WTO - Corporate Greed Blocks Food Security

India's demands block $1 trillion WTO deal on customs rules By David Brunnstrom and Tom Miles GENEVA Fri Aug 1, 2014 6:22am IST (Reuters) - The World Trade Organization failed on Thursday to reach a deal to standardise customs rules, which would have been the first global trade reform in two decades but was blocked by India's demands for concessions on agricultural stockpiling.  [How about blocked by a reasonable request to raise levels to meet inflation?] ... WTO ministers had already agreed the global reform of customs procedures known as "trade facilitation" last December, but it needed to be put into the WTO rule book by July 31. Most diplomats saw that as rubber-stamping a unique success in the WTO's 19 year history, which according to some estimates would add $1 trillion and 21 million jobs to the world economy, so they were shocked when India unveiled its veto.  [And I'm shocked they're all so greedy that bringing food security up to levels that take inflation into account is not a priority.] Trade experts say Thursday's failure is likely to end the era of trying to cobble together global trade agreements and to accelerate efforts by smaller groups of like-minded nations to liberalise trade among themselves. India has been vocal in opposing such moves, making its veto even more surprising. "Today’s developments suggest that there is little hope for truly global trade talks to take place," said Jake Colvin at the National Foreign Trade Council, a leading U.S. business group. ... Some nations have already discussed a plan to exclude India from the agreement and push ahead regardless, and the International Chamber of Commerce urged officials to "make it happen." “Our message is clear. Get back to the table, save this deal and get the multilateral trade agenda back on the road to completion sooner rather than later,” ICC Secretary General John Danilovich said. ... U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, on a visit to New Delhi, had earlier said he was hopeful that differences between India and much of the rest of the world could be resolved. [He also said what amounts to a hope that India's fair call for adjustment would 'wither away'.] India's new nationalist government has insisted that a permanent agreement on its subsidised food stockpiling must be in place at the same time as the trade facilitation deal, well ahead of a 2017 target set last December in Bali. Kerry, whose visit to India was aimed at revitalising bilateral ties but was overshadowed by the standoff, said the United States understood India's position that it needs to provide food security for its poor but India would lose out if it refused to maintained its veto. [So he doesn't care about food; he cares about profit?] DEAL WITHOUT INDIA? Diplomats say India could technically attract a trade dispute if it caused the deal to collapse, although nobody wanted to threaten legal action at this stage. The summer break will give diplomats time to mull options, including moving ahead without India. [OMG; they're threatening legal action!  This is perverse.] ... http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/08/01/india-trade-wto-idINKBN0G02GV20140801

Headline ought to be:   Corporate Greed Blocks WTO Customs Rules Deal -- and Denies Poor Food

Does anyone else think this is wrong?

AUSTRALIAN 'SUPER-INJUNCTION'

WikiLeaks and the courts: keep the debate open By Carla Silbert Posted about 7 hours ago The ability of state institutions to shield their actions from public scrutiny is scandalous, and WikiLeaks' latest exposé adds a new and disturbing dimension to this issue, writes Carla Silbert. Australians have found themselves the beneficiaries of WikiLeaks' latest exposé - the publication of a Victorian Supreme Court suppression order so broad in scope that even the order itself is suppressed. ... It comes as little surprise that this "super-injunction" - an order that suppresses not just information such as the identity of a witness from publication, but the contents of the order itself - has come from Victoria, the state notorious as the "gag order capital" of Australia. ... When the reasons behind a court's actions remain secret, there can't be any scrutiny of those actions. That can never be in the public interest. In an era when the privacy of Australians is being increasingly compromised by the introduction of powers such as those currently being considered by Parliament to enable ASIO and ASIS to spy on private citizens in the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill, the ability of state institutions to shield their actions from public scrutiny is all the more scandalous. The WikiLeaks release has added a new, and troubling, dimension to this. Not only does the court have the power to keep us both ignorant and unaware of information of national concern, but if the cat gets let out of the bag and the documents are leaked as they have been here, we immediately find our freedom of speech restricted by threats of prosecution if we dare discuss it. Such discussions are vital to our ability to challenge the reasons why this information was withheld from us in the first place. Without these discussions, those doing the withholding can't be held to account. Extracts SOURCE - ABC - here.

