zaterdag 8 november 2014

Media Corruptie 27

In de inleiding van zijn boek Pay Any Price. Greed, Power, And Endless War (2014) schrijft de gezaghebbende Amerikaanse onderzoeksjournalist van de New York Times, James Risen, dat 'Obama's great achievement — or great sin — was to make the national security state permanent.' Het gevolg is dat 

America has become accustomed to a permanent state of war. Only a small slice of society — including many poor and rural teenagers — fight and die, while a permanent national security elite rotates among senior governments posts, contracting companies, think tanks, and television commentary, opportunities that would disappear if America was suddenly at peace. To most of America, war had become not only tolerable but profitable, and so there is no longer any great incentive to end it. 

Thus, the creation of a homeland security complex at a time of endless war has bequeathed us with the central narrative of the war on terror — modern tales of greed joined hand in hand with stories of abuse of power. It was inevitable that those wise in the ways of the world would flock to Washington to try to cash in on the war on terror gold rush — and they have. 

James Risen wijst in dit verband er op  dat

Opportunism comes in many forms and is driven by more than just greed. Ambition and a hunger for power, status, and glory have become great engines of post-9/11 opportunism as well. The more troubling stories here concern abuses of power that have extended across two presidencies for well over a decade. After 9/11, the United States deregulated national security, stripping away the post-Watergate intelligence reforms of the 1970s that had constrained executive power for thirty years. The results are morally challenging — and continue to this day.

Risen's werk is geen propaganda van een gecorrumpeerde opiniemaker als Hubert Smeets, of Geert Mak, Henk Hofland, Paul Brill of Michel Krielaars, die ergens in het polderland meninkjes ventileren, maar de bevindingen van een alom gerespecteerde Amerikaanse onderzoeksjournalist, die vanuit het centrum van de macht bericht geeft voor 's wereld's meest toonaangevende krant. In zijn boek over 'hebzucht, macht en oneindige oorlog' zet Risen in 285 pagina's helder uiteen wat de werkelijke drijfveren van een grootmacht zijn. Vergeleken met het vuistdikke boekwerk Reizen zonder John van Geert Mak, waarin het 'hoopvolle' verhaal zich vele honderden pagina's voortsleept met beweringen als dat 'Amerika' na 1945 'decennialang als ordebewaker en politieagent' heeft gefungeerd, is Pay Any Price voor Nederland een toonbeeld van beknoptheid, kwaliteit en eerlijkheid. Mak's 'geheime liefde' voor 'het vitale karakter van de Amerikaanse democratie' getuigt van een verregaande intellectuele corruptie en van het onvermogen van de polderpers om de werkelijkheid onder ogen te zien. De Hollandse mainstream bekijkt de buitenlandse politiek door een ideologische bril die een strikt onderscheid maakt tussen goed en kwaad. 

Ik heb van nabij kunnen observeren hoe links-liberaal sinds de hervormingsgezinde jaren zestig en zeventig geleidelijk aan afdreven naar het midden om vervolgens rechts te eindigen in een krampachtige poging om zijn verworvenheden, zijn status en inkomen, te handhaven. Wat de nestor van de polderjournalistiek, de hoogbejaarde Henk Hofland, met niet geringe poeha de 'politiek-literaire elite' noemt, waar geen 'natie zonder [kan],' bestaat voor het merendeel uit mijn generatiegenoten die profiteerden van de meestal door anderen op gang gebrachte vernieuwingen aan het eind van de jaren zestig en begin jaren zeventig. Om de aansluiting met de sterk veranderende tijdgeest niet te missen veranderden zij als een kameleon van kleur. Net als de hoofdpersoon van Moravia's Il Conformista streefden zij 'tot elke prijs naar normaliteit; een wil tot aanpassing aan een algemeen aanvaarde norm, een verlangen om gelijk te zijn aan alle anderen, omdat anders-zijn hetzelfde was als schuldig zijn.' Deze o zo menselijke drijfveer veroorzaakte bij hen 'een zucht tot behagen die aan slaafsheid of aan koketterie grensde,' en resulteerde in collaboratie met het neoliberale systeem, waarin ze niet echt geloven, maar die hen een functie geeft en daarmee een valse identiteit. Er zijn maar zeer weinigen die de last van de vrijheid kunnen dragen. James Risen is één van hen wanneer hij constateert dat 

Obama's great achievement — or great sin — was to make the national security state permanent. 

Half a century earlier, President Dwight Eisenhower had warned of a new 'military-industrial complex'; under Bush and Obama, a parallel 'homeland security-industrial complex has been born. The rise of the military-industrial complex had been fueled by fears of Communism. Now, another abstract fear was driving hundreds of billions of dollars a year into building the infrastructure necessary to wage a permanent war on terror, and it had grown like kudzu (een woekerende klimplant. svh) around the CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Treasury Department, Pentagon, and dozens of other smaller offices and federal agencies. The post-9/11 panic led Congress to throw cash at counterterrorism faster than the FBI, CIA, and other agencies were able to spend it. One 2012 estimate concluded that the decade of war had cost Americans nearly $4 trillion. 

Syrische burgers die van de zogeheten opstandelingen van het Free Syrian Army een 'corrigerende tik' als 'tuchtmaatregel' hebben gekregen, althans als we afgaan op Paul Brill's woorden. 

