resulted in additional chaos alienating US allies and multiplying enemies. As a result, the Middle East faces its worst turmoil in many decades.

The US has failed to carry out its mission in Afghanistan.

Today, the Taliban fighters control more territory than at any time since 2001. The fighting continues with no end in sight.

Nowhere in Africa has the US achieved any success. Terrorist movements are on the rise, the continent is threatened by instability. North Africa and the Saharan and sub-Saharan zones have seen increased terrorism as a result of the regime change policy in Libya. The situation has deteriorated to make America start war preparations.

One debacle is followed by another. It’s not entirely the responsibility of the president and his team. Mr. Obama was guided by the foreign policy elites – the same people Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is associated with and Republican candidate Donald Trump is criticized by, especially for his readiness to normalize the relations with Russia.

That is the legacy President Obama cedes to his successor, including diplomatic minefield in its relations with Moscow. As the example of Iran nuclear deal shows, normalizing relations with Russia could make possible achievements the Obama administration has failed to reach. Syria’s crisis management could be one if a new administration changes the attitude, reigns in the military and abides by the provisions of deals concluded.

It would be right if the US and Russia cooperated in Iraq and Libya. Looks like they will have to. With all the wrongdoings the US has done in recent years, the Russian president stretched a hand in his Valdai speech. It’s up to the US to decide if further confrontation is better than fruitful cooperation. One thing is clear – a new administration will have to work really hard to rectify the situation with its credibility shattered across the globe. Normalizing the relationship with Russia could be a very tangible achievement. With one thing leading to another, joining together with Moscow could result in other foreign policy successes. It may be a tall order but it’s possible. The new US president will have a chance.

Europe Moving Away from the US to Become More Independent

A A — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 03:45:00 +0000

Federica Mogherini, the current High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, has said a timetable setting out steps to create EU military structures, billed by some countries as the foundation of a «European army», will be announced in a few days.

«We have the political space today to do things that were not really doable in previous years», Ms. Mogherini told EU ambassadors on September 5.

A timetable for the plan will be discussed at a meeting of 27 EU leaders – excluding British PM Theresa May – at a summit in Bratislava on September 16. According to her, the plan to create a military structures able «to act autonomously» from NATO and the USA is the EU’s best chance to relaunch itself after Brexit.

London has always strongly opposed the idea. With the UK out, the European Commission, France, Germany, Italy and countries in Central Europe see new prospects for the project.

The military plan foresees countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland creating permanent military structures to act on behalf of the EU and for the deployment of the EU’s battle groups and 18 national battalions. It could also comprise an EU military planning and operations headquarters in Brussels that could be a rival to NATO.

The EU already has joint defence capabilities in the form of 1,500-strong battle groups, but they have not been tested in combat yet.

The drive to create a joint European army appears to be gaining momentum with the Czech Republic and Hungary both speaking out in favor of deeper defense ties on the continent in moves which are likely to rile NATO. «We should list the issue of security as a priority, and we should start setting up a common European army», Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban told a news conference after a meeting between Central European member states and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Warsaw on August 26.

Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka also called for discussion to start on the issue. He says it is a priority due to the need to secure Europe’s borders and respond to growing security threats from places such as the Middle East, adding, «we should also begin a discussion about creating a common European army». At the same time, Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo called for setting up a European border guard to protect the Union’s external borders. The Czech, Hungarian, Polish and Slovak leaders are coordinating their foreign policy within the framework of the Visegrad Group.

Chancellor Merkel supported the idea of increasing security across the bloc.

The concept of European military has also been backed by Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, a European leader pushing for more defence co-operation.

Last year European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker called for a European Army. The proposal was supported in Germany, where Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen told Deutschlandfunk radio that a «European army is the future». Mr. Juncker will elaborate on the issue in his «State of the Union» address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on September 14 – just two days before he presents his proposals to the leaders of the 27 remaining EU countries at a special post-Brexit summit in Bratislava. The European Commission President wants a unified command for EU military operations, common investment for military hardware, and standardized military equipment for all member states.

Under discussion is the establishment of «permanent structured co-operation» that would allow member states that wish to embark on military co-ordination to do so without being vetoed by objecting countries. The proposals include «joint civilian military planning and conduct capability» — code for a permanent operational headquarters for the day-to-day command of operations. This would provide central support to EU military missions, replacing the national headquarters on which the bloc currently relies.

The plan includes joint investment projects so national defence forces could develop major projects together, cutting costs. One suggestion is that such a scheme could be used to co-fund the development of air-to-air refuelling capacity for member states. Another suggestion is that participating member states would agree to binding EU targets for military coordination. The main defence and security measures are drawn from a paper developed by Federica Mogherini, EU foreign policy chief, and presented to European foreign ministers at informal talks on September 2-3 in Bratislava.

In July, the EU strategy document titled European Union Global Strategy stated that the bloc should look to create greater military autonomy from NATO.

«As Europeans we must take greater responsibility for our security. We must be ready and able to deter, respond to and protect ourselves against external threats», reads the paper prepared by the EU foreign policy chief.

NATO officials have expressed concerns that the proposals will create rivalry and challenge the alliance’s primacy as the main defence structure. An EU independent capability to carry out its own military operations will greatly weaken NATO and put an end to Europe’s dependence on the United States.

If the idea is endorsed on September 16, arrangements could allow Norway, a NATO member outside the EU, to contribute, while Sweden and Finland, EU members outside NATO, might find an EU alliance preferable to one that crosses the Atlantic. The European states got entangled in the military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan due to solidarity with the United States, not because the European interests were involved.

These two examples alone are enough to give precedence to European, rather than transatlantic, security interests. Quite often these interests do not coincide. Previously, the EU military force was seriously mulled over was during the buildup to the illegal Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 when Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg met to discuss it as an alternative to US-dominated NATO.

