Showing posts with label international affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international affairs. Show all posts

Sunday 29 January 2017

The American Resistance has many faces - this is just one of them




One of the temporary restraining orders granted 28 January 2017:



The Economist, 29 January 2017:

In her brief and unequivocal ruling on the evening of January 28th, Ms Donnelly wrote that Mr Alshawi and Mr Darweesh “have a strong likelihood of success” in showing that their deportation would violate their rights to due process and equal protection. There is “imminent danger”, she wrote, that “there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders and other individuals from nations” targeted by Mr Trump’s executive order, should it be fully implemented. Ms Donnelly thus “enjoined and restrained” the government from deporting refugees or “any other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen legally authorised to enter the United States”.

The ruling, along with similar non-removal orders from judges in Virginia and Seattle, means that nobody who was told they didn’t belong in America when they arrived on January 27th can be deported—for now—though there were reports from several cities on the night of January 28th that customs officials were disregarding the judges' orders and arranging for individuals to be sent home. It also bears reminding that these rulings are stays, not final determinations. Further judicial hearings in February will determine if the stays should be lifted. And the rulings do not come close to erasing Mr Trump’s executive order; the ban remains in effect for refugees and others who were planning to come to America in the coming days, weeks and months.

Another temporary restraining order can be found here.

Sunday 8 January 2017

It's as official as it is ever going to get - the Russian Government decided it would like this man to be the 45th President of the United States of America


It's as official as it is ever going to get - the Russian Government decided it would like this man to be the 45th President of the United States of America.
Donald John Trump
U.S. National Intelligence Council, Intelligence Community Assessment, 6 January 2017, excerpt:
This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections
ICA 2017-01D
6 January 2017
Key Judgments
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
 Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency.
 Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behaviour since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and goals.
Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations — such as cyber activity — with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.” Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.
 Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.
 We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.
 Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.
 Russia’s state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.
We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.
Full declassified report can be found here.

Donald Trump apprised of the facts regarding Iran's nuclear capability in 2017


As 20 January 2017 inexorably approaches a letter to Donald Trump from thirty-seven scientists and engineers was made public:

2 January 2017

Dear President-Elect Trump;

On August 9, 2015 a group of scientists and engineers with understanding of the physics and technology of nuclear power and of nuclear weapons sent an open letter to President Obama about the Iran Deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). We characterized the JCPOA as “an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-proliferation framework.”

Eleven months after “implementation day” we write to provide our assessment of the current status of the JCPOA. As agreed, Iran has deactivated and put into storage under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seal about 2/3 of its centrifuges, and it has exported more than 95% of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium—a springboard to weapon-usable highly enriched uranium. Iran no longer produces uranium with enrichment near 20%, as it did before the interim Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), but is restricted to 3.67% enrichment. As a result of the reduced centrifuge capacity and the elimination of the large stock of partially enriched uranium, the breakout time for Iran to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon has increased to many months, from just a few weeks during the time that the JPOA was under negotiation. IAEA inspectors now have the right to daily access at Iran’s enrichment plant at Natanz, and monitoring devices there make continuous on-line enrichment measurements. We are confident that no surprise breakout at this facility is possible.

The large “calandria” or reactor vessel for Iran’s heavy-water reactor has been rendered inoperable, and Iran’s stockpile of heavy water has been reduced to 130 metric tons and capped at that level. The overage of 0.1 tons recently reported by the IAEA, of no strategic significance, was remedied by export of 11 tons as verified by the IAEA. The redesign of the reactor will ensure that its plutonium production will be about 10% of that from the original design, and, when construction is complete and the reactor has begun operation, the fuel that has generated plutonium will be removed from Iran. These steps eliminate the means for Iran to produce plutonium, the alternative material for nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, Iran has agreed to an enhanced version of the procedures of the “Additional Protocol” to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which gives IAEA inspectors access to, inter alia, centrifuge manufacturing, R&D and storage sites, and uranium mines, as well as any suspect potential clandestine uranium enrichment facilities.

In sum, the JCPOA has dramatically reduced the risk that Iran could suddenly produce significant quantities of nuclear-weapon materials. This has lowered the pressure felt by Iran’s neighbors to develop their own nuclear weapons options and none has announced a new dual-use nuclear program of its own.

In the near term it will be necessary to maintain vigilance using the verification procedures in place. As we noted in our previous letter, if Iran decides to increase its enrichment capacity as allowed by the JCPOA after about ten years, enhanced verification measures would be desirable and consistent with Iran’s commitment in the JCPOA to implement certified modern verification procedures in line with internationally accepted IAEA practice. Multinational participation in what is currently a purely national program for producing power reactor fuel may also be a desirable means to enhance transparency.

