BLOG POSTS

Chrystia Freeland doesn’t just reside in Canada. She also inhabits Cloud Cuckoo Land.

The latest news on the ‘Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement’ (CETA) is that the European Union says it’s hopeful it will still go ahead despite being blocked by Walloon and two other French-speaking areas of Belgium. This will please the Canadian Minister for International Trade, Chrystia Freeland, who’s been pushing hard to clinch a deal with the E.U..

It’s difficult to comprehend why Ms Freeland is so keen to hand Europe and Canada over to the corporations, given that back in June 2013 she gave a talk condemning plutocracy and suggesting “we [the people] need a New Deal.” Below are some excerpts:

…we’re living in the age of surging income inequality, especially at the top. What’s driving it, and what can we do about it?

One set of causes is political: lower taxes, deregulation, particularly of financial services, privatization, weaker legal protections for trade unions, all of these have contributed to more and more income going to the very, very top.

A lot of these political factors can be broadly lumped under the category of “crony capitalism,” political changes that benefit a group of well-connected insiders but don’t actually do much good for the rest of us. In practice, getting rid of crony capitalism is incredibly difficult…

…I’m even more of a fan of globalization. This is the transformation which has lifted hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people out of poverty and into the middle class, and if you happen to live in the rich part of the world, it’s made many new products affordable — who do you think built your iPhone? — and things that we’ve relied on for a long time much cheaper. Think of your dishwasher or your t-shirt.

Globalization and the technology revolution, the twin economic transformations which are changing our lives and transforming the global economy, are also powering the rise of the super-rich…One of the things that worries me is how easily what you might call meritocratic plutocracy can become crony plutocracy. Imagine you’re a brilliant entrepreneur who has successfully sold that idea or that product to the global billions and become a billionaire in the process. It gets tempting at that point to use your economic nous to manipulate the rules of the global political economy in your own favor. And that’s no mere hypothetical example. Think about Amazon, Apple, Google, Starbucks. These are among the world’s most admired, most beloved, most innovative companies. They also happen to be particularly adept at working the international tax system so as to lower their tax bill very, very significantly. And why stop at just playing the global political and economic system as it exists to your own maximum advantage? Once you have the tremendous economic power that we’re seeing at the very, very top of the income distribution and the political power that inevitably entails, it becomes tempting as well to start trying to change the rules of the game in your own favor…

…Those same forces that are creating billionaires are also devouring many traditional middle-class jobs. When’s the last time you used a travel agent? And in contrast with the industrial revolution, the titans of our new economy aren’t creating that many new jobs. At its zenith, G.M. employed hundreds of thousands, Facebook fewer than 10,000. The same is true of globalization. For all that it is raising hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the emerging markets, it’s also outsourcing a lot of jobs from the developed Western economies…

Today, we are living through an era of economic transformation comparable in its scale and its scope to the Industrial Revolution. To be sure that this new economy benefits us all and not just the plutocrats, we need to embark on an era of comparably ambitious social and political change. We need a new New Deal.^[1] [my bold]

This woman is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. She admits the rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of us. She then lays out the political causes (low taxes, financial deregulation, etc.), which are due to weak and corrupt government bending to the lobbyists and corporations, yet she’s happy to push CETA which will hand even more power to the corporations.

She then refers to globalization as lifting “hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people out of poverty and into the middle class,” before berating Amazon, Apple, Google, and Starbucks for being “adept at working the international tax system so as to lower their tax bill very, very significantly,” because, “Once you have the tremendous economic power that we’re seeing at the very, very top of the income distribution and the political power that inevitably entails, it becomes tempting as well to start trying to change the rules of the game in your own favor.”

She seems totally oblivious to (for example) the 100,000 employees at the Chinese mega-company, Pegatron, who work sixty to eighty hours a week for $1.60 an hour, making the iPhones and iPads for Apple, one of our “most admired, most beloved, most innovative companies.” I doubt that those 100,000 workers have yet made it to the middle class. And that’s from just one Chinese factory. What of the numerous clothing-factory workers in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri-lanka, etc., etc., whose lives are miserable due to foul working conditions and beggarly wages, so Westerners can buy cheap clothes from Asda, Walmart, and many other retail chains whose board members grow wealthier by the minute? This is the real-life globalization.^[2]

Yes, indeed, it becomes all too tempting once one has economic power, “and the political power that inevitably entails,” to start trying to change the rules of the game in your own favor.”