Het grote probleem vandaag de dag is dat Europa wordt meegezogen in de agressieve expansionistische politiek van Washington. De EU van Mak's 'Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel' gedraagt zich als een marionet van de macht in Washington en op Wall Street. Het is deze uitzichtloze en desastreuze ontwikkeling die door een mainstream-opiniemaker als Michel Krielaars van NRC wordt geprezen met argumenten als dat het 'Westen met zijn ethische normen en waarden' het Kremlin kan dwingen om de neoliberale dictaten van Washington en Brussel te gehoorzamen. Op zijn beurt kwalificeert H.J.A. Hofland de gewelddadige Amerikaanse interventies als 'het vredestichtende Westen,' terwijl in 2013 Volkskrant-opiniemaker, de getroebleerde Paul Brill, eufemistisch sprak van een 'corrigerende tik,' een 'tuchtmaatregel' om 'weerspannige volkeren’ in het gareel te meppen. In het jargon van het katholieke jongensinternaat moet de 'weerspannige' Paul als kind regelmatig een 'corrigerende tik' als 'tuchtmaatregel' hebben gekregen van zijn dominante katholieke moeder, voor wie ook zijn vader was 'gecapituleerd,' zoals Brill zelf eens heeft opgemerkt. Die 'straf' heeft kennelijk zo'n diepe indruk achtergelaten dat hij nu nog als bejaarde zoveel decennia later hetzelfde zieke taalgebruik hanteert zodra hij over een 'game change in Syrië' schrijft. 

Eén ding is duidelijk: we hebben in Nederland te maken met dwazen die hun pathologie projecteren op de wereldpolitiek. In het geval van Hubert Smeets krijgt het televisiepubliek dan wartaal over ondermeer Aleksej Poesjkov, voorzitter van de Buitenland Commissie van het Russische parlement:

Hij is getrouwd met een actrice. Dat zal hij ook zelf goed kunnen, denk ik…/ Ik ben geen specialist als het gaat om technisch onderzoek, hè, dus ik klets misschien ook een beetje uit mijn nek…/ Ik heb het gevoel, als ik zo'n beetje, als amateur-psycholoog naar het interview kijk…/ Maar misschien vergis ik me vreselijk hoor…

Misschien wel het meest absurde is dat de zelfbenoemde 'politiek-literaire elite' in de polder geen greintje zelfrespect kent en schaamteloos blijft doorgaan met het verspreiden van haar stupiditeiten. Het ontbreekt haar niet alleen aan zelfkennis, maar ook aan kennis in het algemeen, en aan contacten; zij functioneert als een echo-kamer van de polder waarin het eigen provinciale wereldbeeld almaar wordt weerkaatst. Uit ervaring weet ik dat mijn mainstream-collega's nooit gehoord hebben van iemand als bijvoorbeeld de alom gerespecteerde Amerikaanse geleerde, wijlen Chalmers Johnson, laat staan dat ze ooit een boek van hem hebben gelezen. In 2006 benadrukte Chalmers Johnson tegenover mij nog eens dat de Verenigde Staten na de Koude Oorlog in plaats van te demobiliseren juist zijn wereldwijd imperium zelfs uitbreidde. Hij verklaarde deze ontwikkeling als volgt: 

Ik denk dat de belangrijkste reden is wat men met een technische term noemt: 'Militair Keynesianisme,' waarmee aangegeven wordt dat het militair-industrieel complex, de wapenindustrie, een integraal onderdeel is geworden van de Amerikaanse economie. In toenemende mate fabriceren wij in de Verenigde Staten niet zoveel. We hebben gezien hoe in de afgelopen decennia onze economie ernstig is uitgehold. Daarentegen produceren we wel massaal wapens, een buitengewoon lucratieve zaak, we verkopen ze wereldwijd. Het heeft nagenoeg niets te maken met de defensie van ons land maar alles met de commerciële belangen van de wapenindustrie.


Waar mijn huidige boeken in feite over gaan is de mate waarin de Verenigde Staten een bepaalde macht heeft ontwikkeld die niet toegestaan is in onze bestuursvorm. Het Pentagon, de geheime diensten, de wapenindustrie die totaal verweven is met het Pentagon, zijn machtige instituten die niet meer democratisch gecontroleerd worden. Nagenoeg alles dat ze doen is geheim en ze vergroten de macht van de president enorm. Feiten waarvoor Eisenhower al 45 jaar geleden in zijn presidentiële afscheidstoespraak waarschuwde. Wat we nu zien is vergelijkbaar met de ontwikkeling van het oude Rome. De democratische republiek verandert stap voor stap in een militair imperium. Er is nu sprake van militarisme en niet in de allereerste plaats defensie. Militarisme is een manier van leven, waarbij de strijdkrachten worden verheerlijkt en de natie wordt verheven boven vrijheid en de democratische instituten die de vrijheid moeten garanderen. Bovendien is het gevaar van militarisme dat het instabiel is en net als bij andere imperia bevat het de zaden van zijn eigen vernietiging. Die radicale omslag is door de Koude Oorlog veroorzaakt. Het feit dat de Verenigde Staten na de val van de Sovjet Unie niet demobiliseerde, niet terugkeerde naar een burgerlijke, op vrede gerichte economie toont aan dat het een dekmantel was voor iets fundamentelers, namelijk de poging van Washington om sinds de Tweede Oorlog een imperium te scheppen dat het Britse rijk zou vervangen. 