Today, the EU needs a joint border force to tackle the migrants’ crisis. This is an issue of paramount importance for Europe, unlike the plans to deploy NATO battalions in Eastern Europe and the Baltics to challenge Russia and, thus, undermine the European security. As Europeans, Russia and the EU have more common interests in the field of security, while the US has its own list of foreign policy priorities.

The Russian Federation and the European Union conducted joint operations in Chad and the Central African Republic and coordinated efforts fighting Somalian pirates. It brings to mind the statement made by Frederica Mogherini last year in Riga, Latvia, when she told reporters that the EU will pursue a realistic approach with Moscow and will not be pushed or pulled by anyone into a confrontational relationship with Russia.

The idea to create an EU military is being floated at the time the US is pushing Europe to do much more to strengthen its own security. President Obama has called the Europeans «free riders». Donald Trump, the GOP presidential candidate, has openly questioned the need for NATO. Anyway, the US government has stated that the «pivot» to Asia, not Europe, tops its foreign policy priorities list. It has other threats to fend off.

The goals may not coincide. Does it serve the interests of European states to get involved in the South China Sea conflict if the US meddles in? Absolutely not. In its turn, the US views the Europe’s migrants’ crisis as a far-flung problem that doesn’t affect its direct interests. It would prefer to see the money spent on European border guards to be allocated to NATO needs instead. Around 4.5 million refugees have fled the Syrian civil war. The US has taken in only around 3,000.

Under the circumstances, the transformation of NATO’s European arm into an EU defence structure is a logical step in the right direction. Only a European force – not an assortment of national armies operating under the auspices of US-led NATO – can really defend European interests. No matter what exactly decisions will be taken at the Bratislava meeting, the recent events leave no doubt that the European Union’s new defense strategy is a bid to increase inter-EU security cooperation, and strengthen the EU’s ability to achieve independence from the US-dominated NATO alliance. This is an indisputable fact to put in question the relevance of the North American Alliance. It also happens at the time Europe rejects the US-imposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

A trend is shaping with Europe gradually moving away from the reliance on the US to become more independent and able to set its own priorities.

US Faces Major Setback As Europeans Revolt Against TTIP

Sun, 04 Sep 2016 07:45:00 +0000

France wants to halt thorny EU-US trade talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) as President Francois Hollande underlined there would be no deal until after President Barack Obama leaves office in January. Matthias Fekl, the French minister for foreign trade, has said his country will call for an end to the deal. France has been sceptical about the TTIP from the start and has threatened to block the deal, arguing the US has offered little in return for concessions made by Europe. All 28 EU member states and the European parliament will have to ratify the TTIP before it comes into force.

The statements came just a couple of days after German economy minister Sigmar Gabriel had said talks for TTIP had de facto failed. Gabriel, who leads Germany’s centre-left Social Democratic party and is vice-chancellor in the coalition government, said Europe mustn’t submit to the American proposals. Mr. Gabriel’s statement is in contrast with the position of Chancellor Angela Merkel who supports the deal. Meanwhile, the US-German conflicts are growing. US courts and authorities took a hard line against the Volkswagen Group, Germany’s largest car manufacturer, in relation to its exhaust scandal. In a deal that does not include all damage claims, VW is required to pay up to 13.6 billion euros. There is a growing chorus in Germany saying that the country should orientate more to Asia. This perspective shared by the organizers of the anti-TTIP lobby, including the German Trade Union Federation (DGB), the Left Party and the Greens.

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

TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks that have lasted three years not a single common item out of the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on. The United States has refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of «buy American».

The opponents of the deal believe that in its current guise the TTIP is too friendly to US businesses. One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively «sue» governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states.

In Europe thousands of people supported by society groups, trade unions and activists take to the streets expressing protest against the deal. Three million people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. For instance, various trade unions and other groups have called for protests against the TTIP across Germany to take place on September 17. A trade agreement with Canada has also come under attack.

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

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

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

Both deals have been problematic, primarily because they contain clauses that would allow corporations to sue sovereign nations and are seen as a US attempt to assert political, diplomatic and corporate influence. As illustrated above, even Americans reject them, blaming the North American Free Trade Agreement for the exodus of American manufacturing to cheaper destinations. But the failure to push through both agreements will put into doubt the US status of global superpower.

Inside the US wealth inequality is growing.

Student loans are up. So too are food stamps and health insurance costs. In the meantime, labor force participation, home ownership and median family incomes have plummeted. The US government's $19 trillion debt is a huge problem. Long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have exacted an enormous price – immense financial expense, estimated to be as high as $6 trillion (£3.9tn). The detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, as well as the NSA and Wikileaks spying scandals, have undermined the belief in American values and American diplomacy.

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

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

Among the foreign policy disasters in the Middle East, the rise of the Muslim extremists in several nations has created a crisis for all of the West, including the United States but most immediately and especially for refugee-swamped Europe. The West is reaping the results of America’s foreign policy failures as it struggles to cope with hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring out of Syria and the Middle East.

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

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

Brexit’s Potential Impact on the Transatlantic Partnership

Fri, 08 Jul 2016 07:45:09 +0000

As is known, the conclusion of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement being lobbied for by Washington would create the world’s largest free trade zone and the free movement of capital. Today, the US and EU together (including the UK) are estimated to account for half of global GDP and a third of world trade.

Brexit, however, may introduce new elements into the Transatlantic Partnership equation.

