Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, April 24, 2017

Trudeau Defends Dairy Subsidies After Trump Vows U.S. Farmer Aid

  • Country to defend its protectionist system in Nafta talks
  • Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks in Bloomberg interview


by Josh Wingrove John Micklethwait and Jen Skerritt-

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada will stick with its system of protectionist dairy quotas, even as President Donald Trump doubled down on a vow to help American farmers.

Trudeau spoke Thursday in Toronto during an interview with Bloomberg. It was his first public response to Trump’s Wisconsin pledge to press Canada for changes to its dairy system as part of North American Free Trade Agreement talks.

“The U.S. has a $400 million dairy surplus with Canada so it’s not Canada that’s the challenge here,” 

Trudeau said Thursday, adding many other countries subsidizes agriculture. “Let’s not pretend we’re in a global free market when it comes to agriculture.”

Trudeau’s comments come two days after Trump promised U.S. dairy farmers he would intervene to restore exports of American milk to Canada. The spat was spurred by a new Canadian milk policy that U.S. producers say violates Nafta and comes at a sensitive time for U.S.-Canada trade relations. Trump, who was elected with the help of strong rural support, has pledged to renegotiate Nafta to help U.S. industry.

Trump fired back again on Thursday following Trudeau’s remarks, calling the impact from Canada’s dairy policies “a disgrace” while signing a directive to the Commerce Department to speed up an investigation of whether steel imports threaten national security.

“What they’ve done to our dairy farm workers is a disgrace,” Trump said Thursday.

Dairy Deficit

In 2016, Canada imported C$557 million ($413 million) in dairy products from the U.S, while C$113 crossed the border in the opposite direction, creating a deficit of about C$445 million, Canadian government data show.

Trump said he wouldn’t allow the situation to continue and brought up a separate conflict with Canada over timber. He tied both to Nafta, which he’s vowed to renegotiate.

“Nafta, whether it’s Mexico or Canada, it’s a disaster for our country," Trump said.

U.S. dairy groups appealed to Trump for help after Canada recently introduced a new policy that gives the country’s producers an incentive to buy domestic supplies of ultra-filtered milk, a concentrated ingredient used to boost protein content in cheese and yogurt. American producers say the policy violates trade agreements and exacerbates a glut of milk on the American side of the border.

Canada has regularly said it’s willing to renegotiate Nafta and that certain parts of the pact could use an update.

“We’re not going to overreact,” Trudeau said. “We’re going to lay out the facts and we’re going to have substantive conversations about how to improve the situation.”
The New York Times misreports location of illegal Israeli-built wall, most of which is inside the occupied West Bank, not on the 1967 boundary line. Wisam HashlamounAPA images
Michael F. Brown-24 April 2017
The New York Times responded swiftly to pressure last week from Israel and its supporters.
When the paper published an opinion piece about the new hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners, “a rash of readers” objected, according to Liz Spayd, its public editor – who insulted with her word choice even as she backed their case.
The readers were angered, she suggested, by a “distorted characterization” of Marwan Barghouti, the article’s author.
When the piece was originally published online a week ago Sunday, Barghouti was described at the end as a “Palestinian leader and parliamentarian.” After complaints, an editor’s note was appended the following day, stating that Barghouti had been convicted in an Israeli court on “five counts of murder and membership of a terrorist organization.”
Of course, the Times never adds such caveats regarding Israeli leaders who write for the newspaper, even when war crimes they oversaw are detailed by the UN or human rights organizations – perhaps because the international impunity they enjoy means that their Palestinian victims never have their day in court.
It’s far easier for the paper to cite convictions in the colonizer’s courts than to highlight the misdeeds of powerful war criminals who evade justice.

Endless debate?

