ARGENTINA - Alberto Nisman

DAILY BEAST ARTICLE Did Iran Murder Argentina’s Crusading Prosecutor Alberto Nisman? An Argentine prosecutor died from a single gunshot wound to the head Sunday, hours before giving evidence about Iran’s involvement in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center. PARIS — Since 2005 Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman has been crusading for his vision of justice in the horrific 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and injured hundreds more. He claimed that Iran was behind it and, more recently, that the Argentine government was trying to block his efforts to prove that. On Sunday night, Nisman was found dead in his apartment, only hours before he was set to testify before an Argentine parliamentary commission about his allegations.   [Accusations involved the President, the Foreign Minister and a phone tap (legal or not legal is open), as I understand.  Also, there has been something going on within the intelligence service of the country ... a new head was appointed.] The circumstances revealed thus far by the police suggest a suicide. The history of Iran’s operations overseas inevitably suggest otherwise. And there are disturbing echoes of the world 20 or 30 years ago when Tehran, often in league with its clients in Hezbollah, waged a global war on the enemies of the Islamic Republic, deploying hit teams second only to the Israelis in their skill at assassination.  [Not up on all of this.  Didn't think Iran was known for 'hit teams' ... thought that was Mossad.] First, let’s look at the official communiqué about Nisman’s death issued by Argentina’s Ministry of National Security on Monday morning, with the facts of the case as the ministry says they are known: Nisman’s lifeless body was discovered Sunday night in his apartment on the 13th floor of Le Parc Tower, which is part of a modern high-rise complex in the Puerto Madero neighborhood of Buenos Aires. Ten members of the Argentine Federal Police force had been assigned to him as bodyguards, but it seems they were not deployed when he was at home. According to the communiqué, members of the team alerted Nisman’s secretary on Sunday afternoon that he was not responding to repeated phone calls. When they learned that he was not answering the doorbell of his house either and that the Sunday newspaper was still on the step, they decided to notify his relatives. [Straight up, I'd be looking at the slap-dash security.  Why so loose?  Why leave openings?  Why so slow to react?] In the world of intelligence, as distinct from the world of criminal justice, there has been little question that Iran was behind the AMIA bombing. The bodyguards then collected Nisman’s mother at her home and took him to Le Parc. When they tried to enter, they found the door locked with the key on the inside. They called the building’s maintenance staff who then called a locksmith.  Nisman’s mother entered the apartment with one of the bodyguards, and they found Nisman in the bathroom, where his body was blocking the door when they tried to open it. They immediately called police crime scene investigators who entered the bathroom, apparently making as much effort as possible not to disturb the evidence. [Agile 'Houdini' assassin?] Nisman was on the floor with a .22 caliber pistol and one empty shell casing nearby. The official communiqué does not say explicitly that he died from a bullet wound to the head, but that has been widely reported in Buenos Aires, as has the detail that the documents for his testimony before parliament were arrayed on his desk. How a murderer might have staged this apparent suicide will doubtless be the subject of speculation and conspiracy theories for years to come, as, indeed, is the case with the investigation into the AMIA bombing itself. That never resulted in a single conviction and was called a “national disgrace” by the late President Néstor Kirchner in 2005. The former Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, was among those who signed a petition ten years ago calling for justice, but to no avail. Nisman’s eventual focus on direct Iranian involvement, accusing Tehran of planning and financing the attack and Hezbollah operatives of carrying it out, was not universally supported, even by U.S. investigators who followed the case. “The guilt field was painted with a bit too broad a brush,” former FBI agent James Bernazzani told The New York Times in 2009. Bernazzani had led U.S. investigations of Hezbollah throughout the 1990s and said that while he was “convinced” of the group’s involvement, “we surfaced no information indicating Iranian compliance.” In the world of intelligence, however, as distinct from the world of criminal justice, there has been little question that Iran was behind the AMIA bombing in 1994 and the earlier car-bomb attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 that killed 29 people. [Surely, even in the world of intelligence, conclusion has to be based on available facts.  But law enforcement said there were none pinning it on Iran.  So, the intelligence that Iran was behind it would just be a best guess?] At the time, the Israelis were attacking Hezbollah leaders and Iranian clients in Lebanon, Hezbollah and Iran struck back wherever they thought they could. “It’s an ongoing game, playing by the rules of the Bible,” a senior official in Israeli intelligence told me at height of the carnage, meaning the rule of eye for an eye, “and at a certain point there is a balance of terror where everyone knows what’s expected.” The Iranians also targeted with a vengeance any opposition figures they thought might be dangerous. In 1991, after a failed attempt years before, they managed to talk their way into the home of Shahpour Bakhtiar, the Shah of Iran’s last prime minister. He thought they were friends. They were searched by police at the door. They killed him with a knife from his own kitchen. The younger brother of then-President Hashemi Rafsanjani was named as a suspect in the case.  [Doesn't sound too professional, although it's certainly merciless and barbaric.] Between 1987 and 1993, according a French government memo published in a very detailed study called Le Hezbollah Global, between 1987 and 1993 some 18 opponents of the Tehran regime were murdered in Europe, and the CIA estimated that between 1989 and 1996 the Hezbollah network carried out 200 serious attacks costing hundreds of lives.  [Can the French memo & CIA estimates be trusted?  