International Justice: "The US has long supported international justice, now it should be subjected to it'"

They call him the “dictator hunter”. Reed Brody has been following the bloody trail of infamous political leaders for over 30 years, his latest trophy is Chad’s former president, Hissène Habré. And his next? George W Bush and Henry Kissinger are on his list.

Brody worked with the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch (HRW) between 1998 and 2016. He was personally involved in the investigation and preparation of criminal cases against at least four US-backed dictators during the Reagan administration: Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Hissène Habré in Chad, Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti, and Ríos Montt in Guatemala.

He has dedicated his life to laying siege to the great political criminals. When in 2012 the panel of judges of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone considered former Liberian President Charles Taylor responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed between 1991 and 2002 during the conflict in Sierra Leone, which cost the lives of 120,000 people, the HRW’s lawyer issued a warning to the world’s most powerful: “With this verdict, Taylor became the first former head of state convicted by an international tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity, after the Nuremberg trial. The same legal logic could be applied to Vladimir Putin or Henry Kissinger.”

Charles Taylor was convicted of having encouraged and provided weapons and logistical support to the Sierra Leonean rebels, a criminal complicity that brings to Brody’s memory Kissinger’s role in the atrocities committed during the Indonesian invasion of East Timor: “East Timor weighs heavy on Kissinger’s conscience.”

Documents made public in 2001 revealed that on December 6, 1975, the day before the invasion of East Timor, US President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger gave the green light to the military operation during a meeting in Jakarta with Indonesian dictator General Suharto.

The occupation lasted until 2002 and cost the lives of about 200,000 East Timorese. The US provided the Indonesian military with 90 percent of the weapons used, and Kissinger ensured supplies continued being delivered despite the restrictions imposed by the US Congress, when the invasion had already led to tens of thousands of civilian deaths.

“Unfortunately, the powerful and those they protect continue to escape an international judicial architecture still under development.”

The fight against the impunity of the powerful.

Born in 1953 in New York, the son of a Hungarian Jew who escaped from the German forced labour camps and a militant pacifist mother, Reed Brody soon felt the call to align with the weak.

In the 1970s he campaigned against the war in Vietnam. While most of his colleagues at Columbia Law School integrated into Wall Street’s financial institutions, he insisted on being the “advocate of the persecuted.”

In 1984, he left the position of Assistant Attorney General of the State of New York and headed for Nicaragua, where he collected testimonies of the atrocities committed by the Contras, the guerillas armed by Washington which fought the Sandinistas of Daniel Ortega, then in power.

Based on the testimonies of the victims obtained with the help of Catholic missionaries, he produced a detailed report. Published in 1985 by the New York Times, the document led the US Congress to convene an inquiry and cancel for some time the financing of Nicaragua’s Contras.

Between 1987 and 1992, Brody worked in Geneva with the International Commission of Jurists and the UN Commission on Human Rights. He was sent by the United Nations to El Salvador in 1994 and to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1995 and 1997.

In 1998, he had already joined the HRW, and participated in the Rome Conference that validated the Statutes of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the first permanent court of its kind after Nuremberg.

In October of the same year, Augusto Pinochet was detained in London. After being recognised as a party to the litigation and HRW’s Brody sent his reports to the British judges. And when in November Britain’s House of Lords withdrew immunity from the former Chilean dictator, the American lawyer’s fight against the impunity of the powerful reached a new milestone.
The Pinochet precedent

It was after being contacted by Souleymane Guengueng, a political prisoner of the Hissène Habré regime, that Brody began a 17-year pursuit of Habré, accused of 40,000 murders and systematic torture during his eight years as Chad’s president in the 1980s.

Judged in 2015 in Senegal, where he had been living in exile since 1990, the former dictator was sentenced a year later to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity which included torture, rape and sexual slavery.

It was the first process of universal jurisdiction carried out on the African continent, the first in which a head of state was tried in a court of another country.

“Under the Rome Statute, victims are actors of international justice rather than its passive subjects,” says Reed Brody.

It was like this in the Habré case: the testimony of the survivors was decisive for the Senegalese court backed by the African Union to condemn the dictator. The prosecution of Jean-Claude Duvalier for crimes against humanity was possible thanks to the perseverance of survivors such as Boby Duval, who recorded 180 deaths in Fort Dimanche jail cell and journalist Michèle Montas. Likewise, in Ríos Montt’s trial, the prosecution strategy was based on the testimonies of indigenous communities and human rights activists, who identified the survivors.
US resistance

The United States bolsters the existence of a justice system that is applied to other countries in the world and has been a leading contributor to the architecture of an international accountability system. With one exception, Brody points out: “This system should not be applied to the United States. They like the Hague tribunal for Yugoslavia, for Rwanda, Sierra Leone or Cambodia, but not for a court that has unlimited jurisdiction.”

