Bruce Gagnon on weapons and nukes in space, Jeju Island, and the corporatization of the US military

Bruce Gagnon, co-founder and coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, recently toured the northwest, where he spoke to David Delk, AfD co-chair and host of the Portland OR chapter's show Populist Dialogues.

Bruce and David talked about the US military industrial complex, which now serves as a "resource extraction service" for global corporatism. The need to control gas and oil resources--including access to oil by China--is driving US military expansion in Asia, while space technologies developed by taxpayer dollars are now being seen as a means for private corporations to generate wealth by mining planets and asteroids.

You can watch Bruce's wide-ranging, fascinating, and frightening report here, and learn how to rebroadcast this show on your local public access station here. If your station would prefer receiving shows on dvd, please email the Alliance for Democracy office.

  In addition to hosting Bruce on Populist Dialogues, Alliance for Democracy joined several organizations in sponsoring Bruce and South Korean artist and peace activist Gillchun Koh at a demonstration at the Seattle South Korean Consulate.

The protest targeted the naval base currently under construction on Jeju Island, South Korea. This naval base is unnecessary, a drain on our economy, will destabilize both US and South Korean relations with China, and will put the people of Jeju Island at risk as a strategic target. We're posting a short history of the resistance to the base construction and commentary containing some good reasons for bringing this project to a halt. We've excerpted them from writing by Leonard Eiger, coordinator of Puget Sound Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. 

 The April 3 Massacre

30,000 people murdered!!! Jeju Island is known as the "Island of World Peace," a name that does not begin to tell the story of the Island's extensive history of conflict, occupation, repression and genocide. The most horrific episode in this history began in 1948 when the South Korean military and national police hunted down and slaughtered approximately 30,000 people. The U.S., which was the occupying power at the time, did nothing to stop what is now known as the April 3 massacre.

Why did the government do such a horrific thing? 1948 was a tumultuous time of establishing two governments in Korea. The people of Jeju Island rose up to protest the long-term division of the nation by boycotting the elections that were occurring in Seoul. For this they were branded as Communists, and the terror began.

For decades following, public discussion of the April 3 massacre was ruthlessly repressed. Following democratization, the slow and painful process of fact finding and truth telling began, and continues today. In 2003, South Korean President Noh Moo Hyun travelled to Jeju Island and officially apologized.

History Repeats Itself 

Now, over 60 years after the April 3 massacre the people of Jeju Island are once again protesting. This time they are protesting the U.S. Missile Defense System and a provocative new naval base being built on their island.

Why? If you look at a map of Jeju Island, you can see that it lies about 500 kilometers West of China. This military base is intended to project force towards China and to provide a forward operating installation in the event of a military conflict between the U.S. and China. For five years, South Korean activists have been protesting the plans for the new naval base on Jeju Island. During that time the response by the South Korean police and military has become more heavy-handed and brutal. Col. Anne Wright (former United States Army colonel and retired official of the U.S. State Department) reported that earlier this month "police broke arms of activists who had locked arms inside PCV pipes, beat up activists and threw them from kayaks."

A Global Context
(Excerpt from article by Noam Chomsky and Matthew Hoey)
The last thing the world needs is a military confrontation between the U.S. and China. On that dreaded eventuality, there is no need to elaborate. In terms of its implications, what is now taking place on Jeju island counts as one of the most critical struggles against a potentially devastating war in Asia, and the deeply-rooted institutional structures that are driving the world towards even more bitter conflict than is raging in all too many places today.

It is important to become aware of what is happening on Jeju Island and to find ways to help the residents to prevent this very dangerous and destructive project. The consequences of losing the struggle to prevent the base construction might impact not only Asia but the United States and the rest of the world as well. The project is naturally seen by China as a threat to its national security. At the very least, it is likely to trigger confrontation and an arms race between South Korea and China, with the U.S. almost inevitably drawn in.

The immediate threat is to Jeju Island civilians, whose home was recently described in a South Korean daily as “the spearhead of the country’s defense line,” a line recklessly located approximately 500km from China. We need not speculate about how the U.S. would react were China doing something similar near its coast.