As it's unlikely anyone else was knocking off opponents of Teheran, the French memo might get a pass but I don't know about the CIA estimate.] By the late 1990s, the Iranian government apparently decided to slow these operations after several of them started to bring down too much heat. The Germans conducted a relentless investigation of the murder of Kurdish leaders in Berlin in 1992, tracing them back to the then-head of Iranian intelligence, Ali Fallahian. The AMIA bombing in 1994 caused international outrage. And the bombing of the Khobar Towers apartments in Saudi Arabia in 1995, which killed 19 Americans, was eventually traced to another group of Iranian acolytes. [Kurdish targets sound more like something the Turkish would be involved in, rather than Iran.  Saudi Arabia and Americans I can't begin to decide.] Finally, Imad Mugniyeh, seen as the key Hezbollah operative in many of the group’s terrorist attacks, dating back to the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, was blown up with a well-placed car bomb in Damascus in 2008. The Israelis generally are credited with that hit.  [Read about this some time ago.  Sounds pretty much what I'd read elsewhere.] But by then, Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon had fought a successful war of attrition that led to Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanese territory in 2000 after decades of occupation. Building on that victory, Hezbollah became, and remains, the most powerful political party in the country. Since then it has focused its actions on a sustained but relatively controlled standoff with Israel, apart from a brutal war in 2006 when it fought the vaunted Israeli army to a standstill. And in the last two years it has deployed in Syria to fight against the Sunni-led rebellion there, including the forces of al Qaeda and ISIS, that threaten the Assad regime. Iran, for its part, has been trying to show itself a reasonable member of the community of nations by negotiating with the Americans and Europeans about the future of its nuclear program. Yet there have been signs within the last few days that the game as old as the Bible continues, and may once again grow very dangerous. Last week, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah boasted that his organization now has weapons that can strike anywhere in Israel. “We have made all necessary preparations for a future war,” he said. Then on Sunday, Israeli forces killed Jihad Mugniyeh, son of the late mastermind, and several other Hezbollah officers who were operating in the Syrian sector of the Golan Heights. The Israeli press reported they had been planning attacks on Israeli targets. Was Alberto Nisman somehow caught up in this long war of assassinations? Or did he decide for reasons we probably cannot know to end his own life? The investigation will continue, unless somebody stops it.  [LOL ... who would be game to continue to investigate?] SOURCE:  The Daily Beast - here. COMMENT Chose this article randomly.  Another piece I'd read on Saudi Arabia challenged what I think is the present pro Saudi status quo, so I figured I'd check out another article by the same publication. Wondering if publication may have a pro-Israeli bias given the headline. The first thought I had on learning of  Nisman's death was, wow, Argentina's totally corrupt ... as I first assumed that someone within Argentina's government or intelligence was responsible.  Later, I wondered who might benefit from destabilising the government & maybe doing a frame that taints the government with suspicion of the killing as well as the cover-up accusation.  Only vaguely thought about Iran at some point, but dismissed it because it didn't seem like they had anything to gain. But ... my knowledge is very limited, so I could be wrong about that.  As I read the article I wasn't that convinced it had anything to do with Iran.  It was only when it got to the nuclear negotiations bit that had me wondering ... along the lines of maybe the motive being to preserve the edge Iran may presently have in negotiations.  But there's a warrant for eight Iranians (and one Lebanese) issued, so it isn't like this is something new and damaging to Iran.  Here's where it gets really interesting: Argentine government accuses prosecutor Nisman of working hand-in-hand with Jaime Stiusso, a former agent at Intelligence Secretariat (SI, formerly known as SIDE) who was reportedly removed when Oscar Parrilli was appointed to head the country’s intelligence services last month. Stiusso was said to be working behind the scenes against the memorandum of understanding —signed by the Kirchnerite administration and Iran in January 2013 to investigate the AMIA bombing. According to a Kirchnerite source, internal rifts within the SI started when the Federal Criminal Appeals Court declared unconstitutional the Memorandum in May last year. [mercopress] I had some other guy's name for the intelligence replacement:   intel head Héctor Icazuriaga replaced by Oscar Parrilli [here]. Sounds like the intelligence agency's been stirred up and it looks like the Foreign Minister has accused those in the intelligence agency of fabricating the complaint: statement by Foreign Minister Hector Timerman against Prosecutor Alberto Nisman describing his complaint as a fabricated product of a manoeuvre by Intelligence Service agents who have been removed from their positions [here] Another article reports that Nisman's Iran & Hezbollah accusations are based almost wholly on information from intelligence services -- and that the US embassy is responsible for pushing Nisman in that direction: Nisman is a prosecutor who devoted the past 10 years to push the accusations against the Iranian regime and Lebanon’s Hezbollah for the AMIA bombing, almost completely based on information provided by intelligence services. The US Embassy was the one that pushed Nisman toward that approach, at the expense of probing any other possible foreign or local responsibilities, as was exposed in the WikiLeaks cables. That thesis is also favoured by the Israeli government and the leadership of the Argentine Jewish community. In particular, the latter tried to lobby before the Embassy in favour of former DAIA President Rubén Beraja, who was convicted and then acquitted of perjury charges to cover up the attack, among other judicial proceedings against him. [here] The last bit of that paragraph doesn't mean much to me.  Who is this Beraja guy?  Quickie look:  businessman, Ruben Beraja, was president of the Delegation of Jewish Argentine Associations (DAIA). GreenLeft reported in 2011: The US pressured an Argentine prosecutor to halt investigations into former Argentine president Carlos Menem and a number of other officials suspected of being involved in a cover-up over the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994, Argentine daily Pagina/12 reported on February 27. [here] Article goes on to say that a 1997 report by Argentina’s National Academy of Engineers indicated that a car bomb wasn't the cause of the explosion, as the epicentre of the explosion was within the building.  