On 26 June, the Independent, a British online newspaper, published an article titled «We thought the best thing about Brexit would be avoiding TTIP – but the fight isn’t over yet» by well-known anti-globalist and Eurosceptic John Hilary, executive director of the NGO War on Want. The author believes it is too early to celebrate a victory over supporters of the Transatlantic Partnership. «The Leave vote», writes Hilary, «means that the British people have escaped being party to any future TTIP agreement as an EU member state… At the same time… leaving the EU would bring us face-to-face with a UK political elite that has consistently championed the most extreme neoliberal positions… A new UK government could still attempt to sign us up to the principles of TTIP at a future date».

Nick Dearden, director of NGO Global Justice Now, expresses a similar point of view: «Alongside US lobbyists, the British government has done everything possible to push the most extreme and toxic version of TTIP. So there’s every reason to suspect that the UK will look to develop a bilateral deal with the USA that could end up being even more disastrous for labour protections, consumer standards and public services than TTIP was going to be… Brexit means that we need to redouble our efforts to stop the UK’s free market fundamentalists from enabling massive corporate power grabs through bilateral trade deals».

Benjamin Oreskes and Victoria Guida, authors of the article «The bright side of Brexit? A US-UK trade deal» published in the online journal Politico, note that the prospects of a TTIP agreement between the US and the EU are becoming increasingly elusive. According to the authors, the agreement is facing particularly strong opposition in Germany and Austria. Last year, meanwhile, the Democrats promised American voters that if Barack Obama’s administration ran out of time to conclude the TTIP agreement with Europe, then it would be done by the new Democrat president (Hillary Clinton).

A number of other US experts, whose opinions are quoted by Politico, are more or less confident that the break-up between London and Brussels will not stop Washington and London entering into an agreement similar to the one prepared during negotiations between Washington and Brussels.

Arguably the most reserved on the issue and the one who has expressed himself most cautiously is Tennessee Republican senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Bob Corker. He stated that he was all for expanding trade links with the UK, but would still prefer a wide-ranging trade pact between the US and the EU.

Hillary Clinton also gave her view on the subject, although her opinion was extremely affected. She reiterated Obama’s statement that the referendum will not influence relations between the US and the UK.

According to a number of experts, interest in entering into a bilateral agreement is now coming not just from Washington, but from London as well. To compensate for any possible trade losses as a result of leaving the EU, London is bolstering trade links with countries outside of the European Union. The US is the UK’s main trading partner. In 2015, the total value of UK goods exports was $460.1 billion and just over half of UK exports went to Europe. The US nevertheless holds first place among the UK’s trading partners. Last year, UK goods export volumes totalled (billions of dollars, share of total UK exports in brackets): US – 66.5 (14.5%); Germany – 46.4 (10.1%); Switzerland – 32.2 (7.0%); and China – 27.4 (5.9%). America is also the UK’s main partner in terms of international investment. Thus in 2014, US investment accounted for 41.5 percent of the total amount of FDI inflow into the UK economy ($72 billion) and by the end of 2014, the total amount of US foreign direct investment in the UK had reached $588 billion.

Obviously the UK is not such an important economic partner for the US as the US is for the UK, however. In 2014, for example, the UK was only America’s seventh biggest trading partner in terms of foreign trade turnover (after Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Germany and South Korea).

Primarily, London is important to Washington not as a trade and economic partner, but as a political and military one. It is through London that the US is hoping to continue exerting its influence on Continental Europe and in this regard, Brexit will change nothing.

TTIP, “Economic Nato”

Thu, 23 Jun 2016 07:50:01 +0000

Manlio Dinucci

Citizens, local authorities, parliaments, governments, entire states depleted of economic choices, placed in the hands of organizations controlled by multinationals and financial groups, violating labour rights, environmental protection and food security, demolishing public services and communal goods. It is for these reasons, articulated by the campaign “Stop TTIP” that sponsored the demonstration held on 7 May at Rome, that the “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership” (TTIP) must be rejected. The EU and the US have been negotiating the TTIP in secret.

Such reasons are coupled with others, about which little or nothing at all is said: geopolitical and geostrategic reasons, which reveal a far wider and more threatening project.

The US ambassador for the EU, Anthony Gardner, insists that “there are fundamental geostrategic reasons to conclude this agreement”. What are these reasons? These are indicated by the US National Intelligence Council. It forecasts that “following the decline of the West and the rise of Asia, by 2030 developing states will have taken over developed states”.

This is why Hillary Clinton defines the US-EU partnership as “the biggest strategic goal of our transatlantic alliance”, proposing an “Economic Nato”, a blend of politics and the military.

Washington’s project is clear: to take Nato to a higher level and to set up a EU-US political, economic and military bloc, still under US leadership, enlarged by a range of partners on both sides of the Atlantic and others, including allies such as Israel and the Gulf monarchies.

A bloc that, in Washington’s strategy, should be a counterweight to the Euroasian area, an emerging region, based on China-Russia cooperation, the Brics, Iran and any other country that escapes Western control.

The first step to implement this plan: splinter the relationship between the EU and Russia.

The TTIP negotiations began in July 2013. They struggled to go forward due to conflicting interests between the US and the biggest European powers, to which Russia is offering favourable trade agreements.

Six months later, in January/February 2014, the Maidan Square putsch set up by the US/Nato, triggers a chain reaction (attacks on Russians in Ukraine, Krimea is severed and absorbed into Russia, sanctions and countersanctions). This creates in Europe once again a climate of Cold War.

At the same time, EU countries are put under pressure by an influx of migrants brought about by the US/Nato war (Libya/Syria), which they participated in and terrorist attacks which bear Isis’s signature (Isis too being a creature of these wars).

In this Europe, divided by “walls of containment” of migratory flows, where the pyschosis of being under siege is spreading, the US launches the biggest military operation since the end of the Cold War, lining up on Russia’s border fighter-bombers and warships with nuclear capabilities.