So you elect a government and then the government (along with unelected intelligence agencies who presumably work for the public) do whatever they like; and then they go running to court to use the excuse of 'national security' to erode civil liberties and to fetter freedom of press, while they're scrambling to cover up some international scandal that involves government.

Having shut down scrutiny and debate by way of secret court order, the government's deftly sidestepped transparency and accountability and has, ultimately, undermined notions of democratic government.

How can this possibly be right?

John Prescott - Accused of Trivialising Holocaust

Telegraph Article

Accused of Trivialising Holocaust
 

Lord Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, has been rebuked by the most senior body representing British Jews after likening Gaza to a concentration camp.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the comparison, made in the Labour peer’s Sunday newspaper column, was “deeply offensive” and “trivialised the Holocaust.”

It warned that “playing the Nazi card” in relation to Israel “scratches deep wounds by invoking painful collective memory of the Holocaust.”

The Board called on Lord Bassam, the Labour chief whip in the Lords, to initiate misconduct proceedings against Lord Prescott.

It comes as a three-day ceasefire begins in Gaza following an intensive bombardment by Israeli armed forces.

...

Extract only

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11005105/Lord-Prescott-accused-of-trivialising-Holocaust-over-Gaza-remarks.htm

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

John Prescott.  Working class.  Former trade unionist.  Deputy Prime Minister under Tony Blair.  Labour politician.  

Board of Deputies of British Jews

Main representative body of British Jews (aka Anglo-Jews), established 1760 by Sephardi congregation (Spain & Portugal origins) to deal with urgent political matters and interests of Jews in Britain and in colonies.

Main reference point for government, media and others.  

Board affiliated with:  "World Jewish Congress (WJC), the world-wide umbrella organisation of Jewish communities".

Former Lord Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, had a spot of bother with the BDBJ over some remark made to a journalist.  Livingstone's another Labour politician, who sounds a bit of a maverick.  

What's interesting is that there appears to be some division within the Jewish community:

"On 5 February 2007, a group of prominent British Jews, such as Nobel laureate Harold Pinter and lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman, launched an organisation called Independent Jewish Voices to counterbalance what they perceive as uncritical support of Israel by major Jewish institutions in the UK, criticising particularly the Board of Deputies of British Jews."

[source:  wikipedia]

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

Protection of the 'deeply offended' vs freedom of thought and freedom speech?

Should be interesting to see what transpires.

GAZA - 72hr ceasefire - death toll now at 1,459

Gaza

72 hr ceasefire to commence.

Death toll now at 1,459

[Twitter]

Thailand - Violating Majesty - Violating Civil Liberties

Thai musician jailed for 15 years for insulting royals
28-year-old found guilty posting insulting messages about the monarchy on Facebook between 2010 and 2011

By AFP

7:04AM BST 01 Aug 2014

A Thai musician has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for royal defamation, a court official said, in the latest conviction under a controversial lese majeste law.

The 28-year-old was found guilty of posting insulting messages about the monarchy on Facebook between 2010 and 2011 ...

Under the strict lese majeste rules anyone convicted of insulting the king, queen, heir or regent faces up to 15 years in prison on each count.

Extract only

Source - Telegraph - here.

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

Lèse majesté, i.e. the crime of violating majesty, has been prohibited by the Law of Thailand since 1908. 

Premier Thaksin Shinawatra and royalist activist Sondhi Limthongkul both filed charges of lèse majesté against each other during the 2005–2006 political crisis. Thaksin's alleged lèse majesté was one of the stated reasons for the Thai military's 2006 coup. [wikipedia, as per link]

 ---------------------------------------------------
COMMENT


Which century is it in Thailand?

Take it they're not a democracy.

Love the bit about the start of the military coup.  Does anyone else find this hilarious or am I a bit bent?

