China - US relations: China says if US imposes tariffs every other trade agreement up for grabs

Read more at:

http://www.euronews.com/2018/06/03/china-warns-trade-agreements-risk-if-u-s-imposes-tariffs-n879556

Armenia and Azerbaijan are Stuck with Russia and the U.S.

Over the years, Russia has served as the main arbitrator for the territorial dispute between Armenians and Azerbaijanis over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The most vivid explanation lies in the past relationship of Russia with these two countries both of which have been former members of the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet regime unleashed an economic, social, and political chaos across the regions of former member states. The end of the Soviet era granted independence to every single member state of the Union. The absence of Soviet supervision prompted the revitalization of old disputes between countries that had centuries long territorial, religious, and cultural conflicts.

The encounter between Armenia and Azerbaijan turned into an active military warfare in 1988 when the mountainous enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh region – that historically has been populated by Armenians of Artsakh – declared its willingness to join with the neighboring Republic of Armenia. Azerbaijani government opposed to this scenario and the war became inevitable. The conflict started in 1988 and rapidly escalated to a full-scale war. In 1993, the newly independent Armenians deployed military forces composed of local Armenians as well as Armenians from diaspora that captured geographically significant corridor of Lachin that provided a passage from Karabakh to Armenia. Other successful military operations included the recapturing of Shusha, Kalbajar, Qubadil, Jabrayil, Zangilan, Agdam, and Fuzuli.

Russia played a critical role in prevention of more violence in this war that lasted nearly six years within the Nagorono-Karabakh region. In May of 1994, the Russian government extenuated the ceasefire between Armenian and Azerbaijani governments. The decree nurtured by Russia became provisioned as satisfactory by both Armenian and Azerbaijani forces that reached an armistice. The problem that Russia left unsolved was that there was no definite and internationally agreed resolution on the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. The territories captured by Armenian fighters were proclaimed as Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which is a de facto state but is recognized as de jure by majority of international community as still part of the Azerbaijan.

The circumstances are not favorable for any of the former Soviet Union member states to make a swift transition from Russia’s patronage into the Western democracy. Even though the strings are invisible, however, Russia’s steeled hand still manipulates the strings that move the internal and external activities of its post-Soviet proxy states.

As it stands, the government of Armenia has formed an illusory acquaintance in Russia and they believed that Moscow represents the best interests of Armenian people. However, on numerous occasions, the Russian government representatives and deputies such as Vladimir Zhirinovsky (who many consider to be a controversial figure) have been outspoken about Russia’s true image of Armenia as a country and an ally. More specifically, when asked about the situation with Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Zhirinovsky announced – “I could spit on Armenia and never look back. If Armenians try to find another ally (other than Russia) we will cut ties with them. If Armenians get on the way, Russia will let Turkey and Azerbaijan run over Armenians. Armenia has no prospects of economic growth.” Zhirinovsky is one of the many politicians who have undermined the importance of Republic of Armenia as Russia’s ally.

In order to enhance the already existing economic cooperation with Russia and its allies, and provide new avenues of military empowerment, Armenia welcomed the invitation to join the Customs Union and became a complete member in 2015. This step took the Russo-Armenian relations to a higher degree and instilled more trust and sense of loyalty in the eyes of Moscow administration.

The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet regime in most communist countries of Asia and Europe did not necessarily represent an end of the rivalry between Russia and the democratic West. The Western countries never hesitated to take a backlash on Putin’s foreign policies and his decisions during recent international crises such as, 1) the Syrian Civil War that led to a chaotic situation in Northern Middle-East, 2) the Ukraine-Crimea territorial dispute where Russia intervened by claiming to resolve the issue but ended up annexing Crimea, and finally, 3) the Nagorno-Karabakh land dispute, where Russia protected the interests of the Armenians occupying those lands and meanwhile sold firearms to both parties in war.