For more information:
Save Jeju Island website
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space

Read more...

Multiple countries are rejecting investor state dispute settlement clauses in free trade agreements

by Janet Eaton

There appears to be a growing awareness that NAFTA-style foreign investor privileges and their private "investor-state dispute system [ISD]", which have been among the most controversial aspects of past US trade deals, should be rejected in trade and investment agreements. (ISDs allow corporations to sue to overturn local or national regulations or laws that are perceived as impinging in any way on the "right" of the corporation to profit. Past suits have targeted environmental and health regulations.)

In particular this provision has emerged as a point of major contention in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, with Julia Gillard's Australian government announcing last April that they would reject investor-state arbitration in all trade agreements. It seems that her government was not only concerned about the loss of public policy sovereignty but was also taking seriously the advice of the  Australian Productivity Commission which concluded there were "few clear benefits, and several worrying risks, associated with such provisions."

Following on the heels of Australia, Korea appeared poised to go the same route with polls showing the opposition, which rejected ISD, favoured to win the upcoming election; however, in the election held last week, the governing Conservatives managed to hold on to a slender majority so the jury is still out as regards South Korea. However one clue might be found in a recent April 6th claim by India that it plans to abolish the investor-state dispute system and renegotiate FTAs with South Korea, Singapore, and other countries. According to the English language newspaper, Indian Express,  New Delhi´s decision to abandon the ISD system is based on its first-hand experience with the potential threat foreign companies pose to public policy on the grounds of investment agreement violations.

Other countries that have concerns with, are opposed to, or have rejected, ISD, include the South African government which is re-examining the ISD system after a policy of affirmative action for blacks, aimed at reducing economic disparities between white and black people, was targeted in 2007 by a multinational corporation; the Brazilian parliament which has refused to ratify a number of investment agreements on the grounds that they infringe on legislative sovereignty and Ecuador and Bolivia that have pulled out of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes convention.

Meanwhile in the US and Canada, both President Obama and Prime Minister Harper are pushing Investor State Dispute settlement in their frenzy to initiate  free trade deals in every corner of the world. In the case of Obama this is in spite of his presidential campaign promises to review NAFTA Ch 11 [investor state] and other harmful aspects of free trade agreements in general and in spite of over 100 members of Congress and many progressive NGOs expressing support for the TRADE [Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment] Act introduced by Representative Michael Michaud [D-Maine] and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

In the case of Mr. Harper, he ignores calls from civil society, NGOs, institutes, activists and three opposition parties to renegotiate NAFTA Ch 11 while belittling anyone who tries to make the case. . [6]

Hopefully this momentum to reject the ISD system will eventually be powerful enough to influence the Harper government because in the words of a statement of concern initiatied by Canadian academics with expertise relating to investment law, arbitration, and regulation:

"We have a shared concern for the harm done to the public welfare by the international investment regime, as currently structured, especially its hampering of the ability of governments to act for their people in response to the concerns of human development and environmental sustainability."

Photo: Foreign Policy In Focus

Read more...

South Korea's National Assembly sees problems with FTA's investor-state dispute resolution rules

Janet Eaton writes,
Finally the investor state dispute [ISD] mechanism is being scrutized and challenged  by governments entering into Free Trade Agreements with the US.

[Investor state dispute mechanisms are those clauses in trade treaties that allow investors to initiate suits directly against foreign governments, rather than petition their own nation to negotiate disagreements. Suits are heard before international trade boards, rather than in open courts of law. Investor state claims threaten the ability of democratically-elected government to write laws and regulation with an eye to protecting labor rights, the environment, or public health. NAFTA's Chapter 11 is an example.]

On Dec. 30 the National Assembly of South Korea adopted a resolution calling for a renegotiation of the KORUS FTA, including the abandonment, postponement, or modification of provisions on the ISD system, which emerged as the chief issue during the National Assembly's debate over the KORUS FTA.