That’s very true, Ms Freeland. We see it all the time since the advent of globalization. We see corporations banding together for even greater political power. We see them coercing heads of state – even the President of the United States, himself – into pushing secretly concocted ‘Trade’ agreements like the TPP, TTIP, and let’s not forget, CETA, onto the people who elected them democratically. These ‘agreements’ will do nothing for those people, but hand so much power to the corporations that democracy will be killed off and wealth will continue to flow ever more readily into the coffers of the stinking rich.

Frankly, Ms Freeland, if this is your ‘New Deal’, it can only be because you’ve sold out your principles to the corporations you obviously pretend not to represent.

^{[1] “The Rise Of The New Global Super Rich Chrystia Freeland, TED Talks, June 2013}

^{[2] “Apple making big profits but Chinese workers’ wage on the slide” China Labor Watch, August 24th 2016}

The BBC, along with other media outlets, has been attempting to whitewash a trade deal (ostensibly between the E.U. and Canada) known as CETA, and bemoaning the fact that after nine years of negotiation one small enclave of Belgium is preventing the ‘Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement’ from becoming a working reality.

Media outlets that represent the people, rather than big business, are lauding the efforts of the Belgium region of Walloon (pop: 3.6 million) in blocking CETA, even though the E.U. Commission is desperate to go ahead with the deal.

Others, like the German nationalistic news Service, DW, print lies to try and demolish opposition to CETA:

It is an extraordinary political spectacle: a region that makes up only 0.7 percent of the European Union population is holding the rest of the half-a-billion people in the bloc hostage…^[1]

Well, that might be true if the “half-a-billion people in the bloc” were in favour of it. According to polls, most of them aren’t.

Or, Tim Worstall writing in Forbes:

Euro-crises have a habit of working this way. Some region, country, states that such and such will never happen and everyone scrambles around for a few days shouting at each other. At which point some deal to build a bridge with EU money, locate a European ministry or some such is announced and the grumbles all go away. At best this is the way that the arguments about Ceta are going to resolve. At worst, of course, everyone might actually obey the law as it is and allow Wallonia, that region of 3.5 million people, to deny the benefits of free trade between Canada and the EU to the other 500 million of the EU and the 35 million of Canada. ^[2]

Again, apparently, we poor folk are missing out on this great deal because a few million European plonkers are holding us to ransom.

There are some who will benefit from these so-called ‘trade agreements’. The well-off business people and corporate executives of this world stand to become much wealthier and more powerful at the expense of us ordinary folk. People like Carolyn Fairbairn, for example.

In an article on its website from June this year (one week prior to the E.U. referendum), the BBC argued the case for CETA by quoting the mouthpiece of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Carolyn Fairbairn.

Fairbairn is exactly the right person to ask about CETA, if all you want is gushing praise for the trade agreement. She just happens to be an ex-BBC executive, an ex-ITV (second-largest U.K. TV company) executive, an ex-Lloyds Bank executive, an ex-Financial Services Authority (FSA) executive, is now Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry, and is married to a multi-millionaire property developer – who just happens to be Canadian.

She’s not the ideal personage for the BBC to call on to give unbiased advice to the British public on a highly controversial trade deal with Canada. Also, what she says makes no sense at all. Note the quote attached to the above image:

The Leave campaign has said we should be more like Switzerland, Norway, Canada, or even perhaps Albania, but all these countries say they’d rather be like the UK. ^[3]

How can the countries she mentioned “…be more like the UK.”? The U.K. was still a full member of the E.U. and the referendum a week away when this was said. Is she suggesting Norway and Switzerland would prefer to be full members of the E.U.? No, she’s obviously not suggesting any such thing. This is Fairbairn’s ‘plausible propaganda’ designed to persuade the British people that CETA would be right for them, even if they decide to leave the European Union.

Far-right Tory government ministers, members of the Brexit campaign, were already lauding the agreement as great for Britain if it left the E.U., as the BBC quotes:

According to Conservative MP David Davis, Ceta “would be a perfectly good starting point for our discussions with the Commission”.
Ex-London mayor Boris Johnson [now Foreign Secretary] has also praised the Ceta model.