US-led NATO, whose membership includes 22 of the 28 EU member states, cranks up it military drills (which exceeded 300 in 2015) especially on the Eastern front. At the same time it launches, with air units and special forces, military operations in Libya, Syria and other countries on the Southern border, closely connected with those on the Eastern border, notably following Russian intervention in Syria.

All this promotes Washington’s plan to create an EU/US political, economic and military bloc. A plan unconditionally supported by Italy and Eastern states that have closer ties to the US than the EU. The biggest powers, notably France and Germany, are still negotiating. However in the meantime they are further integrating into Nato.

On 7 April [2016] the French parliament adopted a Protocol authorizing Nato bases and commands to be set up on its territory, military set ups that France had refused in 1966.

Der Spiegel reports that Germany is ready to send troops into Lithuania to strengthen the Nato alliance in Baltic countries bordering Russia.

Again it is der Spiegel that reports that Germany is prepared to set up an air base in Turkey where German tornados are already operating – officially in an anti-Isis capacity, strengthening the Nato alliance in this area that is of primary strategic importance.

The growing integration of France and Germany into US-led Nato shows that the “geostrategic reasons” for the TTIP prevail over conflicting interests (in particular, the costly sanctions against Russia).

voltairenet.org

The Collapse of the European Union: Return to National Sovereignty and to Happy Europeans?

Sun, 22 May 2016 07:45:32 +0000

Peter Koenig

Imagine – the European Union were to collapse tomorrow – or any day soon for that matter. Europeans would dance in the streets. The EU has become a sheer pothole of fear and terror: Economic sanctions – punishment, mounting militarization, the abolition of civil rights for most Europeans. A group of unelected technocrats, representing 28 countries, many of them unfit to serve in their own countries’ political system, but connected well enough to get a plum job in Brussels – are deciding the future of Europe. In small groups and often in secret chambers they decide the future of Europe.

Take the TTIP – under pressure from their masters in Washington, behind closed doors under utmost secrecy – and most likely against their own personal good – a small group of European Commission (EC) delegates without scruples, without any respect for their co-citizens, without consideration for their children, grand-children and their children, only interested in the instant laurels and pay-back – to be sure – from the colonialist, usurper and warrior number One, the United States of Chaos and Killing, they are ready to put 500 million Europeans and their descendants at peril.

It cannot be said enough what horrors the TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) would do to the people of Europe; and that is based on the little we know from the 248 pages ‘leaked’ by Greenpeace Netherlands of the ultra-clandestine negotiations taking place. ‘Negotiations’ is the most unfair term imaginable, since all the rules are imposed by Washington, the same as with the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership, involving 11 Pacific countries and the US – but not China and Russia).

Though TPP negotiations are finished, none of the 11 Pacific partners, nor the US Congress have approved the treaty. There is hope that even if ‘negotiations’ by the secret EC traitors and Washington should come to conclusion, at least some of the 28 EU countries may not approve. To be valid, the treaty needs to be approved in unanimity. The new rightwing Austrian frontrunner for Austrian’s Presidency, Norbert Hofer, has already said he would not sign the TTIP agreement. Similar remarks have been made by the French Minister for Foreign Trade, Matthias Fekl, who said, “There cannot be an agreement without France and much less against France.”

Under the TTIP, the citizens of Europe would lose out on all fronts. Europeans would become literally subjects of a corporate empire, led by the United States of America. EU countries would stop being sovereign nations, even more so than is already the case under the current Brussels dictate. As the secret TTIP documents reveal, the agreement would be the death knell for Europe. Here is what Susan George, philosopher and political analyst and President of the Planning Committee of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam has to say:

The food we import would be chemically treated, would be genetically modified, would have no labels. You wouldn’t know exactly what is in your food. You could buy chicken that has been rinsed in chlorine, you could have beef that was raised with hormones, you could have biosynthetic food made out of one gene of a plant another of an animal, and this would not be labeled.

In the area of agriculture again, it is very likely that we would lose a great many farmers, because if we lower the tariffs of agriculture we will have a flood of American [highly subsidized, GMO]-corn and basic grains flooding into Spain and that will ruin a lot of farmers, exactly the way the ”campesinos” in Mexico were ruined by the North American Free Trade Agreement, the NAFTA.

ln the area of health, the pharmaceutical companies [want] to get rid of generic drugs. They have already succeeded in forcing the generic drug companies to repeat all of the clinical trials that they have already had to do with the same identical medicine but which has a brand name. To make it a generic drug you have to start all over again: clinical trials, blind tests, and so forth. So medicine would become much more expensive.

But most important:

[The TTIP] is about giving corporations the freedom to sue governments if they don’t like a law that the government has passed.

We have a lot of examples now, because in hundreds of bilateral treaties this private judiciary system exists, and for example, the government of Egypt raised the minimum wage and a company, an important company, Veolia, from France, sued them because they would have to pay their workers more. This case has not been decided yet, but one case that has been decided is for example, Ecuador, which refused that an American petroleum company could drill in a particular region. Well, they said this is a protected area and you cannot drill here. And the company said, ah, we will sue you; and they won. And they have a fine on Ecuador of 1.8 billion dollars which is a lot of money for a small and fairly weak country.

This simply means that private corporate courts would be above the laws and courts of sovereign nations. There would be no sovereignty left; not even the little idependence Brussels has not yet destroyed. EU nations would all be under the rules of an Anglo-American led corporate empire.

You may read Susan George’s full article here.

