TPP Resistance, Hillary’s Iraq Vote, and The Arbitrary Detention of Julian Assange

“(The TPP) makes it easier for big corporations to offshore more American jobs … pits American workers more directly in competition with, for example, workers who make less than 65 cents an hour; includes monopoly rights for big pharmaceutical companies that raise medicine prices and allows corporations to challenge public interest policies that they can say affects their ability to make a future profit.”

– Jessa Boehner,international program associate with Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, on why a broad coalition is campaigning to prevent U.S. approval of the newly signed Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement

Broad Coalition Campaigns to Prevent U.S. Approval of Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement

Interview with Jessa Boehner, international program associate with Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, conducted by Scott Harris

Trade representatives of the U.S. and 11 other Pacific Rim nations gathered in New Zealand on Feb. 4, to formally sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement that’s designed to integrate 40 percent of the world’s economy. Over the next two years, the controversial trade pact, known as the TPP, must still be ratified by at least six original signatories representing 85 percent of the total GDP of the 12 nations that signed the agreement.

While supporters like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Obama say the TPP will boost American exports and create jobs, some economic studies warn that the trade agreement will lead to employment losses and increased inequality. U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, an opponent said recently that the TPP “is about letting multinational corporations rig the rules – on everything from patent protection to food safety standards … to benefit themselves.”

The contentious Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision of the TPP allows multinational corporations to challenge local, state and federal public health, environmental, consumer and labor laws, as well as court rulings if a claim is made that they impinge on business profits. Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Jessa Boehner, international program associate with Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, who explains why a broad coalition of labor, environmental and consumer groups are now engaged in a campaign to defeat the TPP when the trade agreement comes up for a vote in the U.S. Congress.

.
JESSA BOEHNER: The Transpacific Partnership, which we refer to as the TPP, is a so-called “free trade” agreement – and we put “free trade” in quotes – between 12 countries, and it’s been in negotiation for about seven years. And the reason that we put the “free trade” in quotes is because, really, the TPP has to do with a lot more than what we think of as typical trade issues. So, of the TPP’s 30 chapters, actually only 6 of them have to do with these traditional trade issues in terms of lowering or getting rid of tariffs, etc. But instead, what we’ve seen in the TPP is that are many provisions that actually benefit multinational corporations over workers, the environment, consumers, etc.

So, this is not actually that surprising, given how the deal was negotiated. So, as I mentioned, it was negotiation for about seven years, it took a really long time in part because there was a lot of opposition – global opposition – to the deal. But it was basically negotiated in secret and so the public and the press and civil society were locked out of negotiations. For the majority of the time the TPP was in negotitions, U.S. members of Congress were locked out, too. And at the end, they received, after a lot of complaining, they received some kind of nominal access, where they could request or view certain parts of it. They couldn’t talk about it, they couldn’t take any notes, etc. But at the same time, as all of these actors were locked out, there were about 500 so-called advisors so the majority of them, representing industry interest, representing corporate interest, that actually had access to the text of the negotiations.

So, it’s not surprising that the TPP would benefit these corporations over workers and consumers and when they finally released the text, we actually saw that it was worse than we thought it would be. There’s a lot of concerns. For example, it includes the same kind of language that was in NAFTA that actually makes it easier for big corporations to offshore more American jobs. The TPP would also push down our wages for the jobs that are left, because it basically pits American workers more directly in competition – with, for example, workers in Vietnam who make less than 65 cents an hour – it includes monopoly rights for big pharmaceutical companies that raise medicine prices, would flood us with more imports of unsafe food, it also includes a very controversial investor-state dispute settlement which allows corporations to challenge public interest policies that they can say affects their ability to make a future profit. And there’s concerns about Internet freedom, rolls back environment standards, really as you mentioned, there’s kind of something for everyone to hate. And that’s why there’s an unprecedented number of organizations that are working against the TPP to try and make sure that Congress will reject it.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Tell us about the candidates running for president, both on the Democratic and Republican side, and their support or opposition to the TPP, the Transpacific Trade Agreement.

