martedì 30 dicembre 2014

66 Out of 17,000 Lawyers Own the Supreme Court of the USA

SchwartzReport: 66 Out of 17,000 Lawyers Own the Supreme Court of the USA

Stephan A. Schwartz
Stephan A. Schwartz
One of the trends that concerns me the most is the corruption of the American judiciary. As empires decay, whether Roman, Burmese, or American one of the processes the failing empire goes through is that their permanent civil service structure becomes increasingly a shop closed to all but a few with special access. This article is lengthy but it spells out as I have seen it no where else what is happening to the American Supreme Court. It is not a reassuring picture.
At America’s court of last resort, a handful of lawyers now dominates the docket

Share this:

venerdì 26 dicembre 2014

How to buy the government of the United States

SchwartzReport: US Fossil Fuel Industry: $721M to Bribe Congress; $4.8B in Subsidies (ROI), $271B in Profit

Stephan A. Schwartz
Stephan A. Schwartz

This is how you buy the government of the United States. You say, “$721 million is a lot of money.” I respond it is a cost of business item. Fossil fuel companies operating in the U.S. and Canada made $271 billion dollars in profit in 2012, while continuing to receive billions in subsidies. As of April 14, 2014 , according to Mother Jones, “Taxpayers currently subsidize the oil industry by as much as $4.8 billion a year, with about half of that going to the big five oil companies—ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips.” So let me see. They spent $721 million to buy the government; they got $4.8 billion in subsidies. And the conclusion is: You and I paid the fossil fuel companies through subsidies, money which they metaphorically in turn used to buy the government so that it operates responsive to their interests, rather than the interests of the citizens who paid the taxes. What a deal.
The Fossil Fuel Industry Spent More Than $721 Million During 2014’s Midterm Elections

venerdì 19 dicembre 2014

Court of Justice rejects draft agreement of EU accession

Court of Justice rejects draft agreement of EU accession to ECHR

European Court of Justice. Luxembourg, 2006. [Cédric Puisney/Flickr]
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the draft agreement on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is not compatible with EU law. The ruling deals a blow to efforts to make the Union accede to the ECHR as the Lisbon Treaty requires.
The ruling was announced yesterday (18 December) by the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Asked to comment, the Commission said it would first need to study its legal arguments.
All 28 members of the European Union (EU) are also members of the 47-nation Council of Europe (CoE) and as such are bound by the CoE’s European Convention on Human Rights
The Lisbon Treaty committed the EU as a whole to signing up to the convention, alongside its 28 member states and 19 other European countries – including Russia, Turkey and Ukraine, for example – which are not members of the EU
Currently, individuals cannot challenge EU laws and practices at the European Court of Human Rights in the same way that they can challenge national laws and practices
However, individual EU member states can be – and have been – held accountable in Strasbourg for putting into practice decisions agreed at the EU level
The Lisbon Treaty also provided the EU with its own Charter of Fundamental Rights, overseen by the CJEU, which is now dealing with a growing number of cases relating to fundamental rights in EU countries
The EU’s accession to the ECHR is expected to address these issues, creating  a single, comprehensive and coherent legal framework for protecting human rights across the continent.
Following almost three years of technical discussions, a draft agreement was finalised by negotiators from the 47 Council of Europe countries and the EU Commission in April 2013.
In July 2013, the European Commission asked the CJEU for an opinion as to whether the draft agreement is compatible with the EU treaties.
Following a hearing in May 2014, this opinion was delivered yesterday.
The Court observes that first of all that, as a result of accession of the EU to the ECHR, the latter, like any other international agreement concluded by the EU, would be binding upon the institutions of the EU and on its member states, and would therefore form an integral part of EU law.

External control
In that case, the EU would be subject to external control to ensure the observance of the rights and freedoms provided for by the ECHR. The EU and its institutions would thus be subject to the control mechanisms provided for by the ECHR and, in particular, to the decisions and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (‘the ECtHR’, which is not a European Union institution).
The Court notes that it is admittedly inherent in the very concept of external control that, on the one hand, the interpretation of the ECHR provided by the ECtHR would be binding on the EU and all its institutions and that, on the other, the interpretation by the Court of Justice of a right recognised by the ECHR would not be binding on the ECtHR.
However, it states that that cannot be the case as regards the interpretation of EU law, including the Charter, provided by the Court itself.

Convention should be coordinated with Charter
The Court also points out in particular that, in so far as the ECHR gives the Contracting Parties the power to lay down higher standards of protection than those guaranteed by the ECHR, the ECHR should be coordinated with the Charter.
Where the rights recognised by the Charter correspond to those guaranteed by the ECHR, the power granted to Member States by the ECHR must be limited to that which is necessary to ensure that the level of protection provided for by the Charter and the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law are not compromised. The Court finds that there is no provision in the draft agreement to ensure such coordination.

Undermining autonomy of EU law
The Court also considers that the approach adopted in the draft agreement, which is to treat the EU as a State and to give it a role identical in every respect to that of any other Contracting Party, specifically disregards the intrinsic nature of the EU.
The ECHR would therefore require each member state to check that the other member states had observed fundamental rights, even though EU law imposes an obligation of mutual trust between those member states. In those circumstances, accession is liable to upset the underlying balance of the EU and undermine the autonomy of EU law. However, the agreement envisaged contains no provision to prevent such a development, the Court states.

Affecting the autonomy of the preliminary ruling procedure
The Court notes that Protocol No 16 to the ECHR, signed on 2 October 2013, permits the highest courts and tribunals of the member states to request the ECtHR to give advisory opinions on questions relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the ECHR. Given that, in the event of accession, the ECHR would form an integral part of EU law, the mechanism established by that protocol could affect the autonomy and effectiveness of the preliminary ruling procedure provided for by the FEU Treaty, notably where rights guaranteed by the Charter correspond to rights secured by the ECHR, the judges ruled.
The delay of the accession of the EU to ECHR is seen as good news in London, where the Conservative Party of David Cameron is doing its utmost so that UK will be exempt from judgments of the ECtHR.
External links: 

giovedì 18 dicembre 2014

Dept of State Delays Release of Iran History

Secrecy News

Dept of State Delays Release of Iran History

The U.S. Department of State has blocked the publication of a long-awaited documentary history of U.S. covert action in Iran in the 1950s out of concern that its release could adversely affect ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.
The controversial Iran history volume, part of the official Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series, had been slated for release last summer. (“History of 1953 CIA Covert Action in Iran to be Published,” Secrecy News, April 16, 2014).
But senior State Department officials “decided to delay publication because of ongoing negotiations with Iran,” according to the minutes of a September 8, 2014 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation that were posted on the Department of State website this week.
Dr. Stephen P. Randolph, the Historian of the State Department, confirmed yesterday that the status of the Iran volume “remains as it was in September” and that no new publication date has been set. The subject was also discussed at an Advisory Committee meeting this week.
The suppression of this history has been a source of frustration for decades, at least since the Department published a notorious 1989 volume on U.S. policy towards Iran that made no mention of CIA covert action.
But the latest move is also an indirect affirmation of the enduring significance of the withheld records, which date back even further than the U.S. rupture with Cuba that is now on the mend.
It seems that the remaining U.S. records of the 1953 coup in Iran are not only of historical interest but they evidently hold the power to move whole countries and to alter the course of events today. Or so the State Department believes.
“The logic, as I understand it, is that the release of the volume could aggravate anti-U.S. sentiment in Iran and thereby diminish the prospects of the nuclear negotiations reaching a settlement,” said Prof. Richard H. Immerman, a historian at Temple University and the chair of the State Department Historical Advisory Committee.
“I understand the State Department’s caution, but I don’t agree with the position,” he said. “Not only is the 1953 covert action in Iran an open secret, but it was also a motive for taking hostages in 1979. The longer the U.S. withholds the volume, the longer the issue will fester.”
Besides, if the documents do have an occult power to shape events, maybe that power could be harnessed to constructive ends.
“I would argue that our government’s commitment to transparency as signaled by the release of this volume could have a transformative effect on the negotiations, and that effect would increase the likelihood of a settlement,” Prof. Immerman suggested.
“At least some in the Iranian government would applaud this openness and seek to reciprocate. Further, the State Department of 2014 would distinguish this administration from the ‘Great Satan’ image of 1953 and after,” he said.
Continued secrecy has become an unnecessary obstacle to the development of US-Iran relations, argued historian Roham Alvandi in a similar vein in a New York Times op-ed (“Open the Files on the Iran Coup,” July 9, 2014).
“Moving forward with a new chapter in American-Iranian relations is difficult so long as the files on 1953 remain secret,” he wrote. “A stubborn refusal to release them keeps the trauma of 1953 alive in the Iranian public consciousness.”
*
The State Department published a new Foreign Relations of the United States volume today on the Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1978-80. It is the ninth FRUS volume of the year, and it came out “a little ahead of schedule,” said Dr. Randolph, the Department Historian.