The JCPOA does not take any options off the table for you or any future president. Indeed it makes it much easier for you to know if and when Iran heads for a bomb. It provides both time and legitimacy for an effective response.

Our technical judgment is that the multilateral JCPOA provides a strong bulwark against an Iranian nuclear-weapons program. We urge you to preserve this critical U.S. strategic asset.

Sincerely,

Richard L. Garwin, IBM Fellow Emeritus Robert J. Goldston, Princeton University
Siegfried S. Hecker, Stanford University
Martin Hellman, Stanford University
Rush D. Holt, American Association for the Advancement of Science R. Scott Kemp, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Frank von Hippel, Princeton University

_______________________________________________________________________

Also signed by:

John F. Ahearne, Member, National Academy of Engineering
Philip W. Anderson, Professor Emeritus, Princeton University
Lewis M. Branscomb, Professor Emeritus, University of California at San Diego
Christopher Chyba, Princeton University
Leon N. Cooper, Brown University
Pierce S. Corden, Former Director, Office of International Security Negotiations,
Bureau of Arms Control, Department of State
John M. Cornwall, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, UCLA
Philip E. Coyle, Former Associate Director for National Security and
International Affairs, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Sidney D. Drell, Stanford University
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
Harold A. Feiveson, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University
Charles D. Ferguson, Federation of American Scientists
Michael E. Fisher, Emeritus, Cornell University and the University of Maryland
Jerome I. Friedman, Nobel Prize in physics 1990
Victor Gilinsky, Former Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Howard Georgi, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard University
Sheldon L. Glashow, Higgins Professor of Physics Emeritus, Harvard University,
Arthur Metcalf Professor of Science and Mathematics, Boston University
Lisbeth Gronlund, Union of Concerned Scientists
David Gross, Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, UCSB
Gregory Loew, Emeritus Stanford/SLAC Professor
Allison M Macfarlane, George Washington University
Richard A. Meserve, President Emeritus, Carnegie Institution for Science
Marvin Miller, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
C. Kumar N. Patel, Professor Emeritus, Dept of Physics and Astonomy, UCLA
John Parmentola, Former Senior VP General Atomics and Former Director for Research
And Laboratory Management U.S. Army
Malvin A. Ruderman, Columbia University
Burton Richter, Stanford University
Myriam Sarachik, City College of New York, CUNY
Roy F. Schwitters, The University of Texas at Austin
David Wright, Union of Concerned Scientists
(Affiliations for identification only)

Sunday 1 January 2017

New Zealand, Venezuela, Senegal and Malaysia reject US president-elect Trump's aggressive meddling in sensitive business before the UN Security Council


A taste of resistance to come or will Donald John Trump manage to successfully bully the UN Security Council once he is sworn in as US president?

United Nations Security Council, 7853RD MEETING, 23 December 2016, meeting coverage:

14 Delegations in Favour of Resolution 2334 (2016) as United States Abstains

The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel's establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders.

Adopting resolution 2334 (2016) by 14 votes, with the United States abstaining, the Council reiterated its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.  It underlined that it would not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the two sides through negotiations.

The Council called for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction.  It further called for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism.  The Council called on both sides to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric in order to de-escalate the situation on the ground and rebuild trust and confidence.

Also by the text, the Council called on all parties to continue to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final-status issues in the Middle East peace process, and within the time frame specified by the Middle East Quartet (European Union, Russian Federation, United Nations, United States) in its statement of 21 September 2010.  It called upon all States to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.

Explaining her delegation's abstention, the representative of the United States said it had been a long-standing position of her country that settlements undermined Israel's security and eroded prospects for peace and stability.  She emphasized, however, that her vote today had not been straightforward.  Explaining that Israel had been treated differently from other States for as long as it had been a member of the United Nations, she noted that during the course of 2016, 18 resolutions adopted in the General Assembly and others in the Human Rights Council had all condemned Israel.  It was because of that bias that the United States had not voted in favour of the resolution, she said, emphasizing that her delegation would not have let the resolution pass had it not addressed terrorism and incitement to violence…….

Full article here.


Statement attributable to the Spokesman for the Secretary-General on adoption of Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016)

The Secretary-General welcomes the adoption by the Security Council of Resolution 2334 (2016) on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. The resolution is a significant step, demonstrating the Council's much needed leadership and the international community's collective efforts to reconfirm that the vision of two States is still achievable.

​​The Secretary-General takes this opportunity to encourage Israeli and Palestinian leaders to work with the international community to create a conducive environment for a return to meaningful negotiations.