By contrast with its swift reaction to the Barghouti op-ed, the paper has still not corrected a clear error of fact about Israel’s wall in the occupied West Bank to which I alerted it last month.
The error was contained in an article by Russell Goldman on The Walled Off Hotel, a project by the British graffiti artist Banksy.
According to Goldman, the windows of that “nine-room guesthouse” in Bethlehem “overlook the barrier that separates the territory [the West Bank] from Israel.”
That is plainly wrong. The wall – or “barrier” – is not built along the 1967 boundary between present-day Israel and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem). Rather, it penetrates deep into the West Bank, cutting Palestinians off from their land.
Overall, some 85 percent of the wall extends into the West Bank.
I wrote to the paper several times in March seeking a correction. Beyond automated emails, I got no response.
Both the public editor and the foreign desk ignored me.
Another article about Banksy’s hotel that the Times published in April was also misleading.
Ian Fisher, author of that article, described the wall as an “ugly 26-foot symbol of all that separates Israelis from Palestinians.”
Once again, the Times was implying that the wall separates Israel from the West Bank. Vital context on Israel’s policies of colonization were omitted by Fisher, the paper’s latest bureau chief in Jerusalem.
Fisher adds that the wall has been “endlessly debated.” Part of the debate, he suggests, is whether it constitutes a prison for Palestinians, a “security measure that worked” or even “400 miles of proof of the failure of negotiations.”
He doesn’t mention that despite its land grabs of Palestinian territory, long stretches of the wall have not been completed, or that the end of suicide bombings in Israeli cities can better be explained by Palestinian factions’ abandonment of the tactic.
Fisher also neglects to mention that the International Court of Justice ruled the wall illegal back in 2004.

Repeated corrections

The reticence I have encountered from The New York Times lately appears to be new.
I have been in contact with that paper for many years. Its journalists and editors have repeatedly corrected articles at my urging.
They have generally been prompt. But they have not always been gracious.
In a May 2003 telephone conversation, a New York Times editor, Bill Borders, called me “obdurate” and “bull-headed” for having the temerity to argue that a former colleague of mine, Dr. Fadel Abu Hein, had been arrested by the Israelis rather than allowed to leave the scene of fighting – in which he did not participate – “unharmed.”
Weeks later, the newspaper ran a new article that updated his status by asserting, “A prominent Palestinian psychologist who was detained after Israeli troops razed his family home and killed three of his brothers who were Hamas militants has pleaded not guilty to charges of weapons possession and incitement, his family said.” So, the newspaper admitted he was detained, but did not report precisely when this occurred.
At best, this was an implicit admission of having got the story wrong the first time.
The uneven response by the news media matters because Americans are more likely to be aware of – and oppose – Israeli expansionism if they are given accurate information.
Almost 15 years ago, I wrote about how The New York Times was misinforming its readers on basic details regarding the Middle East.
In 2005, the Times’ then public editor Daniel Okrent agreed with my suggestion that the paper’s reporting was too focused on an Israeli perspective.
But the paper is still flunking geography today.

Hollande urges French to reject Le Pen in presidential run-off vote



By Bate Felix and John Irish | PARIS

France's outgoing president, Francois Hollande, on Monday urged people to back centrist Emmanuel Macron in a vote to choose his successor next month and reject far-right leader Marine Le Pen, whose place in the run-off represented a "risk" for France.

Macron and Le Pen, leader of the National Front (FN), go head-to-head on May 7 after taking the top two places in Sunday's first round.

Opinion polls indicate that the business-friendly Macron, who has never held elected office, will take at least 61 percent of the vote against Le Pen after two defeated rivals pledged to back him to thwart her eurosceptic, anti-immigrant platform.

Hollande, a Socialist nearing the end of five years of unpopular rule, threw his weight behind his former economy minister in a televised address, saying Le Pen's policies were divisive and stigmatised sections of the population.

"The presence of the far right in the second round is a risk for the country," he said. "What is at stake is France's make-up, its unity, its membership of Europe and its place in the world."

Global markets reacted with relief to Sunday's vote, which broke the dominance of established parties of the centre-left and centre-right but still left the most market-friendly and internationally minded of the remaining contenders in pole position to become France's next leader.