De onder andere door Chalmers Johnson geanalyseerde politieke macht van het militair-industrieel complex is een taboe-onderwerp voor de polderpers. In plaats van te melden dat de NAVO, onder aanvoering van de VS almaar oostwaarts oprukt, zijn de Nederlandse opiniemakers erin geslaagd het tegenovergestelde beeld te creëren, namelijk dat het 'landjepik,' van 'meneer Poetin,' aldus Geert Mak, 'Europa [dwingt] om meer aan defensie uit te geven,' een politiek geladen en feitelijk onjuiste bewering die meteen werd opgepikt door Generaal Tom Middendorp, 'commandant der Strijdkrachten,' die het volgende schreef:

Zo liet de schrijver Geert Mak in het programma ‘Eén op één’ weten: 'We waren zo bezig met die soft power - en dat is ook goed - alleen Poetin reageert op een 19e-eeuwse manier.' Mak, ooit pacifist, meende daarom dat we 'Defensie niet moeten afbreken' en dat we 'meer moeten samenwerken met anderen.' 

En dit, terwijl zelfs de gecorrumpeerde miljonair Geert Mak weet dat de NAVO-landen tezamen zeker elf keer meer aan hun militair-industrieel complex uitgeven dan Rusland aan het zijne. In hun uitgebreid gedocumenteerde studie Manufacturing Consent. The political economy of the Mass Media constateren de Amerikaanse geleerden Edward S. Herman en Noam Chomsky over de berichtgeving van de westerse commerciële media:

In contrast to the standard conception of the media as cantankerous, obstinate, and ubiquitous in their search for truth and their independence of authority, we have spelled out and applied a propaganda model that indeed sees the media as serving a 'societal purpose,' but not that of enabling the public to assert meaningful control over the political process by providing them with the information needed for the intelligent discharge of political responsibilities. On the contrary, a propaganda model suggests that the 'societal purpose' of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises,

Beide wetenschappers concluderen na ruim 400 pagina's documentatie tenslotte:

As we have stressed throughout this book, the U.S. media do not function in the manner of the propaganda system of a totalitarian state. Rather, they permit -- indeed, encourage -- spirited debate, criticism, and dissent, as long as these remain faithfully within the system of presuppositions and principles that constitute an elite consensus, a system so powerful as to be internalized largely without awareness. No one instructed the media to focus on Cambodia and ignore East Timor. They gravitated naturally to the Khmer Rouge and discussed them freely -- just as they naturally suppressed information on Indonesian atrocities in East Timor and U.S. responsibility for the aggression and massacres. In the process, the media provided neither facts nor analyses that would have enabled the public to understand the issues or the bases of government policies toward Cambodia and Timor, and they thereby assured that the public could not exert any meaningful influence on the decisions that were made. This is quite typical of the actual 'societal purpose' of the media on matters that are of significance for established power; not 'enabling the public to assert meaningful control over the political process,' but rather averting any such danger. In these cases, as in numerous others, the public was managed and mobilized from above, by means of the media's highly selective messages and evasions. As noted by media analyst W. Lance Bennett: 'the public is exposed to powerful persuasive messages from above and is unable to communicate meaningfully through the media in response to the messages... Leaders have usurped enormous amounts of political power and reduced popular control over the political system by using the media to generate support, compliance, and just plain confusion among the public.'

En:

Given the imperatives of corporate organization and the workings of the various filters, conformity to the needs and interests of privileged sectors is essential to succes. In the media, as in other major institutions, those who do not display the requisite values and perspectives will be regarded as 'irresponsible,' 'ideological,' or otherwise aberrant, and will tend to fall by the wayside. While there may be a small number of exceptions, the pattern is pervasive, and expected. Those who adapt, perhaps quite honestly, will then be free to express themselves with little managerial control, and they will be able to assert, accurately, that they perceive no pressures to conform. The media are indeed free -- for those who adopt the principles required for 'societal purpose.'

De ideologische achtergrond van de commerciële massamedia wordt nog eens versterkt door het volgende:

The technical structure of the media virtually compels adherence to conventional thoughts; nothing else can be expressed between two commercials, or in seven hundred words, without the appearance of absurdity that is difficult to avoid when one is challenging familiar doctrine with no opportunity to develop facts or argument... The critic must also be prepared to face a defamation apparatus against which there is little recourse, an inhibiting factor that is not insubstantial... The result is a powerful system of induced conformity to the needs of privilege and power. In sum, the mass media of the United States are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without significant overt coercion. This propaganda system has become even more efficient in recent decades with the rise of the national television networks, greater mass-media concentration, right-wing pressures on public radio and television, and the growth in scope and sophistication of public relations and news management.

Onder de kop The New York Times Versus The Civil Society schreef Edward S. Herman een vernietigend artikel over 's werelds invloedrijkste krant.

The veteran New YorkTimes reporter John Hess has said that in all 24 years of his service at the paper he 'never saw a foreign intervention that the Times did not support, never saw a fare increase or a rent increase or a utility rate increase that it did not endorse, never saw it take the side of labor in a strike or lockout, or advocate a raise for underpaid workers. And don’t let me get started on universal health care and Social Security. So why do people think the Times is liberal?' The paper is an establishment institution and serves establishment ends. As Times historian Harrison Salisbury said about former executive editor Max Frankel, 'The last thing that would have entered his mind would be to hassle the American Establishment, of which he was so proud to be a part.'

De bekende Angelsaksische onderzoeksjournalist John Pilger wees in dit verband nog eens op het volgende feit: 

On August 24 2006 the New York Times declared this in an editorial: 'If we had known then what we know now the invasion if Iraq would have been stopped by a popular outcry.' This amazing admission was saying, in effect, that journalists had betrayed the public by not doing their job and by accepting and amplifying and echoing the lies of Bush and his gang, instead of challenging them and exposing them. What the Times didn’t say was that had that paper and the rest of the media exposed the lies, up to a million people might be alive today. That’s the belief now of a number of senior establishment journalists. Few of them—they’ve spoken to me about it—few of them will say it in public.