sabato 13 dicembre 2014

To Obama: We Lack Intelligence with Integrity

Robert Steele: Open Letter to the President — We Lack Intelligence with Integrity — Please Fire Clapper, Vickers, & Brennan

Roberto David Steele Vivas
Robert David Steele Vivas

We Lack Intelligence with Integrity

Mr. President: Please Fire Clapper, Vickers, & Brennan

Mr. President,
I hold Jim Clapper, today the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and previously the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI) accountable for failing to serve the public interest all these years. I believe you should fire him, Mike Vickers the current USDI, and John Brennan, Director of the CIA, immediately.
Let’s start with the reality that the secret world is not in the business of producing intelligence (decision-support) with integrity. As William Binney has no famously observed, they are in the business of keeping problems alive so as to keep the money moving – secretly and without accountability. Torture is not the only secret program that has failed to produce intelligence with integrity – this failure is true of every part of the secret world from the CIA, which relies on foreign liaison hand-outs for the bulk of its “clandestine” intelligence to the NSA, which processes less than 1% of what it collects, to the NRO and NGA that are inept at “Big Data” and incapable of providing all-source fused data to the end-user at a desk in Washington or in a foxhole abroad.

For a quarter-century I have been politely and persistently pointing out the severe flaws in the US secret intelligence world. While I have not been the only one to do so – over 300 books I have reviewed at Amazon on this topic provide compelling documentation of the broad pathologies of the secret world – I am the most published intelligence reformer writing in the English language, and the only one to actually put forward explicit recommendations for comprehensive reform. My first two books enjoy bi-partisan Forewords from past and then serving Chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on Reform (SSCI) – Senator David Boren (D-OK) for my first book, ON INTELLIGENCE: Spies and Secrecy in an Open World, and Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) for my second of nine books, THE NEW CRAFT OF INTELLIGENCE: Personal, Public, & Political. Beyond my extensive public articles, briefings, and testimony – including a most memorable public and private session with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) I wrote to you personally on 4 February 2011, and also to the Vice President on 1 May 2014. With this public letter, it is my hope that we can get some choices on the table.
Twenty-five years ago I ghost wrote the first modern intelligence reform article for Commandant of the Marine Corps Al Gray, “Global Intelligence Challenges in the 1990’s.” I followed that immediately with my own article, published in 1990, “Intelligence in the 1990’s: Recasting National Security in a Changing World.” The graphic below summarizes both the six fatal flaws or challenges I identified, and the money we have wasted — $1.25 trillion dollars – in failing to address those challenges.
Click on Image to Enlarge
Click on Image to Enlarge
You need a DNI, right now, who is committed to restoring the integrity of the intelligence process, and producing intelligence not only for you, but for all of our stakeholders in the future of the USA, including Congressional jurisdictions not now receiving decision-support (most of them), the media, academia, and of course the public. I summarized these possibilities in an earlier article, “Intelligence for the President – AND Everyone Else.” This individual should also be charged by you with eliminating the Office of the DNI entirely, prior to your departure from office, and would, upon their departure, step into a new role as Director of a new national Open Source Agency (OSA) that has been twice approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the first time by Sean O’Keefe, but always contingent on you or a Cabinet Secretary asking for it. As with my letters to you and to the Vice President, my letter to Secretary of State John Kerry of 15 February 2013 and my letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel of 9 July 2014 appear to have been intercepted. This new agency would satisfy roughly 80% of all decision-support requirements across the executive and legislative branches (providing both with a common public estimate of best available truths), at a cost of less than $3 billion a year, while allowing you to cut the secret intelligence budget in half over time (protecting jobs district by district, but cutting the failed technical collection programs that do not provide a return on investment).
You need a USDI, right now, who is committed to showing Ash Carter how to comply with your most reasonable demand for a 30% cut across the Department of Defense (DoD) budget – where waste is documented from 45% in weapons acquisition to 75% in Afghanistan. However, you also need a USDI with the competence and capacity to show the new Secretary of Defense and the Service Chiefs, in partnership with the theater commanders, how to rapidly create a 450-ship Navy, a long-haul Air Force, and an air-mobile Army at the same time that we draw down on our expensive overseas presence that impedes our agility and all attempts to achieve defense reform. I summarized the short-falls in defense intelligence, for which I hold Clapper and Vickers accountable, in my article “On Defense Intelligence – Seven Strikes.”
You need a D/CIA, right now, who has the capacity to oversee jointly with the out-going DNI, the dismantling of NSA and the NRO, each becoming an Office within the new Classified Intelligence Agency. The NGA should be merged with USGS as recommended by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). This new D/DCI must have the broad understanding necessary to recast Human Intelligence (HUMINT) so as to properly manage all 15 slices, only four of which are classified; to recast analytics to address the eight severe flaws from sourcing to processing to analysis to dissemination that persist today; and to recast how we approach science and technology innovation today; what we have now is a national embarrassment.
Below is my broad brush concept for evaluating what we have now and where we need to go.
Click on Image to Enlarge
Click on Image to Enlarge
What Is To Be Done?
You could start by paying attention – and recognizing that the intellectual and moral pathologies of the secret world are what the rest of the world sees as representative of your Administration and our Republic.
I am a natural-born citizen, a “top gun” for intelligence with integrity, and Hispanic. I am immediately available to help you with a conversation that will illuminate choices. In my view, in the two years remaining in your second term, you have ample opportunity to achieve intelligence with integrity within your Administration and in the public interest.
Within your immediate Executive powers, you have the capacity – I would say the obligation – to fire Jim Clapper, Mike Vickers, and John Brennan. This is about far more than torture – this is about the complicity of military and civilian intelligence in assassinating thousands (with a documented 98% innocents along the way) while spending over a trillion dollars in a manner that is not helpful to Whole of Government strategy, policy, acquisition, and operations.
In partnership with Congress, you have the potential of embracing the Smart Nation Act that Congressman Rob Simmons (R-CT-02) and I devised, in order to achieve a bi-partisan baseline for going forward with shared truths – achieving intelligence with integrity in the public interest.
I know how to do that. I know who else knows how to do that. May we help you serve the public interest?