Not sure which building.  Looks like they're talking about the AMIA building, but I think another article referred to the embassy. Here's where the story becomes totally twisted.  Caught on video: federal judge Juan Jose Galeano offering [car dealer] Telleldin a US$400,000 bribe in return for providing witness testimony implicating the police officers [ibid] But that's not all: The court found that federal judge Luisa Riva Aramayo also offered to pay Telleldin for testimony implicating a number of police officers allied to Menem’s political rival, Eduardo Duhalde. [ibid] How corrupt is Argentina?  That's just put me off Argentina.  Not somewhere you'd go to settle down to a quiet life, is it?  Sounds like a nest of vipers. Here's more on the nukes: In a November 2006 report for the Asia Times Online, Porter said “The indictment [by Nisman and Burgos] shows the US put strong pressure on the Menem government to terminate all nuclear cooperation with Iran.” [ibid] US seems to be highly involved in the goings on in Argentina: The WikLeaks revelations also included cables criticising the Argentine government and showing a close relationship between the US and right-wing opposition figures. [ibid] Now that I've trawled through all this stuff, I'm somewhat confused. Argentinian author Adrian Salbuchi argues that it is more plausible that Israeli intelligence services may be responsible for the attacks in Argentina [here]. Without knowledge of all the related events, it's hard to assess the merits of the timeline or the proposal that it may have been Israeli intelligence services. Initially I found that option hard to believe.  But then I remembered King David Hotel bombing.  Even though this was pre Israeli intelligence services days,  it's hard to dismiss when early Zionist paramilitary organisations that were responsible for the KDH bombing also produced a Prime Minister (Menachem Begin), then head of the organisation associated with the Deir Yassin massacre. If my understanding is correct, David Shaltiel, the guy who gave the Deir Yassin massacre the go-ahead (despite a non-aggression pact signed by the villagers) was a paramilitary commander, who went on to become an intelligence officer and an Israeli diplomat: In the years 1950-1952 Shaltiel served as military attaché of Israel in France, and later fulfilled several diplomatic charges - as Israel's plenipotentiary minister in Brazil and Venezuela (1952–1956), then in Mexico (1956–1959) and ambassador in Netherlands (1963–1966). [wikipedia] I'm now more blown away by this information than I am by the convenient death of Prosecutor Nisman. Reading further, I've discovered an early example of assassination by Zionist paramilitary:  that of Jacob Israel de Haan.  First political murder.  Killed 1924 Jerusalem.  Haan's view of a Zionist future (negotiation with Arabs) didn't fit with the paramilitary organisation's view. What blows me away is that those who participated in extremist violence in Palestine became mainstream (and presumably accepted) figures. Pope Francis (former Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio) gets a mention for having signed a petition for AMIA justice 10 years ago. Italian descent, worked as a chemical technician and a bouncer. Religion creeps me out in a big way.  Not for one moment do I believe in do-gooder 'holiness'.  Nor the we-must-revere-religion stance. In terms of the church generally, if you want influence in a place like Latin America you would probably want to play with the church.  Looks like CIA's played with the church. Checking out the church, I've found this: "under Reagan, the CIA linked up with Pope John Paul II, and they attacked together, they attacked liberation theology based communities in Latin America and have really destroyed that whole movement" [Matthew Fox, Theologian] Oh, look.  Here's another article that links CIA with Pope John Paul II: John Paul II appears to have gone even further, allowing the Catholic Church in Nicaragua to be used by the CIA and Ronald Reagan’s administration to finance and organize internal disruptions while the violent Nicaraguan Contras terrorized northern Nicaraguan towns with raids notorious for rape, torture and extrajudicial executions. School of the Americas ('Coup School') got a mention in that one, as well. Must-read article by Robert Parry, investigative reporter, who broke Iran-Contra stories: Pope Francis, CIA and ‘Death Squads’ https://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/16/pope-francis-the-cia-and-death-squads/ Pope Francis & Hollywood   Hollywood meets Vatican Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976 Pope Francis and actress, film-maker meet after the screening of 'Unbroken' at the Vatican. Perfection. WWII hero Hollywood flick, Universal Studios, Hollywood & UN heroine, the head of the Catholic Church (wow, somebody powerful is pulling strings and it's not god), the oft repeated "strength of the human spirit", a keepsake rosary ... an almost perfect PR trip, were this not such an absurd concoction. Hollywood Pictures.  Movies. Money.  Money.  Money. Corporate America Wall Street.  Power.  Elite. Myth-makers.  Dreams-makers. Lies.  Propaganda. Humanitarian mantra.  Appropriation for political ends.  Trojan horse. US empire Politics Pontiff, god, & glamour Holy spirit Sport. War. Hero. "strength of the human spirit" Or  indifferent chance? Rosary Blessing Affirming American Empire 2015 For me, the beauty lies in the absurdity of the concoction presented for consumption. ---------------------------------------------------- Various links: *http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/19/did-iran-murder-argentina-s-crusading-prosecutor-alberto-nisman.html *http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/179804/as-illconceived-as-it-sounds *http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/179518/gov%E2%80%99t-accusations-are-%E2%80%98ridiculous-inconceivable%E2%80%99 *http://en.mercopress.com/2015/01/19/d-day-for-argentine-prosecutor-who-charged-cristina-fernandez-with-iran-cover-up *https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46996 *http://en.mercopress.com/2015/01/19/d-day-for-argentine-prosecutor-who-charged-cristina-fernandez-with-iran-cover-up *https://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/16/pope-francis-the-cia-and-death-squads/

