Soros and CIA Suffer Huge Defeat in Brazil

Wayne MADSEN | 28.10.2014 | 00:00

The Central Intelligence Agency and its George Soros-funded «democracy manipulators» in Brazil suffered a major defeat with the re-election as president of Brazil of Workers’ Party standard bearer and ex-Marxist guerrilla Dilma Rouseff. In the hours prior to Rousseff’s handy re-election, the corporate Western media was still reporting that the election was «too close to call» even as exit polling indicated that Rousseff would trounce her CIA- and Soros-backed conservative opponent Aecio Neves by at least 2 percentage points. The New York Times, Globe and Mail, Reuters, and other corporate media outlets were obviously disappointed by Rousseff’s victory, with many of these pro-Wall Street contrivances that masquerade as journalistic enterprises referring to Neves as a «centrist» who «narrowly» lost to Rousseff.

The Associated Press wistfully wrote, «There are not enough outstanding votes left to be counted to allow her [Rousseff] rival [Neves] to catch up with her». And Alberto Ramos, Goldman Sachs’s chief economist for Latin America, warned that Rousseff should abandon her policies that help Brazil’s poor or «market confidence» in Brazil will continue to suffer. Bloomberg News predicted the value of Brazil’s real currency would continue to be weakened with Rousseff’s win and when the markets opened on October 27, Bloomberg’s wishes were realized. The Financial Times of London happily reported that the real slumped 3.1 percent in value against the U.S. dollar and that its performance was worse than that of the Mozambican metical, which also was deflated by the global vulture bankers after the long-governing leftist Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO) won the election against the Soros- and banker-backed and CIA-created Mozambique National Resistance (RENAMO). For the democracy manipulators of Soros and the CIA, the election news from the Lusophone capitals of Brasilia and Maputo was hardly encouraging.

The «usual suspects,» Goldman Sachs, Bloomberg, and The New York Times, all wailed in anger over Rousseff’s decisive win over Neves. The neo-conservative Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal lamented that Brazil had opted to stick with «statism,» which for the Wall Street vulture capitalists who worship the Journal as if it were a Talmudic scroll, is a blasphemy.

Neves was advised on economic policy during the campaign by Arminio Fraga Neto, a former executive for Soros’s Quantum hedge fund and on foreign policy by Rubens Barbosa, the senior director in the Sao Paulo office for former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s Albright Stonebridge Group (ASG).

The reaction of Wall Street and London to immediately devalue Brazil’s currency after Rousseff’s victory indicates the strategy of the global capitalists in dealing with Brazil. Undoubtedly, Brazil is to be subjected to the same type of economic warfare that has been meted out to Venezuela since the re-election victory last year of Venezuelan Socialist President Nicolas Maduro. Venezuela has been pressured by artificially-created shortages of basic commodities and foreign transaction problems as a result of Wall Street’s – and the CIA’s — sabotage of the Venezuelan economy.

The CIA’s and Soros’s heavy interest in defeating Rousseff was aimed at derailing the emerging BRICS economic alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa that threatens to weaken the domination that global bankers and their inherently corrupt World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) contrivances wield over the world economy. The bankers and their CIA centurions believed that with Neves or Marina Silva, a Green Party operative groomed by Soros, in charge, Brazil would withdraw from BRICS and re-enter the global banker community with Brazilian state assets such as the Petrobras oil company being sold off in a «fire sale». Soros and his CIA friends failed to understand that Brazil’s poor owe their relative new social standing to the state-led economic policies of Rousseff and before her, those of Workers’ Party icon Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

With Rousseff now re-elected, the BRICS will continue to develop the New Development Bank (NDB) and its $100 billion currency reserve arrangement (CRA), or currency basket, that member countries can loans draw from, thus weaning themselves away from the Western political controls of the World Bank and IMF. Rousseff’s re-election will also permit BRICS, which faced losing Brazil as a member had Rousseff lost the election, to expand its membership base.