JESSA BOEHNER: In no small part due to the large amount opposition to the deal, this has really become a politically toxic issue. And really, at this point, the TPP might not even be sent to the Congress for approval during this Congress, given that we’re in an election year, and there’s been enough pushback. There really isn’t a clear majority of support, particularly in the House of Republicans. People that are in the presidential race that are running have really kind of felt the pushback from the American citizens that this is really not a popular issue that Americans are really opposing this. And because of that, the major people that are vying for the presidency have really had to come out in opposition to the TPP. So we have Hillary, (she) came out opposing the TPP as well as Bernie Sanders, so both of the candidates that are running on the Democrat side as well as many of the major candidates that are in the Republican race.

So, we’re really seeing that this issue is one that is really, really politically toxic and for that reason, the movement to cede the TPP is alive and well, and it’s not a sure thing that Congress would approve the TPP, or that it will even be brought up for a vote.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Jessa, lastly, are there any public opinion polls that have been done recently on public attitudes towards this proposed TransPacific Partnership?

JESSA BOEHNER: One of the things that tends to come out of polls or that people tend to kind of support the idea of free trade – but once you get started talking about the provisions that are in the trade deal, NAFTA, previous trade agreements and what the TPP will actually do, there’s a lot of opposition to these NAFTA-style deals.

For more information on the battle to defeat the Trans-Pacific free trade agreement, visit Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch at citizen.org/trade.

Related Links:
mp3 Interview with Jessa Boehner, conducted by Scott Harris, Counterpoint, Feb. 8, 2016 (21:37)
“No TPP Death Sentence,” at tppkills.org
“Corporate Attacks on the Public Interest,” at isdscorporateattacks.org
“Flush the TPP!,” at flushthetpp.org
“Here’s What Needs to Happen in Order for the Trans-Pacific Partnership to Become Binding,” The Diplomat, Oct. 8, 2015
“The TPP trade deal hated by the internet got signed last week. A guide for those that haven’t been paying attention.,” Fusion.net, Feb. 8, 2016
“Trans Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Signed in Auckland,” BBC, Feb. 4, 2016
“As Countries Line Up to Sign Toxic Deal, Warren Leads Call to Reject TPP,” Common Dreams, Feb. 3, 2016
” How to Make the Trans-Pacific Partnership Work for Workers and Communities,” The Nation, Jan. 14, 2016
“Fanaticism and Fantasy Drive Purported TPP ‘Benefits’,” CounterPunch, Feb. 5, 2016

Iraq War Vote Shadows Clinton Candidacy

Interview with Stephen Zunes, professor of politics & coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, conducted by Meinda Tuhus

Apart from mentions of Hillary Clinton’s emails when she was secretary of state, foreign policy issues have not received much attention thus far in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign. While Republican candidates try to outdo each other in the machismo of their proposed harsh treatment of refugees, targeting family members of alleged terrorists and attacking rogue nations, Democrats have mostly focused on issues like the economy, higher education and health care, with some talk about how they’d tackle climate change.

The one exception is Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ repeated criticism of Clinton’s 2002 Senate vote authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq, while pointing out that he opposed that same war resolution. Clinton has since said that her vote was a mistake, but also couched her admission in ways to minimize the negative fallout.

Between The Lines’ Melinda Tuhus spoke with Stephen Zunes, professor of politics & coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco. He examines some of the details of the debate in Congress leading up to that vote, which was followed a few months later by President Bush’s decision to launch the U.S. “shock and awe” invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Here, he explains how Clinton’s vote supported President Bush and Vice President Cheney’s war, and also discusses Clinton and Sanders’ positions on another key foreign policy issue – U.S. support for Israel.
.
STEPHEN ZUNES: One of the most disturbing things about Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee for president was that she was among the right-wing minority among the Democratic members of Congress to vote in favor of the authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. Most Democrats at the time opposed this, and many people, myself included – who were strategic analysts, Middle East scholars, others familiar with the region and the procurement process of non-conventional weapons – had informed her, along with other members of Congress, that the Bush administration’s claims about Iraq having these so-called weapons of mass destruction or ties to al Qaeda and the like, were completely false, and of course, we were correct on that. We also pointed out the fact that engaging in an aggressive war like this was a direct violation of the U.N. Charter, the Nuremberg Principles and other tenets of international law and it would be a very bad precedent for the U.S., which sees itself as a world leader, to insist that somehow it could not play by the rules. Also, we informed her that it would be very likely that if the U.S. invaded Iraq, we would be bogged down in a long, bloody counter-insurgency war in the midst of the rise of sectarianism and ethnic violence, as well as encouraging the growth of radical Salafi Islamic extremists and terrorism, and unfortunately we were right about that as well.