Russia - Miscellaneous

RUSSIA Argentina #Argentina & #Russia do business - development shale field + interest in construction hydro powerplant -- http://en.itar-tass.com/economy/750696  >> Vaca Muerta shale field, the second world’s largest field Astrakhan Astrakhan (sth most #Russia city), banks of Volga, close Caspian Sea - 4th Caspian Summit / #Russia #Azer #Iran #Kazakh + #Turkman / Sept 29 >> Astrakhan on map ... ---------------------------------------- SYRIA Tartus city/ Mediterranean coast #Syria -- 2nd largest port city in Syria -- 29°C - Wed/ 4:54 pm / #Russia has permanent naval base there Russia-Kazakhstan Interregional Co-op Forum 30 Sept. Putin 2 attend 11th Russia-Kazakhstan Interregional Cooperation Forum >>> LOL first read it as the 'interrogation' forum :) >> @ Kazakhstan - be there or be square - Innovation in the Hydrocarbons Sector - bilateral arrangements & EEU talk >combustible fuels /natural gas, petroleum (solid form = bitumen) - several stages crude oil production result in hydrocarbons Mother of All Gas Wars If Kremlin decides 2 hit back against European sanctions, the stage is set for the mother of all gas wars - http://tinyurl.com/pyq37o4 >> Lenders might have Gazprom by the overheads. #Russia all prev. gas-cut-offs - x4 since 1995 - disputes re gas PRICES & TRANSIT FEES w/ #Ukraine / KIEV over $5billion in ARREARS!! > src: http://tinyurl.com/pyq37o4  - $5 billion? Reckon Russia OWNS #Kiev and ought to move right in. And the f*ckers are syphoning off gas! -- & getting some back from Poland & Slovakia! C'mon Kremlin, cut 'em off TOTALLY >> South Stream (to by-pass the Kiev criminals) blocked by the #EU criminals! -- Having a fit reading this article! LOL >> #Ukraine's syphoning of gas will shut down the gas ... lol ... oh, I can't way for the fun to begin > Rest of article crap about Russia using gas for geopolitical gain or some shite ... Look @ Ukies, EU, Obama & co !! ---------------------------------------- COMMENT Oh, dear.   Get a bit carried away with the one-eyed Kremlin thing. No idea why I'm so Kremlin biased.   A weird emotional thing that I can't identify.  It's a feeling.  Some kind of affinity.  It's not a state of mind.  It's irrational.

