Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Monday, July 20, 2015
John Kerry Lies to the Media and Public about the Surrender to the Ayatollahs' Destructive Nuclear Urges
The fact is that Iran is in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] signed years ago. Rather than negotiating with Iran, the USA and other states in the P5+1 group should have been working to force Iran to comply with its obligations under the NPT. But as we know Obama and other politicians wanted to negotiate with Iran over its nuke bomb endeavors. In this case, negotiating means compromising on the original provisions of the NPT. The nuke deal with Iran from last week also excuses Iran from compliance with previous UN Security Council resolutions, as we see below.
Omri Ceren, one of the good guys in the fight against the Iranian nuke project, took up Kerry's brazen lies on the US Sunday news interview shows. Omri sent this around as a fact sheet for the Israel Project where he works. The problems are not only Iran's nuke project. Consider item 2) below and bear in mind that Iran has been developing long-range ballistic missiles [ICBMs intercontinental ballistic missiles] the better to deliver any future bomb and not just on Israel:
The administration is scrambling to justify collapsing on conditions related to the three overarching areas of the JCPOA [= Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] debate:
1) will it work to keep Iran away from a nuclear weapon for a decade (the verification debate);
2) even if it works, is it worth the cost of empowering Iran with advanced weapons and hundreds of billions of dollars (the arms embargo debate);
3) doesn't the deal make Iran into a nuclear power – the opposite of what it was supposed to do – because it expires and allows Iran's breakout time to go to zero (the sunset clause debate).
. . . . .
By far the most unexpected concession made at Vienna involved the Americans bowing to new Iranian-Russian demands to eliminate the United Nation arms embargo. Restrictions on conventional weapons will now expire in 5 years and ones on ballistic missiles will expire in 8 years. The collapse - which has been wrapped into how Iran is also receiving a short-term $150 billion windfall and long-term sanctions relief - was discussed on every one of the Sunday shows [a][b][c][d][e].
ABC This Week
KERRY: The United Nations resolution which brought about the sanctions in the first place said that if Iran will suspend its enrichment and come to negotiations, all the sanctions would be lifted. Now, they've done more than just come to negotiations. They've actually negotiated a deal. And three of the seven nations thought they shouldn't therefore be held to any kind of restraint. We prevailed and insisted, no, they have to be.
CBS Face the Nation
KERRY: ... [T]he reason that we were only able to limit them to the five and eight, which is quite extraordinary that we got that, was that three of the nations negotiating thought they shouldn't have any and were ready to hold out to do that. And we said under no circumstances, we have to have those...
Fox News Sunday
KERRY: This is a nuclear negotiation about a nuclear program. The United Nations, when they passed the resolution, contemplated that if Iran came to the negotiation and they ponied up, all the sanctions would be lifted. We didn't lift all the sanctions. We left in place despite the fact that three out of seven countries negotiating wanted to do away with them altogether. We won the five years for the arms and eight years for the missiles.
CNN State of the Union
KERRY: ... [T]his UN process that started the – that allowed the sanctions to be put in place in the first place contemplated the lifting of all sanctions once Iran had lived up to its obligations with respect to the NPT. So if the IAEA found in X number of years that they've lived up to this, then all the sanctions would be gone. So we, in fact, succeeded against three countries that didn't think they should have to do anything.
NBC Meet The Press
KERRY: And by the way, even though the arms and the missiles were put to – by the – they were thrown in as an add-on to this nuclear agreement. It was always contemplated that if Iran did come and deal on their nuclear program, that was going to be lifted.
ABC This Week
KERRY: But we have ample other resolutions that allow us to hold them accountable for moving any weapons. President Obama is committed to doubling down on the enforcement of those measures. So I really think that a mountain is being made out of a molehill here.
CBS Face the Nation
KERRY: ... [T]hey add on to additional mechanisms that we have to hold them accountable on arms and missiles. We have the missile control technology regime. We have other missile restraints on them. We also have other UN resolutions that prevent them from moving arms to the Houthi, prevents them from moving arms to the Shia, prevents them from – to the Shia militia in Iraq, prevents them from moving arms to Hizballah.
CNN State of the Union
QUESTION: ... Why is lifting the embargo part of this deal?
KERRY: Well, we're not lifting it. It has eight years out of a 10-year component of the UN resolution. Eight years it will be applied, and we have other UN resolutions and other mechanisms for holding Iran accountable on missiles.
Fox News Sunday
KERRY: But we have many other sanctions still applicable, and we can bring other sanctions to push back against any of their behavior. They're not allowed to send arms to Hizballah. That's a separate resolution. They're not allowed to send arms to the Shia militia in Iraq. A separate resolution. They're not allowed to send arms to the Houthis. Separate resolution. So we, in fact, have a huge ability to be able to bring any number of efforts against Iran for any bad behavior here whatsoever.
Fox News SundayQUESTION: Under this deal, we lift the arms embargo on Iran being able to buy weapons and even ballistic missiles between five and eight years. And the sanctions against General Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Qods Force, are also lifted. What we end up with, Secretary Kerry, is an Iran with billions, hundreds of billions of dollars more, able to buy weapons, and a Revolutionary Guard with fewer restraints. Isn't that potentially an even more dangerous state sponsor of terror in the Middle East?
KERRY: First of all, Chris, don't exaggerate. It's not hundreds of billions of dollars. It's $100 billion.
QUESTION: That's in the first year.
KERRY: But – it's their money that they have had frozen.
QUESTION: I understand. But it's a hundred --
KERRY: Well, let me – but let me just finish.
QUESTION: A hundred fifty billion is the first year.