According to the human rights activist, this conviction is shared by most policy makers in Washington. Democrats and Republicans do not appreciate the idea that Washington might find itself constrained in its military strategies by an international law enforced by an international judicial body. “The traditional view of the protection of American interests is that American interests are better protected if the United States is the strongest country and not subject to a system of international rules and regulations.”

US society is not even aware that these things have happened: “When recently, in an interview with Fox News, they asked Donald Trump about Russia, he replied that our country is not so innocent. If we were honest, it was a statement with a sense of reality,” says Brody, adding that “no country that exercises the kind of power the United States exercises, whether the United States, Russia or China, will have an entirely ethical international policy.”

When it became clear in 2011 that the Obama administration did not intend to take any legal action against former President George W. Bush following the US Senate report on the use of torture techniques by the CIA after the 9/11, Reed Brody called on foreign governments to file lawsuits for war crimes against Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and ex-CIA director George Tenet for ordering the practice of torture and other crimes.

“Under international law, any government has jurisdiction to try cases of torture and war crimes,” says Brody.

An EU-Digest Special Report of EUronews

US Trump Adm. Environmental Policies: Thousands join worldwide climate marches on Trump's 100th day in office

Thousands of people across Canada, the United States and other countries marked U.S. President Donald Trump's 100th day in office by marching in protest of his environmental policies.

Participants in the Peoples Climate March say they're objecting to Trump's rollback of restrictions on mining, oil drilling and greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants, among other things.

In Washington, D.C., large crowds on Saturday were making their way down Pennsylvania Avenue, where they planned to encircle the White House. Organizers say about 300 protest marches are taking place around the country, and dozens more in Canada and overseas.

• Trump signs order to expand drilling in Arctic, Atlantic oceans
• Trump wins victory in effort to roll back Obama climate change efforts  

Note Almere Digest: the EU hopefully is prepared to act forcefully in what is becoming an ever greater increasing problem in dealing with the US Trump Administrations irresponsible executive orders and decisions, among others, those of combating Global Warming. 

Read more: Thousands join worldwide climate marches on Trump's 100th day in office - World - CBC News

The Third Industrial Revolution: Will It Create An Economic Boom That Saves The Planet? - by Jeff Beer

Jeremy Rifkin sees a Third Industrial Revolution coming

Jeremy Rifkin, a US born economic and social theorist, writer, public speaker, political advisor, and activist, thinking about how to build a clean-energy powered, automation-filled future is inspiring major infrastructure plans in Europe and China. 

Can he also convince American political and business leaders to buy in ?

First, the bad news: GDP is slowing all over the world because productivity has been in decline for two decades. The result has been higher unemployment (especially among young people) and economists talking about 20 more years of slow growth. According to new numbers from Oxfam, just eight people are as rich as half the globe. In addition to this unprecedented inequality, we face climate change that’s taken us into the sixth extinction wave in the history of the planet, and the last time that happened was 65 million years ago. To turn things around before it’s too late, we need a plan that’s both compelling and doable. Economic theorist Jeremy Rifkin thinks he has just that plan: creating what he calls the third industrial revolution, which will be sparked by harnessing renewable energy and enabling automation and the internet of things to result in a prosperous new economy powered by clean energy.

The good news is that people are listening. On February 7, the European Union unveiled its “Smart Europe” plan influenced by Rifkin’s work, which outlines how the 350 regions of Europe will start building out the road maps to transition into a new infrastructure of 5G internet, renewable energy, and automated driverless transport internet, all riding on top of an internet of things platform. Regions in the north of France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands have already begun their transition over the last few years. There’s a similar plan taking place in China: After Premier Li Keqiang read Rifkin’s seminal book, The Third Industrial Revolution, he made Rifkin’s strategies core to the country’s 13th Five-Year plan that was announced last March, and includes billions in renewable energy investment by 2020.