Argentina - US Vulture Funds - AMIA Bombing

Sunday, September 7, 2014 Wikileaks founder Assange claims US supports 'vulture funds' in dispute with Argentina Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has alleged that the United States is supporting holdout investors in their dispute with Argentina over debt defaulted in 2001, as a way of punishing the country for the memorandum of understanding signed with Iran to advance investigations into the AMIA bombing. "It seems that Argentina is now being punished for a geopolitical decision that [the US] did not like," Assange stated, referring to the agreement with the middle-eastern country, during an interview published today with Página/12. The activist is currently seeking asylum in the Ecuadorean assembly located in London, as he claims that he is under risk of being extradited to the United States if he stays in the UK. "It is interesting to wonder why the US government supports these actions, because at the start of the trial it seemed that the State Department wanted easy relations with Argentina and it did not support the vulture funds," he explained. "Now it is supporting them, even though this is clearly causing tension with Argentina." In Assange's opinion, the dispute between the Argentine government and holdout investors presided over in New York by judge Thomas Griesa "seems to respond to the US' desire to set a precedent so that US businesses can seize the assets of foreign governments, which gives US businesses a clear advantage when it comes to negotiating with foreign governments." "I had to experience this myself. My prosecutor, the prosecutor who has the case against Wikileaks, is based in Alexandria, Virginia, which is an extension of the centre of power that is Washington DC," he underlined. http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/169132/wikileaks-founder-assange-claims-us-supports-vulture-funds-in-dispute-with-argentina

The above article is interesting because I didn't know anything about the 1994 AMIA bombing in Argentina - here.

Figured the bombing may be related to the Mustafa Dirani kidnapping by Israel - here.  Reason:  kidnapping was just before the bombing.

Reading about the bombings -- ie 1992 bombings directed at Israeli targets, this bombing and later stumbling on a news item about a new al-Shebab appointment, I am positively FREAKED out big time about these kinds of organisations.

To be honest, I feel fear.  But I don't know why.  It's an irrational fear.  Or maybe it's an instinctive fear.

It's very hard to understand a region or to build empathy for people from that part of the world, when the people scare you. 

It's like a horror movie scare that sort of creepily lingers long after the credits have rolled.

I'm like a dog that needs a really good shake to get creepy feeling off me.

Need to find a music video or something distracting.

ARGENTINA - TAKING U.S. TO THE HAGUE

Cry for Argentina: Fiscal Mismanagement or Pillage? Posted on Aug 15, 2014 By Ellen Brown, Web of Debt This piece first appeared at Web of Debt. Argentina has now taken the U.S. to The Hague for blocking the country’s 2005 settlement with the bulk of its creditors. The issue underscores the need for an international mechanism for nations to go bankrupt. Better yet would be a sustainable global monetary scheme that avoids the need for sovereign bankruptcy. Argentina was the richest country in Latin America before decades of neoliberal and IMF-imposed economic policies drowned it in debt. A severe crisis in 2001 plunged it into the largest sovereign debt default in history. In 2005, it renegotiated its debt with most of its creditors at a 70% “haircut.” But the opportunist “vulture funds,” which had bought Argentine debt at distressed prices, held out for 100 cents on the dollar. Paul Singer’s Elliott Management has spent over a decade aggressively trying to force Argentina to pay down nearly $1.3 billion in sovereign debt. Elliott would get about $300 million for bonds that Argentina claims it picked up for $48 million. Where most creditors have accepted payment at a 70% loss, Elliott Management would thus get a 600% return. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a New York court’s order blocking payment to the other creditors until the vulture funds had been paid. That action propelled Argentina into default for the second time in this century—and the eighth time since 1827. On August 7, 2014, Argentina asked the International Court of Justice in the Hague to take action against the United States over the dispute. [...] Blame has also been laid at the feet of the IMF and the international banking system for failing to come up with a fair resolution mechanism for countries that go bankrupt. And at a more fundamental level, blame lies with a global debt-based monetary scheme that forces bankruptcy on some nations as a mathematical necessity. As in a game of musical chairs, some players must default. Most money today comes into circulation in the form of bank credit or debt. Debt at interest always grows faster than the money supply, since more is always owed back than was created in the original loan. There is never enough money to go around without adding to the debt burden. As economist Michael Hudson points out, the debt overhang grows exponentially until it becomes impossible to repay. The country is then forced to default. [...] Fiscal Mismanagement or Odious Debt? Besides impossibility of performance, there is another defense Argentina could raise in international court – that of “odious debt.” Also known as illegitimate debt, this legal theory holds that national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation should not be enforceable. The defense has been used successfully by a number of countries, including Ecuador in December 2008, when President Rafael Correa declared that its debt had been contracted by corrupt and despotic prior regimes. The odious-debt defense allowed Ecuador to reduce the sum owed by 70%. [...]         EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/cry_for_argentina_fiscal_mismanagement_or_pillage_20140814

This is a really fantastic article. Only an extract. Recommend linking to full article.

Blown away by how greedy the vulture hedge fund is, holding out for a 600% return - over a decade of fighting.

It should be interesting to see how Argentina goes fighting this.