This came to light the other night during the town hall meeting where Hillary Clinton claimed that Hans Blix, the U.N. inspector, supported the resolution. That is completely untrue. He did not support that or any other piece of legislation. He did say that inspectors should be allowed to return to Iraq and the U.N. should make sure there were serious consequences if they did not. And the U.N. did that in the U.N. Security Council resolution 1441. But he did not say that the U.S. Congress should do that, that the U.S. Congress should act unilaterally.

What’s also striking was that there were several war authorization resolutions. One was introduced by Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan, that said it authorized the president to use military force if the U.N. found that Saddam Hussein was not cooperating with U.N. inspectors, if he did not let them in, if he did not give them unfettered access to various suspected sites. If she was only really interested in getting the inspectors back in, she would have voted for that resolution; instead, she voted against it and instead voted for a Republican resolution – the administration resolution – which basically gave President Bush to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing. And indeed, inspectors had been in Iraq for four months, unfettered inspections, they weren’t finding a damn thing, and Bush invaded anyway, and Clinton defended it, she supported it.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Whenever Bernie talks about this, he uses the exact same words to say he voted against it and she was for it and that demonstrates he has better judgment. But they don’t seem to talk about any other foreign policy issue. What can you say, for example, about their differences, if any, around Israel and Palestine? And any thoughts about why this important issue isn’t playing any role in the campaign so far?

STEPHEN ZUNES: Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton support Israel’s right to exist; support Israel’s right to self-defense. Bernie Sanders worked on a kibbutz as a young man; he’s Jewish; and like Hillary Clinton, he does see Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. But the big difference is that while Bernie Sanders supports the peace and human rights community in Israel, the more left-leaning Zionist parties, the ones that believe that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories and allow the Palestinians a viable state of their own – those who believe that Israel has been violating human rights and has been unnecessarily bombing civilian targets and committing war crimes – Hillary Clinton has been defending all that. In fact, even when Israel bombed a U.N. school that was housing refugees during the war on Gaza a year and a half ago – there was no Hamas military activity anywhere nearby – Sen. Sanders condemned it; the Obama administration condemned it; but Hillary Clinton rushed to the Israelis’ defense, claimed that, despite any evidence, there was Hamas firing rockets from an annex of the school; again, an investigation showed that wasn’t true.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Stephen Zunes, I do think uncritical support for Israel is slipping in the U.S., but this issue is still a third rail in American politics, and I’m wondering if Bernie isn’t highlighting any differences because he’s afraid it will hurt him.

STEPHEN ZUNES: I don’t think necessarily. I think part of it is there are some elements that don’t just oppose the occupation, but oppose Israel itself and he doesn’t want to encourage that end of things. And he is certainly ahead of the curve in terms of most Democrats. There are a lot of otherwise liberal Democrats who take pretty right-wing positions on this issue, which is unfortunate. But I think most of it is that until very recently, when he started bringing Iraq up more often, he hasn’t really been addressing foreign policy much at all.

For more information, visit Stephen Zunes’ website at stephenzunes.org.

Related Links:
“The Five Lamest Excuses for Hillary Clinton’s Vote to Invade Iraq,” Common Dreams, Jan. 27, 2016
“Support for Iraq War Still Haunts Hillary Clinton’s Candidacy,” Huffington Post, Aug. 8, 2015
“Did Hillary Lie About Her Iraq War Vote?,” The Real News, Feb 4. 2016 (video)
“5 Myths (And One Big Truth) About Hillary’s 2002 Iraq War Vote,” Huffington Post, Feb. 8, 2016
” Back to Videos Sanders Targets Clinton on “Perpetual War” And Iraq: “I Was Right, Hillary Was Wrong”,” RealClear Politics, Feb. 7, 2016
“Hillary Clinton’s Political Machine Has Been Busted — Thanks to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren,” Salon, Feb. 9, 2016
“Bernie Sanders Says He’s Being “Lectured” by Hillary Clinton on Foreign Policy,” Mother Jones, Feb. 7, 2016
“What We Can Expect From Hillary Clinton on Israel/Palestine,” Truthout, Dec. 5, 2015
“Bernie’s World,” Foreign Affairs, Feb. 4, 2016
“Clinton Says Sanders is Flunking on Foreign Policy,” Politico, Feb. 5, 2016