Uit wetenschappelijk onderzoek en de analyses van kritische ongebonden journalisten blijkt dat de berichtgeving in het Westen slechts een consumptiemiddel is op een markt, en daarom net als elk ander product onderworpen is aan de wet van vraag en aanbod. Ralph Nader schreef dan ook:

Face it, America. You are a corporate-controlled country with the symbols of democracy in the constitution and statutes just that-symbols of what the founding fathers believed or hoped would be reality.

Er bestaan wel 'enclaves' van onafhankelijke journalistiek, maar niet bij de Nederlandse commerciële massamedia. De mainstream-journalisten hier blijven braaf binnen de grenzen van de officiële consensus, die overigens niet hoeft te worden  verordonneert aangezien deze al lang is geïnternaliseerd. Vandaar dat bijvoorbeeld de Volkskrant er als de kippen bij was om WikiLeaks in een verdacht daglicht te plaatsen. Om te verhullen dat de redactie haar werk niet had gedaan, waardoor de krant kon pretenderen niet op de hoogte te zijn van de schunnigheden van de westerse buitenlandse politiek, moest WikiLeaks gecriminaliseerd worden. Jan en alleman werd daarvoor van stal gehaald. De Volkskrant:

WikiLeaks vooral gevaar voor Arabische wereld
Jonathan Powell, 01-12-2010 17:30 reageer 33 reacties

De auteur is diplomaat en was dertien jaar stafchef van Tony Blair. Hij betreurt het lekken door WikiLeaks vooral omdat levens in gevaar komen. Maar de gevolgen zullen snel wegebben. Diplomatie blijft diplomatie.

De Volkskrant verzweeg echter te benadrukken dat Jonathan Powell nu niet bepaald een neutrale bron was, aangezien deze schurk 13 jaar lang stafchef was van Tony Blair, de politicus die als één van de eersten een illegale inval in Irak bepleitte, die leidde tot de dood van meer dan een miljoen Iraakse burgers en tot meer dan 2,5 miljoen vluchtelingen, terwijl Irak zelf in chaos veranderde en werd versplinterd in talloze etnisch gezuiverde gebieden. De westerse agressie-oorlog werd gerechtvaardigd met de leugen dat Irak massavernietigingswapens bezat die, volgens Tony Blair tegenover premier Balkenende, binnen 45 minuten operatief konden zijn, terwijl nu blijkt dat

an Iraqi taxi driver may have been the source of the discredited claim that Saddam Hussein could unleash weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a Tory MP claimed today.

Adam Holloway, a defense specialist, said MI6 obtained information indirectly from a taxi driver who had overheard two Iraqi military commanders talking about Saddam's weapons.

The 45-minute claim was a key feature of the dossier about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that was released by Tony Blair in September 2002. Blair published the information to bolster public support for war.

Dit laatste weten we dankzij het publiceren van geheime gegevens door WikiLeaks. Juist daarom begon de mainstream Volkskrant stemming te maken tegen zoveel democratisch vertoon als het openbaar maken van geheimen die de misdadigheid en onnozelheid van westerse politici aantonen. Het gaat hier niet om journalistiek maar om wat invloedrijke Edward Bernays, de grondlegger van de public-relations industrie, als volgt omschreef:

Regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers.

In zijn klassiek geworden handboek voor media-manipulatie wees hij erop dat

intelligent minorities

in een moderne massamaatschappij als taak hebben

the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.


Een dergelijke 'engineering of consent' was volgens Bernays juist de 'essence of the democratic process.' Daarbij was 'controlling the public mind' van eminent belang voor de rijken en machtigen om de massa in het gareel te houden en in de juiste richting te laten marcheren. En de westerse 'vrije pers' functioneert daarbij als een huurlingenleger van de elite. Eén van de weinige dissidente stemmen die tot de massamedia weet door te dringen is George Joshua Richard Monbiot 'an English writer, known for his environmental and political activism. He lives in Machynlleth, Wales, writes a weekly column for The Guardian.' In die krant liet hij op 10 maart 2014 het volgende weten:

Nothing threatens democracy as much as corporate power. Nowhere do corporations operate with greater freedom than between nations, for here there is no competition. With the exception of the European parliament, there is no transnational democracy, anywhere. All other supranational bodies – the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations, trade organizations and the rest – work on the principle of photocopy democracy (presumed consent is transferred, copy by copy, to ever-greyer and more remote institutions) or no democracy at all.

When everything has been globalized except our consent, corporations fill the void. In a system that governments have shown no interest in reforming, global power is often scarcely distinguishable from corporate power. It is exercised through backroom deals between bureaucrats and lobbyists.

This is how negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) began. The TTIP is a proposed single market between the United States and the European Union, described as 'the biggest trade deal in the world.' Corporate lobbyists secretly boasted that they would 'essentially co-write regulation.' But, after some of their plans were leaked and people responded with outrage, democracy campaigners have begun to extract a few concessions. The talks have just resumed, and there's a sense that we cannot remain shut out.

This trade deal has little to do with removing trade taxes (tariffs). As the EU's chief negotiator says, about 80% of it involves 'discussions on regulations which protect people from risks to their health, safety, environment, financial and data security.' Discussions on regulations means aligning the rules in the EU with those in the US. But Karel De Gucht, the European trade commissioner, maintains that European standards 'are not up for negotiation. There is no "give and take."' An international treaty without give and take? That is a novel concept. A treaty with the US without negotiation? That's not just novel, that's nuts.