Very respectfully,
Robert David STEELE Vivas
Oakton, Virginia

SHORT URL for this post: http://tinyurl.com/fire-intel-3

domenica 7 dicembre 2014

Controlled Opposition – The Hidden Hand of Misdirection

Controlled Opposition – The Hidden Hand of Misdirection

“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” -Vladimir Lenin

by Zen Gardner
This concept eludes public awareness to a scary degree. It’s similar to the reality of false flag operations, the epitome of carefully planned societal manipulation by unseen forces who have no regard for the human condition other than to control it at any cost.
This is so very similar to the slogan of the nefarious Mossad: “By way of deception, thou shalt do war.”
And the war is on us; for the subjugation, exploitation and control of….us. The human race.
Nothing is as it seems. Nothing. Not the least of which is anything and everything in our  engineered society. It’s all misdirection, controlled opposition for the mind. This game of ruthless deception is endemic to the fabric of the entire matrix.

 erdogan-terrorists

Useful Idiots and the Puppeteers

The obvious NATO/US backed ISIL creation, the insurgences in Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, as well as most of the Middle East and now Africa, Hong Kong and other nations, past and present, are perfect examples of controlled opposition on the political stage. As awful as that is, the problem is way deeper than that.
We’ve all been useful idiots at one time or other. No one’s been fully conscious or completely independent of these influences all of their lives. We all have had to compromise in some manner just to survive in the matrix and unwittingly played into their hand.
This entire social landscape is an engineered one, and we help build and maintain it at varying degrees of conscious awareness until we disengage. Some aspects become more obvious than others to different people. The banking system for example has been getting hammered by the awakening. The full extent of its control is known by very few, but people are getting the idea. And it leads to more questions.
That’s how it works.
Many people come to the awakening via the health crisis we’re facing, with contaminated and mutated foods being forced into the market without the slightest compunction from our ever-so-caring slightly disguised crypto fascist central State. Just going to natural food or natural or alternative medicine sites is another way to go into the Wardrobe and land in a Narnia of Truth people had no idea existed.
For those looking to help others, this is a great way to approach someone still under the spell to get them started looking around. GMO awareness has jacked and is a great entry point. And just like the bankster revolving door with government, the Monsanto/Merck et al. infestation of so-called health agencies, this will make their heads spin if they’re willing to see it.
Geoengineering and Fukushima are other portals to the awakening. The surreal potential ELE nature of these assaults is seriously disrupting many entrained minds.
Finding out the extent of our own involvement is a trip in itself, and will lead to many wonderful, sometimes disturbing discoveries. Even more so is realizing the source of information we were trusting was tainted, twisted and distorted, or as in most cases, a complete fabricated lie, propped up by the energy of those that believed it. Matrix battery pods powering the collective.

What Really Matters

Religion, politics, education and the economic meme are of course the most predominant in the mainstream mind. But important things like where we came from, why we’re even here and where we’re going are barely addressed, and if they are it’s all gobbledygook designed to confuse and stifle the human spirit. Or freeze it into a debilitating religious paradigm where we wait for the cavalry to save us and are told “the powers that be are ordained by God”.
This is the true controlled opposition, although we’ll get to the modern oracles of this insidious ploy soon enough.
We have to see this for what it is. Anything short is not going to cut it. Just about every aspect of the opposing paradigms we’ve been handed as the absolute truth are designed. And even outside protesting elements who seem to know what’s going on are often generated by, or soon channeled by, these same overlords.
Here’s where and how the manipulation kicks in. Just like the controlled State media propaganda, there have to be enough apparent facts to cultivate credibility. Just enough. They won’t overdo it unless it’s some innocuous subject. Many of those “facts” will be wrapped in fear and violence as well, designed to cauterize your sensitivity while heightening your fear.
Religions have effectively done this for eons. Tapping into your inner knowledge of the spiritual and mixing in a few truths, they have no problem steering you straight into a numbed state of docile subservience to some weird-ass hierarchy of spiritual and physical abuse. In the name of God of course. Name dropping, anyone? Oh, and in the name of that guy they can send you and your kids off to fight their wars, build and support oppressive exploitative corporations, or be a professional gladiator and gain fame and fortune pounding other contestants into the ground to the roar of the frenzied, flag waving mob.

It’s Rarely Black and White – Deliberately

Layered in the imposed matrix are many overlapping memes and projected illusions, rendering fundamental empowering truths either hidden altogether, disguised or distorted. In a loving, uncontrolled conscious world there would be no need to hide anything. Instead, this mutant matrix system is built on deceit in order to spiritually disconnect and disempower those they wish to exploit.
Think of the mega volumes of information and technology being held from public knowledge under the guise of “national security”. How about “closed door meetings” or “need to know basis” or the massive labyrinth of secret ops operating in their vast network built on compartmentalization in the name of science or military confidentiality.
Now slide over to the Vatican sitting on brutally gained secret history accounts for centuries.
Does this make any sense to you?
Why do they keep all this as separate concepts? Connect them and they form a picture, a very clear one. Our entire society is completely staged, controlled and with vastly sinister intent.
colorrevs1
(Fareed Zakaria is a confirmed CFR member)

Who’s Controlling Whom? Rethinking the Strategy of Protest

It’s well known that the various elite foundations and other power organs such as Soros’ empire finance various so-called opposition groups and protests. It’s a very sleazy bunch dressed in do-gooder garb who manipulate with money, not just compromising the causes, but misdirecting them into a validation of the very overarching structure they say they are against.
It’s time we learn to step out of that false, disempowering, matrix affirming paradigm and know exactly what we are up against and take consciously aware action and not feed into their little chess game.
“By providing the funding and the policy framework to many concerned and dedicated people working within the non-profit sector, the ruling class is able to co-opt leadership from grassroots communities, … and is able to make the funding, accounting, and evaluation components of the work so time consuming and onerous that social justice work is virtually impossible under these conditions” (Paul Kivel, You Call this Democracy, Who Benefits, Who Pays and Who Really Decides, 2004, p. 122 )
While the “Globalizers” may adopt a few progressive phrases to demonstrate they have good intentions, their fundamental goals are not challenged. And what this “civil society mingling” does is to reinforce the clutch of the corporate establishment while weakening and dividing the protest movement. An understanding of this process of co-optation is important, because tens of thousands of the most principled young people in Seattle, Prague and Quebec City [1999-2001] are involved in the anti-globalization protests because they reject the notion that money is everything, because they reject the impoverishment of millions and the destruction of fragile Earth so that a few may get richer.
This rank and file and some of their leaders as well, are to be applauded. But we need to go further. We need to challenge the right of the “Globalizers” to rule. This requires that we rethink the strategy of protest. Can we move to a higher plane, by launching mass movements in our respective countries, movements that bring the message of what globalization is doing, to ordinary people? For they are the force that must be mobilized to challenge those who plunder the Globe.” (Michel Chossudovsky,  The Quebec Wall, April  2001)
There you have it. The information war to bring these Truths to a wider audience, sparking local action and alternative solutions in the face of this crumbling matrix of deceit. But it must be thoroughly identified for what it is before we know how to dismantle it while building real conscious community to supplant it.
Pushing up against it in these channeled, compromised and half awake antiquated methods only serves to reinforce it.

The Need for Discernment

I try to be very careful about what I read and certainly what I “take on board” in my mind and heart. I’ll look at just about anything, even mainstream drivel, to keep an eye on stuff and get the pulse of what’s going on, but not much.
But I’m very careful. I know I get fooled sometimes like anyone, but I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong. In fact it’s a joy every time that happens. Hey, I got another damn velcro hook and loop off my spiritual body!
And media outlets and information sources are something to look at very closely and carefully. And keep watching.
It’s never, or should I say rarely, totally clear cut as to who is who. Someone can be piping out a high percentage of true information, but then throw in some massive monkey wrench that few see coming. Sometimes it’s the tone and lower vibrational level. I’m skeptical of crass self-promoters who are more caught up in their image that the message. They’re usually humorless as well. If there’s that much ego there’s that much less conscious awareness, and the love starts running thin. If people can’t see past all the evil in this world to the wondrous beauty of the Universe and the amazing unlimited potential of the human spirit, I wonder about their information, or at least how it’s used.
But no one’s perfect, so we need to see and process the good and the Truth, and chuck the husks in the trash. It can take time and things morph, but that’s all part of the process.
8assange_innerflag

Snowden, Color Revolutions, Wikileaks, Occupy, “Parties” and Other Corruptible Things