The final, yet nonetheless significant explanation of lack of pro-Western diplomatic ties for Armenia is rooted in the reality of Azerbaijan’s positive relations with the United States, European Union member states and to a considerable degree also with Russia. Azerbaijan was able to promote its pro-Western tendencies by re-shuffling the deck of its cards that it used in global arena. It realized that since Turkey, its big brother and guardian is one of the vital NATO members, a crucial ally for the United States, and a possessor of an incredible military and economic power in the region, then it should also begin building similar connections with all of Turkey’s allies that can potentially become Azerbaijan’s new sponsors for regaining the Nagorno-Karabakh area.

Given this narrative, Azerbaijan was able to attract the attention of then Senator Barack Obama, who visited the country in 2005. By that time, the Section 907 implemented by the U.S. Congress in 1992 has been waived by President Bush, and further prolonged by Barack Obama during his presidency. The Section 907 prohibited any form of direct aid to or assistance to the Azerbaijani government. The relations further strengthened during U.S war against the terror in Afghanistan and Iraq when Azerbaijan provided intelligence information, airspace access, and refueling of U.S. aircrafts.

Azerbaijan also active participated in the NATO’s Partnership for Peace program.
In the economic sphere, Azerbaijan primarily currently cooperates with the US in the exportation of its energy resources to global markets, and particularly in Western Europe. The United States realizes the potential economic gain from the natural resources such as oil and gas available in Azerbaijan, as well as the geographical location of Azerbaijan and the access to Caspian Sea.

The United States will continue to create stable ties with Azerbaijan in order not to lose a potential important ally to Russia. Also, the United States does not rest on the matters pertaining to the security of the Azerbaijani people.

Within the context of Nagorno-Karabakh territorial dispute, it can reasonably be argued that Russia pulls the strings on Armenia as a “marionette,” whereas, the United States implements the same tactic with Azerbaijan. Ultimately, both superpowers defend their own security interests by offering partnership to the disputing states in the Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

It becomes paradoxical when one realizes that in this situation these two conflicting states do not have any alternative options that can bring the resolution of the conflict in their favor, with Azerbaijan desiring to regain Karabakh enclave, and Armenia dearly holding on to every inch of the soil with the last drop of the blood. Alas, serving for the advancement of the global superpowers and their regional interests is the only way of survival for Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Read more: Armenia and Azerbaijan are Stuck with Russia and the U.S.

Britain: Is US-UK Trade Bill Now In US Congress, One Week After Brexit Legal?

Despite claims that the US would banish Britain to the “back of the queue” if it dared to leave the European Union, Congress is already considering measures to boost trade with the UK.

A bill to lock down current trading arrangements, and fire the starting gun on a bilateral deal, was introduced to the US Senate yesterday.

The United Kingdom Trade Continuity Act mandates the US to keep trading on exactly the same terms after Britain leaves the EU.

It also urges the President to start fast-track talks with the UK, with the aim of concluding a bilateral trade deal in just one year.\

The bill was introduced by senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Tom Cotton (R-AR), who said strengthening the so-called special relationship is in the interest of both nations.

It comes after a string of nations made positive noises about stepping up UK trade within days of it ditching the EU, which removes the ability of member states to strike their own deals.

The crucial section of the bill reads: “Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President should initiate negotiations with the United Kingdom with the goal of reaching a final comprehensive bilateral trade agreement by the date that is one year after such date of enactment; and the President should make every effort to negotiate such an agreement expeditiously.”

While the bill has no power to compel the President to do anything, it would be a strong sign that the US prioritizes closer economic relations with the UK.

In a statement on the bill, Senator Lee said: “Our nation’s special relationship with the United Kingdom has promoted economic prosperity and security in both countries for over a hundred years.

The legality of the bill, however, is questionable, since Britain has not yet formally put EU article 50 up for implementation, and is consequently still tied to EU laws, which does not allow member states of the EU to instigate their own trade negotiations.