​​The United Nations stands ready to support all concerned parties in achieving this goal.

The Security Council vote on the measure passed 14 to 0, with the United States as the lone abstention.

The New York Times, 23 December 2016:

UNITED NATIONS — Defying extraordinary pressure from President-elect Donald J. Trump and furious lobbying by Israel, the Obama administration on Friday allowed the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution that condemned Israeli settlement construction.

The administration's decision not to veto the measure reflected its accumulated frustration over Israeli settlements. The American abstention on the vote also broke a longstanding policy of shielding Israel from action at the United Nations that described the settlements as illegal.

While the resolution is not expected to have any practical impact on the ground, it is regarded as a major rebuff to Israel, one that could increase its isolation over the paralyzed peace process with Israel's Palestinian neighbors,….

The vote came a day after Mr. Trump personally intervened to keep the measure, which had been originally proposed by Egypt, from coming up for a vote on Thursday, as scheduled. Mr. Trump's aides said he had spoken to Mr. Netanyahu. Both men also spoke to the Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Egypt postponed the vote under what that country's United Nations ambassador called intense pressure.

But in a show of mounting exasperation, four other countries on the Security Council — Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela — all of them relatively powerless temporary members with rotating two-year seats, snatched the resolution away from Egypt and put it up for a vote Friday…..

Mr. Trump's comments on the resolution amounted to his most direct intervention on United States foreign policy during his transition to power. Minutes after the Security Council vote was announced, Mr. Trump made his anger known in a Twitter posting, saying: "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th."

The Independent UK, 25 December 2016:

Defending New Zealand's vote on Saturday, the country's Foreign Minister Murray McCully said: "We have been very open about our view that the [UN Security Council] should be doing more to support the Middle East peace process and the position we adopted today is totally in line with our long established policy on the Palestinian question.

i24 News, 25 December 2016:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday said that the United Nations Security Council's passing of a resolution condemning Israel's settlement activities was a "clear statement by the world" and sets forth the "legal basics" for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Speaking at a Christmas event in Bethlehem, Abbas said the UN's decision is a "clear statement by the world according to which the settlement enterprise in the territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, are illegitimate enterprise."

"The voting in favor of the resolution hasn’t resolved the Palestinian cause, but defined it," Abbas was quoted by the official Palestinian WAFA news agency. "The resolution stressed the legal basics for a solution and reiterated that Israeli settlement is illegal."


The Hill, 26 December 2016:

The move prompted widespread backlash against Obama from Republicans and Democrats alike.
It also infuriated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who already has a shaky relationship with Obama.  Netanyahu accused the United States of “colluding” with the United Nations in secret and summoned the U.S. ambassador on Sunday.


The Sydney Morning Herald, 28 December 2016:

Wellington: Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu personally phoned New Zealand's Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully to warn him a UN resolution co-sponsored by the country was a "declaration of war," according to a report….
In the aftermath, Israel has withdrawn its ambassador to New Zealand, barred New Zealand's ambassador to Israel, and warned of further sanctions.

According to media reports Israel has refused to recognize resolution 2334 and has recalled it ambassadors to 10 member countries on the 15 member UN Security Council. Israel apparently does not have formal diplomatic representation in either Malaysia or Venezuela, but it appears that the remaining eight non-permanent member countries are minus Israeli ambassadors at the moment and some have allegedly had Israeli aid withdrawn.

Typically, monosllyabic president-elect Donald Trump takes no responsibility for the results of his politically improper backroom intervention and tweeted:


BACKGROUND

U.N. Security Council Draft Resolution 2334 (2016) on the Middle East Peace Process, co-sponsored by New Zealand, Venezuela, Senegal and Malaysia:

 


and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date):
Angola (2016)
Egypt (2017)
Japan (2017)
Malaysia (2016)
New Zealand (2016)
Senegal (2017)
Spain (2016)
Ukraine (2017)
Uruguay (2017)

Sunday 18 December 2016

Just the sheer size and reach of the Trump Organisation's business interests has implications for U.S. foreign policy


For the last eighteen months in particular there has been media comment on the extensive business interests of U.S. president-elect Donald John Trump.

Since the November 2016 presidential election focus has intensified.

However, the U.S. Constitution drawn up in a simpler century teflon coats presidents - never having envisioned the likes of  Donald Trump.

The reach of Trump’s business interests are said to reach as far as Australia.

Given the man doesn’t seem to understand that the only ethical course would be to divest himself entirely of his business interests by placing them in a genuine blind trust not run by family members, close friends or business partners, so that both America and the world can have a measure of confidence in the his decision making as president, one can only look aghast at the potential for these business interests to fatally infect his presidency and U.S. foreign policy.