Argentina, which has faced a concerted economic campaign from New York vulture capitalist, right-winger, and committed Zionist Paul Singer to seize Argentine assets, has expressed a strong interest in joining BRICS. Argentine Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman has stated that Argentine intends to join BRICS and recent trade agreements between Argentina on one hand, and China, Russia, and India, on the other, indicate that Argentine would be welcome in the anti-U.S. «club» of emerging economic powerhouses. Iran, Indonesia, and Egypt have also expressed an interest in joining BRICS. Indonesia’s new president Joko Widodo is a member of the party of former president Megawati Sukarnoputri, the daughter of President Sukarno, ousted by the CIA in a bloody 1965 coup d’état aided and abetted by President Barack Obama’s Indonesian stepfather Lolo Soetoro and his USAID/CIA mother Ann Dunham Soetoro. Indonesia’s Sukarnoist foreign policy makes its alliance with BRICS a natural alignment.

The interventionist forces of the CIA and Soros will now look to obtain a consolation electoral victory in Latin America in order to apply pressure on both Brazil and Argentina. Uruguay’s president José «Pepe» Mujica, a former Marxist Tupamaro guerrilla, is barred from running for re-election and his Broad Front’s standard bearer is his predecessor Tabare Vasquez. Winning 45 percent of the vote in the first round election on October 26, the same day of Brazil’s election, Vasquez is now forced into a run-off with right-wing National Party presidential candidate Luis Lacalle Pou, the son of former Uruguayan conservative president Lacalle Herrera, who placed Uruguay under the economic control of the World Bank and IMF. Just as the CIA banked on Neves, the grandson of Brazil’s former elected president Tancredo Neves, who died from a suspicious ailment just prior to being sworn in as president in 1985, the CIA and Soros are now placing their bets on Pou to defeat Vasquez to be able to brag that Latin America’s progressive base of nations is not permanent. Pedro Bordaberry, the third place finisher in Uruguay, who has now endorsed Pou in the same manner that the Soros-financed Silva endorsed Neves in Brazil after losing the first round, is the son of the brutal CIA-installed Uruguayan dictator Juan Maria Bordaberry, arrested in 2005 for ordering the assassination of two Uruguayan legislators.

Ironically, Vasquez, who like Mujica, favors legalization and government regulation of marijuana sales is facing opposition from his Soros-financed opponent who is against marijuana legalization, citing nebulous and unfounded statistics on a rise in crime under the Broad Front presidencies. Soros is on record as favoring the legalization of marijuana. However, Soros compromises on his stance in countries like Uruguay where his and the CIA’s interests dictate opposition to marijuana legalization.

In Brazil and Uruguay, the CIA- and Soros-backed candidates and their major supporters represent reactionary forces who wish to turn Latin America’s clock back to the days of fascist rule. The Brazilian election threw a spanner in the CIA’s and Soros’s works. The November 30 Uruguayan run-off will provide the deadly duo of the CIA’s John Brennan and George Soros with another opportunity to place a roadblock not only in Latin America’s steady march toward steady progressive rule but also in the plans of the BRICS alliance to expand into a permanent economic and political force to challenge the neo-imperialism of the Washington-London-Brussels-Israeli true «axis of evil».

Fonte: Strategic-Culture

Bahraini prince loses diplomatic immunity and could face arrest if he returns to Britain over claim he tortured protesters during Arab Spring uprising

A Bahraini Prince could face prosecution over claims he tortured protesters during an Arab Spring-inspired uprising after the High Court overturned a decision granting him diplomatic immunity.

The Crown Prosecution Service had previously said Prince Nasser bin Hamad al-Khalifa could not be investigated over claims he was involved in the torture of prisoners during a pro-democracy uprising in Bahrain in 2011.

However, two judges today quashed Director of Public Prosecutions’s decision, raising the possibility, albeit unlikely, that Prince Nasser could be arrested if he travels to the UK.1412687457725_wps_71_08_Dec_2013_Manama_Bahrai

The government of Bahrain ‘categorically denies’ the claims made against Prince Nasser, and says that any decision on immunity was ‘academic’ due to a lack of evidence against the royal.

The case arose after a Bahraini citizen, referred to only as FF, sought the arrest of Prince Nasser, alleging that he was involved in the torture of detained prisoners.

However, he was told that the prince would be immune from prosecution because of his royal status.