Keep a close eye out on these supposed whistleblowers. While we need real ones to come forward desperately and there are many wonderful, brave souls, those that attain public acclamation by way of major media attention are always suspect. This is because the corporate media is completely controlled. So I get suspicious. They may let out some truth, but it’s always to inoculate us against the full truth. There is no more responsible mainstream media today. It’s fully controlled.
These 6 big corporations running everything media are a fascist cabal.
I’ve written much about Snowden and my suspicions, as have many others. When the Wikileaks phenomenon appeared, I and many others were again very skeptical. It was playing right into the globalists’ plan, not the least of which is to muzzle the internet and smokescreen real events. Like most disinfo outlets, it conveniently sidestepped, minimized or dodged many of the really important issues. And sure enough, Assange was groomed in the Oligarchs’ machine for years. Then when he came out and said 9/11 was NOT an inside job…that cemented the deal.
It’s very similar to how these “partial” whistleblowers never mention Israel or the Zionist influence. Not even the Gaza genocide. Incredible, but telling.
The Occupy movement was clearly co-opted and engineered to be a controlled opposition release valve. Wonderful things still happened, but they managed to dilute and mis-steer the message enough to diffuse its greatest potential effects. The Orwellian stomp down by the Police State was off the charts, and of course the State run media made nothing of it. Instead they focus on seeming “rioting” often consisting of stock footage or if there was violence it was agent provocateurs, as caught in the recent Ferguson arson attacks in one particular block where a swat team was filmed lurking.
But that “movement” is gone. Not moving anywhere. But people got involved, that’s good. But it lacked the full on truth and was misguided.
The Tea Party? Again, born of a driven passion to stand up within that paradigm. Now? Zionist stooges Michelle Bachman, Glenn Beck and Hannity types are all over a wimped out “movement”, a form of expression that desperate middle class folks were joining in for the first times in their lives. Neutered and detoured once again. And now a ridiculed arm of the flag waving, warmongering republican party.
Rioters

Who Are the Moles?

Who is this controlled opposition? Here is an example that came to light that would normally go unreported by the mainstream media.  This is a good sign.

Did an undercover cop help organise a major riot? [Ha! – When didn’t they? – Z]

From the Stephen Lawrence inquiry we learned that the police were institutionally racist. Can it be long before we learn that they are also institutionally corrupt? Almost every month the undercover policing scandal becomes wider and deeper. Today I can reveal a new twist, which in some respects could be the gravest episode yet. It surely makes the case for an independent public inquiry – which is already overwhelming – unarguable.
Before I explain it, here’s a summary of what we know already. Thanks to the remarkable investigations pursued first by the victims of police spies and then by the Guardian journalists Rob Evans and Paul Lewis (whose book Undercover is as gripping as any thriller), we know that British police have been inserting undercover officers into protest movements since 1968. Their purpose was to counter what they called subversion or domestic extremism, which they define as seeking to “prevent something from happening or to change legislation or domestic policy … outside the normal democratic process”. Which is a good description of how almost all progressive change happens. Source
Their influence is vast. We have no idea how many inroads have been made and how much the military industrial government complex has infiltrated and controlled all we see and hear at this point, even within our alternative community.
It’s staggering, but it doesn’t frighten me. It’s expected.
Follow your heart. You’ll know.

activationworld1

The Wake Up – Is It In Time? What Will You Do?

Clearly we’re up against massively orchestrated activities, outlets and manufactured disinformation, and there’s much controversy on this subject. It’s a huge part of their agenda. Never mind…it’s just the matrix at work. Rise above it.
But will humanity “get it” in time?
It’s always in time…individually. Once you’ve popped into Now awareness and even begin to grasp the fact that all this is a sham and a fabricated facade, you’re virtually home free. Personally. Your participation in propping up this fake social landscape will fall off like over-sized pants.
It just happens.
However the next step is the big one – your participation. Once you know and have gained a true perspective it’s time to take action. While the spiritual is supreme, we are here in these bodies on this planet. Now. And it’s under a massive attack. Do you want your children and grandchildren to grow up in a world such as this one is rapidly becoming?
Enjoy the awakening, but be responsive. We’ve all got to make a difference. That’s where the revolution lies. Right there.
Respond. Consciously. And in love. But do it. An opportunity is knocking on your door. Open it – and step outside. If you don’t see it yet you soon will!
Meet you there!
Much love, Zen
ZenGardner.com

giovedì 4 dicembre 2014

UNASUR – The Revolution Begins

Robert Steele: UNASUR – The Revolution Begins


http://www.phibetaiota.net/2014/12/robert-steele-unasur-the-revolution-begins-in-quito/
Roberto David Steele Vivas
Roberto David Steele Vivas

The headquarters of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) is now complete and being inaugurated in Quito, Ecuador on 5 and 6 December 2014.
I was just in Ecuador, delivering a briefing on the importance of civil-military relations in professionalizing intelligence. That briefing is available free online in both Spanish and English. It was featured on the front page of Ecuadorean intelligence web site, which for me represented all that is right with Ecuador and all that is wrong with the USA — my ideas, nine books, two Senators, and a Congressman later, have NEVER been accepted by the $100 billion a year US Intelligence Community — indeed, they call me “Open Sores.” (Alvin Toffler, in the chapter on “The Future of the Spy“, more kindly refers to me as “the rival store.”)
Below I provide a very short assessment of what I believe is going to emerge from UNASUR, and three ideas that I have proposed to UNASUR directly and also indirectly via the Government of Ecuador.

Click on Image to Enlarge
Click on Image to Enlarge
01 UNASUR may lead to CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) as proposed by Cuba and Venezuela — the Organization of American States (OAS) is dead, as is the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB). The region is going fully independent against virtual colonialism, unilateral militarism, and predatory capitalism.
02 The focus is on peace, prosperity, and social need — led by Ecuador and Bolivia, with potential from Brazil, Cuba, and perhaps Venezuela and Uruguay, the twelve countries of UNASUR are coming together with ethical evidence-based decision-support to protect regional sovereignty, create a regional culture of friendly prosperous citizenry, and begin unified counterintelligence operations against foreign predators. [Mexico and Panama are accredited observers, I expect Cuba will be accredited as an observer in 2015.]
03 There is still a fear of the word “intelligence” among the leaders and their bureaucrats — Ecuador is the most advanced in terms of redefining intelligence in the public interest, focused on useful public information for Bien Estar, instead of spies and secrecy in defense of state corruption. Education of the other leaders of UNASUR needs to be a priority.
04 The revolution has begun, and its headquarters is now open for business in Quito.
Now for three ideas that I proposed while visiting Ecuador as an invited speaker, ideas that have subsequently made their way to the senior staff at UNASUR:
01 UNASUR Multinational Intelligence Centre and Network. Ecuador as host, could offer a team of ten military intelligence-communications specialists (one major, three captains, three sergeants, three soldiers, one chief and sub-teams of three people working 8 hours each) and a team of six analysts from the Secretariat of Intelligence in Ecuador, all to manage requirements definition, collection planning, and coordination of multi-regional analysis. This cadre would be augmented by the other members of UNASUR providing one at first, then two and finally three people for assignments of no less than three years (staggered for continuity purposes) . The ​​purpose of this unit is to help standardize open data and open tools to enable UNASUR to create strategic intelligence in the public interest, while making possible regional average intelligence and counterintelligence at the presidential level against foreign powers actively subverting regional interests and national sovereignty. It would also harmonize a broad hybrid governance initiative to create a distributed open (but secure) database and a shared open source toolkit able to satisfy the eighteen analytic functionalities that the US CIA still does not have 25 years after Diane Webb and others identified these needs. Among the highest priorities of this multinational unit could be the rapid evaluation of technologies available for free clean energy — energy creation, energy storage, and energy substitution or conservation.

See for example: Professor Carolina Sancho Hirane ” Cooperation in Intelligence and UNASUR Possibilities and Limitations
02 Virtual University of South America. Every year there could be a class or course of UNASUR, the Bolivarianos (similar to the Rhodes scholarship, but in a virtual university dedicated to advancing the sovereignty and prosperity of South America), consisting of one person from each of the eight tribes (academic, business, government, police, media, military, and civilian nonprofit) passing a month in studios and workshops focused on each of the countries of UNASUR (twelve-month course ) developing new ideas and applications for the advancement of education, intelligence, and research. Each country could also have internal programs that integrate 1-3 people in each of their own eight tribes of information, with the best person in tribe advancing the honor of being a Bolivarian in the subsequent year.