Just a few months earlier Julia Gillard's Australian government rejected Investor-State arbitration provision in trade agreements after an Australian Productivity Commission could find no compelling economic rationale for the inclusion of investor- state arbitration mechanisms in its trade and investment agreements. In fact it concluded that there were few clear benefits, and several worrying risks, associated with such provisions.

Janet adds that the accountability and impartiality of the arbitrators are also at issue. This article by Jung Eun-joo on Korea's recent rejection of investor state dispute mechanism focuses on an early trade arbitration decision, in which the  presiding judge came under much US pressure to rule in that country's favor. 

Read more...

Tomorrow, Wednesday, October 12: Congress to vote on FTAs

It's time to make one more call. Jobs and justice are on the line!

If you have not spoken out against these trade agreements, now must be the time. If you have called, speak out again. Please contact your senators and representative at 1-800-718-1008 and tell them NO Colombia, Panama, or South Korean FTAs.

These three undemocratic and job-killing free trade agreements will be voted on tomorrow by Congress.

We've sent out several alerts as these agreements have worked their way closer to a vote, and we thank you for speaking out against them.

All of these FTAs allow corporate attacks on democratic laws, and will result in the loss of US jobs and the further abuse of communities overseas. And each of the three agreements undermines the democratic process and the common wealth in its own way, whether it's the Panama FTA making it tougher for our government to go after money launderers and tax evaders, to the South Korea FTA creating trade protections for sweatshop-made goods in other countries, to the Colombia FTA "rewarding" those in power for their poor protection of labor rights. For more background information, see these posts on our blog.

Congress needs to hear that the big-budget corporate backers behind these agreements, like the US Chamber of Commerce, don't speak for the majority of Americans. Call Congress at 1-800-718-1008 and demand fair trade policies that promote workplace rights, environmental justice, and democratic governance, create good jobs, and build sustainable local economies. Thank you.

Read more...

Tuesday, October 4: A national call-in to Congress may be our last chance to make our voices heard on FTAs

Right after we sent this out to our email list, we learned that all three FTAs have been sent to Congress. It's time to call now!

Tell your representative and senators that you’ve had enough of "free trade" deals. Now is the time to say “NO” to the Colombia, Panama and South Korea FTAs. Call 1-800-718-1008 today!

• Don’t give corporations more power to attack US federal and state labor, health and environmental laws. Technical Barriers to Trade clauses are undemocratic and favor corporate profits over people and nature. All three FTAs contain investor protection clauses that allow corporations to sue to overturn democratically-enacted laws.

• With 25 million Americans searching for full-time jobs, we can’t afford trade agreements that off-shore jobs, out-source services and manufacturing, and hurt workers and working families. We need jobs here at home.

There's a lot wrong with these FTAs:

• The South Korea FTA is the biggest deal since NAFTA and will displace an estimated 159,000 jobs. In every state, manufacturing, high tech, and green sector jobs will be at risk. The South Korea FTA allows goods to be protected as "Made in South Korea,” even if most of the manufacturing takes place in other countries, for instance, sweatshops in Burma or North Korea—countries notorious for their human rights abuses.

• Colombia is the trade unionist murder capitol of the world, including 55 murdered in 2010. In 2011, 22 have been killed to date, despite promises from the Colombian government to stop these killings.

• Panama has become a haven for foreign tax evaders and money-laundering, but the Panama FTA would make it tougher for the US government to investigate and prosecute those who hide their money there. Don't we need these lost tax dollars to support job creation and to rebuild our failing infrastructure?

Don't believe the hype coming from big business lobbyists like the US Chamber of Commerce, or from Congress members ready to vote for the corporations who fund their campaigns rather than the people of their districts or states.

These agreements won't create jobs or rebuild the economy—but they will benefit the well-off and well-connected few at the expense of communities, democracy and working people here and overseas.

We need fair trade policies that promote workplace rights and safety and build sustainable local economies. The first step toward those goals is to stop these bad deals now. Make the calls and speak out. And thanks for all you do for democracy!

In Alliance,
Nancy Price, David e. Delk, Ruth Caplan and Barbara Clancy

Need contact info?