GERMANY - CANADA & EU TRADE AGREEMETN (CETA) - INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE HAZARD

Why Germany Is Backing Away From a Trade Deal That Lets Corporations Sue the Government Wednesday, 13 August 2014 09:16 In a move that has many on the left cautiously celebrating, Reuters reported on July 28 that Germany might reject a new trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. The deal is called the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA. It's part of a new wave of large, aggressive trade deals that also includes the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the United States and the European Union, and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) between 12 countries of the Pacific Rim. If all the deals passed, they would affect more than half of the world's economy. But the red light from Germany could signal that these agreements are not as inevitable as their advocates suggest. Germany's objections are centered specifically on the so-called "investor-state dispute settlement" provisions in CETA. These provisions—also known by the acronym ISDS—allow transnational corporations to take legal action against individual governments if they believe that the country's domestic laws violate a trade agreement. And the legal disputes happen through arbitration, which is a way to settle disputes completely outside of the involved countries' courts. We've seen this movie before. Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) stipulates that three-person panels of private attorneys decide who wins in disputes between corporations and individual governments. These proceedings are closed to public observation. The fallout has been dramatic: Corporations have used the NAFTA tribunals to win big-ticket monetary settlements from the taxpayers of nations whose domestic laws interfere with corporate profits. According to a report by the consumer-rights advocacy group Public Citizen, there are 17 pending claims in which corporations are seeking a total of $38 billion through NAFTA and other deals. The compensation won through these claims hits particularly hard in Argentina—the most frequent target of these cases according to a 2014 report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. In one example, Argentina was ordered to pay $185.3 million to the energy company BG Group, who sued for profits lost when the country froze gas prices in 2001. Argentina is not alone: another report by the same U.N. group shows that 66 percent of investor-state cases initiated in 2012 were brought against "developing or transition economies": SOURCE - here - credit UNCTAD [...] Some implications Germany is no stranger to similar dispute settlements. After the country decided to phase out nuclear power following the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011, the Swedish energy firm Vattenfall filed for arbitration to seek €3.5 billion ($4.6 billion) in damages, blaming the country for past and future loss of profits. Considering how that worked out, Germany's change of heart is perhaps to be expected. But some commentators see the move as proof that global organizing against the new round of trade agreements is gaining ground. Arthur Stamoulis, director of the Citizens Trade Campaign, noted that "The German government and other governments are starting to feel the heat from public opposition to [investor-state dispute settlements]." Yet not everyone is convinced by the messages coming out of Berlin. Peter Fuchs, executive director of PowerShift, a Berlin-based NGO focused on international trade and investment policy, expressed skepticism toward the idea that German opposition will sink CETA. "Unfortunately, you cannot trust this government at all when corporate interests are at stake," Fuchs said, calling the German government "a staunch proponent of neoliberal trade and investment agreements." According to Fuchs, this is a time for the public to ramp up pressure by calling on politicians to reject the trade deals. [...] EXTRACT - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25544-why-germany-is-backing-away-from-a-trade-deal-that-lets-corporations-sue-the-government

This sounds rather interesting.

Read somewhere that Japan and Australia concluded a deal without these provisions, so it's not like it's impossible to alter that clause when it looks like it could be an issue.

It looks like sovereignty issues might come into play as well.

....................................................

Check this out:

Corporate Sovereignty Tribunal Makes $50 Billion Award Against Russia

 ...

In an historic arbitral award rendered on July 18, 2014, an Arbitral Tribunal sitting in The Hague under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) held unanimously that the Russian Federation breached its international obligations under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) by destroying Yukos Oil Company and appropriating its assets. The Tribunal ordered the Russian Federation to pay damages in excess of USD 50 billion to our clients who were the majority shareholders of Yukos Oil Company.

That comes from a press release issued by the lawyers acting for the Yukos shareholders, who are also doing quite nicely:

The Tribunal also ordered the Russian Federation to reimburse to our clients USD 60 million in legal fees, which represents 75% of the fees incurred in these proceedings, and EUR 4.2 million in arbitration costs.

Even for an oil- and gas-rich country like Russia, this is obviously a massive amount of money. A detailed and insightful post by Kavaljit Singh puts it in context:

In relative terms, the compensation award is equivalent to around 11 per cent of Russia's foreign exchange reserves, 10 per cent of annual national budget and 2.5 per cent of country’s GDP. Given the magnitude of compensation, the Award could be more damaging to the Russian economy than all the economic sanctions imposed by the West against Russia for its actions in Ukraine.

He goes on to point out one of the most worrying aspects of these awards by tribunals:

What is most astonishing is that the arbitral tribunal has not provided any standard or credible rationale behind awarding $50 bn in compensation to claimants. The calculations of total damages put forward by claimants are based on assumptions and hard evidence is lacking.

EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=yukos+oil+company

Sovereign Debt & Global Mega-Bank Vultures Threat

Sovereign debt for territory: A new global elite swap strategy Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. Published time: August 12, 2014 13:07 In recent decades, dozens of sovereign nations have fallen into ever-deepening trouble by becoming indebted with the “private megabank over-world” for amounts far, far in excess of what they can ever pay back. [...] Recurrent sovereign debt crises reflect neither “over-lending mistakes” by bankers and investors, nor “innocence” on the part of successive governments in deeply indebted nations. Rather, it all ties in with a global model for domination driven by a system of perpetual national debt which I have called “The Shylock Model”. As with the tango which requires rhythm and bravado, Argentina is again dancing centre-stage to global mega-bankers’ financial tunes after falling into a new “technical default”. Not just because the country is unable to pay off its massive public debt by heeding the “rules of the game” as written and continuously re-vamped by global usurers, but now with added legal immorality and judicial indecency on the part of New York’s Second District Manhattan Court presided by Judge Daniel Griesa. Griesa has shown no qualms in putting US law at the service of immoral parasitic “bankers and investors” such as Paul Singer of the Elliott/NML Fund and Mark Brodsky of the Aurelius Fund. The mainstream media inside and outside Argentina refer to these parasitic money “sloshers” as “vulture funds”; a conceptual mistake because one might then be led to believe that other funds and bankers - Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, George Soros, Rothschild, Warburg - are not “vultures” when, in fact, the very foundations of today’s global banking system lie on parasitic pro-vulture rules and laws coupled with an overpowering lack of moral values. Sovereign debt Sovereign debts are a major problem in just about every country in the world, including the US, UK and EU nations. So much so, those debts have become a Damocles’ Swords threatening the livelihood of untold billions of workers around the world. One often wonders why governments indebt themselves for so much more than they can ever hope to pay… Here, Western economists, bankers, traders, Ivy League academics and professors, Nobel laureates and the mainstream media have a quick and monolithic reply: because all nations need “investment and investors” if they wish to build highways, power plants, schools, airports, hospitals, raise armies, service infrastructures and a long list of et ceteras, economic and national activities are all about. But more and more people are starting to ask a fundamental common-sense question: why should governments indebt themselves in hard currencies, decades into the future with global mega-bankers, when they could just as well finance these projects and needs far more safely by issuing the proper amounts of their own local sovereign currency instead? Here is where all the above “experts” go berserk & ballistic, shouting back: “Issue currency? Are you crazy?? That’s against the “rules & laws” of economics!!! Issuing national sovereign currency to finance the real economy’s monetary needs leads to inflation and lost jobs and chaos and… (puts us nice mega-bankers out of a job…)!!.” That’s when they all gang-up into noisy “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!” mode. Then you ask them: What happens when countries default on their unpayable sovereign debts - as they invariably and repeatedly do - not just in Argentina, but in Brazil, Spain, Venezuela, France, Costa Rica, Peru, El Salvador, Portugal, Russia, Bolivia, Iceland, Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, Thailand, Nigeria, Mexico, and Indonesia? Again the voice of the “experts”: “Then countries must “restructure” their debts kicking them forwards 20, 40 or more years into the future, so that your great, great, great grandchildren can continue paying them”. Oh, I see! The truth is that countries need public spending to maintain their economies resilient and buoyant, their citizens working, prospering and happy; their nation-states sovereign, strong and secure. OK: happy, secure and working populations cannot be defined as a formula that can be readily integrated into “expert” economists’ spreadsheets. However, there’s a basic truth that should be obvious by now: Finance (which is the virtual world of bankers, investments, speculation and usury) should always be fully subordinated to the Real Economy (which is the world of work, production, buildings, milk & bread and services). All this begs the obvious question: Since governments have a natural tendency to overspend and end up getting themselves into too much debt, which is the better option then: - that their “red numbers” (aka sovereign debt) should be owed to themselves; their own nation-states (debt in local currency that in the last instance can be written off, even if a bad bout of inflation cannot be stopped, countries can always revamp their currencies as Argentina repeatedly did over the past forty years), whereby the whole “debt crisis” basically becomes a short-term internal affair (albeit painful!), or… - to convert those “red numbers” into foreign currency debt (US Dollars or Euro) fully controlled by powerful far-away, well-organized creditor-technocrats and global mega-bankers sitting at the FED and IMF in Washington DC; the European Central Bank in Frankfurt; or perched in eager expectation in their Wall Street vulture nests? [...] Argentina’s recurrent defaults and debt restructuring go back many decades. For brevity’s sake, let’s just point to 1956 right after President Juan Domingo Perón was ousted by a very bloody 1955 US-UK (and mega-banker) sponsored military coup. Perón was hated for his insistence on not indebting Argentina with the mega-bankers: in 1946 he rejected joining the International Monetary Fund (IMF); in 1953 he fully paid off all of Argentina’s sovereign debt. So, once the mega-bankers got rid of him in 1956, they shoved Argentina into the IMF and created the “Paris Club” to engineer decades-worth of sovereign debt for vanquished Argentina, something they’ve been doing until today. But each sovereign-debt crisis cycle became shorter, more virulent and more toxic. By December 2001, Argentina had collapsed financially sinking into the largest sovereign debt default in history. Immediately, the IMF’s deputy manager Anne Krueger proposed some “new and creative ideas” on what to do about Argentina. She published them in 2002 in an article on the IMF’s website: “Should Countries like Argentina be able to declare themselves bankrupt?”, in which she said that “the lesson is clear: we need better incentives to bring debtors and creditors together before manageable problems turn into full-blown crises”, adding that the IMF believes “this could be done by learning from corporate bankruptcy regimes like Chapter 11 in the US”. She pointed this out as “a possible new approach”, adding that “of course many practical and political obstacles to getting such an approach up and running” needed to be overcome, the “key features would need the force of law throughout the world”, creating “a predictable (global) legal framework”. From the stance of global mega-bankers’ geopolitical long-term planners, Ms Krueger’s proposal consisted of first gradually driving countries into receivership, and then sequentially into full-fledged bankruptcy. Then as if nations were private corporations like Enron or WorldCom - they could be broken up into as many “digestible” pieces as possible, to be gobbled up by international creditors in some global vulture-fest banquet. [...] The specialized and mainstream media - Financial Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Economist - are also recommending Judge Griesa and his vulture chicks to show more restraint because in today’s delicate post-2008 banking system, a new and less controllable sovereign debt crisis could thwart the global elite’s plans for an “orderly transition towards a new global legal architecture” that will allow orderly liquidation of financially-failed states like Argentina. Especially if such debt were to be collateralized by its national territory (what else is left!?) Will yet another sovereign debt bond mega-swap be imposed upon Argentina, this time with large swathes of its national territory – especially Patagonia – being used as collateral guarantee? That would mean that in a few years’ time the Shylocks in Wall Street and London will do everything they can to yet again push Argentina into default, since that would pave the way for them to “legally” take over its territory cashing in on their collateral as “compensation”. [...]  If we tie this all in with what the unfolding of “Act III” in the on-going Israel-Palestine crisis whereby re-settling millions of Israeli civilians into southern Argentina might be on the drawing board, we can then begin to understand how nicely Argentina’s next debt crisis will tie in: The global Rothschild’s, Warburg’s, Lazard’s, Soros, Rockefellers will be able to “legally” take over Patagonia, and then “legally” hand it over to whomever they wish without a single shot being fired! If this is what’s really happening behind-the-curtains regarding Argentina, does anybody believe it will stop there? Beware Greece, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Mexico, Korea, Japan, Ukraine, Brazil, South Africa – the world government is marching in! EXTRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://rt.com/op-edge/179772-sovereign-debt-for-territory/