Do like the sound of 'Violating Majesty'.   Nice ring to it.  LOL

GIF - Wall Street Hedge Funds vs Argentina

❌ G O O G L E SUCKS  ❌ _____ ❌ WALL STREET HEDGE FUNDS Vulture Funds vs ARGENTINA   ❌  GIF Vultures swooping on a carcass | Wall Street street sign G O O G L E SUCKS  ❌ Wall Street Sucks Harder

Argentina and the Hedge Fund Vultures

Meet the billionaire hedge-fund manager at the center of Argentina’s default By Rebecca Robbins July 31 at 3:32 PM When Argentina defaulted on its debt for the second time in 13 years this week, it was largely because of the legal pressure applied by one group of investors led by billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer. ...  missed a deadline for more than $500 million in interest payments that were due to bondholders. ... case even more curious is its link to Singer, who has become known for picking — and winning — fights with foreign governments over his hedge fund Elliott Management’s investments. He’s tussled with Peru, taking the country to the brink of default in 2000. He’s taken on Congo-Brazzaville, pushing the country to settle after he uncovered alleged corruption within the country’s government. But he’s never gone as far as he has with Argentina, which the ratings agency Standard and Poor’s declared in selective default on Wednesday, meaning that it has the wherewithal to pay its creditors but will not agree to. Argentina’s debt troubles date back to its last default in 2001, when it gave up on its sovereign debt payments to its bondholders. As the country’s finances rebounded, the majority of the country’s creditors agreed to a restructured debt package, but a handful turned the deal down. Led by the NML Capital division of Singer’s hedge fund, a group of holdout creditors have pushed Argentina to repay them in full, $1.5 billion. (Elliott officials have also said they would be willing to negotiate the terms.) Argentina says a large payment could expose it to a cascade of claims that it cannot afford to pay. The creditors have sued the Argentinian government, scoring a victory in 2012 when a federal court in Manhattan ruled that Argentina must first pay the holdouts before paying its other bondholders, leading to the country’s default on Wednesday. Argentinian politicians and their supporters have blamed the hedge funds for refusing to compromise, but Singer’s hedge fund denied culpability for the default of one of Latin America’s largest economies and say they have been willing to negotiate a deal. ...These hedge funds say they are simply collecting on their legitimate debt holdings, but critics call them “vultures” who prey on developing countries and unsettle the global economic balance. ... While distressed-debt investing remains a niche investment strategy, it has boomed since the recession. Total assets in the 300 hedge funds that buy up distressed and restructuring debt reached about $183.8 billion at the end of the second quarter of this year, a $100 billion increase since 2008, according to Hedge Fund Research. Within the distressed-debt market, Singer is a leader. A prominent Republican donor with libertarian views, he’s never been one to shy from a fight and has been an ardent critic of the Federal Reserve. It’s unclear just how much Singer stands to make if he can force Argentina to pay up, because it’s not known how much his hedge fund originally bought the defaulted debt holdings for. But Mark Brodsky of Aurelius Capital Management, another one of the creditors holding out against Argentina, said last year that his hedge fund stands to make some $500 million in profit if it wins the dispute. Several financial historians said they can’t remember another time that hedge funds had pulled a government into default, though they noted that there was some precedent for litigation surrounding sovereign debt. “The whole affair is reminiscent of vulture investors 25 years ago who would buy up distressed debt at a deep discount and hope to profit on subsequent good news,” Charles Geisst, a finance professor at Manhattan College, said in an e-mail. “But taking a large debtor to court is a more recent development and illustrates the extent of the profit to be made if they are successful.” Although talks between Argentina and the hedge funds have been unsuccessful thus far, an accord could still be reached out of court. Citing an unnamed source, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that JPMorgan Chase could step in to buy the disputed bonds. ... Source - Washington Post - here.

Hedge funds buy up debts and somehow make massive profits, by look of it.

Looks like Argentina shouldn't have given up its sovereign debt to bondholders back in 2001.

Not entire clear on that, but expect they gave over their 'foreign debt payments' to hedge funds.

Argentina can pay; but payment is at issue because it exposes them to other claims.

Like the bit about hedge funds being 'vultures' preying on developing countries.  Probably accurate.