In July 2015 Donald Trump disclosed 515 U.S. and foreign corporations or partnerships in which he was either president, partner, chair, director, secretary, member and/or shareholder.

Forbes, 17 August 2015:

Under “Our Hotels” on the Trump Hotel Collection website, it lists six domestic hotels and six international hotels…..
The other hotels abroad are in Toronto, Doonbeg, Ireland, Vancouver, and Baku, Azerbaijan. (Toronto and Vancouver also have a Trump Tower.)
On the website for the Trump Real Estate Collection, nine international properties are listed, including two Trump Towers in India and one in Istanbul, another in Uruguay and another in the Philippines, as well as a Trump World in South Korea, among others.

Donald Trump has an interest in more than 30 U.S. properties, roughly half of which have debt on them according to The New York Times on 20 August 2016:

Debt on properties Mr. Trump owns or leases
PROPERTY
LOCATION
DEBT OUTSTANDING
40 Wall Street
Manhattan
157,400,000
Trump International Hotel*
Washington
127,000,000
Trump National Doral golf resort
Miami
125,000,000
Trump Tower
Manhattan
100,000,000
Trump International Hotel
Chicago
45,000,000
167 East 61st Street
Manhattan
14,500,000
Trump Park Avenue
Manhattan
12,495,000
Trump National Golf Club
Colts Neck, N.J.
11,700,000
4-8 East 57th Street "Niketown"
Manhattan
10,600,000
Seven Springs estate
Mount Kisco, N.Y.
8,000,000
Trump National Golf Club Washington
Potomac Falls, Va.
7,600,000
Trump International Hotel and Tower
Manhattan
7,000,000
Trump International Hotel**
Las Vegas
3,200,000
1094 South Ocean Boulevard
Palm Beach, Fla.
250,000
124 Woodbridge Road
Palm Beach, Fla.
250,000
*This construction loan was for $170 million. The Trump Organization and Times sources confirm roughly $127 million has been drawn down on.
**This loan was worth $110 million in 2010. The Trump Organization says a Trump entity is responsible for $3.2 million of the debt outstanding. The Times could not confirm this.
Debt associated with Mr. Trump's limited partnerships/investments
PROPERTY
LOCATION
  PRC  OWNED
DEBT OUTSTANDING
1290 Avenue of the Americas
Manhattan
30
950,000,000
555 California Street
San Francisco
30
589,000,000
Starrett City / Spring Creek Towers
Brooklyn
4
410,000,000
Other:
An internal Trump Organization corporate loan, which Mr. Trump says is worth more than $50 million.
Sources: RedVision Systems, Securities and Exchange Commission, New York Times, Bloomberg data, Trump Organization.
The New York Times compiled these debt estimates using bank documents, public filings and through interviews with the Trump Organization and people familiar with the debt who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak on the record about it.

The bulk of these liabilities appear to consist of mortgages maturing between 2016 and 2029.

The Washington Post, 16 September 2016:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection records, compiled by ImportGenius.com since 2007, give us a look at what has been imported by many of the businesses that are owned by Trump or use his name via licensing deals.

Trump has imported from the countries coloured red and many of the products bearing Donald Trump’s name appear to come from low-wage countries in East Asia.

Vodka
Trump licensed his name to the Israeli vodka after a 2011 legal battle. Unlike the original Trump vodka made in Holland, the new version was popular as one of the few liquors that’s kosher for Passover.
Barware
Made by a crystal company in a small town in Slovenia, its first entry into the U.S. market.
Ties
Made in countries such as China and sold on Amazon.com in nearly 200 patterns and sizes.
Mirrors
Made in China.
Accessories
Including cuff links, belts and eyeglasses made in China and other countries.
Fragrance
Trump’s cologne has been manufactured in and out of the United States.
Clothing
Trump makes his clothing line abroad. The manufacturers are generally scattered throughout East Asia and Central America.
Chandeliers and lamps
Some of these products retail for more than $4,000. Made in China.
Furniture
Trump Home sells furniture to consumers made in Germany and Turkey, but his own hotels often get furniture from massive distributors such as the multinational IHS Global Alliance.

Monday 14 November 2016

For a barrister Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is surprisingly imprecise with words


For a barrister Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is surprisingly imprecise with words so often, one has to suspect that this is a deliberate ploy.

This was Prime Minister Turnbull in The Guardian on 10 November 2016:

Malcolm Turnbull has signalled Australia will not seek to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement even if the US president-elect, Donald Trump, follows through on his threat to cancel the emissions reductions commitments made by Barack Obama last December.