See for example: AAINTELLIGENCIA Marzo de 2013 – Sanando una las Américas con Una Agencia de Fuente Abiertas
03 Integration of Iberoamerican Education, Intelligence, & Research. The future of public sovereignty and prosperity lies in creating a new form of hybrid government that respects indigenous wisdom, that integrates knowledge of the eight tribes, and that is oriented towards the future This means that education. , intelligence and research should be harmonized so that we may harvest the collective intelligence of all. We must integrate holistic analysis, true cost economics, and open source everything engineering.
See for example: 2010 M4IS2 Reunión informativa para América del Sur – 2010 M4IS2 Presentacion Por Sur América (ANEPE Chile)

In my view, UNASUR (and CELAC) represent the rapidly-accelerating trend  of regions toward de-Americanization (out with the USA and its NSA-compromized communications and computing offerings, out with the banks and the secret trade agreements that have destroyed what was once — and could be again — paradise).
The opposite but complementary trend is that of localization and secession. I fully expect Hawaii to see its sovereignty restored within a decade, and perhaps Vermont and Alaska also re-established as independent republics (Verment was once, Alaska was not). Anyone obsessed with the need to keep 50 stars on the US flag can divide California in three and if necessary, Florida in two. The times, they are a’changing.
What is different today — what did not exist in the 1960’s when US citizens and others rebelled against what Chalmers Johnson has called “the sorrows of empire,” is the mix of hand-held cell phones capable of taking photographs; the Internet as a mobilization network; and the astonishingly rapid growth of public consciousness among the five billion poor as “virtual” education explodes through hand-held devices and weak but significant access to the Internet. The legitimate grievances of both US and international citizens against the predations of Wall Street (and good-hearted military forces and CIA drone assassination teams obeying illegal orders), are manifest.
Absentee governments, like absentee landlords, are “toast” in the 21st Century. This is not something the US Government understands. It is something that UNASUR clearly understands. The revolution has begun, and it speaks Spanish, Portuguese (Brazil), Dutch (Suriname), and English (Guyana).
This external revolution will be complemented eventually by a revolution within the USA, where most of the preconditions of revolution are in full-bloom. Lacking is the precipitant — our Tunesian fruit-seller. An alternative to a violent revolution in the USA, one I favor and the reason I ran briefly for president, is a full-scale non-violent general strike demanding Electoral Reform in time for 2016. I pray that the US Constitution might be restored one day, and that America the Beautiful can again be a shared dream that is globally respected.
Learn more (in Spanish): http://www.phibetaiota.net/espanol/
Also at LinkedIn: Where is Jesse Ventura?
Semper Fidelis,
Robert David STEELE Vivas
The Open Source Everything Manifesto: Transparency, Truth, & Trust
Intelligence for Earth: Clarity, Diversity, Integrity, & Sustainability
SHORT URL This Post: http://tinyurl.com/Steele-UNASUR

giovedì 27 novembre 2014

International Law: Wesphalian principles must be restored!

BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES
By Bernard CHALUMEAU

The treaties of Westphalia and the genesis of International law.
http://laiglesforum.com/sovereignty-back-to-westphalian-principles/3133.htm

Like all French school children, we are aware that the Treaties of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, which began with the defenestration of Prague in 1618, giving France the Three Bishopricks of Metz, Toul and Verdun  of the Holy Roman Empire.
However, let us take a closer look because there was much more to it than this:
These treaties are constituted of several agreements signed between the parties to the various conflicts:
– On January 30th, 1648, in Münster, the treaty between Spain and the United Provinces ended the war of Eighty Years.
- On October the 24th, in Münster, the treaty between France and the Holy Roman Empire ended the Thirty Years War, to which was added an act by which the Holy Empire gave to France the three Bishopricks of Alsace, Brisach and Pignerol, and another by which Emperor Ferdinand III, the archdukes of Austria, Charles, Ferdinand and Sigismund gave Alsace to France.
– On October 24, in Osnabrück, it also ended the 30 Years War.
-On July 2,1650, in Nuremberg, the two agreements between the Holy Empire and France and between the Holy Empire and Sweden relating to the enforcement of the peace.
These treaties were the bases for the organization of Germany up to the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.
Unfortunately, most school texts fail to indicate that the principles of international law were born on the date these important treaties were signed.
The object of this article is not to describe the very complex progress of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) where many conflicts pitted the Hapsburg of Spain and the Holy German Empire, supported by the Roman Catholic Church, against the Protestant German States of the Holy Empire allied with the nearby European powers with Protestant majorities, United Provinces and Scandinavian countries, as well as France, which intended to reduce the power of the Hapsburgs on the European continent.
However, one must bear in mind that it was the most dreadful slaughter of the entire 17th century, which killed several million men, women and children.
Since the demography of Europe was seriously affected, the belligerents thus looked for ways and means to avoid a recurrence of such horrific massacres.
The negotiations of these treaties lasted a long time (from 1644 till 1648), because it was necessary to establish new modes of relations between States with a view to limiting wars and to strengthen “the law of nations.”
In his work “The six books of the Republic”, published in 1576, the famous French lawyer Jean BODIN (1529-1596), had published his thoughts on public law, “res publica,” and on the powers of the king, as the first legal principles of sovereignty: “Sovereignty is the absolute  and perpetual power of the State, which is the greatest power to command. The State in the person of the monarch is supreme inside its territories, independent of any high authority, and legally equal to the other States”
Further, the Dutchman Hugo Grotius published in 1623 a work entitled “De Jure Belli et Pacis,” which proposed the establishment of a “mutual association” between nations, that is to say an international organization, thereby laying the groundwork for a code of public international law. Their ideas were intended to guide the negotiators of these treaties in establishing what has conventionally been called since that time “the Westphalian system” as a guideline for the concept of modern international relations.
– The balance of powers, meaning that any State, large or small, has the same importance on the international scene (For example, see the Article CXXII of the Münster Treaty in Old French below)
– The inviolability of national sovereign power (See article CXII of the Treaty below).
– The principle of non-intervention in the affairs of others (see article LXIV of the Treaty below).
Since the treaties of Wesphalia, a new actor succeeds the division of the power between villages, duchies and counties, namely, the modern State.  The world is organized with States whose sovereignty must be respected by the bordering states by virtue of the Westphalian concept of the border. International relations become interstate and the respected borders guarantee the peace.
These treaties proclaim the absolute sovereignty of the State as the fundamental principle of international law.
Europe becomes a set of States, having precise borders, recognized by others, in which the prince or monarch exercises his full and complete sovereignty. The characteristics of these modern States include the constitution of permanent armies and the expression by the elites of the fact of national existence. In these States, language appears as a factor of unity.
The Westphalian principles subsequently contributed to the emergence of the idea of the Nation States in the 19th century, as well as the principle of nationalities, where every National State enjoys, within its own borders, complete independence, being provided with the highest possible form of sovereign power with its own army, its own currency, its justice system, its police and an economy, allowing it to live as independently as possible of the other States.
Later the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed on December 26th 1933, would add four essential elements:
  “To be sovereign, a State must have :
–          a permanent population.
–          a defined territory.
–          an operational government.
–          the capacity to enter directly in relation with other states.” 
It added a fundamental clause:
The political existence of a state is independent of its recognition by other states.
The United Nations, undoubtedly horrified by this measure, which it considered too Westphalian for its taste — since it paved the way for the emergence of multiple large or small States — then hurried to add notions of “internal sovereignty” and “external sovereignty,” so that, to be sovereign, States must have, in addition to their capacity to exercise their power over the population inside their territory without any outside constraint, the need to be recognized as sovereign States by the other States of the international system.