You cannot align regulations on both sides of the Atlantic without negotiation. The idea that the rules governing the relationship between business, citizens and the natural world will be negotiated upwards, ensuring that the strongest protections anywhere in the trading bloc will be applied universally, is simply not credible when governments on both sides of the Atlantic have promised to shred what they dismissively call red tape. There will be negotiation. There will be give and take. The result is that regulations are likely to be levelled down. To believe otherwise is to live in fairyland.

Last month, the Financial Times reported that the US is using these negotiations 'to push for a fundamental change in the way business regulations are drafted in the EU to allow business groups greater input earlier in the process.' At first, De Gucht said that this was 'impossible.' Then he said he is 'ready to work in that direction.' So much for no give and take.

But this is not all that democracy must give so that corporations can take. The most dangerous aspect of the talks is the insistence on both sides on a mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). ISDS allows corporations to sue governments at offshore arbitration panels of corporate lawyers, bypassing domestic courts. Inserted into other trade treaties, it has been used by big business to strike down laws that impinge on its profits: the plain packaging of cigarettes; tougher financial rules; stronger standards on water pollution and public health; attempts to leave fossil fuels in the ground.

En juist om te voorkomen dat het grote publiek door deze relevante informatie gemobiliseerd wordt en tegen zijn leiders in verzet komt doen corrupte mainstream journalisten als Hubert Smeets, Geert Mak, Henk Hofland, Paul Brill of Michel Krielaars er alles aan om de aandacht af te leiden naar bijvoorbeeld 'meneer Poetin,' die, met zijn (in de terminologie van Hubert Smeets) 'poetinisme,' geportretteerd wordt als het grote Kwaad in de wereld, de baas van wat de Hollywood-acteur Ronald Reagan 'The Evil Empire' betitelde. Maar, zoals bekend, zodra het Kwaad opduikt is de redding nabij, en dus voorspelde in 2012 Geert Mak: 'Het is beter voor Nederland en de internationale gemeenschap dat Obama de verkiezingen wint,' terwijl al op 8 november 2008 Paul Brill onder de kop 'Wars van zwarte verbetenheid' over Obama orakelde:

Hier was de representant van een nieuwe generatie aan het woord, die allereerst namens zichzelf sprak. Indringend, maar zonder het opzwepende ritme van de traditionele dominee. Je kon je hem makkelijk voorstellen als inleider op de jaarvergadering van de Kamer van Koophandel.

Schitterend, een treffender voorbeeld van onderhuids racisme, benepen provincialisme, en alles vernietigend simplisme is nauwelijks denkbaar. Dit is het bewustzijn van de polderpers in optima forma. Je ziet het voor je: zo'n swingende neger die 'Wars van zwarte verbetenheid' zich wist in te houden en daardoor klonk als een blanke middenstander 'op de jaarvergadering van de Kamer van Koophandel.' Zo, en niet anders is het beeld van de voormalige links-liberale opiniemaker uit de polder, wiens racisme en neoliberale hebzucht de enige  continuïteit  vormen in het eeuwenoude blanke eurocentrisme. De werkelijkheid is krankzinniger dan een mens kan verzinnen, en een mainstream-journalist kan verzwijgen. James Risen:

Washington's global war on terror is now in its second decade, thanks to the bipartisan veneer it has gained under Bush and Obama. It shows no signs of slowing down; hustleres and freebooters continue to take full advantage, and the war's unintended consequences continue to pile up. All too often, things are not what they seem.

Two years after Paul Wolfowitz visited Section 60 at Arlington to attend the Iraq Liberation Day ceremony, Viola Drath, the event's organizer, was found dead in her Georgetown townhouse at the age of ninety-one. Her much younger German-born husband, Albrecht Muth, was arrested for her murder. Muth had claimed to be a general in the Iraqi Army and often wore an Iraqi military uniform to public events in Washington. But after his arrest, the certificate of his supposed appointment by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was found to be a forgery. A receipt from a Washington printing shop for the certificate was discovered in the couple's Georgetown home.


In January 2014, Muth was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of Viola Drath.


Omdat maar al te vaak dingen anders zijn dan ze lijken zou u aan mijn collega's kunnen vragen waarom ze blijven liegen. Vraag ze waarom een bekende Amerikaanse onderzoeksjournalist als James Risen wel kan vaststellen dat door de macht van het militair-industrieel complex 'America has become accustomed to a permanent state of war,' en waarom ondermeer Hubert Smeets, Geert Mak, Henk Hofland, Paul Brill of Michel Krielaars dit niet kunnen. Dat ze corrupt zijn en voor geld en status gaan spreekt voor zich, maar waarom hebben mijn collega's voor corruptie gekozen? Laat het me weten als u antwoord krijgt. 







vrijdag 7 november 2014

Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel 15

Hetgeen George Monbiot schrijft, werd door de gecorrumpeerde Geert Mak angstvallig verzwegen in zijn pro-Europa propaganda. 