Turnbull on Thursday confirmed Australia had ratified the Paris agreement despite domestic opposition from the One Nation party, a critical Senate bloc for the government, and persistent climate change scepticism roiling within Coalition ranks…..

“My government is committed to [the Paris agreement]. We have ratified it,” he said.

This was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website that same day – clearly showing that although Australia had signed the Paris Agreement there are as yet no instruments of “ratification, acceptance or approval.”:

This is borne out by the following media release stating a future intent only:


JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES Inquiry into Paris Agreement and the Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol

Issue date: Monday, 7 November 2016

PARIS AGREEMENT TO BE RATIFIED
7 NOVEMBER, 2016

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has today recommended that Australia ratify the Paris Agreement.

Committee Chair, the Hon Stuart Robert MP, says that the Agreement has received overwhelming support both internationally and here in Australia.

“The Paris Agreement has been welcomed as a positive step forward on an issue that is of global concern.”

“Although Australia faces challenges as we transition to a low-carbon economy, there are also many opportunities. We have expertise in responding to extreme weather events which will be in demand worldwide. We also have a rich supply of the mineral resources needed for the manufacture and development of renewable technology. And, of course, we have abundant renewable power resources with our sun, wind and hydro power.”

The Paris Agreement was adopted on 12 December 2015 by 192 countries. It opened for signatures in New York on 22 April 2016, and received the required signatures from 55 countries covering 55 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions on 5 October 2016. The agreement came into force on 4 November 2016.

The aim of the Paris Agreement is to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C and to attempt to limit the increase to 1.5°C. Australia’s commitment is to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels of greenhouse emissions by 2030.

In fact Malcolm Turnbull has left himself enough wriggle room to quietly delay or avoid this ratification indicating Australia’s consent to be bound by the Paris Agreement if the influential right wing nut jobs in the Liberal and National parties further threaten his position as prime minister.

Wednesday 27 July 2016

The Productivity Commission states what those with even a modicum of intelligence knew instinctively


Apparently the Australian Government is going to learn the hard way that modern free-trade agreements rarely provide low manufacturing-high primary production & natural resource extraction economies such as ours with the anticipated level of additional income from international trade.

The Guardian, 25 July 2016:

A key economic policy adviser to the federal government has said the Trans-Pacific Partnership has provisions of “questionable benefit” – including an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause allowing foreign corporations to sue the Australian government if they think the government has introduced or changed laws that hurt their commercial interests.
The Productivity Commission made the comment in its annual trade and assistance review, released on Monday. The review quantifies the level of assistance governments give to Australian industry and this year criticises regional adjustment programs that have followed the exit of the carmakers, and also the Turnbull government’s big defence procurement spend rolled out in the countdown to the recent federal election.
On the TPP the commission says it is uncertain whether the US will sign the controversial pact before the presidential election in November 2016. While noting that, the commission says the TPP contains provisions of questionable benefit. “These include term of copyright and the investor state dispute settlement elements.”
The commissioner, Paul Lindwall, warned the success in defending a recent landmark ISDS case relating to tobacco plain packaging entailed reported legal costs of about $50m.
The tobacco giant Philip Morris used an ISDS provision in the Hong Kong-Australia bilateral investment treaty, signed in 1993, in an effort to sue the Australian government over the plain packaging laws implemented by the Gillard government in 2012. The case dragged on for years before an international tribunal ruled in Australia’s favour, saying Philip Morris Asia’s claim was an abuse of process.
“As it was resolved on a technicality, and costs are apparently yet to be recovered, this success should not be taken as an indication that ISDS is essentially harmless,” Lindwall said Monday…..

Australian Productivity Commission Trade & Assistance Review 2014-15 here.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 January 2016:

Australia stands to gain almost nothing from the mega trade deal sealed with 11 other nations including United States, Japan, and Singapore, the first comprehensive economic analysis finds.
Prepared by staff from the World Bank, the study says the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership would boost Australia's economy by just 0.7 per cent by the year 2030.
The annual boost to growth would be less than one half of one 10th of 1 per cent…..

World Bank graphs: Trans-Pacific Partnership

According to The Age economics editor Peter Martin, the three North Asia free-trade agreements (with China, Japan and the Republic of Korea) combined are only expected to increase total Australian exports by 0.5 per cent and local employment by less than one-half of one-tenth of 1 per cent by 2035. The agreements will boost imports into Australia from these countries by est. 2.5 per cent, sending Australia’s trade balance backwards.

NOTE: At the dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives on Monday, 9 May 2016 the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties ceased to exist.  Any inquiries that were not completed have lapsed and submissions cannot be received.