So why is CETA a bad deal for everyone, except the corporations? ‘War On Want’ explains:

CETA is a major new business deal that was negotiated in secret between the EU and Canada over five years from 2009 to 2014. It stands for the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, and it represents one of the ‘new generation’ of trade treaties on behalf of big business that are set to undermine our democracy and destroy our basic rights…

… CETA is a backdoor for TTIP, the horrific EU-US deal that has generated so much anger and opposition across Europe and the UK, and became a major referendum issue.

Negotiations on CETA started back in 2009, and concluded with a ceremony in Ottawa in September 2014. A number of EU governments were unhappy with the final text agreed by the negotiators, but it was rushed through regardless. No MPs or MEPs were allowed to take part in the talks, which took place in secret, and no one was granted access to the text of the agreement until it was too late. Key elements of our public services have been bargained away without a shred of public debate.

CETA includes the toxic investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which allows companies to sue governments over any new law or policy that might reduce their profits in future. In a public consultation held in Europe, over 97% of respondents rejected the introduction of this new power for business. Yet the EU has gone ahead with it anyway, and CETA will introduce ISDS not only for Canadian companies but also for any US firms with offices in Canada (which is most of them).^[4]

The real crux of the matter is in the last line. While this is a Canadian-E.U. agreement (designed to make us all feel more secure about it) it will include any other businesses with offices in Canada, and that means virtually every major corporate conglomerate in existence.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) failed to pass because public pressure binned it. Waiting in the wings was CETA, a more clandestine approach designed to kid us all into believing it was less toxic than the TTIP. It isn’t. It’s the TTIP cloaked under another name.

We need to send a clear message that the people of Europe want no more of these dirty deals.

And that includes the people of the rest of the world, including the United States, who will soon have the Trans-Pacific Partnership (note the word ‘Trade’ has now been dropped) thrust upon them if Clinton gains control of the White House.

^{[1] “Opinion: The EU’s Walloon CETA disaster” DW, October 21st 2016}

^{[2] “Plucky Little Wallonia Is Still Blocking The Canada – EU Trade Deal, Ceta” Forbes, October 22nd 2016}

^{[3] “Reality Check: Would Canada’s deal with the EU be a good model for the UK?” BBC, June 17th 2016}

^{[4] “What Is CETA?” War On Want, undated}

Is anyone fooled by Hillary Clinton’s about-turn on the Trans Pacific Partnership?

Well don’t be. Clinton’s not only in favour of it, she absolutely dribbles with desire over it. Knowing that she’d never win over the Bernie Sanders supporters while backing the TPP, she conveniently changed her public view and made much of her pretend objections by stating that the final negotiation didn’t live up to her “high standards.”

Anyone who’s studied Clinton and her past indiscretions knows she doesn’t have any high standards. It’s just a ploy to win more votes. Prior to her Democratic nomination, while Secretary of State, she described the TPP as, “the gold standard in trade agreements.” A gold standard cannot be improved on.

In Australia in 2012 these were her words:

So it’s fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment. [Bold added]^[1]

And again in Singapore 2012:

“The so-called TPP will lower barriers, raise standards, and drive long-term growth across the region. It will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and establish strong protections for workers and the environment. Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy will help build Asia’s middle class and rebalance the global economy. Canada and Mexico have already joined the original TPP partners. We continue to consult with Japan. And we are offering to assist with capacity building, so that every country in ASEAN can eventually join. We welcome the interest of any nation willing to meet 21st century standards as embodied in the TPP, including China.” ^[1]

In 2012, some may have been fooled by that. Since then, thanks to Wikileaks, we know enough about the TPP to realise Clinton was spouting the biggest load of bullshit to emanate from an American politician in a long time.

Clinton’s not going to back out on the TPP now. She has too much of herself invested in it. Back in 2011, she authored, “America’s Pacific Century,” which was published in ‘Foreign Policy’. It’s a long, rambling piece, headlined:

The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.^[2]

And continues:

As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.

Back in 2011 the war in Iraq certainly proved not to be ‘winding down’, and the forces withdrawn from Afghanistan ended up back there (albeit in smaller numbers) and are likely to remain so for a very long time.