See this page for Senate contact information, and this page for House members. A phone call carries much more weight than an on-line comment, so we ask you to please take a few minutes on Tuesday, October 4 – National Call-In Day and contact these offices directly. Let us know what response you receive! Email afd@thealliancefordemocracy, or call 781-894-1179.

Read more...

Don't give corporations more power to attack US laws

Technical Barriers to Trade clauses are another reason to oppose the South Korean, Colombian and Panamanian FTAs

by David e. Delk, co-chair, Alliance for Democracy
President Obama has recently promoted three Bush regime-negotiated bilateral "Free Trade Agreements" (FTA's) with South Korea, Panama and Columbia. He claims these agreements are essential to creating jobs here in the U.S. In fact, he advocated for these agreements in his job creation address to Congress last week.

From the history of other trade agreements, we know that in fact trade agreements have resulted in a net loss of U.S. jobs. This will be particularly true for South Korea. The economies of Panama and Colombia are so small that very few jobs could possibly result.

Equally important, these bilateral agreements, just like CAFTA and NAFTA, empower corporations to sue our government directly in undemocratic trade tribunals whenever they believe that government regulation or law represents a barrier to trade, especially if future profits are alleged to be threatened!

This means that environmental protection, public health, or laws and regulations in any other area where human needs come into conflict with the corporate bottom line could be challenged and overturned by secret trade tribunals.

I offer the examples below to show the importance of strongly opposing these agreements.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has reached two new decisions this month which further empower corporations, overriding local decision making in favor of decisions made at the international level by privately empowered WTO trade tribunals. A third decision is expected within days.

The three decisions involve the WTO...

Banning the voluntary labeling of canned tuna as "Dolphin Safe"—these labels are illegal because they're restrictive of trade, says the WTO. Mexico won this case against the U.S.

Hindering efforts to reduce teen smoking—the US had, among other actions, banned the sale of clove and other types of flavored cigarettes as being "trainers" by cigarette companies to get youth addicted to smoking. Can't be banned, says the WTO. Indonesia won this case against the U.S.

Banning country of origin labeling of beef and other meat products--the US required country of origin labels after the mad cow and e.coli scares of the 1990s. The WTO is expected to say no dice. Our neighbors Canada and Mexico brought this case against the U.S.

These decisions are based on trade language called "technical barriers to trade" which is part of just about all trade agreements. Health provisions, environmental protection, worker safety—all are technical barriers to trade in the world of "free trade" promoted by these agreements.

Under the WTO, countries have to sue on behalf of their corporations. With bilateral agreements allowing for corporations to sue governments directly, we can expect even more harmful decisions.

Prior to the advent of these trade agreements, American states or the U.S. Congress were able to decide on these types of rules and laws. Now an international trade tribunal decides with no recourse to the American court or legislative systems. With every such decision, our ability to be a sovereign people is diminished. Sovereignty indicates who gets to decide. It is clearly not "We, the People" any more.

Take action now!
Move now to stop the web of corporate power from further attacks on democratic decision making. Call your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and demand that they vote against the U.S.-Korea, U.S.-Colombia, and U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreements.

David e. Delk,
Co-chair, Alliance for Democracy

Need contact info?
You can call the White House at 202-456-1111. See this page for Senate contact information, and this page for House members. A phone call carries much more weight than an on-line comment, so we ask you to please take a few minutes and contact these offices directly. Let us know what response you receive! Email afd@thealliancefordemocracy, or call 781-894-1179.

Read more...

Alliance Alert: South Korean, Colombian and Panama "Free Trade" Agreements are bad for the economy, environment, and democracy!

Like bad pennies, these trade agreements keep turning up! And while President Obama and the US Trade Representative say that our concerns about labor rights and financial regulation have been addressed, all three of these agreements still contain anti-democratic investor protection clauses that threaten the ability of national, state and local governments to protect rights, health, and ecosystems.

There's a push to pass these FTAs by the summer. Now is the time to contact your US Representative and US Senators to express your outrage that these corporate driven, anti-democratic agreements are being considered. State your opposition to all three and let them know that you will remember how they vote.

Want to learn more? Watch video of this US Korea Free Trade Teach-in, featuring Arthur Stamoulis of the Oregon Fair Trade Campaign, David Delk of Alliance for Democracy; and Barbara Dudley, former head of Greenpeace USA and current head of the Oregon Working Families Party.

Contact your US Representative here and US Senators here.
We're together on this one!
Labor unions like the AFL-CIO, Communication Workers of America and United Steelworkers, environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, and democracy organizations like Alliance for Democracy and Public Citizen are united in their opposition to the South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS).

The Sierra Club says:
"Mexico and Canada have lost NAFTA challenges to environmental protections and the United States has spent millions defending itself against suits.”

Communication Workers of America said:
“This agreement gives investment and legal protections to large multi-national corporations ...”

We say:
The South Korea Free Trade Agreement is basically a Bush-era giveaway to corporations and Wall Street. It contains the same investor protection provisions that have led to offshoring of jobs and international challenges to democratically-instituted labor, safety, and environmental law. We can't build a sustainable economy, preserve ecosystems, or provide decent jobs on the same old models of unfair "free trade."

The investor protection clauses in KORUS and other FTAs empower foreign corporations to challenge law and regulations passed by national, state, and local governments whenever the corporation feels those laws threaten future profits. These cases are heard before non-democratic trade tribunals. And if the tribunal says so, the law or regulation must be changed or the corporation must be paid.

But wait... there's more!
President Obama will present not only the Korea agreement, but also re-introduce trade agreements that President Bush had negotiated with Colombia and Panama as well.

Colombia has a vicious record of suppression of labor unions and execution of labor leaders. Panama has been a haven for tax evaders. While President Obama and the US Trade Representative have reported progress on both issues, any progress on worker rights, environmental protection, financial regulation or public health will be threatened by the continued presence of investor protection clauses in all three agreements.

It's a bipartisan issue
Republicans want all three of these trade agreements to pass quickly, too. The Republican chair of the House Trade subcommittee has urged President Obama to move quickly on resolution of any remaining issues so that Congress can act on all three agreements by July 1, 2011. After all, they represent potential gains for the for-profit entities that fund both parties re-election campaigns.

Time for action
It's time to start speaking out--early and often! Forward this alert to friends and family in your district or state and get them involved too. We can stop these agreements and end the domination of trade policy by big corporations, but only with your help!

Thanks for all you do!

Read more...

Call today to stop South Korean US FTA

Alliance for Democracy, with our allies in the Alliance for Responsible Trade and the Citizens Trade Campaign, urge you to act now to stop the biggest trade agreement since NAFTA.

Last July, more than 100 members of the House of Representatives wrote to Pres. Obama saying: “it is unthinkable to consider moving forward on another job-killing FTA.” And last September over 550 diverse organizations, including the Alliance and the Portland AfD Chapter, joined together to oppose the Korea FTA in a letter to Pres. Obama.

Learn More:
• Need background info? See this post on our blog.
• The Oregon Fair Trade Campaign has an excellent Toolkit that explains the impact of KORUS on that state and links to videos of their Teach-In.
• Watch AfD’s Portland Chapter show, "Populist Dialogues" with David Delk interviewing Arthur Stamoulis, Executive Diretor of the Oregon Fair Trade Campaign

Now is the time to act!

Friday, February 25: National Call-in Day to Local Congressional District Offices

Rumors are that Pres. Obama will soon bring the South Korea Free Trade Agreement to the floor for Congressional approval.

See below for a call-in script. Emphasize that the KORUS, the South Korea Free Trade Agreement, is opposed by both organized labor and tea party people. Left or right, “we the people” know that so-called free trade agreements are disastrous for workers rights and job security at home or abroad.

KORUS will:
• increase job loss
• increase the US trade deficit
• leave both countries vulnerable to attack under NAFTA-like anti-democratic “investor rights” provisions that challenge environmental, health, land-use and zoning laws, public health, financial regulations and more.