FF, who has been granted asylum in the UK, claims he was badly beaten and given a prison sentence after taking part in protests in the Gulf state in February 2011 which have since left dozens dead, mainly demonstrators.

Tom Hickman, appearing for FF, told the High Court the CPS was claiming the prince had immunity under Section 20 of the State Immunity Act 1978 as a member of the Bahraini royal household and also in relation to his role as Commander of the Royal Guard.

Mr Hickman said the prince was ‘a regular visitor to these shores’, and for that reason FF was seeking to take action against him under the UK’s extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction over acts of torture.

In a statement, FF said: ‘Now the prince has lost his immunity he will need to consider the risk of investigation, arrest and prosecution when he is travelling outside Bahrain.

‘Whilst he is visiting other royal families and horse-riding, there are 13 prisoners of conscience.

‘Two of them have said in open court in Bahrain that the prince tortured them, yet they were still convicted.

‘It is time for the British Government to review its policy of co-operation and support for this regime.’

His solicitor, Sue Willman, of Deighton Pierce Glynn, said in a statement: ‘The UK has a duty under the convention against torture and under its own laws to investigate, arrest and prosecute those who are alleged to have committed acts of torture abroad.

‘They should be applied to all, regardless of the UK’s economic interests.’

The quashing order was made by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Cranston, with the consent of the DPP.

Mr Hickman told the court that the DPP was suggesting that its concession on immunity was ‘academic’ because of a lack of evidence against the prince.

Mr Hickman said: ‘We don’t agree with that. We say that this concession clears the way for an investigation of the prince and for consent for an arrest warrant to be sought – and there is further evidence that will be submitted.’

A spokeswoman for the Government of Bahrain said: ‘As the British DPP has today affirmed, an arrest would have been improper given the absence of evidence of the conduct alleged.

‘As Bahrain has never sought anonymity or sovereign immunity from the English Courts for anyone in respect of this case, it expresses no view on the DPP’s statement that immunity was inappropriate.

‘This has been an ill-targeted, politically-motivated and opportunistic attempt to misuse the British legal system.

‘The Government of Bahrain again categorically denies the allegations against Sheikh Nasser.

‘The Government reiterates its firm condemnation of torture and recognises its responsibility to investigate any reasonable allegation.

‘The Government remains committed to implementing the wider reforms as recommended by the Independent Commission of Inquiry and welcomes constructive engagement with responsible campaigners in pursuit of that aim.’

The government of Bahrain went on to reject claims that the quashing order could now lead to a prosecution of the prince.

The government’s spokeswoman said: ‘Contrary to assertions being made in the wake of today’s hearing, the court order does not open the door to a prosecution.

‘Rather, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the decision on immunity was academic as it had solid fact-related grounds for the basis on which it determined it could not prosecute Sheikh Nasser.

‘All this was made plain in court today. In short, the situation has not, and will not, change as there is no evidence for the allegations.’

Deborah Walsh, Deputy Head of Special Crime and Counter Terrorism at the CPS, said there would need to be a police investigation before any potential prosecution could be considered.

‘In line with recent case law on this issue, we can no longer maintain our position that the Prince could have immunity,’ she said.

‘We have always maintained that the issues raised by this Judicial Review are academic as before the DPP can consent to any application for a private arrest warrant, there needs to be an investigation by police. The likelihood of immunity is not considered a bar to prosecution and is a matter that should be considered on a case’s individual facts and merits, after some investigation. The Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command is responsible for the investigation of all allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture, and has previously said that it would not undertake an investigation in relation to this matter for a number of reasons; the possibility of immunity was not one.

‘The CPS is committed to the prosecution of war crimes and we take our responsibilities under international law very seriously. Whenever the evidence and law allows us to do so, we will vigorously pursue prosecutions through the UK courts. We have a well-established War Crimes Community Involvement Panel that consists of law enforcement, NGOs and others which has been cited internationally as an example of good practice. This meets regularly to discuss issues of concern and relevance and helps to improve our collective knowledge and understanding in this field.’