EU-Digest 

kleptocracy Rules: The Panama Papers & Capitalism -Today:Neo-liberalism’s World of Corruption

TTIP: legalizing Kleptocracy

Of course corruption has always existed in capitalism. But neoliberalism, the ‘free market’ system that started in the 1980s, promoted it on a vast scale for two reasons:

1. Neo-liberal deregulation and privatisation promoted the dominance of financial capital and the expense of industry and the state. Financialisation and low capital gains taxes have turned big companies and utilities into cash cows, virtual banks with huge wealth, looking to maximise the interest on their money and minimise their tax. Finance capital is, after all, basically about swindling. In the middle ages they called it usury.

2. The shift to the right crashed ‘socialist’ command economies and undermined nationalist governments in the third world, replacing both with corrupt and usually highly authoritarian neoliberal regimes. Getting hold of the state apparatus has become a royal road to mega-wealth for dozens of dictators and their cronies through simple theft.

The core of it is the banking system. European and American banks receive (read: launder) billions of dollars every year from international mafias, and in particular from drug dealers. Sometimes by accident some of this comes to light. In 2006 Mexican soldiers intercepted a drug shipment in Ciudad del Carmen and found a cache of documents showing the Sinaloa drugs cartel had made payments of $378 billion to the American bank Wachovia, a subsidiary of the financial giant Welles Fargo.

Roberto Saviano, the author of the best-selling Gamorrah which exposed the workings of the Neapolitan crime organisation Camorra, claims that London is the centre of money laundering for Latin American drug money. Even the British National Crime Agency says:

“We assess that hundreds of billions of US dollars of criminal money almost certainly continue to be laundered through UK banks, including their subsidiaries, each year.”

Saviano says that Mexico is the ‘heart’ of the drugs trade and London its ‘head’. Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Crime and Drugs Agency, says drug dealers invested $352 billion in Western banks in 2008, and this was key in keeping some major banks from collapse.

So corruption – receiving money from crime and drug cartels – is deeply ingrained in the culture of US and European banks. And this is not going to stop, given the vast profits involved.

The klepocratic state is an old story. It’s reckoned that no Mexican president leaves offices with less than $100m. Key Western allies from the 60s and 70s, like Mobutu, president of Zaire (DRC) from 1965-97 and Suharto, president of Indonesia from 1967-98, both established murderous regimes and systematically looted their respective peoples of billions of dollars.

Direct corruption by the state is one thing, influence is something else. In western democracies influence is stacked in favour of the rich and powerful. In the United States and increasingly in Britain it is professional lobbyists who fight their corner. The Atlantic magazine in the US points out:

“Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures—more than the $2 billion we spend to fund the House ($1.18 billion) and Senate ($860 million). It’s a gap that has been widening since corporate lobbying began to regularly exceed the combined House-Senate budget in the early 2000s.

“Today, the biggest companies have upwards of 100 lobbyists representing them, allowing them to be everywhere, all the time. For every dollar spent on lobbying by labour unions and public-interest groups together, large corporations and their associations now spend $34. Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business.”

The above account doesn’t include the direct payments and other gifts given to members of Congress by big companies, not least the health insurance and healthcare companies who have fought so long and so successfully against a universal US healthcare system.

Britain is going in the same direction. As in the United States, business and politics are often revolving doors with former minister joining the boards of companies they dealt with when in power. Seumas Milne says:
“…lobbying doesn’t begin to cover the extent of corporate influence. More than ever the Tory party is in thrall to the City, with over half its income from bankers and hedge fund and private equity financiers. Peers who have made six-figure donations have been rewarded with government jobs.

“But the real corruption that has eaten into the heart of British public life is the tightening corporate grip on government and public institutions – not just by lobbyists, but by the politicians, civil servants, bankers and corporate advisers who increasingly swap jobs, favors and insider information, and inevitably come to see their interests as mutual and interchangeable. The doors are no longer just revolving but spinning, and the people charged with protecting the public interest are bought and sold with barely a fig leaf of regulation.”