The euro EUR= touched five-month peaks while Europe's STOXX 600 index rose 2 percent.
Surveys pointing to a clear Macron victory soothed investors who have been unnerved by Le Pen's pledges to ditch the euro, print money and possibly quit the EU. Many had feared another anti-establishment shock to follow Britain's "Brexit" vote and Donald Trump's election as U.S. president.

BATTLE BEGINS

Le Pen said late on Monday she was taking "a leave of absence" from leading the FN to focus on campaigning, in a move that appeared to be a mere formality that changes nothing in her campaign platform.

She told France 2 television: "I will feel more free and above all, above party politics, which I think is important."

Le Pen has said for months she is not, strictly speaking, an FN candidate but a candidate backed by the FN. She has long distanced herself from her maverick father Jean-Marie, the former FN leader, and in the election campaign has put neither her party's name nor its trademark flame logo on her posters.

Opening the battle for second-round votes, Le Pen highlighted the continuing threat of Islamist militancy, which has claimed more than 230 lives in France since 2015, saying the 39-year-old Macron was "to say the least, weak" on the issue.

She also said she wanted to talk to sovereignist Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, who won nearly five percent of the first-round vote and has not said which side he would take in the next.

"His platform is extremely close to ours. Patriots should come together to fight those who promote unbridled globalisation," she said.

Le Pen has promised to suspend the EU's open-border agreement on France's frontiers and expel foreigners who are on the watch lists of intelligence services.

Macron's internal security programme calls for 10,000 more police officers, and 15,000 new prison places, and he has recruited a number of security experts to his entourage.

However, opinion polls over the course of the campaign have consistently found voters were more concerned about the economy and the trustworthiness of politicians.

Le Pen's campaign took aim on Monday at what they see as further weak spots: Macron's previous job as an investment banker and his role as a deregulating economy minister under Hollande.

Analysts say Le Pen's best chance of overhauling Macron's lead in the polls is to paint him as a part of an elite aloof from ordinary French people and their problems.

"Emmanuel is not a patriot. He sold off national companies. He criticised French culture," Florian Philippot, deputy leader of Le Pen's National Front, told BFM TV.

Philippot called Macron "arrogant" and said his victory speech on Sunday had shown disdain for the French people by making it appear as though the presidency was already won.

In that speech, Macron appeared to respond to Le Pen's claim to be the protector of France's workers and their values by saying: "I want to be the president of patriots in the face of a threat from nationalists."

Le Pen needs to avoid a repetition of 2002, when her father, FN founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, surprisingly made the second round, but was then humiliated by right-wing president Jacques Chirac as mainstream parties united to block a party they considered racist and anti-Semitic.

His daughter has done much to soften the FN's image, gathering support especially among young people - a quarter of whom are unemployed - with her promises to push back against "rampant globalisation".

BUILDING A MAJORITY

Still, two defeated candidates - conservative Francois Fillon and Socialist Benoit Hamon - did not even wait for Sunday's count to urge their supporters to rally behind Macron, who took 23.74 percent of votes on Sunday to Le Pen's 21.53.

A Harris survey saw Macron going on to win the run-off against her by 64 percent to 36. An Ipsos/Sopra Steria poll gave a similar result while a new poll by Opinionway on Monday put the margin at 61 percent to 39 percent.

Whichever candidate wins on May 7 will need to try to build a majority six weeks later in a parliament where the FN has only two seats and Macron's year-old En Marche! (Onwards!) movement has none.
Macron has already enlisted some 50 sitting Socialist lawmakers to his cause, as well as a number of centrist party grandees.

Manuel Valls, a former Socialist prime minister on the right wing of the party who broke with the far-left Hamon's campaign after failing to beat him for the party ticket, said on Monday he would be ready to work with Macron.

"We must help him (Macron) as much as we can to ensure Le Pen is kept as low as possible," Valls told France Inter radio.

Sunday's outcome was a huge defeat for the two centre-right and centre-left groupings that have dominated French politics for 60 years.