The law of nations (Jus gentium ) or public international law:
Established under the Treaties of Westphalia, this law governs the relations between the subjects of this legal system, which are States and international organizations.
A subject of international law must comply with this law and must be able to benefit from it. In the beginning, the State was the only subject of international law. But this concept became obsolete, because, after1815, the States found it necessary to join together in international organizations, gradually acquiring the status of legal subjects. Thus, the United Nations became, like the EU and other international organizations, subjects of derived law (generally referred to in American English as case law).
Introduction of the right of intervention in international relations:
Unfortunately, since the end of World War II, the increase in the number of treaties between States of the western world tended to suppress Westphalian principles by considerably developing their military, economic and financial interdependence.
At the end of the Cold War, the United States of America, an enormous consumer of energy and raw materials, desiring to extend its hegemony throughout the planet and to get energy and raw material at the lowest possible prices, noticed that the Westphalian ban on intervention in other States thwarted its designs.
The United States of America felt obliged to find a way to by-pass Paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which stated:
“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,” summing up the very Westphalian-sounding article 8 of the Agreement of Montevideo, which banned intervention in the internal affairs of a State.
Based on the ideas of persons such as the philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979 and of Bernard Kouchner, a new “right” called the “right of intervention,” was concocted, i.e., the recognition of a right of one or more States to violate the sovereignty of another State, within the framework of a mandate granted by a supranational authority.
It was a wondrous invention which allowed:
–          to abolish Westphalian principles,
–          to add the notion of supranationality,
–          to intervene on the territory of any State even against the will of that State,
–          to establish world governance under the aegis of ad hoc international organizations,
–          to subjugate the weakest States to one or more stronger States,
–          to establish the hegemony of the US government.
The precious Westphalian principles were thereby overturned and the whole world returned essentially to the monstrous situation of the Thirty Years War.
The desired ad hoc international organization in the hands of United States of America was found, namely, the UN. All that was needed was the pretexts for war.
No problem:
– The US oligarchy rushes to the target State to be destabilized, a CIA team, which will increasingly include, or be supplanted by, a Soros foundation, USAID or the like, providing camouflage in the form of “private” intervention.
– This team, relying on existing opposition or opposition to be created from whole cloth in the current regime, develops a “National Liberation Front” or the equivalent thereof.
– It equips it with the necessary weapons and bolsters it with troops, usually drawn from the Islamic sphere of influence.
– Thanks to mass media under its control, it floods public opinion with information and images, often doctored, that overwhelm the government in power.
– All that remains is for the UN to pass a “resolution” allowing the armed forces of several States, mainly of the EU and the US, to come to the aid of the young “National Liberation Front” and oust the current regime.
This system worked very well for the interventions in Romania, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Darfur, Ivory Coast, Libya, Syria, Nigeria, Ukraine, etc., spreading war throughout the planet.
The right of the bankers replaces the right of the people :
Thanks to the “legality” of the UN ad hoc resolution, the armed forces deployed in the target State destroy a maximum of infrastructure, such as power plants, factories, bridges, roads, railways, airports, runways, and so on…
Thus, when the target State is “pacified,” American companies share in the juicy reconstruction contracts. The new leader of the regime, set up by the “liberators,” is very helpful in awarding these contracts to said companies. At that point, the target State, its population and resources are under the control of the US oligarchs.
These operations are managed behind the scenes by bankers, generally US bankers. The bankers finance both belligerent parties, enjoining the winner to honor the loser’s debts. They finance the military-industrial lobbies committed in the conflict and manage the process in such a way that it is drawn out as long as possible.
So, the bankers win every time!
The superiority of the right of the bankers over the right of the people was established in Europe by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 by the introduction of a single currency, the “euro,” controlled by the European Central Bank, completely independently of the Member States’ governments under Article 108 of that treaty.
ARTICLE 108
When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB, neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, governments of the Member State or from any other body.”
All European treaties since then have reinforced those provisions, resulting in an impoverishment of populations subject to this single currency and complete submission to a new slavery for the benefit of bankers.
It is no longer states that control the banks, but the banks that control the states.
Evidence of this is on flagrant display throughout the world, notably in Cyprus where depositors were ruined by bankers with the support of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission in Brussels and the Central Bank of the EU.
  The objective of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, expressed below:

“Let me produce and control the issue of currency of a state, and I do not care who can make laws”

has been achieved!
Having succeeded in removing Westphalian principles from international law, the bankers rule the planet, start wars wherever and whenever they want and enslave the people of the world.
Conlusion:
The Westphalian system described herein clearly shows that whoever advocates it, in France or elsewhere, i.e., patriots and the sovereignists, are peace activists! They are the future of nations. That is why the banker-controlled mass media are bent on either contradicting them with outright lies, or silencing them.
To secure peace in the world, Wesphalian principles must be restored!
History in fact shows that, as long as these principles were respected, the world (ie, Europe initially and then throughout the world from the 19th century onward) experienced overall stability, but when they were abandoned by a State or group of States, horrific conflict occurred again.
Many historians believe that the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was responsible for World War II by violating Westphalian principles, substituting a collective security.
That is why I urge all patriots and French sovereigntists, particularly French youth, to enter into Resistance. I invite them to partner with the youth of Europe and the rest of the world to fight by all possible means to restore Westphalian principles everywhere based on respect for the inalienable sovereignty and independence of States.
There is not only an absolute necessity to recover their freedom, their way of life, the kind of society they want to live in to escape this new slavery, but also and above all, the need to preserve their property, their lives and those of their descendants, who are, as we can see today, physically threatened.
As for me, I remain at their disposal to help them while strength and breath shall last.
French patriots!
The wind of hope is rising! It is bringing back our France! It is bringing back our freedom!

Bernard CHALUMEAU
Translation by Bernard Chalumeau, translation editing by Don Hank

lunedì 17 novembre 2014

L’intellighenzia d’Israele scappa all’estero

http://www.kolot.it/2014/11/16/lintellighenzia-disraele-adesso-spegne-la-luce-e-scappa-allestero/

Le elite europee coccolano gli intellettuali israeliani che lasciano o hanno lasciato Israele
Giulio Meotti
David Grossman
David Grossman