KERRY: Please. Chris, this is not supposed to be a debate. You're supposed to ask a question and we're supposed to be able to answer it.
Sunday, July 05, 2015
Germany benefitted from debt relief but it is ruled out when for Greece's benefit
The Greeks are still voting on the referendum whether or not to accept proposals by the creditor institutions for getting another tranche [slice] of loan money to pay off previous loans. Note that Greece was not offered money to finance growth, such as in developing Greece's off shore hydrocarbon deposits. Greece is being offered money to pay previous debts to those who are offering new loans. So Greece is in a vicious circle or trap.
The help that Greece needs is debt relief and funds to aid growth and development. Indeed, former Italian Prime minister Berlusconi --interviewed yesterday [by TG com 24]-- wished Greece to have a future of growth and sviluppo [= development]. But the creditor offers to Greece did not include aid for growth, without which Greece cannot pay off old loans in the future. Instead, they insist that old loans be paid. Debts must be paid is the principle that they pretend to uphold. But how short are their memories, especially those of the Germans!!!
After the general destruction caused by WW2, a German war, in all the countries attacked, and in Germany itself as well, West Germany, occupied by the USA, UK, and France, was loaned $15 billion in Marshall Plan money when a billion dollars was worth much more than today. All but a small part of that loan was forgiven and the rest stayed in Germany as so-called counterpart funds which were used by the USA to finance projects in Germany to help Germany. Moreover, under US leadership, the formerly German-occupied countries agreed to forego reparations payments. They gave up on their demands for compensation from Germany for material damages. Peter Coy describes the spirit of US policy:
On Sept. 6, 1946, U.S. Secretary of State James Byrnes gave a speech in Stuttgart, Germany. A movement was afoot to penalize the Germans for their role in World War II by deindustrializing the country. Byrnes opposed anything resembling economic spite and promised the country a fair chance to rebuild. “Germany is a part of Europe,” Byrnes said, “and recovery in Europe will be slow indeed if Germany with her great resources of iron and coal is turned into a poorhouse.” It became known as the Speech of Hope. [Peter Coy in BloombergBusinessWeek]Greece too was led by the US to give up its demands for compensation as well as for return of gold reserves and forced loans taken by the German occupation army from the Greek state central bank.
Hence, we see that Germany enjoyed and benefitted from debt forgiveness after the vast destruction caused by WW2. But today Greece must not benefit from debt forgiveness nor even from debt restructuring to extend pay back periods and/or to reduce interest on old debt.
What's more nobody seems to want to recall that after WW One, also a German war, Germany agreed to pay reparations to France. The sum was huge and it seemed so to the German governments in the 1920s. So what did the German govts of the time do to alleviate their debt, that is, to get debt relief?
They devalued their own currency, the deutschemark, and the French were paid off in cheap, nearly worthless deutsche marks. Greece cannot do that since its debt is denominated in euros and Greece's govt does not control the value of the euro which it cannot devaluate by its own decision.
Here is another example of how Germany benefitted from debt relief which it rules out when it is for the benefit of Greece. And the other major countries in the Eurozone go along with the present absurdity of creditors trying to squeeze blood from a stone.
Can Israel expect any humane treatment from diamond-hearted, self-righteous hypocritical Europeans?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Also see links below:
European Union knows what is best for everybody else but cannot or does not want to solve some of its own problems. [here]
Eurozone is stingy with Greece, generous with Arabs claiming the Land of Israel [here]
Eurozone betrays its Greek Eurobrethren. What would they do to the Jews? [here]
Why Greece should vote No [here].
Was it deliberate policy to impoverish Greece by putting it into a debt straitjacket? [here]
See analysis by Committee for Abolition of Third World Debt towards bottom of link [here]
- - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 7-13-2015 Investment fund manager David Einhorn sees political motives in the
Eurozone working to have Greece fail even if it hurts the rest of the Eurozone.
David Einhorn, founder of Greenlight Capital, said Europe’s leaders are prepared to let Greece fail to discourage other countries from electing populists.
“Europe is unwilling to allow Syriza a face-saving compromise, even if that means Greece collapses and the rest of Europe suffers” [Bloomberg here]
Friday, July 03, 2015
The Eurozone Put Greece in a Debt Straitjacket - Was It Deliberate?
Now evidence has emerged that suggests --not absolute proof to be sure, which is not likely to emerge for many years-- that putting Greece into a debt trap may have been deliberate German policy. The purpose seems to have been to use the Greek example as a whip to scare other economically weak Eurozone member states. German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble is quoted as telling US secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, as reported by Peter Coy of Bloomberg Businessweek:
The upshot is that events are unfolding roughly as foreseen by the wily German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble: The disaster befalling Greece is scaring other European nations into following the straight and narrow. According to former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in his book Stress Test: Reflections on Financial Crises, Schäuble told him in 2012 that—in Geithner’s words—some people were arguing “that letting Greece burn would make it easier to build a stronger Europe with a more credible firewall.”
This surmise of mine explains a lot, if true. Why do Germany and the Eurozone keep on insisting that Greece pay off debts made at inflated interest rates, debts which it cannot pay off for more than a century?
- - - - - - - - - -
Also see here, and below --
The economist Paul Krugman pointed out that Greece was in: "a vicious circle, with fears of default threatening to become a self-fulfilling prophecy." here. Interestingly, former Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, also pointed out that Greece was in a "vicious circle" that it should be helped to get out of. He favored mutualization of state debt within the Eurozone.
European hypocrisy about human rights according to Michael Rubin on the Commentary blog, "The Lie that Europe Cares about Human Rights" [here]