Brasil internaliza regras internacionais sobre contratos comerciais


Brasil internaliza regras internacionais sobre contratos comerciais

Brasília (17 de outubro) – O Brasil internalizou hoje, por meio do Decreto n° 8.327/2014, a Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre Contratos de Compra e Venda Internacional de Mercadorias. O tratado internacional promove a uniformização de direitos e deveres das partes em contratos de compra e venda internacional celebrados entre empresas sediadas em países diferentes.

Com a internalização do acordo, haverá maior segurança jurídica e previsibilidade nas transações internacionais, resultando, ainda, em potencial redução de litígios e custos legais para empresas que atuam no comércio exterior. Em caso de divergências entre os contratantes, a convenção favorece o entendimento ao prover clareza sobre as regras aplicáveis. Atualmente, 83 países, responsáveis por mais de 90% do comércio internacional, são parte da convenção.

Atos internacionais

No último dia 7, o governo federal também internalizou outros atos internacionais importantes para o comércio exterior e que favorecem os exportadores brasileiros, por meio dos Decretos n° 8322, n° 8323 e n° 8324. O primeiro decreto prorroga os regimes de drawback em relação ao acordo comercial com o Chile (ACE-35). O segundo, os regimes de drawback no âmbito do acordo comercial com a Bolívia (ACE-36). O terceiro estabelece as preferências concedidas no comércio entre o Brasil e a Venezuela, assegurando 100% de preferência para o universo tarifário das exportações brasileiras, à exceção de 777 códigos, que convergirão para a preferência integral até 2018.

fonte: Camex

Aumento dos impostos e regulamentação são fundamentais na luta contra o tabaco, diz OMS

As medidas adotadas pela Conferência da Convenção-Quadro para o Controle do Tabaco buscam reduzir a venda do tabaco e impedir a propagação dos cigarros eletrônicos para diminuir em 30% o consumo até 2025.

O uso do cigarro eletrônico entre adolescentes duplicou de 2008 até 2012.Foto: Flickr/Joseph Morris (Creative Commons)

Na sexta sessão da Conferência das Partes da Convenção-Quadro para o Controle do Tabaco, a Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) anunciou que o aumento dos impostos sobre produtos do tabaco e implementação da maior regulamentação para controlar a promoção dos cigarros eletrônicos no mundo foram algumas das importantes decisões tomadas durante o evento em meio aos amplos esforços para reduzir o consumo global do tabaco e salvar milhões de vidas.

“Impostos mais altos devem fazer com que os preços aumentem, o que por sua vez levarão a um menor consumo”, afirmou um comunicado à imprensa da OMS, emitido nesta segunda-feira (20), acrescentando que as novas regras previstas em relação às taxas de imposto sobre o tabaco devem ser “monitoradas, aumentadas e ajustadas anualmente” e tributadas de forma comparável evitando o uso de substituições de um produto por outro.

Durante o evento que aconteceu em Moscou entre 13 a 18 de outubro, uma série de outras medidas também foram adotadas como o fornecimento de apoio técnico aos Países-partes e o envolvimento com organizações internacionais em questões que influenciem as empresas de tabaco, bem como uma avaliação do impacto da Convenção sobre a “epidemia”.

Além disso, a OMS observou outro “marco no controle do tabaco” com a decisão de adotar sistemas de controle de distribuição de cigarros eletrônicos, que incluem a proibição ou restrição de promoção, publicidade e patrocínio destes cigarros.

A diretora-geral da OMS, Margaret Chan, destacou a tendência negativa que a indústria tabagista vem adotado para minar os esforços dos governos para proteger a saúde dos cidadãos, como o processo contra o Uruguai pelas advertências sanitárias usadas nos pacotes de cigarro ou iniciativas contra as “ações robustas e corajosas” adotadas pela Austrália de usar pacotes genéricos.

No geral, a Conferência reconheceu que as vítimas mais afetadas com as doenças relacionadas com o tabaco são os grupos mais vulneráveis ​​da população e apelou a todas as partes para fortalecer a colaboração internacional em relação ao controle do tabaco, bem como alcançar uma meta global voluntária de redução de 30% da sua prevalência em 2025.