Conservative Francois Fillon, who had been the favourite to win the election before allegations emerged that he had paid his wife and two children from the public purse for work they did not do, came third with less than 20 percent. He said on Monday that he would not be at the forefront of his party's parliamentary campaign.

Hamon got only a third of the 19.5 percent secured by the maverick former Trotskyist Jean-Luc Melenchon, emphasising the disarray of the French Left after five years of Hollande.

(Additional reporting by Michel Rose, Geert De Clercq, Elizabeth Pineau, Ingrid Melander; Writing by Richard Balmforth; Editing by Kevin Liffey and Louise Ireland)

No, this viral survey doesn’t suggest Corbyn is on track for victory

An online poll by ITV’s This Morning show has been circulating on social media, showing a massive lead for Jeremy Corbyn.

It puts the Labour leader on a staggering 68%, with Theresa May trailing behind at just 19%.
It’s been retweeted hundreds of times, with Corbyn supporters saying it shows that Britain is ‘waking up’ and it’s ‘looking great for Labour’.

One of the reasons it’s causing so much excitement is that it’s based on more than 165,000 votes. This is a far bigger sample than most political surveys, by polling companies like YouGov, ComRes or Survation. 

For instance, a recent YouGov poll on voting intentions used a sample of 1,727 UK adults.
But is the poll reliable?

The analysis

Bigger doesn’t always mean better. If the sample is skewed, it won’t reflect national opinion – no matter how many people are polled.

This Morning’s survey was open for anyone to contribute to online. And it was left open for several days. So although it collected lots of votes, it’s not designed to reflect the UK electorate — nor does it claim to.
The former president of the YouGov, Peter Kellner, told us: ‘A properly conducted poll attempts to create a sample that looks like the country as a whole. So if you’re doing a Britain-wide survey, you want the right proportion of people from the north and the south; men and women; young and old; rich and poor; and so on.

‘Then, when you’ve got the data in, it’s never quite spot on. You might get slightly too many men, or slightly too few Scots or something. So you then “weight” the data to fine-tune it. So the published results have a sample that – as far as you damn well can – looks exactly like the country as a whole.’
This Morning‘s poll does none of this.

Online polls

This isn’t the only wildly unreliable election survey circulating on the internet. Another one by thepoliticalanalyzer.com puts the Labour leader on over 91%.

It’s not just that these polls don’t reflect the electorate – they may not even reflect sample of people who voted, because it’s easy to vote more than once. Simply delete your cookies, refresh the page, and you can vote as many times as you like.

What’s more, polls like these are often circulated widely among supporters, making them even less likely to reflect the electorate as a whole. This Morning‘s poll was even shared by the ‘Jeremy Corbyn for PM’ Twitter page, which urged its 124,000 followers to ‘have your say’.
We’ve seen these type of dodgy online polls before in the US presidential election, when Trump supporters on Reddit and 4chan flooded a list of surveys in an attempt to change the media’s assumption that Clinton would win.

And even when there isn’t a coordinated attempt to skew the results, open online polls still reflect the types of people who are on the website.

Remember, too, that this isn’t the first time skewed statistics about Corbyn have been spread over the internet. Last year an infographic went viral that compared council election results in 1995, 2006 and 2016. But the elections in question were contested with a different set of seats, so were not comparable.

Are the established pollsters any better?

Many established polling companies have seen their reputation damaged recently, after a series of incorrect forecasts. Most of them wrongly predicted that Britain would vote to remain in the EU, and that David Cameron would fail to win a majority in 2015.

However, these were close-run races, so although they got the ultimate winners wrong the margin error wasn’t miles off.

On the 2015 election, Kellner said: ‘It was three points out – it wasn’t ten or twenty. So when the polls “get it wrong”, they’re not usually that far off. Usually the polls are pretty close.’

Nate Silver, the US statistician and political analyst, has said that UK polls tend to be around five or six percentage points out. That’s enough to make the wrong call about Brexit, which closed at a 52%-48% split. But it’s not enough to accidentally place Corbyn around 40 points behind where he actually is.