And then there is TiSA, the ‘Trade in Services Agreement’, of which even fewer people are aware. It is also being ‘negotiated’ in secrecy, involving 23 WTO members (Australia, Canada, Chile, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, Costa Rica, the EU (28 countries), Hong Kong China, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States). Altogether, we are talking about 50 countries; 49 of them bent to submit to one, the Unites States of Wars, Crimes and Domination. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to realize that, again, Washington is calling the shots. Actually, the TiSA talks, similar to those of the TTIP, are infiltrated by US corporate trolls and lobbyists, making Washington the representative for the US corporate empire and, of course, for Wall Street.

According to WTO, TiSA would be opening up the market for ‘trade in services’, meaning – expect privatization of all public and social services, like health care, education, social security systems, pensions, transportation, postal services, telecommunication, water supply and sanitation, solid waste disposal – and more would all be subject to buy-outs by transnational corporations. Just look at Greece, trying hard to pay back their ill-begotten debt, selling off her national social capital, or life capital, to the detriment of the poor – by now the majority of Greek – who depend on it. Once a country has signed the trade agreements, there is no way back. It has opened its social and public sectors to rent seeking private corporations.

Like with the TTIP, should a government at a later stage realize that privatization of, say water services, did not bring the promised benefits for the people, it cannot go back and re-nationalize, or municipalize this service. Remunicipalization of water services is currently happening in France, of all places, the country with the most privatized public water supply systems. In 2012 the government and municipalities of large cities decided to re-take these vital public services. This is currently ongoing. Under TiSA rules it would not be possible. Worse – once TiSA is signed, a country cannot decide to exempt a particular sector included in the list for potential ‘liberalization’, for example, health, education and other vital social services. Corporate arbitration courts, similar to those of the TTIP, would be set up for TiSA. – These ‘negotiations’ are taking place in Geneva, under the auspices of WTO – in secret – and driven by rules, sticks and carrots, imposed by – you guessed it – Washington.

If the EU were to collapse today, both the TTIP and the TiSA talks would come to a standstill. Anyone of the 28 EU countries, or better even of the 19 Eurozone countries, could bring the EU down. A Grexit, a Brexit, a fiasco emerging from the forthcoming rehash of the Spanish elections – or a firm decision by a government to default on its (mostly) troika imposed debt, could bring the house of cards of the dollar pyramid scheme to fall – and erase once and for all the enslaving dollar-euro hegemony. Debt could be renegotiated in newly restored national currencies. Remember, the euro is barely 15 years old. So – returning to national currencies should not be dramatic, but rather a sigh of relief – relief from a debt trap, and relief from Washington’s and Brussels’ boots of oppression.

Imagine what a collapse of the EU and the euro-zone would mean for the Greek people. Though, rumors have it that more than half the Greek are still adamant in hanging on to the destructive euro, I bet, its collapse would have hundreds of thousands dancing in the streets. Syriza could forget the currently negotiated additional €3 billion austerity budget cuts – even less pension and higher taxes for the poor.

To be sure, Greek debt relief will not come from the current EU/EC-troika constellation. To the contrary, the German Minister of Finance, Wolfgang Schaeuble, has ever harsher words for Greece, as if he was threatening pushing Greece out of the EU. An empty threat, as everybody should know by now. Washington, also the masters of Germany, will not allow a Grexit, or a Brexit or an exit by any EU member. Washington needs the EU ‘intact’ to eventually serve as a slave partner in TTIP and TiSA.

What happened and continues to happen to Greece may serve as a (learning) example for other ‘weak’ southern EU countries to follow – unless, yes, unless, Greece or another country under EC-troika imposed economic and financial stress and strangulation takes the bull by the horns – taking a drastic decision: Exit the EU and the euro-zone, jump-start the local economy with a local currency, and negotiate the illegal and fraudulently imposed debt at their terms. That may bring about the end of the nefarious euro-zone – and the US-created European Union.

Be aware, the EU as it exists today, is not the invention of Europeans; it is a construct thought out immediately after WWII by the US, so as to keep Europe under her control – and to create a buffer zone vis-à-vis communism, the Soviet Union. It worked so far. This idea still prevails, as we see every day how Russia and her leader is being demonized and slandered by the western media. Let us be frank, if it weren’t for the strategic clear-headedness and foresight of President Putin, we – Europe – would be for the third time in 100 years enmeshed in a world war. And if we let this Washington imposed trend continue, Europe will become an Anglo-American slaveland. Just look at TTIP and TiSA.

A true federation of sovereign European countries down the road, perhaps even with a common currency and a real central bank, may be a viable long-term solution for Europe. But – and this is the most important BUT, such a Europe will have to be designed by true and honest Europeans – am I dreaming? – and absolutely without any influence of the United States of America. None.

Anyone of the 28 EU countries could return happiness to the people of Europe; could take the pain, frustration, fear and anxiety away; could reinstate national sovereignty, could bring national pride and local – instead of global – economy to the fore – by exiting the EU, by forfeiting the euro, by taking the reign of their people into the hands of a sovereign, democratic government.

A simple exit by one country – Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, the UK, France… you name it, could bring the ferocious debt machine to a grinding halt, opening the opportunity of joining a new, more just and more equal monetary scheme – the nascent combined eastern economic space of China, Russia, BRICS, SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and the EEU (Eurasian Economic Union).

To be sure, time is important. Not for nothing Obama is pushing for speedy conclusions and signing of the disgraceful TTIP. The signing of these predatory agreements, TTIP, TiSA, TPP, is a key agenda item of Obama’s Presidency; his corporate and military legacy – NATO expansion is part of it – may depend on it. Once these treaties are signed, there is no way back. If the TTIP is ratified despite all logic, and if subsequently the EU fell apart – each country would still be held accountable to the terms of the agreement. Hence, time for an EU collapse before signing of the TTIP and TiSA is of the essence.