Give and take in the EU-US trade deal? Sure. We give, the corporations take

I have three challenges for the architects of a proposed transatlantic trade deal. If they reject them, they reject democracy
Illustration by Daniel Pudles
Illustration by Daniel Pudles
Nothing threatens democracy as much as corporate power. Nowhere do corporations operate with greater freedom than between nations, for here there is no competition. With the exception of the European parliament, there is no transnational democracy, anywhere. All other supranational bodies – the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations, trade organisations and the rest – work on the principle of photocopy democracy (presumed consent is transferred, copy by copy, to ever-greyer and more remote institutions) or no democracy at all.
When everything has been globalised except our consent, corporations fill the void. In a system that governments have shown no interest in reforming, global power is often scarcely distinguishable from corporate power. It is exercised through backroom deals between bureaucrats and lobbyists.
This is how negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) began. The TTIP is a proposed single market between the United States and the European Union, described as "the biggest trade deal in the world". Corporate lobbyists secretly boasted that they would "essentially co-write regulation". But, after some of their plans were leaked and people responded with outrage, democracy campaigners have begun to extract a few concessions. The talks have just resumed, and there's a sense that we cannot remain shut out.
This trade deal has little to do with removing trade taxes (tariffs). As the EU's chief negotiator says, about 80% of it involves "discussions on regulations which protect people from risks to their health, safety, environment, financial and data security". Discussions on regulations means aligning the rules in the EU with those in the US. But Karel De Gucht, the European trade commissioner, maintains that European standards "are not up for negotiation. There is no 'give and take'." An international treaty without give and take? That is a novel concept. A treaty with the US without negotiation? That's not just novel, that's nuts.
You cannot align regulations on both sides of the Atlantic without negotiation. The idea that the rules governing the relationship between business, citizens and the natural world will be negotiated upwards, ensuring that the strongest protections anywhere in the trading bloc will be applied universally, is simply not credible when governments on both sides of the Atlantic have promised to shred what they dismissively call red tape. There will be negotiation. There will be give and take. The result is that regulations are likely to be levelled down. To believe otherwise is to live in fairyland.
Last month, the Financial Times reported that the US is using these negotiations "to push for a fundamental change in the way business regulations are drafted in the EU to allow business groups greater input earlier in the process". At first, De Gucht said that this was "impossible". Then he said he is "ready to work in that direction". So much for no give and take.
But this is not all that democracy must give so that corporations can take. The most dangerous aspect of the talks is the insistence on both sides on a mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). ISDS allows corporations to sue governments at offshore arbitration panels of corporate lawyers, bypassing domestic courts. Inserted into other trade treaties, it has been used by big business to strike down laws that impinge on its profits: the plain packaging of cigarettes; tougher financial rules; stronger standards on water pollution and public health; attempts to leave fossil fuels in the ground.
At first, De Gucht told us there was nothing to see here. But in January the man who doesn't do give and take performed a handbrake turn and promised that there would be a three-month public consultation on ISDS, beginning in "early March". The transatlantic talks resumed on Monday. So far there's no sign of the consultation.
And still there remains that howling absence: a credible explanation of why ISDS is necessary. As Kenneth Clarke, the British minister promoting the TTIP, admits: "It was designed to support businesses investing in countries where the rule of law is unpredictable, to say the least." So what is it doing in a US-EU treaty? A report commissioned by the UK government found that ISDS "is highly unlikely to encourage investment" and is "likely to provide the UK with few or no benefits". But it could allow corporations on both sides of the ocean to sue the living daylights out of governments that stand in their way.
Unlike Karel De Gucht, I believe in give and take. So instead of rejecting the whole idea, here are some basic tests which would determine whether or not the negotiators give a fig about democracy.
First, all negotiating positions, on both sides, would be released to the public as soon as they are tabled. Then, instead of being treated like patronised morons, we could debate these positions and consider their impacts.
Second, every chapter of the agreement would be subject to a separate vote in the European parliament. At present the parliament will be invited only to adopt or reject the whole package: when faced with such complexity, that's a meaningless choice.
Third, the TTIP would contain a sunset clause. After five years it would be reconsidered. If it has failed to live up to its promise of enhanced economic performance, or if it reduces public safety or public welfare, it could then be scrapped. I accept that this would be almost unprecedented: most such treaties, unlike elected governments, are "valid indefinitely". How democratic does that sound?
So here's my challenge to Mr De Gucht and Mr Clarke and the others who want us to shut up and take our medicine: why not make these changes? If you reject them, how does that square with your claims about safeguarding democracy and the public interest? How about a little give and take?
Twitter: @georgemonbiot. A fully referenced version of this article can be found at Monbiot.com

Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel 14

Is het volgende misschien de reden waarom Geert Mak nu ineens zo stil is over het neoliberale Brussel? Zou zijn publiek niet wakker moeten worden?

Busting the myths of transparency around the EU-US trade deal

00-03a-democracy-not-corporatocracyOn 7 October, the second round of negotiations for a far-reaching transatlantic trade deal will begin in Brussels. Amidst calls for greater openness and public participation, the European Commission has gone into propaganda mode, promoting myths about the transparency and accountability of the talks. See through its feel-good rhetoric with Corporate Europe Observatory’s myth-busting guide to secrecy, corporate influence and lack of accountability in the transatlantic trade negotiations.



SEPTEMBER 25 | CORPORATE EUROPE OBSERVATORY

Busting the myths of transparency around the EU-US trade deal

On 7 October, the second round of negotiations for a far-reaching transatlantic trade deal will begin in Brussels. Amidst calls for greater openness and public participation, the European Commission has gone into propaganda mode, promoting myths about the transparency and accountability of the talks. See through its feel-good rhetoric with Corporate Europe Observatory’s myth-busting guide to secrecy, corporate influence and lack of accountability in the transatlantic trade negotiations.
For many years, public interest groups have criticised EU trade policy for a lack of transparency, a severe democratic deficit and a rampant corporate bias (see, for example, herehere and here). The European Parliament rejected the infamous Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), with MEPs arguing, with justification, that law negotiated in secret is usually bad law. Now these same MEPs have called for more openness in the negotiations for the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). And digital rights activists have warned the European Commission that secrecy “could kill TTIP just as effectively as it killed ACTA”.
In response, the Commission has gone on a PR offensive. In a series of Q&Abriefing papers about transparency in EU trade negotiations and leaflets explaining why TTIP is not ACTA, the Commission’s trade department (DG Trade) is portraying itself as the model of transparency. “There is more interest in this potential deal than any we have worked on before,” they say, “We realise that this requires new initiatives to shed more light on what is going on throughout the negotiations.”
However these “new initiatives” of theirs cast more shadow than light. Let us guide you through some of the key myths about openness and accountability in DG Trade.

Myth 1: The EU is very open to a broad range of views when preparing for trade negotiations

Reality: The EU is very open to the interests of big business when preparing for trade negotiations
In its transparency factsheet, the Commission claims that “views of civil society play a crucial role” in EU trade negotiations and that it relies “on the information received from the public before the negotiations start” which reflects “a broad range of views”.
But while an internal Commission document obtained through the EU’s access to information rules shows that, to prepare the transatlantic trade negotiations, DG Trade has had at least 119 behind closed door meetings with large corporations and their lobby groups – it has had only a handful with trade unions and consumer groups. When negotiations were announced in February 2013, not a single such meeting with public interest groups had taken place – compared to dozens with business lobbyists (see our story on the issue).
Contributions to the EU’s online consultations, too, came almost exclusively from companies and industry associations. If you look at the biased questionnaire, this is not surprising. How would the average citizen respond to questions such as: “If you are concerned by barriers to investment, what are the estimated additional costs for your business (in percentage of the investment) resulting from the barriers?”
Experience with previous trade talks suggests that we will soon see more evidence of the privileged access and undue influence that the Commission grants industry over its discussions with the US (see our report Trade Invaders on the EU-India negotiations). Leaked internal reports seen by Corporate Europe Observatory already suggest that the Commission is in close contact with the “relevant” industry associations – and no-one else – “to get a feeling for their offensive interests” on issues such as services liberalisation. It is clear whose views really count.

Myth 2: The Commission provides the most comprehensive information possible

Reality: The Commission is concealing most information about the proposed trade deal from the public
The Commission claims that it “is committed to providing as much information as possible” about the ongoing negotiations to the public. It has even made “the unprecedented step of making available to the public a number of the EU's initial position papers” which it presented to the US in the first round of negotiations in Washington in July.
It is indeed encouraging that the Commission has finally started to publish some of its positions in trade negotiations. But unfortunately, these are very few in number. According to leaked internal reports about the first round of negotiations seen by Corporate Europe Observatory, many more issues than the ones on which papers have been published were being discussed in Washington, ranging from the liberalisation of services to the controversial issue of investor-state dispute settlement rights. For several of these issues, the Commission put discussion papers on the negotiating table which cannot be found on its website. Doesn’t the public have the right to know about these issues, too? What is the Commission hiding?
letter to the US from the EU’s chief negotiator also shows that the Commission intends to conceal most information about the proposed trade deal from the public: “All documents related to the negotiation or development of the TTIP agreement, including negotiating texts, proposals of each side, accompanying explanatory material, discussion papers, emails related to the substance of the negotiations, and other information exchanged in the context of the negotiations (...) will be held in confidence.” And further: “The Commission may decide to make public certain documents that will reflect exclusively the EU position” (emphasis added).
“Without the text being publicly made available, it is almost impossible to provide appropriate feedback for the very proposals that will affect the general public the most. (…) The precise working of the provisions, references to other documents or international instruments, and cross-references throughout the text are vitally important to fully understanding the impacts of the agreement as a whole.”
Knowledge Ecology International in their contribution to the US consultation on TTIP
What is needed instead, are for all tabled documents and negotiation texts – which, by definition, are no longer secret – to be made available to the public immediately. Like previous trade agreements, the proposed EU-US deal has the potential to impact the lives of millions of people and the future of our democracy. Given this, it requires intensive public scrutiny and robust review – just like any European law which is published in different versions before it is adopted.

Myth 3: You need a certain amount of secrecy to successfully conclude trade negotiations

Reality: The proposed EU-US trade deal is hidden from the public, because if people understood its potential impacts, this could lead to widespread opposition to the negotiations
The European Commission’s guide to transparency in EU trade policy says: “For trade negotiations to work and succeed, you need a certain degree of confidentiality, otherwise it would be like showing the other player one’s cards in a card game.” And further, it is “entirely normal for trade negotiations” that the talks themselves and the texts discussed are secret – “to protect EU interests” and to guarantee a “climate of confidence” so that negotiators can “work together to come to the best deal possible.”
Interestingly, there are international (trade) negotiations where secrecy is not “entirely normal”. In the World Trade Organisation, for example, members (including the EU) publish their negotiation positions. The same goes for global climate negotiations in the UN where parties (again including the EU) do not seem to see opacity as a precondition for a successful agreement.
Even some trade negotiators disagree with the Commission’s stance on secrecy. Former US trade negotiator, Robert Zoellick, said of the lack of transparency in trade negotiations, that: “Frankly, that always surprised me”. According to him, draft trade texts were seen by hundreds of people anyway – government officials, advisors and lobbyists. So, why not simply put the information online? (See from minute 36:24 in this video from a public event in the US on June 19.)
So what is the secrecy really about? It is about hiding a deal from the public, which if its potential impacts were more well understood could lead to widespread public opposition – because it could endanger the safety of our food and our health, our jobs and our environment, the stability of financial markets and digital rights. And it is about securing “the best deal possible” for big businesses, not European or US people.