The verdict

Opinion polls should always be interpreted with caution, but with this one we’re happy to dismiss it outright. Created as a diversion, many seem to have taken it seriously online.

‘It’s completely worthless,’ said Kellner. ‘They got just about everything you can possibly get wrong, wrong. This is not, in any meaningful sense, truthful information. It’s just preposterous.’
 As President Trump nears his 100th day in office, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a historically low 42 percent of Americans approve of his job performance thus far. (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)


 

THE MORNING PLUM:

This is the week that we find out whether President Trump’s 100-day mark will get commemorated with a shutdown of the government that Trump and Republicans control. Trump is desperate for accomplishments to cite on that day, yet that very desperation may itself end up provoking a shutdown, which would only make the media coverage of that marker even more brutal.

Trump and the White House are now escalating their demand that Democrats drop their opposition to funding his wall on the Mexican border — and to pressure Democrats, they are escalating their threat not to fund Obamacare’s cost-sharing subsidies, which could cause insurers to flee, melting down the markets. Over the weekend, Trump tweeted that “Dems need big money” to prevent this from happening, and White House allies are telling reporters that this constitutes leverage to get Democrats to agree to the wall.

But a new report in the Washington Examiner suggests that this “threat” is a greater problem for Republicans than it is for Democrats. The Examiner’s David Drucker talks to Republicans who agree that if the cost-sharing subsidies aren’t funded, it could be a political problem for vulnerable House Republicans:
These subsidies, or “Cost Sharing Reductions,” flow to perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans who live in districts represented by Republicans considered soft targets for the Democrats in 2018…. 
If Republicans and the Trump administration don’t finance the subsidies in a spending bill that must pass by April 28 to avoid a government shutdown, the GOP could face a voter backlash as insurers cancel plans and pull out of communities.
“Republicans wanting Obamacare to collapse might be a good talking point in 2017, but it will be disastrous at the ballot box for us in 2018,” a former House GOP aide said … That has put them in an awkward position. They either protect Obamacare from implosion, or risk the ire of voters whose premiums would spike, and choices diminish, even more than has already occurred under the troubled Affordable Care Act.
Read Drucker’s piece for more details, but the upshot is that, if Trump goes through with his threat to sabotage the ACA, Republicans would likely get the blame for it. They would get blamed both for the immediate loss of subsidies by voters in their districts, and, more broadly, for the larger damage caused by the meltdown of the exchanges, which could lead to at least 10 million fewer people covered. A recent Kaiser poll found that 75 percent of Americans want Trump and Republicans to make the law work, and 61 percent say they are responsible for future problems with it.

If basic logic counts for anything, all this should complicate the idea that Trump’s power over the subsidies gives him and Republicans leverage to extract concessions in return for not continuing them. Much of the press coverage treats this as a he-said-she-said standoff, in which Republicans say the threat to nix the cost-sharing subsidies gives them leverage, and Democrats say it doesn’t. But if Drucker’s reporting is right, Republicans know that they need the subsidies to continue. Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans would also likely get the blame if the government shuts down. So where does their leverage reside, exactly?

Now, it’s true that Democrats really don’t want the exchanges to melt down, and they also really don’t want the government to shut down, since both would be very destructive. (Indeed, most Republicans probably don’t want either of those to happen for the same reason.) So Democrats will probably be willing to make some concessions toward getting a spending bill passed, to avoid either of those happening. But for Democrats, the incentives tilt strongly against making such concessions on the wall in particular, because it occupies an outsize place in the imagination of Trump voters. Trump himself thinks his base really wants it, as he put it in a rambling interview with the Associated Press:
“My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you’ve been to many of the rallies. Okay, the thing they want more than anything is the wall … the people want to see it. They want to see the wall, they want to see security.”
Trump wants the wall funding so badly as a 100-day accomplishment that he may be willing to push us to the brink of a government shutdown to try to get it. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said yesterday that he did not know whether Trump would sign any funding bill that doesn’t fund the wall — which could bring about that shutdown.