UN Panel Says WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Being Arbitrarily Detained

Interview with Carey Shenkman, U.S. based attorney working on behalf of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, conducted by Scott Harris

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, was granted asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy three-and-a-half years ago as he faced extradition to Sweden to answer questions on rape and sexual assault charges. While Assange denied the allegations, he refused to travel to Sweden fearing that the government there would extradite him to the U.S. to face serious charges for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents in 2010. Those documents were a great embarrassment to the U.S., exposing covert spying and military operations, as well as a video recording of U.S. helicopter gunships killing Iraqi civilians and two Reuters reporters.

Assange’s legal status in the United States is uncertain after a 2010 grand jury investigation found that there was sufficient evidence to bring charges against the whistleblower related to his release of U.S. documents given to WikiLeaks by Army Specialist Chelsea Manning, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison in August 2013.

In a new development in the case, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued a ruling on Feb. 5 that found Assange’s detention in Ecuador’s London embassy should come to an end, and that he has the right to compensation for the more than three years he spent in “illegal detention” there. Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Carey Shenkman, a U.S.-based attorney working on behalf of Julian Assange, who talks about the UN Working Group’s ruling and the wider significance of the Assange case for both journalists and activists.

For more information, visit Justice for Assange at justice4assange.com.
.
Related Links:
Interview with Craig Shenkman, conducted by Scott Harris, Counterpoint, Feb. 8, 2016 (23:42)
“Julian Assange arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the UK, UN expert panel finds,” United Nations Office of the High Commissioner, Feb. 5, 2016
“Assange Calls U.N. Panel Ruling a “Victory That Cannot be Denied”,” CBS, Feb. 5, 2016
“Does the US Have a Case Against Julian Assange?” Alternet, 2012
“Why Some Charges Against Julian Assange Were Dropped,” The Atlantic, Aug. 13, 2015
“Collateral Murder ,” WikiLeaks, April 5, 2010
“Wikileaks Reveals Video Showing US Air Crew Shooting Down Iraqi Civilians,” The Guardian, April 5, 2010
“The 10 Most Important WikiLeaks Revelations,” Salon, Nov. 29, 2010
“CCR Condemns Reported Sealed Indictment Against WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange,” Center for Constitutional Rights, Feb. 28, 2012
“Assange to answer Sweden’s questions ‘in days’ – Ecuadorian President,” RT, Jan. 21, 2016

This week’s summary of under-reported news

Compiled by Bob Nixon
Fifteen years ago, the fertile fields near La Hormiga, Colombia were filled with coca leaves growing everywhere and farmers flush with cash, as a leftist insurgency prospered. This was “ground zero” for Plan Colombia, a massive multi-pronged effort funded by nearly $10 billion in U.S. aid that was launched in 2000. The program’s goal was to assist a country with a dysfunctional government and economy in the grips of drug mafias, leftist guerilla groups and rightwing militias.(“Plan Colombia’s Mixed Legacy: Coca Thrives but Peace Deal May be on Horizon,” The Guardian, Feb. 3, 2016; “Colombia to Ask US for Policy Tweaks in Aftermath of Farc Conflict,” The Guardian, Feb. 4, 2016)
The New Cuba PAC has raised $350,000 in recent months to support federal candidates who favor easing the U.S. embargo against Cuba. The PAC plans to raise another $100,000 in political funds for House and Senate candidates before November. (“PACs For and Against Cuba Embargo Bring in Big Money,” Miami Herald, Jan. 28, 2016; “PAC Favoring Ties With Cuba Raised $350,000 in Past Six Months, Will Spend on House, Senate Races,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 28, 2016)
Not long ago, Wisconsin was the hub of progressive politics in the U.S. But in recent years, the upper mid-Western state swung hard right, as GOP Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-dominated legislature passed anti-union laws, gutted environmental protections and slashed education budgets.(“Rewriting the Progressive Playbook,” In These Times, Feb. 8, 2016)

---

Share This Episode