This radical solution may be too much even for staunch EU / Euro opponents. Many of them still seek, hope and dream of a reformed EU. They still live under the illusion that ‘things’ could be worked out. Believe me – they cannot. The Machiavellian US-invented venture, called European Union with the equally US-invented common currency – the Eurozone – has run its course. It is about to ram the proverbial iceberg. The EU-Euro vessel is too heavy to veer away from disaster. Europe is better off taking time to regroup; each nation with the objective of regaining political and economic sovereignty – and perhaps with an eye a couple of generations down the road envisaging a new United Europe of sovereign federal states, independent, totally delinked from the diabolical games of the western Anglo-American empire.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, Chinese 4th Media, TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

Global Research

Kill TTIP Now

Mon, 16 May 2016 08:11:24 +0000

Paul Craig ROBERTS

In his May 9, 2016, speech to European medical professionals, Michael Hudson points out that the result of TTIP for Europe will be the privatization of health care systems with the associated much higher costs.

Hudson’s accurate description of TTIP shows that politically powerful corporations have gained the power in Western “democracies” to sacrifice the welfare of all populations to corporate greed for profit regardless of the cost to peoples, countries, and societies.

The evil of American “democratic capitalism” is total and irredeemable. TTIP gives corporations unaccountable power over governments and peoples. The corporations must be slapped down hard, fiercely regulated, and forced by threat of long prison sentences to serve the public interest, and not the incomes of the executives and shareholders who comprise the One Percent.

Here is Hudson’s analysis.

paulcraigroberts.org

Trade Deals and the Environmental Crisis

Sat, 14 May 2016 08:05:42 +0000

Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is published by CounterPunch Books

With the release of leaked documents from the TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) ‘trade’ deal Greenpeace framed its conclusions more diplomatically than I will: the actions of the U.S. political leadership undertaken at the behest of American corporate ‘leaders’ and their masters in the capitalist class make it among the most profoundly destructive forces in human history. At a time when environmental milestones pointing to irreversible global warming are being reached on a daily basis, the U.S. political leadership’s response is to pronounce publicly that it favors environmental resolution while using ‘trade’ negotiations to assure that effective resolution never takes place.

Those representing the U.S. in these negotiations are mainly business lobbyists who have been given the frame of state power to promote policies that benefit the businesses they represent. The thrust of the agreements is to enhance corporate power through legal mechanisms including patents, intellectual property rights and ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) provisions that create supranational judiciaries run by corporate lawyers for the benefit of corporations. Shifting the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to the corporations producing them precludes effective regulation in the public interest. The position that environmental harms must be proven before regulations are implemented leaves a dead planet as the admissible evidence.

U.S. President Barack Obama is both the most articulate American politician urging action on climate change and the central Liberal proponent of the trade agreements. The apparent paradox isn’t difficult to understand— the trade agreements will be legally binding on signatory states while Mr. Obama’s statement of the problem won’t be. As evidence of global warming mounts the Republican tactic of denial is looking more and more delusional. By articulating the problem Mr. Obama poses Democrats as the solution while handing the power to curtail greenhouse gas emissions to business lobbyists and corporate lawyers.

History is important here: the claim of ‘anthropogenic,’ or human caused, climate crisis universalizes the consequences of capitalist production when the carbon emissions that are causing it can be tied through both history and geography to the rise of capitalism. While the ‘industrial revolution’ began in England, it was the second industrial revolution and more particularly, U.S. industrial production since the end of WWII, that is responsible for the exponential increase in carbon emissions behind global warming. At this stage the addition of China as major carbon emitter can be tied largely to its exports to the West.

The spread of capitalist production makes global warming very difficult to resolve. Were the U.S. and developed Europe the only material greenhouse gas emitters, capitalist logic would be inexorably linked to its product. However, the spread of this production has naturalized it by creating the illusion of the universality of both stuff lust (commodity fetish) and the social mechanisms for producing it. The environmental implausibility of seven billion people driving cars and living in McMansions has given way to the local logic of manufactured wants motivating an entrenched economic order.

The rise of neo-liberal ‘state capitalism’ infers a period that never existed when state and economic power were separate and distinct. It is hardly an accident then that ‘free-trade’ agreements codify the relations of state and corporate power. Following from Bill Clinton, Barack Obama’s sleight-of-hand is to pose the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) and TTIP ‘agreements’ as economic policies when their intent is to cede political control to large corporations. Social understanding is gradually moving from corporations being political actors through campaign contributions to their being political entities that decide public policy through these ‘trade’ agreements.

The real paradox in play is between democracy and capitalism. ‘Trade’ deals are profoundly anti-democratic in that they cede civil control to ‘private’ corporations. Policies that maximize profits for corporations and their owners do so by reducing or eliminating democratic control over civic life. In civic logic ending human life on the planet is Dr. Strangelove-level insanity. In the realm of capitalist logic we all benefit from the stuff that capitalism produces, so what is the problem? The Liberal claim that ‘we’ can have both the stuff of capitalist production and environmental security through ‘smart’ capitalism ignores the ‘private’ control of the public realm inherent to capitalism.

What is made evident by the documents leaked by Greenpeace is that electoral politics are largely irrelevant to the business of ‘governing.’ The U.S. representatives negotiating ‘U.S.’ trade positions no more represent your and my interests than do the business executives selling us products. The public’s role in elections is as consumers of political rhetoric. Hillary Clinton’s willingness to say anything to win election reflects that her ‘product’ is political rhetoric and that it will bear no relation to her actual policies once the ‘sale’ is made. More profoundly, were Bernie Sanders to be elected his ability to govern in the public interest would be bounded by institutions dedicated to supporting ‘private’ interests.

