Economic, Europe, European Parliament, European Union, Government, Politics, United States

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is proving controversial…

TTIP

Simmering tensions have surfaced within the European Parliament over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

Simmering tensions have surfaced within the European Parliament over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

Tensions have surfaced in the European Parliament over what could become the world’s biggest trade deal between Europe and the United States.

Jeering, booing and slow clapping were heard in the Strasbourg chamber after the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was suspended.

Members of the public have also been protesting against the deal, fearing it will hand more power to large corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a free trade deal between the United States and Europe that has been under negotiation for almost two years. An agreement would see the dawn of the world’s biggest free trade zone, shaping the rules governing a quarter of all global trade.

It aims to cut red tape, making it easier to import and export goods, as well as to invest and set up new businesses abroad. The European Commission predicts that it would boost the size of the EU economy by €120bn and the US economy by €95bn by 2027. Supporters of the deal say these savings would filter back to individuals, who would also benefit from cheaper goods and greater choice.

Critics fear, however, that it will undermine democracy in Europe and the US by favouring the rights of large corporations and preventing governments from regulating in the public interest. The Corporate Europe Observatory, a research and campaign group, claims that 92 per cent of 560 lobby encounters with the commission have come from private sector companies, while just four per cent have come from public interest groups.

Campaigners in Europe think EU regulations on areas such as food safety, employment rights and the environment could be watered down. ‘TTIP is a huge threat to hard-fought-for standards for the quality and safety of our food, the sources of our energy, workers’ rights and our privacy,’ says a Green Party spokesperson. For example, it fears that by harmonising food standards, the UK would be forced to allow chemically washed poultry, livestock treated with growth hormones, and genetically modified crops – which are all allowed in the US. More than two million people have signed an online petition against the deal, describing it as a ‘threat to democracy, the environment, consumers and labour standards’.

Opponents say the guarantee of market access effectively outlaws state monopolies, which could pose a risk to government-run services such as the NHS. Critics have serious concerns about transparency and a clause called the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which they claim would allow corporations to sue governments in private. 38 Degrees, an activist group campaigning against the deal, says its details are being ‘worked out in secret’ and will allow big corporations to take governments to court behind closed doors.

EU officials behind the negotiations insist TTIP would uphold current EU standards and leave governments free to run public services as they wish. Negotiators are being ‘as transparent as possible’ and have published fact sheets explaining every chapter of the TTIP, they say. Negotiators also want to tighten up existing ISDS regulation for settling disputes between foreign firms and governments, with public access to hearings. But judging by the ongoing campaigns against TTIP, it appears many don’t entirely trust the EU’s claims.

See also:

Standard
Europe, Government, Military, National Security, NATO, Russia, Society, United States

Russia announces its intention of bolstering its nuclear arsenal in 2015…

AN EMERGING NEW COLD WAR

The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, has pledged to add more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles to Russia’s nuclear arsenal in 2015, sending a clear warning message to NATO amid escalating tensions with the West.

Mr Putin made the announcement during his opening address at the Army-2015 Expo, an international military forum based near Moscow.

Mr Putin said that ‘more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) able to overcome even the most technically advanced anti-missile defence systems’ would be added to Russia’s nuclear arsenal this year.

The Army-2015 fair is held to show off and parade the latest developments in Russian military hardware, and Mr Putin promised his generals an array of other new weapons – including the advanced Armata tanks that were shown off at a Red Square ceremony last month.

The president also announced that the military was beginning testing a new system of long-range early warning radar ‘to monitor in the western direction’.

Few countries in the world are known to possess land-based missiles capable of crossing continents. The US operates 450 Minuteman missiles across three bases, while Russia’s existing arsenal is believed to be slightly greater. Russia’s pending upgrade will alarm the West as stipulations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are specifically aimed at reducing arsenals.

ICBMs are needed to deliver nuclear warheads over long distances, and some are capable of delivering more than one. Though Russia is less than open about its military stockpiles, it is thought to possess more than 8,000 warheads in total.

Mr Putin’s announcement, which included a general pledge to continue Russia’s ‘massive’ military rearmament programme, comes amid the worst tensions between the West and Russia in decades.