 FED - US Federal Reserve System (informal = FED) = central banking system of US.


Thought this article was very interesting.

Had no idea about Peron US-UK mega-banker sponsored coup.

Is Argentina likely to lose territory?

My guess is:  yes.

It lost the Falklands over sovereign debt.

The stuff about Israeli civilian resettlement in southern Argentina is puzzling.

................................................................................

Something called the 'The Andinia Plan' is probably what the resettlement is about.

This is refuted as anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, or something like that:

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/The-Dreyfus-revival

Argentina - what's likely to happen following default

 LAHT Article

"Barings tried for years to reach a settlement on the debt, repeatedly sending representatives to Buenos Aires, but it was not until 1857 – 29 years after the default -- that Barings and bondholders (backed by the threat of some stiff English gunpowder diplomacy) reached a settlement with what was now the Republic of Argentina -- by issuing new bonds, of course.

And with Argentina’s credit now restored with a £1.6 million Barings recapitalization of the arrears, Barings went on to market another £550,000 for Argentina in the first portion of a £2,500,000 33 year Argentina 6% bond maturing in 1899 and even more issuance followed.

By 1890, however, Argentina was on the brink of default again and almost took Barings down with it. With the Bank of England becoming the world’s lender of last resort, it was Baring’s old rival, Rothschild, who would persuade the British government to put together what became a £17 million rescue on the principle that the collapse of Barings would be a “terrific calamity for English commerce all over the world.” [LAHT]

-------------------------------------------------

COMMENT

The world of bonds/debt and investment seems to have:

* a villain (defaulting debtor)
* a victim (investor)
* a rescuer (financial group or even foreign government bank)

What seems to happen is that someone comes along (a group of big investors or a goverment) and offers a bail-out and restructured terms ... and the debt carries over in some shape or other.

If nations that are indebted aren't careful, they stand to lose territory (and maybe even sovereignty), is what I got out of it. 

So that maybe explains why people are prepared to continue to invest in a 'bad' lender.  Countries have value:  resources, territory, strategic location etc.

What's going to happen?  I'm guessing there's going to be a buy-out and restructuring on terms that probably aren't favourable to Argentina? 

But having read about the 65% 'haircut' or whatever it was, it doesn't sound like the terms are all that great for the lenders.  But it depends on how you view profits, I guess.  In other words, how much profit is enough profit?