After all, the wall looms very large in the mythology of Trumpism — his supporters see it as a symbol of Trump’s willingness to slam the brakes on the cultural, demographic, and economic forces that are making them feel destabilized. But it also looms large for his detractors, who see it as a symbol of his Fortress America xenophobia. This increases the pressure on Democrats not to agree to fund it, to demoralize Trump’s base and fire up their own. It’s hard to see how the threat to tank the ACA’s exchanges overcomes that, particularly since that outcome is one that Republicans apparently don’t want, either.
******************************************************
* MORE POLLS FIND TRUMP’S APPROVAL IN THE TOILET: A new Post/ABC poll finds Trump’s approval rating at 42 percent, and a new NBC/WSJ poll finds it at 40 percent. And the NBC poll finds an erosion in perceptions of his qualities:
39 percent of Americans give him high marks for changing business as usual in Washington — down from 45 percent two months ago. Thirty-nine percent give him high marks for being effective and getting things done — down from 46 percent who said this back in February.
Below 40 percent on change and on getting things done — these must be Fake Polls, since Trump told us he has had one of the best starts of any president in history.

* A POSSIBLE DEAL ON OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES? Democrats want Republicans to agree to include subsidies for insurance with lower out-of-pocket costs in the spending bill. Bloomberg explains what one compromise might look like:
One trade-off could pair $9 billion in subsidies for insurance companies under Obamacare — a domestic spending increase — with an equal increase for regular defense operations. Another $5 billion to $10 billion in war funding could be added to that, and Democrats could justify going along with the idea given heightened tensions with Syria and North Korea.
This would apparently allow Democrats to avoid agreeing to spending on Trump’s wall, but it would at least allow Trump to claim he’s making our military great again.

* TRUMP AGAIN PLAYS DOWN 100-DAY MARKER: In that interview with the Associated Press, Trump said the 100-day marker is no biggie. Then this exchange happened:
AP: You did put out though, as a candidate, you put out a 100-day plan. Do you feel like you should be held accountable to that plan?

TRUMP: Somebody, yeah, somebody put out the concept of a hundred-day plan. But yeah. Well, I’m mostly there on most items.
Somebody put that idea out there. Oh yeah, it was Trump’s campaign.

His supporters should therefore be dismayed, not just by his failure to actually close any deals, but by the fact that he evidently has no new ideas to offer, just the same old snake oil the right has been peddling for decades … Trump agenda so far is … just voodoo with extra bad math. Was that what his supporters expected?
Meanwhile, pretty much the only thing left of the “populist economic nationalism” that was supposed to make Trump different from other Republicans is the nativism and the xenophobia.

* NEVER MIND BANNON. KEEP AN EYE ON SESSIONS: E.J. Dionne Jr. takes a look at all of the changes that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is making, while the media obsesses over Stephen K. Bannon:
Sessions has started switching the Justice Department’s stance on voting rights cases, away from minority plaintiffs and in favor of states that passed discriminatory measures … Sessions also ordered department officials to review reform agreements between its civil rights division and troubled police forces nationwide … Sessions is bringing back the old war on drugs, thus stopping in its tracks a once-promising criminal justice reform movement of conservatives, liberals and libertarians concerned with over-incarceration, particularly in African American communities.
And so, even if Bannon does eventually get pushed out, Sessions is perfectly positioned to continue implementing all of Trumpism’s ugliest impulses.

* SESSIONS ON ‘DREAMERS’: ‘WE’LL SEE’: On ABC’s “This Week,” Sessions was asked about Trump’s recent declaration that the dreamers can “rest easy” and don’t need to fear deportation. Sessions would not say whether he agrees:
“Well, we’ll see. I believe that everyone that enters the country unlawfully is subject to being deported; however, we’ve got — we don’t have the ability to round up everybody and there’s no plans to do that. But we’re going to focus first, as the president has directed us, on the criminal element.”
Of course, in reality, despite the “focus” on the “criminal element,” the administration is deporting undocumented immigrants who have committed no other crime.

