I have done a number of articles about Obama’s aspiration to be the most successful of all global leaders in establishing a global mega-corporate dictatorship by international corporations, and I shall here be posting an article that I wrote on 3 May 2016 about this but had forgotten to post. (I post it only at washingtonsblog because this site is the only one where I post every article that I do.) However, before posting this article here, I shall provide links to the most important articles that I did distribute to the press about this matter and which were published (and the article-dates and/or keywords will here be shown along with each one of these 5 articles):
https://washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/how-obamas-trade-deals-are-designed-to-end-democracy.html ISDS Bilderberg corporationism
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/04/whats-obama-up-to-with-his-tpp-ttip.html corporationism Pareto Mussolini
Here’s the one I did on 3 May 2016 but forgot to post:
TTIP Seems Now Dead, Killed in Europe by Anonymous Leaker
Eric Zuesse [3 May 2016]
U.S. President Barack Obama aims for his chief legacy to be his proposed TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) treaty with Europe, and his proposed TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) treaty with Asia; but, apparently, only the Asian deal, TPP, will be able to be rammed through, because Europeans have been enabled to see the deal’s details early enough to stop it. [NOTE: Once Trump was elected, he stopped U.S. participation in TPP, and so that treaty’s worst features were removed when the other Pacific countries did the TPP on their own.]
John Hilary, the Executive Director of War on Want, headlined an opinion column in Britain’s Independent newspaper the next morning, “After the leaks showing just what it really stands for, this could be the end for TTIP”, and he opened: “The documents show that US corporations will be granted unprecedented powers over any new public health or safety regulations to be introduced in future. If any European government does dare to bring in laws to raise social or environmental standards, TTIP will grant US investors the right to sue for loss of profits.”
Obviously, anything such as that, would be politically fatal to the European parliamentarians (the vast majority of them) who for months have been promoting “free trade” even after such deals as this but on a smaller scale, have already done so much to enhance international-corporate profits at the expense of workers’ wages, and of consumers who rely upon government regulations to keep toxics out of their food, water, and air, and to give consumers some reason to trust that their cars and other products will be safe. Expanding this type of “free trade,” as Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Wall Street, George Soros, the Koch brothers, and other Western aristocrats, routinely do, was intended to be passed into law in Europe without any effective democratic obstruction by European governments, just as it has already been passed (though not yet quite into law) with no effective democratic obstruction, by twelve governments on the Pacific. But now, that won’t likely happen. Thus, though America may (especially if Hillary Clinton becomes President) get Obama’s dream on the Pacific, it almost certainly now, will not become reality on the Atlantic.
The key document here is Document 16, which uses the term “panel” to refer to the crucial 3-person arbitrator-panels who make non-appealable decisions when an international corporation sues a signatory government that has raised its regulatory standards when any evolving new scientific information indicates that the existing levels of lead or of plutonium, etc., or of other safety-issues, are far more dangerous than had previously been thought, or when new workers’ rights or minimum wages, etc., are needed, or otherwise imposes increased regulation that the corporation claims is reducing its profits to its shareholders. The members of these panels don’t need to be lawyers, and don’t even need to know the laws of any nation, because their decisions aren’t made on the basis of any nation’s constitution, and laws, and courts, and court-precedents; they’re instead gradually evolving under the aegis of the World Bank’s ICSID branch, which isn’t subject to any democratic process or accountability to the public, at all. ICSID is an evolving new international government, by international corporations, under the basic principle not of any nation’s sovereignty, but instead, of a new and broader international principle that no nation’s sovereignty trumps the sovereignty of the stockholders in international corporations, and that those sovereigns are therefore subject only to this new higher law, a law higher than any merely national constitution or legal system. It’s a dictatorial, instead of democratic, conception, of world government, which all Western aristocracies have been pushing for since 1954, and especially since the United States made it possible by passing Richard Nixon’s Trade Act of 1974, which enabled this evolving dictatorial form of a world government to side-step the U.S. Constitution and so made possible such ‘trade agreements’ as U.S. President Bill Clinton passed in 1994, NAFTA, and as George W. Bush passed in 2003-2005. The U.S. has the only Constitutional provision that blocks this path to dictatorship, and so that law (the Trade Act of 1974) was passed, and magically became the first occasion in U.S. history when the U.S. Constitution was amended by merely passing a law that invents an exception to it. And no case has been taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court challenging it. Since no other nation has a Constitutional provision barring this type of treaty, that’s having happened in the U.S., was really “Open Sesame” on the matter, for the entire world. The whole concept needed to become established in the U.S. before it could realistically become feasible for the aristocracies to impose it in any other nations.
As I have reported earlier, U.S. President Obama wants these treaties so ardently, that his negotiator went so far as to make clear that even if a signatory nation allows trade union organizers to be murdered there with impunity, that’s still ‘fair trade’ and American workers who want higher pay or safer working conditions than the workers in that other country, will just need to lump it, so that this ‘fair trade’ can exist. After all, if politicians such as that can be elected and even re-elected in America, then it’s what the public wants, right? Maybe it’s a higher form of ‘democracy’, which combines deceit of the public by the aristocrats, with stupidity of the public; but, in Europe, it might not go into force as it’s doing elsewhere.
Obama has structured his ‘trade’ treaties so as to exclude the BRICS countries, because he wants to conquer them, not merely to exploit them. His approach to those countries is primarily military, by the ‘Defense’ Department, and the CIA. It’s regime-change, not ‘partnership’ — a different PR slogan, with moderately different real-world consequences, based more on soldiers, and less on salesmen.
That’s especially the case with regard to Russia. However, his approach to China is more focused on economic than on military and subversion (such as as CIA) methods, and so on 2 May 2016 he headlined an op-ed in the perennially hawkish Washington Post, “The TPP would let America, not China, lead the way on global trade”, and he said:
This past week, China and 15 other nations met in Australia with a goal of getting their deal, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, done before the end of this year. That trade deal won’t prevent unfair competition among government-subsidized, state-owned enterprises. It won’t protect a free and open Internet. Nor will it respect intellectual property rights in a way that ensures America’s creators, artists, filmmakers and entrepreneurs get their due. And it certainly won’t enforce high standards for our workers and our environment.
Fortunately, America has a plan of our own that meets each of these goals. As a Pacific power, the United States has pushed to develop a high-standard Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that puts American workers first and makes sure we write the rules of the road for trade in the 21st century.
This agreement strengthens America’s economy. …
America should write the rules. America should call the shots. Other countries should play by the rules that America and our partners set, and not the other way around.
In other words, even though he lies there about some things (such as that that it’s a “a high-standard” treaty instead of a race-to-the-bottom one, and such as “This agreement strengthens America’s economy” despite the fact that the independent economic analyses thus far performed show that only the major stockholders in America’s international corporations would benefit economically from it, while all other Americans would would lose from it, especially in non-economic ways), he does honestly display there his aggressive zero-sum view of the world: it’s all about being king-of-the-hill, not really about peace and prosperity — far less about justice. He’s a psychopath, but he apparently will lose in Europe.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.