In this sense Mr. Obama’s willingness to articulate positions on climate resolution, economic justice and concern for ‘human rights’ while doing the opposite is his skill as a political ‘leader.’ As long as this system is considered legitimate it will confer political legitimacy back on those elected. The oft heard complaint that elections don’t change anything depends on the ‘anything’ under consideration— the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is ‘consumer choice’ politics. The choices not available through electoral politics are: ending the threats of climate crisis and nuclear weapons, placing economic justice as the central role of Western governments, ending wars of choice while de-militarizing the West and creating new forms of democratic participation.

The logic of ‘smart’ capitalism proceeds from the base conceit that people want the stuff of capitalism and that capitalist production is the way to get it. History locates this want as a consequence of capitalist propaganda undertaken in the U.S. in the early twentieth century – it is no more ‘natural’ than a toaster oven. The aggregating logic of capitalist ‘efficiency’ produced the environmental aggregates of global warming and climate crisis. The capitalist logic of more capitalism to resolve the consequences of already existing capitalism proceeds from the premise that manufactured wants need to be met rather than simply not manufactured. Current ‘trade’ deals rely of these manufactured wants as a form of political control by the corporate class. The choice is ours to reject manufactured wants in favor of self-determination. As the capitalist class understands, doing so would end capitalism and the economic order it represents.

counterpunch.org

Obama: TTIP Necessary So as to Protect Megabanks from Prosecution

Tue, 10 May 2016 04:00:12 +0000

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity

On May 7^th, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, or German Economic News, headlined, “USA planen mit TTIP Frontal-Angriff auf Gerichte in Europa” or “US Plans Frontal Attack on Europe’s Courts via TTIP,” and reported that, “America’s urgency to sign TTIP with Europe has solid reason: Megabanks must protect themselves from claims by European investors who allege that they were cheated during the debt crisis… The US Ambassador to Italy has now let the cat out of the bag on this — probably unintentionally.”

In this particular case, the megabank that’s being sued isn’t American but German, Deutsche Bank, which the US Ambassador to Italy has cited as his example to defend, perhaps so as to appeal to Germans to protect their megabanks against lawsuits from foreign investors (such as Italians) who complain. In that case it was investors in the Italian city of Trani, population 53,000. The smallness of the city was an issue the Ambassador raised against the suit’s having been brought there.

Reuters headlined on May 6th, “Italian prosecutor investigates Deutsche Bank over 2011 bond sale”, and reported that, “An Italian prosecutor is investigating Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) over its sale of 7 billion euros ($8 billions) of Italian government bonds five years ago, an investigative source told Reuters. A prosecutor in Trani, a town in southern Italy, is investigating because Deutsche Bank allegedly told clients in a research note in early 2011 that Italy’s public debt was no cause for concern, and then sold almost 90 percent of its own holding of the country’s bonds.” The US bond-rating agencies are also subjects in this suit, because Trani had relied upon their ratings of those bonds.

The Obama Administration (through its Italian Ambassador) seems thus to be saying, in effect, that unless TTIP is passed into law, Europe’s megabanks (and the US bond-rating agencies, S&P, Moody’s and Fitch) will be able successfully to be sued by cheated investors, just as has been happening with such American banks as JPMorgan/Chase and Goldman Sachs in the United States, which — since TTIP hasn’t yet been in force anywhere, including in the US — were forced to pay billions to cheated investors. Apparently, Obama would be happier if those suits had been impossible in the US The argument here, though only implicitly, seems to be that TTIP is the way to protect megabanks and the bond-rating firms. It concerns specifically the selling of sophisticated derivative investments.

If this is the argument behind the remarks by Obama’s Italian Ambassador, John Phillips, he’s obliquely warning Europeans that unless TTIP gets signed, their megabanks might similarly be forced to pay billions to investors who were cheated. As quoted by Reuters, he said that, in the US, it’s “highly unlikely that such a case would be brought outside the major financial centers, where prosecutors have both jurisdiction and expertise in securities fraud prosecutions,” and that megabanks need the protection that’s provided by such prosecutors, since they possess “expertise in securities fraud prosecutions.” Phillips was clearly implying that small-city prosecutors (such as are allowed to prosecute such cases in Europe) aren’t such “experts,” as are needed in order to protect the megabanks. Reuters characterizes Phillips’s argument as asserting, “Italy’s justice system was deterring investors.” However, no clarification of the meaning of that statement was provided by Reuters.

DWN alleges that under the TTIP such a court-issue would probably not even have been raised but would simply have ended before an arbitration panel, in which the aggrieved investors exert no influence and where it would be almost impossible for these investors’ rights to be protected.

Another example is cited, where the German city of Pforzheim successfully sued, at the Federal Court of Justice, the US megabank JPMorgan/Chase, and where that court allowed Pforzheim to seek “accumulated damages of 57 million euros.”

Under TTIP, a megabank fined this way might in turn sue the nation’s taxpayers to restore the megabank’s ensuing loss of profits. If the cheated investors win, taxpayers might thus end up bearing the cheated investors’ losses. Under TTIP, the fined company would be arguing that the law under which it had been fined is in violation of TTIP and thus constitutes a violation of that treaty, so that the violating government is obliged to be paying the fine — the law against fraud would itself be violating the fined company’s rights. If the three-arbitrator TTIP panel rules in the megabank’s favor, the government would need to pay the fine it had assessed against the bank, and no appeals court exists for any of these arbitration-panels’ rulings — these rulings are final. Obama and other proponents of that system, which is called ISDS for Investor State Dispute Settlement, say that it’s a more efficient way of handling such disputes. In international commercial affairs, it not only eliminates appeals courts, it gradually eliminates democracy, by fining the government into ultimate submission to these three-person panels of international-corporate-accountable arbitrators.