* AND OBAMA IS BACK: Today former president Barack Obama will hold a public appearance with some young people in Chicago, and he’s looking to avoid criticizing Trump while saying something about politics:
Mr. Obama wants to talk with the young people onstage at the elite school about civic engagement, community organizing and the importance of not withdrawing from the challenges facing society … Advisers said Mr. Obama’s conversation on Monday is likely to echo many of the same themes he talked about in [his] farewell address, including a plea that people not take democracy for granted.
It’s a tricky balancing act, but Obama can refrain from commenting directly on Trump while also trying to inspire people to remain politically engaged, which could matter for 2018.

Japan Wants to Revive the Trans Pacific Partnership Even Without the U.S.

Japan Wants to Revive the Trans Pacific Partnership Even Without the U.S.
President Donald Trump spiked U.S. participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a massive free trade pact five years in the making among countries representing 40 percent of the world’s economy — during his first days in office. But now Japan wants to bring the trade pact back from the dead, even if it means leaving Washington behind.

No automatic alt text available.BY ROBBIE GRAMER-APRIL 24, 2017

Japanese trade officials told the Financial Times over the weekend that Tokyo is ready to carry TPP forward in essentially the same form it was in when Trump killed it. “We will start talks on an eleven-member TPP, minus the US, at the [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] meeting in May,” Japanese Finance Minister Taro Aso said at a recent event in New York.

The move signals that, even as the United States is in full retreat from free trade, many other countries are pressing ahead, even without U.S. leadership. Washington will have to grapple, though, with political fallout from detonating a trade deal that countries had worked on for years and which they’d manage to sell to skeptical audiences at home only after great pains.

While Trump’s decision to withdraw from TPP didn’t come as a surprise, the action itself sent shockwaves through the trade world and leaving the pact’s 11 other members — Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam — in the lurch.
Many thought that was the end of TPP, widely seen as former President Barack Obama’s hallmark legacy in Asia.

Initially, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called the deal “meaningless” without Washington’s leadership and access to the huge U.S. market. But now his government is singing a different tune.

There’s several reasons for the about-face. First, Tokyo realized the deal could still net them some fruitful economic gains in medium-sized markets like Australia and Vietnam, especially since part of Abe’s economic strategy (called Abenomics) emphasizes boosting access to foreign markets to breathe life into the stagnating Japanese economy.

Second, Tokyo has probably prepared the ground to minimize fallout from the Trump administration.

“There was a potential Trump could view [reviving TPP] as a slap in the face,” said Eric Altbach, senior vice president at consulting firm Albright Stonebridge Group and former U.S. trade official working on Asian issues. “Over the course of recent meetings with the administration, the Japanese probably were able to gauge level of U.S. comfort with an effort by Japan to revive TPP,” he told Foreign Policy.

Finally, there’s some geopolitical icing on the cake: The TPP still offers an alternative to the China-centric Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a less-stringent and watered-down trade pact for members of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Japan might see in a revived TPP a way to limit China’s ability to dominate economic relations with its neighbors.

But bringing TPP back from the dead will be easier said than done, in part because it will require a new draft, even if it recycles much of the language.

“At the end of the day you have to create a whole new legal text. You can’t just strike the United States out of it,” said Lauren Bosma, another trade expert with Albright Stonebridge Group. She said the slew of technical and legal aspects of trade agreements, painstakingly scrubbed line-by-line, preclude them from simply striking the United States from the document and calling it a day.

And reopening the text, even with the full TPP text to start from, could be an uphill battle. “”The more you reopen the text…you risk cascading sets of demands that destroy the entire agreement,” Altbach said.

Meanwhile, Trump’s grand plan to scrap multilateral trade deals in favor of bilateral ones could hit a big wall in Asia. After being the most aggressive voice pressing for tough reforms and concessions to get TPP done, Washington can’t really ask bilateral partners for more concessions, Altman said. On Friday, Aso hinted at Japan’s hesitancy to strike a bilateral trade deal after seven years of TPP wrangling with nothing to show for it.