Myth 4: Negotiations are guided by independent impact studies

Reality: These allegedly independent studies were in fact written by the Commission and corporate funded think tanks with a vested interest in the proposed EU-US trade deal
Whenever the EU engages in trade negotiations, its transparency guide states, it “commissions an independent study to look at the economic, social and environmental impacts of any agreement”, the results of which feed into the negotiations. The key figure from the impact study of the proposed EU-US deal – according to which an average European household would gain an extra €545 per year – is all over the Commission’s TTIP propaganda.
Let us take a closer look at this “independent” study. Remarkably, it was written by the Commission itself, with DG Trade in the lead. So, the very same institution which conducts the negotiations and which academics have described as a bunch of “generally free-trade oriented career trade officials” has come up with a “study” supporting its agenda and is now calling it “independent”. No wonder, the European Parliament has already pointed to a number of methodological flaws in the impact assessment and is demanding its own analysis.
The Commission’s interpretation of the key economic study on which its impact assessment was based – and from which the claim of €545 extra per family originates – has also been criticised. In this eye-opening article, Clive George, a Professor at the College of Europe in Bruges who has conducted trade impact assessments for the European Commission in the past, writes: “Of the various scenarios examined in the study, the most optimistic produced the widely-quoted increase of €120 billion [to the EU economy]. This amounts to just 0.5% of EU GDP. It does not occur instantly, and it does not represent a boost to annual growth of 0.5% [...]. The EC’s study estimates that it would take ten years for the agreement to have full effect, during which period the impact on economic growth would not be 0.5%, but 0.05%, for ten years only. Furthermore, this is for the most optimistic of the study’s scenarios (or guesses) for what might actually be achieved in the negotiations. For its more realistic scenarios, the study estimates an increase in GDP of little more than 0.1%, i.e. an increase in the GDP growth rate of 0.01% for the ten year period. This is trivial, and the EC knows it.” The EU-US trade deal, George concludes “will deliver minimal economic benefit at best.”
“The ‘crimes’ committed under the label of ‘econometrics’ have as little to do with science as a weather forecast has to do with the giblets of a chlorinated chicken.”
Journalist Jens Berger on one of the many studies showing the benefits of TTIP
The original study debunked by Professor George was an “independent” report from the London-based Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). The CEPR is funded by some of the world’s largest banks which stand to benefit from the proposed transatlantic trade deal – including Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Santander, Barclays and JP Morgan. These companies pay between 6,000 and 20,000 Euros per year to fund the think tank, which, according to its website, in turn offers the well-paying members (“whose business success depends upon being at the forefront of Europe's economic policy formulation”) “an active influence on CEPR's research and policy direction”.
So much for "independent" impact assessments.

Myth 5: The Commission negotiates on behalf of the whole EU

Reality: The Commission negotiates on behalf of itself and transnational companies, but definitely not the whole EU, let alone its people
According to the Commission’s transparency guide, it negotiates international trade agreements “according to the instructions received from the Member States”. During negotiations, it claims, it “remains fully accountable to the European civil society, the Member States and the European Parliament that exercise democratic control.”
In fact, the balance of power between the Commission and EU member states is heavily tilted towards the Commission. It has greater capacity, technical expertise and the initiative in drawing up negotiation texts. EU member states need to act in large groups to significantly change Commission proposals. Also, it is reported that the Commission uses all kinds of tricks to circumvent member states’ objections. When the latter were confronted with leaked negotiation texts from the EU’s ongoing trade talks with Canada, for example, member state sources admitted that many had never seen the texts and that the Commission had gone way beyond its negotiation mandate.
Similarly, many MEPs in the European Parliament lack the capacity to properly analyse the piles of highly technical texts related to the EU’s globe-spanning trade agenda. According to a Parliament source, MEPs on the committee for international trade (INTA) receive between 500 and 1000 pages per week. The result, according to the source, is a “window-dressing openness” where “you receive 1000s of pages, but don’t know what is going on”.
“Europe’s trade policy (… is) run by a committee of unelected technocrats who believe in the good of trade liberalisation and who are largely insulated from political tensions and pressures.”
Richard Baldwin, Professor of international economics, Geneva Graduate Institute

This is what democracy looks like

For a more democratic vision for European trade policy, take a look at the Alternative Trade Mandate Alliance, an alliance of currently almost 50 civil society groups (including Corporate Europe Observatory). We are developing an alternative vision of trade policy that puts people and planet before big business.
The heart of this vision is an assertion of democratic control over the EU’s trade policy (see the paper Is this what democracy looks like?). The alliance’s guiding principles in this should go without saying in any democracy: transparency and openness instead of secrecy; policy-making by elected Parliaments instead of unelected bureaucrats and peoples’ involvement instead of policy-capture by corporate lobby groups.
Putting these principles into practice, the alliance has published the draft version of its vision online – to gather public comments “to improve the Alternative Trade Mandate and make it a genuine people’s mandate”. Final comments are due by 4 October.
Based on the final version of the text, the Alternative Trade Mandate Alliance intends to mobilise the public all over Europe to transform EU trade policy. One of its key goals is to make trade negotiations such as the ones between the EU and the US an issue in the 2014 European elections.
The proposed EU-US trade agreement hands over more power to corporations and further undermines our democracy. Busting the myths surrounding it and revealing the truth about this secretive deal is an important step in people taking back control over the democratic process. How long will the public stand being fobbed off by the Commission’s propaganda?
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/250-globalization-of-the-economy/52500-busting-the-myths-of-transparency-around-the-eu-us-trade-deal.html 

Natascha van Weezel's 'REDELIJKHEID.'

In haar Parool -column van deze week liet Natascha van Weezel, die er vanuit gaat dat zij als joodse Nederlander die al  decennialang Israel...