Roma. Un paio di anni fa il suo libro “The invention of the Jewish people” suscitò dibattiti e polemiche senza fine, vendendo milioni di copie. Shlomo Sand, un famoso storico israeliano che insegna all’Università di Tel Aviv, sei giorni fa sul quotidiano inglese Guardian ha scritto: “How I stopped being a Jew”. Una dichiarazione di profonda abiura dell’ebraismo e del sionismo. “Durante la prima metà del XX secolo, mio padre ha abbandonato la scuola tal-mudica, ha smesso di andare in sinagoga, e ha espresso la sua avversione per i rabbini. A questo punto della mia vita, nei primi anni del XXI secolo, sento l’obbligo morale di rompere definitivamente con l’ebraismo”. Sand, che adesso passa più tempo in Inghilterra che in Israele, non è il primo intellettuale della sinistra israeliana a professare apostasia.
Dal 2008 vive in Inghilterra Ilan Pappé, già docente all’Università di Haifa, icona di quella “nuova storiografia” che vede lo stato ebraico come una mera colonizzazione ai danni del popolo arabo, autore Einaudi in Italia e firmatario di manifesti per il boicottaggio dei docenti ebrei. Assieme a lui, nel Regno Unito, vivono lo storico israeliano Avi Shlaim e il giurista Oren Ben-Dor della Southampton University.
Secondo il professor Steven Plaut, che insegna Business Administration all’Università di Haifa, questi intellettuali fanno parte di “gruppi di israeliani espatriati che si dedicano alla guerra contro la sopravvivenza di Israele”. Nella sua villa in Toscana, sulle colline di Ponte Buggione, a Pistoia, è morto Amos Elon, decano dei corrispondenti di Haaretz, dove divenne il protetto dell’austero editore Gershom Schocken, e poi l’autore di libri adottati nelle scuole d’Israele e del bestseller “Gerusalemme” (Rizzoli).
Anche la figlia, Danae Elon, apprezzata regista di sinistra, vive a New York. E pensare che Elon aveva scritto una delle più belle biografie di quell’uomo di teatro che nella Vienna di Freud e Mahler, nell’atmosfera fertile, nel bene e nel male, della mitteleuropa, diede una speranza agli ebrei: Theodor Herzl. Ha appena scelto Chicago lo scrittore israeliano Sayed Kashua, editorialista di giornali israeliani, romanziere popolarissimo, volto televisivo, che questa estate ha scritto un articolo dal titolo: “Why I leave Israel”, perché lascio Israele.
L’ex speaker della Knesset, Avraham Burg, che nel frattempo è diventato un saggista e un conferenziere blasonato e che si è professato “cittadino del mondo”, ha preso il passaporto francese e vive a Parigi. Ari Shavit di Haaretz lo ha chiamato “il profeta di Brussels”. Burg è l’autore di quel pamphlet antisionista intitolato “Sconfiggere Hitler”. In una intervista, alla domanda se “raccomandi a ogni israeliano di prendere un passaporto straniero”, Burg ha risposto: “A tutti quelli che possono”. C’è poi la nutrita comunità di scrittori israeliani che hanno scelto la Germania come nuova patria, tipo Boaz Arad, Tal Alon e Nati Oman, che va fiero che “ci sono oggi più artisti israeliani a Berlino che in Israele”.
Anche lo scrittore David Grossman, in una intervista alla tv inglese Canale 10, ha detto di valutare l’ipotesi dell’esilio: “Ho considerato l’idea di lasciare Israele”. Quest’estate, sull’Independent, la scrittrice e giornalista israeliana Mira Bar Hillel ha firmato invece un editoriale dal titolo: “Sto per bruciare il mio passaporto israeliano”. Nei 1967, durante la Guerra dei sei giorni, sui giornali e nei salotti degli scrittori israeliani circolava un’amara battuta. All’aeroporto di Tel Aviv un’insegna recita: “L’ultimo ad andarsene spenga la luce”. Allora fu un mugugno di sarcasmo. Oggi è ciò che fa l’intellighenzia israeliana coccolata dalle élite europee.
Il Foglio – 13.11.14