Corruption everywhere has the effect of transferring huge amounts of wealth from the poor to the rich. If poor individuals are not directly robbed, then their economic situation, their public services, their health service, their transport, their education – all these are robbed when taxes are avoided and government revenues robbed.

You can’t analyse corruption today by looking for illegal activity alone. Many of the practices that happen in rich and poor countries are legal or in a grey area where it’s difficult to tell criminal from the lawful.

For example, property dealing in Britain is profoundly corrupt. House prices in London (and thus in the whole country indirectly) are pressured by the huge amount of hot money from corrupt Russian oligarchs and assorted gangsters of various nationalities invested in the expensive end of the market. But nothing here is illegal, as far as the house purchases in Britain are concerned. It’s just that they are bought with corrupt money and force up the living costs of millions of ordinary British people.

Look at the purchase of rare earth minerals from the Congo, essential for computers and mobile phones. Much of this mineral wealth is controlled by war lord armies, guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The companies who buy the mineral products they control – the moral equivalent of blood diamonds – have no contact with them at all. Dealers act as a buffer and through their transactions – perfectly legal – wealth based on rape and murder is miraculously washed clean.

Finance capital is by definition corrupt. The investment banks typically do not disclose their fees to investors in advance (they call their charges ‘consideration’) by deduct self-decided amounts as they go along. Free charging professionals like lawyers, and in many countries doctors and dentists, make up their own huge fees. Isn’t this corrupt? But there’s nothing illegal about it.

The tax dodges by major companies like Amazon, Facebook and Starbucks, are perfectly legal. They pay all the tax they are required by law – or by agreement –in countries like Ireland and Luxemburg where they are registered. Whether these practices are illegal in the UK for example is a very grey area. But corruption it certainly is.

All these examples have the same effect: robbing the poor to further enrich the wealthy.

 Read more: CADTM - The Panama Papers & Capitalism Today: Neo-liberalism’s World of Corruption

TTIP: U.S. Trade Policy: Populist Anger or Out-of-Touch Elites? - by Jeff Faux,

Nobody wants it except the
Corporate and Government elites

The presidential primary campaigns of both political parties have exposed widespread voter anger over U.S. global trade policies. In response, hardly a day has recently gone by without the New York Times, the Washington Post and other defenders of the status quo lecturing their readers on why unregulated foreign trade is good for them.

The ultimate conclusion is always the same – that voters should leave complicated issues like this to those intellectually better qualified to deal with them. So much for democracy.

Trade experts, according to Binyamin Appelbaum of the Times have been “surprised” at the popular discontent over this issue. Their surprise only shows how disconnected the elite and the policy class that supports it is from the way most people actually experience the national economy.

The United States has always been a trading nation. But until the 1994 North American Trade Agreement, trade policy was primarily an instrument to support domestic economic welfare and development.

Starting with NAFTA, pushed through not by a Republican president, but by the Bill Clinton in 1994, it became a series of deals in which profit opportunities for American investors were opened up elsewhere in the world in exchange for opening up U.S. labor markets to fierce foreign competition.

As Jorge Castañeda, who later became Mexico’s foreign minister, put it, NAFTA was “an agreement for the rich and powerful in the United States, Mexico and Canada, an agreement effectively excluding ordinary people in all three societies.”

For 20 years, leaders of both parties have assured Americans that each new NAFTA-style deal would bring more jobs and higher wages for workers, and trade surpluses for their country. It was, they were told, an iron law of economics.

What actually followed were outsourced jobs, wage declines, shrunken opportunities and rising trade deficits. The result has been a dramatic weakening of the bargaining power of American workers.

So it should come as no surprise when the large parts of the U.S. workforce now conclude that these trade deals may have had something to do with the redistribution of income from their pockets to the bank accounts of the top 1% who own and manage large multinational corporations.

Read more: U.S. Trade Policy: Populist Anger or Out-of-Touch Elites? - The Globalist