Fonte: ONU Brasil

Matheus Luiz Puppe Magalhaes

Prof.ª Deisy Ventura leciona sobre a “mobilidade humana”

Plutocrats Against Democracy (Paul Krugman)

cropped-escola-de-atenas1It’s always good when leaders tell the truth, especially if that wasn’t their intention. So we should be grateful to Leung Chun-ying, the Beijing-backed leader of Hong Kong, for blurting out the real reason pro-democracy demonstrators can’t get what they want: With open voting, “You would be talking to half of the people in Hong Kong who earn less than $1,800 a month. Then you would end up with that kind of politics and policies” — policies, presumably, that would make the rich less rich and provide more aid to those with lower incomes.

So Mr. Leung is worried about the 50 percent of Hong Kong’s population that, he believes, would vote for bad policies because they don’t make enough money. This may sound like the 47 percent of Americans who Mitt Romney said would vote against him because they don’t pay income taxes and, therefore, don’t take responsibility for themselves, or the 60 percent that Representative Paul Ryan argued pose a danger because they are “takers,” getting more from the government than they pay in. Indeed, these are all basically the same thing.

For the political right has always been uncomfortable with democracy. No matter how well conservatives do in elections, no matter how thoroughly free-market ideology dominates discourse, there is always an undercurrent of fear that the great unwashed will vote in left-wingers who will tax the rich, hand out largess to the poor, and destroy the economy.

In fact, the very success of the conservative agenda only intensifies this fear. Many on the right — and I’m not just talking about people listening to Rush Limbaugh; I’m talking about members of the political elite — live, at least part of the time, in an alternative universe in which America has spent the past few decades marching rapidly down the road to serfdom. Never mind the new Gilded Age that tax cuts and financial deregulation have created; they’re reading books with titles like “A Nation of Takers: America’s Entitlement Epidemic,” asserting that the big problem we have is runaway redistribution.

This is a fantasy. Still, is there anything to fears that economic populism will lead to economic disaster? Not really. Lower-income voters are much more supportive than the wealthy toward policies that benefit people like them, and they generally support higher taxes at the top. But if you worry that low-income voters will run wild, that they’ll greedily grab everything and tax job creators into oblivion, history says that you’re wrong. All advanced nations have had substantial welfare states since the 1940s — welfare states that, inevitably, have stronger support among their poorer citizens. But you don’t, in fact, see countries descending into tax-and-spend death spirals — and no, that’s not what ails Europe.

Still, while the “kind of politics and policies” that responds to the bottom half of the income distribution won’t destroy the economy, it does tend to crimp the incomes and wealth of the 1 percent, at least a bit; the top 0.1 percent is paying quite a lot more in taxes right now than it would have if Mr. Romney had won. So what’s a plutocrat to do?

One answer is propaganda: tell voters, often and loudly, that taxing the rich and helping the poor will cause economic disaster, while cutting taxes on “job creators” will create prosperity for all. There’s a reason conservative faith in the magic of tax cuts persists no matter how many times such prophecies fail (as is happening right now in Kansas): There’s a lavishly funded industry of think tanks and media organizations dedicated to promoting and preserving that faith.

Another answer, with a long tradition in the United States, is to make the most of racial and ethnic divisions — government aid just goes to Those People, don’t you know. And besides, liberals are snooty elitists who hate America.

A third answer is to make sure government programs fail, or never come into existence, so that voters never learn that things could be different.

But these strategies for protecting plutocrats from the mob are indirect and imperfect. The obvious answer is Mr. Leung’s: Don’t let the bottom half, or maybe even the bottom 90 percent, vote.

And now you understand why there’s so much furor on the right over the alleged but actually almost nonexistent problem of voter fraud, and so much support for voter ID laws that make it hard for the poor and even the working class to cast ballots. American politicians don’t dare say outright that only the wealthy should have political rights — at least not yet. But if you follow the currents of thought now prevalent on the political right to their logical conclusion, that’s where you end up.

The truth is that a lot of what’s going on in American politics is, at root, a fight between democracy and plutocracy. And it’s by no means clear which side will win.

The New York Times

Harvard International Law Journal


Conheça o jornal da Universidade de Harvard sobre temas do Direito Internacional: