Wapo throws down the gauntlet

[Lauren Johnson]

The Liberal International Order is Under Fire -- The United States Must Defend It


By Editorial Board May 21 of the Washington Post

HARDLY A day goes by without evidence that the liberal international order of the past seven decades is being eroded. China and Russia are attempting to fashion a world in their own illiberal image; Britain is debating a departure from the European Union; Austria's front-running presidential contender espouses fear of migrants, trade and globalization; and far-right parties are thriving in Europe. The radical Islamic State group wields merciless violence on its own lands in Iraq and Syria and exports terrorism beyond. In the United States, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has attracted millions of voters by campaigning against some of the foundations of American leadership in the world such as the defense alliance with Japan and South Korea, while Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has drawn millions more with the false promise of trade protectionism.

This poses an enormous trial for the next U.S. president. We say trial because no matter who takes the Oval Office, it will demand courage and difficult decisions to save the liberal international order. As a newreport from the Center for a New American Security points out, this order is worth saving, and it is worth reminding ourselves why: It generated unprecedented global prosperity, lifting billions of people out of poverty; democratic government, once rare, spread to more than 100 nations; and for seven decades there has been no cataclysmic war among the great powers. No wonder U.S. engagement with the world enjoyed a bipartisan consensus.

These impressive accomplishments need a renewed boost from the United States and Europe, yet the public debate is running in the other direction. As authors of the report point out, many around the world are worried about an American retrenchment and yearn for more, not less, from the United States. They do not want to accede to the values of Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping of China, who reject democracy, accountability and human dignity.

The new report, which is impressively bipartisan in its signatories and was co-chaired by a Reagan administration official, Robert Kagan (now a Post columnist), and a Clinton administration official, James P. Rubin, suggests strengthening all elements of U.S. power: diplomacy, economics, military expensive, but "well within our means." They rightly point out that the "adaptability, resilience, and innovation" of the U.S. economic system is a source of global strength and influence. The big question is not whether we can afford it but whether we have the willpower to use it. How? In Asia, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the proposed free-trade agreement, must be approved. The United States must keep trying to integrate China into the rules and traditions of the liberal international order a policy of eight presidential administrations while also marshaling forces to confront China's assertive and unilateral grab of territory in the South China Sea. Likewise, stabilizing Ukraine and saving it economically will be a vital bulwark against Russia's violent subversion. More needs to be done, too, to protect the Baltic states. In the Middle East, the liquidation of the Islamic State and ending the Syrian war will demand time and treasure from the United States. Today's morass is in part the consequence of a leadership vacuum.

America's global leadership demands movement on all these fronts while resisting facile populist appeals to turn inward.

[Magda Hassan]

Is WaPo asking for some country to invade and bomb the US and bring them freedom and democracy?

[David Guyatt]

Love the way they make out the EU is a democracy - which is a load of balls to start with. I also love the way the finger ISIS as a real enemy, but say nothing about how the US nurtured and armed it for years.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

When I read the phrase "America's global leadership" I want to puke.
But this is exactly what Hillary will try to deliver to the rest of the world. Ask the Iraqis, ask the Lybians, ask the drone victims, ask all the peoples under a US-sanctioned dictator, basically ask anyone outside the elite circle of America's "friends" what they think of this kind of "leadership".

[Tracy Riddle]

What a colossal amount of Orwellian B.S. in one editorial. Literally everything in it is false, except for a few periods and commas.
The Anglo-American international order has been under assault since the Vietnam/Watergate era, with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, the gold outflow crisis, and the weakening of the dollar and the US economy relative to other major powers (Germany, Japan, Russia, China, etc.).

[Paul Rigby]

Love the way they make out the EU is a democracy - which is a load of balls to start with.

How EU Law is made. Why you will never have a say.

by Charles Cawley May 19, 2016 - 5:13am

http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/9910-...have-a-say

In a brief explanation from the EU about the Commission and its appointees, it neatly avoids the reality that the European Commission holds the cards of power. http://ec.europa.eu/about/index_en.htm#president The EU considers Democracy an evil and its greatest enemy; it has structured itself accordingly.

The Commission is partly made up of 28 appointees from each member state with a virtually bulletproof tenure of 5 years. These people are unelected and cannot be removed by voters. The only time removal happened was when the Santer Commission was so obvious and shockingly corrupt that a motion of censure from the EU Parliament (the 'nuclear option') led to its removal. Even then, many of members of that discredited and appalling Commission remained in tenure afterwards.

The President of the Commission, (Juncker), is taken from a short list proposed by the European (EU) Council rubber stamped by a vote of the EU Parliament. In the case of Juncker, it was from a short list of one. The President then selects 27 other Commissioners 'on the basis of suggestions' from member states. The President selects and has the power to turn down any 'suggestion'. The UK opposed the appointment of Juncker.

In addition, the Oath taken by EU Commissioners includes these words: 'neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution.' Source. It makes things very clear that a commissioner must not back or represent the government or nation that appointed or suggested them.

So far, we have 28 appointees from member states and 27 other appointees dependent on the sole approval of, in this case, the President of The EU Commission (that the UK did not want) rubber stamped from a short list of one by the EU Parliament. The latter also need approval, as a group, and another rubber stamp from the EU Parliament.

The EU Council President, (Donald Tusk) is selected by the heads of state or Prime Minister, its members. The Council, ostensibly sets EU policy by 'conclusions' and identifies 'concerns'. These are, then, considered by the Commission. Neatly, the President of the Commission also sits on the EU Council. This is highly relevant.

Now comes the Law bit.

The EU Commission has the absolute right to 'initiate proposals' for all EU Law, Repeals and amendments. There are no exceptions. If a suggestion for a law is made by the EU Parliament, the EU Council or from anybody, and the Commission decides not to initiate a proposal, nothing happens. This is an absolute veto.

What really happens: The Council will discuss 'issues', policies etc: and will, like children asking for money from their dad for a project, ask the EU Commission, should they make a suggestion, if Commission would carry it forward and 'initiate a proposal'. The metaphor of the EU as a family is often used by MEPs. Heated fears of qualified majority voting on the EU Council were a smokescreen; the EU Commission has the whip-hand in all matters of law. If you want a law or want to change any law, the EU Commission must approve, otherwise it will not happen.

What of the EU Parliament? It cannot repeal legislation without the Commission agreeing. It cannot amend laws without the Commission agreeing. It cannot even initiate legislation without, first, getting the agreement of the Commission. '

The European Commission is the only institution empowered to initiate legislation' http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparli...ive-powers There are no exceptions.

The EU Parliament cannot suggest members of the Commission, the President of the Commission, the President of the Council. No elected MEP can sit on the EU Council or the Commission. Its only part in this is to rubber stamp lists of proposed appointees put forward to them. The only substantive power the Parliament has, other than the negative ability to veto, is to dismiss the entire Commission as a group and to reject EU budgets as a whole. It is the most impotent, biased, and one of the most expensive talking-shop assemblies in the World.

This is the picture of EU fig-leaf democracy. It is made worse by the massive salaries paid to Commissioners buying loyalty to a corrupt and primitive political system. This corrupt approach continues into retirement with massive pensions subject to withdrawal if ex-employees dare speak against the EU. This strips the veil from supposed EU respect for rights and free speech. It considers Democracy and such rights as its greatest enemy.

Commissioners are, of course, beneficiaries of a reduced tax regime and legal immunities. They are called 'functionaries' by the EU which does not quite have the connotation of the French: 'fonctionnaire'. Here are civil servants, protected by immunity, virtually unremovable, paid massive sums, with an effective veto on all EU policy and law. Bureaucratic interference and obduracy has long been a complaint of British democratic leaders but the EU is the ultimate triumph of rule by civil servants.

The EU Commission is also responsible for enforcing laws it has, effectively, either made or permitted. If it has a bright idea it can 'initiate a proposal' all of its own, if need be, by doing a contra-deal with a group on the EU Council. If it wants to start a dispute with Russia, it can do so and we can do nothing about it. If it ignores EU law, it can do so, without any let. The Commission answers only to itself. Whilst pretending it is a servant, it is the master.

This is not 'Yes Minister' it is: 'We are your rulers and expect your obedience because superior wiser people know what is good for you'. The EU is a move from comedy towards tyranny- a ghastly metamorphosis.

Meanwhile, the impotent EU Parliament is dominated by highly paid MEPs from net taking countries. Countries make a net contribution are vastly out voted. In addition, as the Parliament approves budgets, it is a simple deal to use EU funds and the net contributions to permit 'business as usual' by the EU Commission in exchange for large salaries and poor accounting of funds distributed by the EU to member countries. Corruption is twofold. The EU knowingly distributes vast sums to member states who syphon a proportion into private pockets in return for buying its political security. EU accounts have not been signed off for decades for this simple, nasty reason.

All EU Law must be agreed by the corrupt all powerful veto of the EU Commission. The Parliament is an assembly of, largely bought MEPs which is, at best, fig-leaf democracy and, at worst, peopled by those with a vested interest in the corrupt dissemination of EU funds to member states.

This is a very dangerous and deeply nasty scene. Vast sums of the tax money of EU nation states are being used to buy and corrupt large swathes of political establishments to sell out their own people. They do not realize that once the EU gains domination, the next people to be stripped of political power and wealth, after the voters, will be those who betrayed them.

That is how the anti-democratic politics of wealth extraction work. The EU is a growing disaster in the making. Remain are backing an immoral and utterly disgraceful plan and should be treated accordingly, with due disgust and anger.

[Magda Hassan]

When I read the phrase "America's global leadership" I want to puke.
But this is exactly what Hillary will try to deliver to the rest of the world. Ask the Iraqis, ask the Lybians, ask the drone victims, ask all the peoples under a US-sanctioned dictator, basically ask anyone outside the elite circle of America's "friends" what they think of this kind of "leadership".

So true Carsten. I wonder if they are completely blinded to their goals or just don't give a shit what others think?

[David Guyatt]

When I read the phrase "America's global leadership" I want to puke.
But this is exactly what Hillary will try to deliver to the rest of the world. Ask the Iraqis, ask the Lybians, ask the drone victims, ask all the peoples under a US-sanctioned dictator, basically ask anyone outside the elite circle of America's "friends" what they think of this kind of "leadership".

So true Carsten. I wonder if they are completely blinded to their goals or just don't give a shit what others think?

They don't give a shit what others think. They know exactly what they're doing and why and they're way past caring about truth anyway. It's all about power, corruption and "leadership" via a gun.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

When I read the phrase "America's global leadership" I want to puke.
But this is exactly what Hillary will try to deliver to the rest of the world. Ask the Iraqis, ask the Lybians, ask the drone victims, ask all the peoples under a US-sanctioned dictator, basically ask anyone outside the elite circle of America's "friends" what they think of this kind of "leadership".

So true Carsten. I wonder if they are completely blinded to their goals or just don't give a shit what others think?

In my eyes this is a blatant propagada piece initiated by the Clinton camp and aimed against Sanders and Trump. (Compare http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hi...-ad-218417)
What really angers me is not that Hillary fights with all covert methods available to her, but that all the premises of this piece are so onesided and distorted that it creates a completely fictional image of the true situation. Practically every sentence in it is a lie or an invalid assumption, ignoring and denigrating everybody who questions the American empire. That a text like this can masquerade as a WaPo editorial just shows the complete sellout and the true function as a propaganda outlet of the Washington Post and the nonexistent ethics of Jeff Bezos (not that we needed any confirmation of that). I do not believe for a second that Clinton or Bezos believe anything that is written in this piece, both certainly do not suffer from loss of reality. This is purely directed at people who want the cozy feeling that they are standing on the right "liberal" side, thinking they somehow do good in the world by "leading" the bad guys (rest of the world) in the right direction.
It sounds to me like IS propaganda from the opposite side, "We are the good ones and everybody else has to follow us or die."

[Drew Phipps]

CNAS (think tank sponsor of the report mentioned in the OP) looks like a Clinton-esque adoption of the PNAC strategy of Bush-era Republican advisors:

a. Make a think tank.
b. Staff it with your people.
c. Write a report.
d. Cite the report lavishly in friendly press outlets.
e. "Justify" your policies with the report.


In this case, CNAS was created by Michele Flournoy, a Bill Clinton appointee to the DOD (also Obama's Undersecretary for Defense Policy) and Kurt Campbell, Obama's Assistant Secretary of State (Asia). The report itself was co-chaired by Robert Kagan (you may remember him as a co-founder of PNAC) and James Rubin, Bill Clinton's Asst. Secretary of State (Public Affairs).


As it happens, Kagan is a WaPo columnist. James Rubin is married to Christine Amanpour, so I expect CNN to cite the report soon, if it hasn't already, and his sister works at the New York Times. According to Wikipedia:

"CNAS experts have been quoted in numerous national media outlets, including but not limited to Foreign Policy,[SUP][11][/SUP] The New York Times,[SUP][12][/SUP] The Washington Post,[SUP][13][/SUP] The Wall Street Journal,[SUP][14][/SUP] The National Interest,[SUP][15][/SUP] The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,[SUP][16][/SUP] C-SPAN,[SUP][17][/SUP] NBC,[SUP][18][/SUP] NPR,[SUP][19][/SUP] CNN,[SUP][20][/SUP] and PBS.[SUP][21][/SUP]"


The 20 page report can be downloaded (.pdf) here: http://www.cnas.org/extending-American-p...0WYDKTmqpp. I expect it to be a report justifying the Obama-Hilary approach to foreign policy, and likely, suggestive of the idea that only Hilary can chart a course through these waters. However, since Kagan is involved, I will be studying the report carefully to see if it contains hints of the same sort of near-prescient vision of future mass disaster (9/11) that the PNAC report did.