If KORUS passes, the Colombia and Panama FTAs, already negotiated by Pres. Bush, will soon follow.

Find information for your Congressperson here and be sure to click to find his or her local (rather than DC) number.

Need a script?
“I urge you to reject any attempts to pass the KORUS Free Trade Agreement with South Korea. Free Trade Agreements are unpopular across the political spectrum and elected officials who support KORUS will certainly alienate voters, including me. Polls by the Wall Street Journal and Pew Research Center show that over 60% of both tea party sympathizers and union members oppose FTAs. KORUS would be the biggest FTA since NAFTA, and is just as bad for working families. I strongly oppose it and the Colombia and Panama FTAs that are also pending. I urge Rep. _________ to do so as well and to support instead the TRADE (Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment Act.”

Thank you for taking action! Let’s stop KORUS as the first step to ending undemocratic “free trade” agreements and building an economy that sustains communities, ecosystems and human rights.

Nancy Price and David e. Delk, Co-chairs

Read more...

Background on KORUS--the South Korea Free Trade Agreement

We'll be sending out an alert tomorrow asking our members and supporters to call their representative and voice their opposition to the South Korea Free Trade Agreement, the biggest FTA since NAFTA. Here's some background on the agreement and its likely effects, from our allies at the Alliance for Responsible Trade.

KORUS is highly controversial in both South Korea and the US, and has been the source of major demonstrations in South Korea. Despite the positive spin some members of both parties are trying to put on the agreement, Americans have not been fooled.

There are a number of particularly troublesome parts of the measure. The labor community has largely rejected the agreement due to its poor standards. Environmentalists are appalled at the US efforts to lower environmental and safety standards. Oddly, one of the only reasons many Democrats had hesitated to pass the agreement was due to non-tariff barriers to trade. In this case that actually meant that South Korea had too high of standards for car and food safety, as well as miles per gallon auto standards for the US to compete. Now that the Obama administration has negotiated for South Korea to lower its car safety and emissions standards for US automobiles, the administration is ready to push the bill through. Clearly, this agreement is another example of a labor and environmental race to the bottom.

We should all be irate over clauses allowing the World Bank and UN tribunals to allow South Korean companies to sue to the US government (or US companies to sue South Korea) for lost profits, should local regulations impede their financial gains. This bill will actually create a net job loss in the US, where we are already suffering from staggering unemployment rates. The US International Trade Commission (one of free trade's biggest cheerleaders) says that the agreement will increase the trade deficit with South Korea (meaning a net loss of jobs.) Cumulatively, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that it will costs the US 159,000 jobs in the next 5 years as a net loss. Moreover, the jobs lost will mostly be in high end manufacturing and electronics, while the jobs gained will be in low paying sectors such as cattle production.

The KORUS FTA is detrimental to US and Korean workers. It forces South Korea to lower its environmental and safety standards, and exposes our tax-payers to possibly having to pay claims in United Nations or World Bank tribunals by Korean companies alleging lost profits based on our environmental or labor laws. Moreover, the U. S. International Trade Commission has predicted that KORUS will actually increase the US trade deficit. The Economic Policy Institute maintains that KORUS will make the US trade deficit with Korea twice as bad, up to $26.9 billion annually within seven years. This will result in 888,000 jobs lost as a result of Korean imports. If one figures in employment created by increased US exports and jobs lost because of the already existing deficit with South Korea, there are some 200,000 jobs that will be lost.

The Obama administration has failed to live up to its promises for true reform. Instead they have framed this detrimental agreement as a victory. The majority of us, however, do not see this agreement in that light. We are tired of failed NAFTA-style trade agreements that have cost us so many jobs, and will continue to do so in these tough economic times.

Please, do your best to donate a bit of time to do this. Many of us at ART are convinced that if we can stop the Korean FTA from being implemented, it will shut-down efforts by many to implement the Colombian and Panamanian Free Trade Agreements. Those agreements as you know will do even more damage.

Read more...