On the same basic idea, Benito Mussolini was praised for “making the trains run on time.”

zerohedge.com

America’s TTIP «Trojan Horse» Being Forced upon Europe

Sun, 08 May 2016 09:40:53 +0000

According to a tranche of 240 pages of confidential negotiating documents on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) leaked to Greenpeace Netherlands, the Obama administration has been pressuring the European Union to allow the importation of hormone-tainted meat and genetically-modified food products in return for easing US import tariffs on European automobiles. Critics of the TTIP claim that it is nothing more the companion Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) on steroids, as far as granting multinational corporations unlimited powers to override national and supranational laws. These include those of individual EU member states and the European Union itself.

EU member states are increasingly growing critical of the ramifications of the TTIP for the 508 million European citizens that greedy, corrupt, and relatively regulation-free US corporations are eyeing as potential consumers. In an interview with the French newspaper Sud Ouest, French Trade Minister Matthias Fekl, a critic of the TTIP, said after the disclosure of the TTIP papers, «Europe is offering a lot and we are getting very little in return. This is unacceptable». Fekl added, «It is a deal that – in the state it is in today – would be a bad deal». Fekl and other European officials are concerned that Europe’s health and environmental regulations will be the first casualties if American corporations are permitted to run roughshod over existing European environmental, food safety, and public health protections.

Fekl also dislikes the fact that the United States wants to place trade disputes before private arbitration panels and not through the court system.

French officials, including Fekl and Prime Minister Manuel Valls, are warning that France may terminate its free trade negotiations with Washington over the current problems with the TTIP and American stubbornness.

No one has been more supportive of the TTIP than the Wall Street-installed Barack Obama. The reason why the Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump and Democratic presidential upstart Bernie Sanders achieved so much success in upending the hierarchies of their respective political parties is that the American public – right, left, and center – have rejected the free trade deals backed by Obama. The anti-free trade public, a clear majority of Americans, have soured on establishment Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and all of the Republican candidates, including Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and others who have benefitted from the financial backing by pro-TTIP mega-corporations like Goldman Sachs and Monsanto and corporate political action committees.

One of the main targets of the United States government in its secret negotiations with the EU on the TTIP are the EU Consumer Centers, that protect a half billion European citizens, as well as animals, from harmful chemicals and other substances in food and other products. For example, the United States is perfectly fine with lead and 1296 other known carcinogens being in cosmetics. The EU prohibits such poisonous substances in cosmetics. The EU prohibits the use of animals in testing cosmetics. The United States does not. It is significant that the TTIP documents reveal that the chemical industry has served as consultants to TTIP negotiators.

Obama, a creature of Wall Street, has used his position of president to warn the United Kingdom that if it votes to exit the EU in the upcoming «Brexit» referendum, it will go to the back of the line in negotiating a separate free trade deal with the United States. Obama also made similar threats against Scotland prior to its referendum on independence in 2014.

Britons are rightly concerned that opening up health services in Britain to American firms may lead to the privatization of the National Health Service. Similar plans to allow US educational and water systems firms free access to Britain may also lead to higher education and water utility costs for Britons. National health care systems throughout the EU may also face privatization if American transnational companies move in and begin charging usurious rates for health care and prescription drugs. Americans have seen this borne out under «Obamacare», which has rationed health care services at the same time it has increased health care premiums and expensive «co-pay» costs for patients.

The release of the TTIP documents also spell trouble for German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The disclosure of American pressure on Europe in the TTIP negotiations came a week after Merkel, standing next to Obama, praised the TTIP at an international trade fair in Hannover. The gist of the TTIP documents show that Merkel is even more of a pathetic lapdog for the United States than previously believed.

Before the 240 pages were released to the public, lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic were only able to read trade pact documents in special secure rooms with the proviso that jackets, phones, briefcases, other electronics be surrendered to guards who would watch legislators during the maximum two-hour reading period permitted. Legislators were also banned from speaking about the contents of the documents. Restricting legislators from commenting on sensitive documents that concern the world’s global elite, whether they are the corporate directors of Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, Exxon Mobil, and Koch Industries or the terrorism-supporting potentates of Saudi Arabia, has become the standard for governance on both sides of the Atlantic and, indeed, around the world.

European jurisdictions that have been hostile to the practice, honed by US natural gas extraction companies, of «fracking», the production of gas from shale rock, could, under the TTIP, be powerless to stop the process. People in Bulgaria, Lithuania, and Belgium could find themselves in the same predicament as people in Pennsylvania, who have turned on their water taps to find flames spewing out.

Not only does opposition to the TTIP embrace political leaders from the right and left in Europe, but it does not sit well with American leaders cognizant of the threat of the TTIP to the constitutional rights of US states and territories. For example, some US states have legislated «Buy American» clauses in their procurement laws and regulations for goods and services. If implemented, these clauses would be canceled, thus permitting a Romanian or Polish contractor to bid on a dam construction project in Idaho or a bridge building contract in Maine. This prospect in highly unpopular with small-to-medium American businesses, as well as US safety, health, and environmental regulators and labor, environmental, and job safety groups.

US state judicial systems, as well as their counterparts in the länder of Germany and Austria, regions of Spain, and counties of Ireland, also fear that their authority to regulate businesses will be superseded by unaccountable TTIP arbitration courts. Even national court systems, including the US Supreme Court, may find their hands tied by TTIP supranational authority.

Those who disclosed the TTIP papers saw the dangers posed by the treaty to Europeans and Americans. In keeping with the current global spirit of making all classified documents public, regardless of the law, those who leaked the TTIP papers may have driven a final stake in its heart. Hopefully, similar future disclosures will also strangle the equally-dangerous TTP to its last breath.