The ‘Pivot’ as it’s known by the Obama administration is in reality a turnaround. Having been defeated in the Middle East, Obama’s aim is to switch tacks, let the Middle East foment in its own bloody juices, and pivot the focus of operations towards the Asia-Pacific region, in the hope that that area will prove easier to subjugate.

Later, in “America’s Pacific Century,” Clinton continues:

…our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights. [bold added]

Two things to note here: first, the “broad-based military presence.” The U.S. already has numerous military bases in the region, including in Japan, the Philippines (though possibly not for much longer if Duterte manages to swing things with China), South Korea, and many in Australia:

^{Click to enlarge}

The conclusion to be drawn from Clinton’s comments is that military muscle is to be strengthened in the area, presumably as a ‘persuader’ to any nation not happy with the increased U.S. presence.

Second, there’s that good old standby excuse for any needed aggression: “advancing democracy and human rights.” America’s previous attempts at such worthwhile ideals could hardly be considered as actions overflowing with the milk of human kindness.

One interesting paragraph in, “America’s Pacific Century,” reads:

President Obama has led a multifaceted and persistent effort to embrace fully our irreplaceable role in the Pacific, spanning the entire U.S. government. It has often been a quiet effort. A lot of our work has not been on the front pages, both because of its nature — long-term investment is less exciting than immediate crises — and because of competing headlines in other parts of the world.

It’s a rather lacklustre attempt to offer reasons for the secrecy surrounding the TPP, but it’s now public knowledge that the reasons were way more nefarious. Deals involving a huge upward shift in corporate power over governments and the people they represent would not have gone down well as headlines. Now, again thanks to Wikileaks, we’re all aware of the truth. The above quote is just another of Clinton’s lies.

And then there’s Russia. America’s land grab of eastern European nations following the fall of the U.S.S.R. – now stuffed to the gills with U.S. military bases and missile sites (all pointing at their next-door-neighbour) – did nothing for the security of Russia, or its citizens. Western media tends to overlook Russian citizens. They’re convinced there’s no-one in Russia but Vladimir Putin and his horse.

A quick glance at any map of the world illustrates the Asia-Pacific nations nicely butting up against Russia’s southern borders. Any military man worth an M4A1 will point out that this, coupled with the U.S. military presence in eastern Europe, forms a classic ‘pincer-movement’ with Mister Putin and his horse positioned in the jaws. Hopefully, it won’t make his nuclear trigger-finger too itchy.

^{Map showing general definition of Asia-Pacific. Dark green refers to the core Asia-Pacific countries, light green refers to regions that may be included.}

In 2000 we were presented with the “Project for the New American Century.” It set out a neat plan for the United States of America to conquer the world, both economically and militarily via “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.”

The PNAC was founded by Messrs William Kristol and Robert Kagan. They, and other members, were responsible for planning the invasion of Iraq. Ten of the PNAC’s members wheedled their way into the Bush administration.

Iraq was intended to be a short, sharp, engagement that would rid the country of Saddam Hussein, have the populace bowing in reverence, forever grateful to their bounteous benefactor, America, and serve as a warning to Iran, or any other Middle Eastern nation that might dare to not toe the American line in future.

It was a policy of military invasion, to be followed by a period of forced diplomacy. It failed miserably, and the PNAC was disbanded in 2006.

Five years later in ‘FP’ Hillary Clinton wrote, “America’s Pacific Century,” which might just as well have been entitled, “Hillary’s Project for the New American Century.” It has the hallmarks of the original, merely placing forced diplomacy as a prelude to any ‘necessary’ military aggression. The TPP is vital to the success of the ‘Pivot’. Persuading as many nations as possible to sign up for it will strengthen America’s hand when its military is required for, “advancing democracy and human rights” in those nations who are not prepared to sign – Russia? China? North Korea? The Philippines?

Hillary Clinton has based her whole doctrine as a future president on the ‘Pivot’. The TPP is vital to its success. For her to stand up and say differently is a blatant and downright lie, a manipulation of the electorate to further her own ends, and a flagrant disregard for the “democracy and human rights” to which she pretends to aspire.

^{“What Hillary Clinton really said about TPP and the ‘gold standard'” Politifact, October 13th 2015}

^{[2] “America’s Pacific Century” FP, October 11th 2011}