sabato 15 novembre 2014

“EU sanctions against Russia are suicide” – Italian banker

“EU sanctions against Russia are suicide” – Italian banker

November 14, 2014 10:30
Antonio Fallico
Download video (200.83 MB)
The trade war between the EU and Russia is hurting business all over Europe. And while political gains from the standoff are debatable, business losses are as real as it gets. As the sanctions escalate tensions, bringing about the smell of war, entrepreneurs are piling pressure on their governments to stop the stand-off before it’s too late. Antonio Fallico, an Italian banker with extensive experience of doing business in Russia, shares the white-collar view on the economic conflict.
Follow @SophieCo_RT
SS: Mr. Fallico, thank you for coming to our program, we’re very glad to have you here today. You said that the sanctions imposed on Russia could start WWIII. But sanctions are a temporary measure, can they really destabilize the situation so much?
AF: It’s an undesirable prospect, but we can’t rule it out. It’s unclear why the United States, knowing that Russia isn’t some unimportant country, would resort to this sort of provocation. So Ukraine is undoubtedly just a pretext, it can’t be the real reason. Does the US believe that Ukraine means less to Russia than the Falkland Islands to Argentina? It’s really unclear, because either the US acts very irresponsibly, or it is fully aware of what it’s doing and willing to have a full-scale confrontation. Let’s not forget how WWI started: no one was expecting it, but it happened. So when I say we need to spare no effort in order to prevent WWIII, I mean it and I’m ready to work on it.
SS: Russian Economic Development Minister Aleksei Ulyukayev says foreign investors are apologizing to their Russian partners for the behavior of their politicians. Is it true? If so, what can be done about it? Can the business community influence the political elite?
AF: It’s true. He’s right, and I can confirm that most of the Italian entrepreneurs and also European and even American businessmen object to the sanctions policy. In short, we don’t deserve the political leaders who are reluctant to work for the benefit of their people unless the situation reaches a boiling point.
SS: Again, you say “we have to stop the sanctions,” and by “we” you mean Italian business people. Is this a widely supported opinion? Is anyone listening to what you’re saying?
AF: I assure you, all Italian businessmen share this opinion, and the measures taken by our government and the EU authorities drive them to despair. I should point out that the Italian government has its own stance. Our Prime Minister stated on several occasions that he was against sanctions, especially regarding the second round of sanctions.
SS: Yes, we’ll get to your Prime Minister in a minute. Since 60 percent of transactions between Russia and Italy go through your bank, you can really monitor all the developments in bilateral trade. So, which sectors of the economy, would you say, were hit hardest?
AF: Right now it’s high tech, that is, the civilian high tech. There was also a joint military project between Rostec and Italy’s Finmeccanica, but , of course, it is now out of the question. Actually, put together, all the high tech projects were worth ten times more than the losses suffered by agricultural and food industries that everyone talks about.
SS: When you said that the Italian government has its own stance on sanctions, I recalled that there are other countries like that too. For example, the Hungarian Prime Minister said that sanctions were like shooting yourself in the foot. So it seems that there’s no consensus on Russia among the European countries. Did I get that right?
AF: That’s right. There’s no consensus. Moreover, take Turkey, for example. Turkey refused to impose sanctions. Italy could have done the same thing.
SS: I was talking mainly about the EU. Is it possible for the EU to have an efficient policy if there’s no consensus?
AF: As long as Germany’s stance – which has changed dramatically after Chancellor Merkel’s last visit to President Obama – remains so anti-Russian, it will use its economic leverage to make Italy and France toe the line.
SS: If you think about it, the US economy isn’t really affected by these sanctions, but for the EU it’s a hefty sum. We’re talking about 40 bln euros. Germany is also part of the EU, so I’m just trying to understand why the EU would opt for something like that.
AF: I think the actual sum is much higher than 40 bln, since the EU-Russia trade amounted to 326 bln euros. In 2013 there was a 5% decrease in trade as compared to 2012, and the estimations show a 15% decrease for 2014. EU sanctions against Russia - it’s not a reasonable decision, it’s just suicide. This stance does not take into consideration economic conditions and ramifications. It’s based solely on geopolitical considerations which are, in fact, no longer relevant.
SS: You said that to resume political dialogue we should start with the economy, but how is that possible in the current situation?
AF: That’s right, the process aimed at lifting sanctions should originate at the grassroots and work its way up. It should start with economic actors, that is, businessmen. The problem is many businessmen are scared to go to the frontlines, so to speak.
SS: What is it they should do, exactly? Revolt against the government?
AF: You know perfectly well what the connection between the economy and politics is: politics is the façade of economic lobbies and their interests. That’s how it works both in the US and in the EU. Such politicians should be removed from office – through purely peaceful means, of course – and new ones should be elected in their place to work with the interests of the economy and their people in mind.
SS:To continue with this subject, I’d like to discuss South Stream. It would seem that implementing this project would ensure uninterrupted gas supply from Russia to Europe bypassing Ukraine. But the EU is blocking this project. Why? Do you believe the reason is economic or political?
AF: It’s 110% political.
SS: So it’s like unofficial sanctions against Russia?
AF: No doubt about it. Of course, if you ask this question directly you’ll hear calculations that prove this project is not cost-efficient anymore.
SS: Do you think it is?
AF: Yes, it’s a very cost-efficient project, because the energy demand will continue to grow. If we stop being near-sighted and stop considering only the near future, it’s clear that this project would prove very beneficial in the long term.
SS: Again, there’s no consensus on South Stream, either. For example, the Italian Prime Minister is in favor of it and he even managed to come to an agreement with Austria, if I’m not mistaken. However, Brussels is blocking the project. That means that Brussels is ignoring the interests of other countries.
AF: Let’s just say that Oettinger has always been against this pipeline and now he’s trying to persuade other EU members to side with him. Our government has in no way opposed this project.
SS: Quite the contrary, I think.
AF: However, Eni, the company responsible for 15% of the South Stream construction, is now putting the brakes on it. It’s fairly obvious that the reasons for that are not economic, but purely political.
SS: You said that in the long term the project would prove very cost-efficient, though assessments vary. Political squabbles will eventually die down, but are there any guarantees that the project will be implemented after that?
AF: The project is unquestionably cost-efficient, and the new European Commission will undoubtedly approach it with more objectivity. Even though changing the route means increasing the initial cost, surprisingly enough it actually makes South Stream more cost-efficient. And just like with Nord Stream, we are willing to finance this project.
SS: But, as far as I understand, Europe is still looking to diversify its energy sources….
AF: This is a fairy tale for children. At the moment shale oil production cost, even if we exclude logistics costs, is $65 a barrel. In order for the US shale oil to be competitive at the European market, they have to sell it at $110-115 a barrel. Today oil costs $85 a barrel. We have to thank the US and Saudi Arabia for this.
SS: So you are ruling out the prospects of shale gas and oil production in Europe as well as the prospects of the US supplying its energy resources to Europe, am I right?
AF: If you are a reasonable person, you cannot think differently.
SS: You are absolutely right when you say that European countries and Italy in particular are dependent on Russian natural gas very much. President Putin assured everyone that there won’t be any problem as far as Russia is concerned. Does Europe believe him?
AF: If we talk about European businessmen and ordinary people, they not only believe Putin, but truly appreciate what he has been doing since the crisis in Syria until now.
SS: Well, I believe the gas issue is more pressing right now. Ukraine claims that it cannot guarantee uninterrupted gas supply to Europe and asks the EU to sign a new transit agreement. Will the EU agree to do so?
AF: It seems that some people in Europe think Russia wants Europe to pay for the gas it supplies to Ukraine. Europeans say, we are poor, we cannot afford it. The US say: this is not our problem. So now Russia has to supply gas to Ukraine at its own expense despite the fact that Ukraine already owes Russia $4 billion. The agreements reached in Milan at the ASEM summit look like a joke to me. They say: we have agreed on the $385 gas price. Very good! Then they say: we are going to ratify the agreement within a few days. But we haven’t agreed on who is going to pay for it. The IMF says: this is not our responsibility. Europeans say they have no money.
SS: Actually, Putin offered the EU to pay for Ukraine.
AF: This is a reasonable offer.
SS:Is Europe ready to pay for Ukraine? Is Italy, for example, ready to pay for Ukraine?
AF:Not only Italy is not ready to pay for Ukrainian gas – Italy cannot even pay for its own gas. Just think about it: we have signed a long-term agreement which will be valid until 2026, and now Eni is planning to go to court over take-or-pay pricing. They are arguing that Russian gas is more expensive than the Algerian gas and demand a reduced price. This is not a reasonable demand because we have a long-term agreement until 2026, so the prices are all set until the agreements expire in 2026. And actually this agreement is beneficial to Italy.
SS:Let’s talk about the outcomes of the crisis. What will happen if Russia won’t be able to supply gas to Europe through Ukraine this winter? The EU claims it’s able to meet its own energy needs. But others say that countries like Serbia, Poland and Greece will get up to 60 percent less gas than they need. What will happen to those countries if worst comes to worst?
AF: I’m absolutely sure that Gazprom is going to meet its obligations on gas deliveries to Europe. Russia has always done so, even during the Cold War. The only reason the above-mentioned countries may be undersupplied is that Ukraine may siphon off some of the gas intended for Europe. In that case it will be Ukraine’s fault, not Russia’s.
SS: I’m not asking whose fault it is; I’m just asking what will happen to those countries if they don’t receive Russian gas for whatever reason, possibly for the reason you’ve just mentioned.
AF: Of course, their economies will suffer, and people who live in northern countries will suffer. They will be freezing.
SS: I heard that EU Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger encourages countries to share their energy resources in case of a crisis. Do you think this is realistic? Do you think EU countries will agree to do so?
AF: This is another fairy tale for children.
SS: I have also heard that Brussels suggested a European company to become a mediator, that is to buy gas from Russia and then to sell this gas to Ukraine. How will the EU benefit from this?
AF: First, you have to find a company which will agree to become such a good Samaritan. Probably, it’s just that the outgoing Energy Commissioner wants to leave with his head held high.
SS: Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin has suggested moving away from the dollar in oil transactions. How will this influence the market?
AF: The idea is not new. Igor Sechin mentioned this several years ago. This may actually be a good option for Russia because it will benefit from transactions in national currencies. Also, Russia has to reconsider its exchange rate policy. I personally cannot understand why the Russian currency basket is 55 percent US dollar and 45 percent euro.
SS: How will this affect the industry in general?
AF: Do you mean the Russian industry or the global industry?
SS: I mean the global oil industry.
AF: Naturally, global currency trends won’t change overnight. Of course, it will take a lot of effort to put an end to dollar’s supremacy. This is similar to moving away from the unipolar world order.
SS: I would like to ask you another question concerning sanctions, particularly the sanctions targeting Putin’s close associates. I know that Italy has always been supporting Russian investments in Italy, including wealthy Russians who invest in real estate and Italian businesses. Suddenly all those people became Europe’s enemies. How come before they were welcome to invest, and now their bank accounts are frozen and their property is seized. Let’s take Mr. Rotenberg for example.
AF: If you want to create a scandal, it’s always more effective to target your enemy’s close associates. Even though the man you mentioned had only small stakes in two Italian hotels, this was enough to arrest those hotels and to freeze the accounts of certain companies, not individuals, mind you, just because the authorities suspect that this person may control those companies. Well-informed sources think this is abuse of authority and will discourage Russians from investing in Europe.
SS: Now I would like us to talk about the EU’s internal issues. Italy and France recently approved their budgets, which contradict the austerity policy pursued by Berlin and Brussels. Does this mean that austerity is over?
AF: You are talking about the Stability Law. Our government wants to exceed the budget by 3,5%. A preliminary agreement has been achieved regarding 3%. So the 0,5% budget deficit is the reason why Brussels did not approve Italy’s Stability Law, which proves once again that the EU is ruled by Germany, not by the European Commission.
SS: I understand that, but how can the EU overcome the crisis if it does not agree on a common economic policy?
AF: We have been asking the same question. The thing is that the EU not only has no economic policy, it has no industrial policy, no development strategy. The fact that the EU countries have a common currency doesn’t mean there’s financial unity. It simply means that we have a common currency.
SS: Do you expect this currency to survive in a situation where, as you just said, there’s no financial, political or strategic unity?
AF: I regret to say the answer is yes, because unfortunately there is no way out of this situation, there is no going back on euro. What we need urgently is a common fiscal policy and a common industrial policy. And I would also say that we need a common Constitution. To this day, Europe does not have a constitution.
SS: It’s been my recent observation that a lot of Chinese capital has come to Italy – in investment banks, in large business projects. Does that mean that Italy and Europe possibly see Beijing as their rescue?
AF: I wouldn’t call these investments particularly large. Indeed, there are some investments, but they are not that significant.
SS: Is it a backup plan? Have you turned to China because you’re going down without Russia? Or is there another reason?
AF: Frankly, Italy is not in love with China at all. Italy is in love with the Arab world – but that’s so only because Italy was told so by the United States.
SS: Would you rather be in love with China?
AF: My personal choice would be for Italy to go along with Russia. I don’t have anything against China. It would be only fair to keep the Chinese presence that is already there. But Europe and Russia go back together for centuries, back to the times of the Grand Duchy of Moscow.So I would be happier if it were Russia.
SS: And the last question. Given the situation, do you plan to participate in the next Economic Forum in St. Petersburg or rather not?
AF:I certainly do hope and plan to attend – especially since we have recently signed a cooperation agreement between the St. Petersburg Economic Forum and our modest International Forum in Verona.

Caduta l’altra faccia del muro di Berlino – a molti rimane la berlina...

Caduta l’altra faccia del muro di Berlino – a molti non rimane che la berlina "Al singolo, o alla collettività, spetta la resistenza co...