While Japan sorts that out, the Trump administration may be warming up a bit to the kind of sprawling trade pacts that were so ill-treated during the campaign.

On Monday, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross told the Financial Times he was open to the idea of a free trade deal with the European Union. The first attempt, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, sputtered and all-but died after three years of negotiations, but Trump stopped short of withdrawing from it like he did TPP. That was by design, Ross said.

“Clearly at some point we need to do something with Europe,” he said.

Photo credit: TORU YAMANAKA/AFP/Getty Images

US Supreme Court decides to keep CIA 'torture report' secret

6,700 page report examined CIA's programme of secret detention and torture of Al-Qaeda suspects following 9/11 attacks
US Supreme Court turned back appeal by rights groups seeking to make public a report on CIA's post-September 11 torture programme (Reuters)

Monday 24 April 2017
The US Supreme Court on Monday turned back an appeal by rights groups seeking to make public a report on the CIA's post-September 11 torture programme, ensuring it will remain secret.
The court rebuffed arguments from the American Civil Liberties Union that the highly classified report, compiled in 2014 by the Senate Intelligence Committee, should be released based on US government transparency rules.
"We are disappointed by this major setback for government transparency and accountability. The full report is the definitive account of one of the darkest chapters in our nation's history, and the public has a right to see it," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project. 
The Supreme Court's decision left in place a ruling by the federal court in Washington that judged the report did not fall under rules that require certain government records be made public. 
The 6,700 page report examined in depth the Central Intelligence Agency's programme of secret detention and torture of Al-Qaeda suspects in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
It details the rendition of suspects to CIA "black sites" and the use of illegal torture methods like waterboarding on them to extract information.
It also reportedly deeply questioned the effectiveness of the techniques, later banned by President Barak Obama.
About 500 pages were declassified for public release in 2014 when the report was completed, with enough information to bring heavy criticism on the CIA and the government of president George W Bush, which authorised the programme.
The 500-page summary details well-known CIA methods: waterboarding, forced nudity and slamming inmates against walls. Sleep deprivation was used on detainees for bouts of 180 hours – longer than a week – until some were left dazed and hallucinating.
Five inmates endured “rectal rehydration”, an anal process that was undertaken without any medical need. Others were shackled in darkness, bombarded with load music, forced into “ice baths” and told that their family members would be executed.
One died from hypothermia while chained to a concrete floor in 2002. During one of his 83 waterboarding sessions, alleged al-Qaeda detainee Abu Zubaydah became “completely unresponsive with bubbles rising through his open full mouth”, researchers said.
“These harsh methods were not only inconsistent with our values as nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests,” then-US President Obama said in a statement after the summary’s release.
The CIA has rejected some of its conclusions, and some politicians say it supports arguments for torturing suspects.
Only a handful of copies of the full report exist, distributed to several government departments and intelligence bodies.
Fearing that those copies could be destroyed to eliminate any detailed record of the torture programme, Obama in December said one copy would be held in his presidential library, to be built in Chicago.
Obama refused to declassify the report, but said it would become open to the public in 12 years.
However, even after 12 years, the report may still remain classified.
“CIA or other agencies may contend that all or some of the classified information in the report is still classified 12 years from now,” Steven Aftergood, an intelligence policy expert at the Federation of American Scientists told the Guardian in December. When the 12 year limit is finished, agencies could begin to declassify the report if they want to, “but the review may conclude that the information in it should remain classified”, Aftergood added.
 

In theory — as stipulated by President Trump countless times on the campaign trail and as reiterated by him on Twitter over the weekend — the construction of a large wall on the United States’ southern border will be paid for by the nation of Mexico. At no point in time has Trump offered a politically feasible explanation for how that payment will occur; in a tweet Sunday, he was more nebulous than normal.
With less than a week to pass a new spending bill, negotiations between the White House, Republicans and Democrats are ramping up to avoid a government shutdown on April 29.(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)