Russian defence ministry official General Yuri Yakubov has said that US proposals to bolster an allied army on Polish soil would be ‘the most aggressive step by the Pentagon and NATO since the Cold War’.

He said: ‘Russia will have no option but to build up its forces and resources on the Western strategic front.’


18 June, 2015

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Russia would have to defend itself if threatened, adding that NATO is ‘coming to its borders’.

At a meeting outside of Moscow with Sauli Niinisto, his Finnish counterpart, Mr Putin said: ‘If someone puts some of our territories under threat that means we will have to direct our armed forces and modern strike power at those territories, from where the threat emanates.’

After being asked about Moscow and NATO both boosting their firepower in the region, Mr Putin said: ‘As soon as some threat comes from an adjoining state, Russia must react appropriately and carry out its defence policy in such a way as to neutralise a threat against it… It’s NATO that is coming to our borders and not us moving somewhere.’

But he added that observers should not ‘blow anything out of proportion’ with regard to the perceived threat from NATO.’

‘Of course we will analyse everything, follow this carefully. So far I don’t see anything that would force us to worry especially.’

The earlier announcement by Mr Putin that Russia will boost its nuclear arsenal by more than 40 intercontinental missiles this year was slammed by NATO as ‘sabre-rattling’.

Standard
Foreign Affairs, Syria, United Nations, United States

Syria gas attacks are continuing…

SYRIA & CHEMICAL WEAPONS

Intro: Despite Syria agreeing to dismantle its chemical weapons programme, Bashar Assad is using chlorine against his people

IN 2013 Washington went back on its pledge to strike at the heart of Bashar al-Assad’s regime for having used sarin nerve gas against Syrians in Damascus that summer. Brokered by Russia, the Syrian regime agreed to dismantle its chemical weapons programme.

Theoretically, the deal has been a success: to date, 98% of the country’s banned substances have been eliminated and destroyed, and Syria has joined the treaty against their use. Yet, as is his convoluted way, Assad still appears to be making a mockery of the agreement.

Since 2014 there have been increasingly frequently reports of chlorine gas attacks against towns and villages held by the rebels, most recently in three separate incidents on May 7th. Chlorine is not a banned substance since it has industrial and commercial uses, but it is strictly prohibited when used as a weapon. Inhalation causes a burning sensation, and fluid can accumulate in the lungs resulting in suffocation.

Then, on May 8th, reports surfaced from the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPWC) that unexplained traces of sarin and VX nerve agent had been found at a research centre in Damascus. Suspicions that Syria had failed to declare all its facilities first arose in 2014 when the regime suddenly added four new sites to the list it handed over in 2013.

Few believe the regime’s claims that the rebels are responsible for the chemical attacks, including the one in the summer of 2013 that left hundreds dead. The physical evidence points the other way, too. Chlorine is usually delivered in barrel bombs dropped by helicopters, which only the regime possesses. All have been targeted at rebel-held areas. More recently, the attacks have been concentrated on Idleb, the north-western province where the regime is losing ground.

The international community is deeply troubled. Some members broke down at a recent UN Security Council session when they were shown graphic video images of the aftermath of one attack and heard testimony from doctors who were at the scene. On March 6th the Council passed a resolution expressing ‘extreme concern’ about the attacks and authorising the UN to use chapter VII (military action or sanctions to enforce its decisions) against anyone found responsible.

The UN is now setting up a commission to determine who is carrying out the attacks rather than just whether they actually happened, as has been the case in past investigations. The OPCW and Human Rights Watch are satisfied that chlorine was used in at least three of the several reported instances. Diplomats from America, Britain and France are convinced that the Syrian leader is still using chemicals as a weapon. Assad’s regime is the only government in the world to do so since 1988 when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds in Halabja in northern Iraq.

However, there is unlikely to be much more than public censure. It is probable that Russia would veto any chapter VII action, and the appetite by Western countries’ for ousting Assad has greatly diminished since the emergence of Islamic State.

Throughout this long and protracted civil war the regime has carefully calibrated its actions to deliberately avoid triggering western intervention – the sarin attack in 2013 is reckoned to have been far bigger than the regime planned, and only a handful of people have died in the recent chlorine attacks. Using an alternative to conventional weapons also suggests a calculated choreography. Bashar al-Assad is getting away with saying one thing whilst clearly doing another.

Standard