While his plans are in the works in Europe and Asia, The Third Industrial Revolution, a new film about Rifkin and his work, that recently premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival, aims to explain his framework for a plan for the U.S. While President Trump and Republican and Democratic lawmakers have made some attempts toward putting together a massive $1 trillion infrastructure plan, any details remain murky. Rifkin wants a plan that instead would take power from the bickering tug-of-war of federal politics, and give it to the people, businesses, and local officials who can affect change on the ground.

The film (a Vice production) is based around the theories Rifkin presented in his book of the same name, and two other of his books, The Empathic Civilization (2009) and Zero Marginal Cost Society (2014). The film explores the challenges of climate change and globalization, the opportunities created by the rise of the internet and automation, and how governments and corporations should be preparing for–and working to build–a society and economy driven by sustainable innovation, and powered by renewable and distributed energy. “I think the green shoots are coming up everywhere; we’re seeing telltale signs of what’s in the film,” Rifkin tells Fast Company. “My hope is if people see the film it will make sense to them because it’s already on the tip of their tongue. They know all the sentences, they just hadn’t put the chapters together. Then it just makes sense. And once that happens, they never go back. I think a lot of people are right there.”

The doc takes place in an empty Brooklyn warehouse. It’s a version of speeches Rifkin has been giving around the world, told over two hours in An Inconvenient Truth-style, lo-fi lecture. Rifkin is in his 70s, and looks a bit like if the Monopoly Man was a college professor. In addition to being a best-selling author, he’s also a senior lecturer at the Wharton School’s Executive Education Program, and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, D.C. In the film, as in person, he comes across as friendly and down-to-earth, able to outline and articulate complex problems and proposed solutions in a way that makes you feel like you’re just having a beer with a favorite uncle, and just happen to be chatting about the link between global economics and climate change.

While in Europe and China, Rifkin has spent years consulting with top government officials, but this new film with Vice represents a starkly different approach for U.S. audiences. Rifkin sees the real potential for change and influence in American business and local community leaders. So the documentary will be his calling card, a TLDR version of his books, to screen for everyone from CEOs to university students, to quickly get people excited and motivated to help boost the economy and save the planet. Could it possibly work?

"What I'm suggesting to you is that this could be a renaissance. We may be on the cusp of a future which could provide a tremendous leap forward for humanity.

It may be that everything the life science companies are telling us will turn out to be right, and there's no problem here whatsoever. That defies logic.

They're now turning those seeds into intellectual property, so they have a virtual lock on the seeds upon which we all depend for our food and survival ".

Also read the interview with him in The European.
Read more: Will The Third Industrial Revolution Create An Economic Boom That Saves The Planet?

US Aluminum Industry:President Trump Signs Order to Launch Aluminum Imports Investigation

The alliance for American Manufacturing reports : Another 'Section 232' investigation for the Trump administration. Will it lead to action? ? First steel, now aluminum.

President Donald Trump officially signed an executive order on Thursday (April 27)  afternoon to initiate a Section 232(b) investigation into aluminum imports. Overseen by the Commerce Department, the investigation will determine whether foreign imports of aluminum threaten national security - and if so, Trump will have the power to act to restrict imports, including through tariffs.

The Commerce Department has 270 days to conduct the investigation. Once it gives its recommendation to Trump, he will have 90 days to respond.

There's little doubt that American aluminum makers are threatened because of China's aluminum overcapacity. Chinese state-owned enterprises produce far more aluminum than China can use for its own needs. Instead of curbing production, China dumps its excess aluminum (which, we note, is heavily subsidized) into the U.S. market priced far below market cost.

It's part of a strategy to capture market share and put American aluminum makers out of business. Over the past 15 years, China's aluminum production quintupled, from 11 percent of the world's production in 2002 to 53 percent in 2016; imports took 55 percent of the market in 2016.

Meanwhile, eight American smelters have closed or curbed production since 2015. Only two are fully operational today. There is only one remaining American smelter capable of producing the high-purity aluminum needed by the aerospace industry for F-35, F-18 and C-17 aircraft, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told reporters during a Wednesday briefing.

Alliance for American Manufacturing President Scott Paul said that the investigation could be a step toward recovery for the blue-collar aluminum industry workers impacted by China's unfair trade practices.

'If we're to see real change, this investigation must be followed by appropriate trade enforcement,' he said. 'For years, China has promised to cut its massive industrial overcapacity, all while increasing production… If China is unwilling to keep its promises, there should be clear and enforceable penalties to force actions.'

Trump's executive order earned bipartisan support, including from Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D), who noted in a statement that 15,000 American aluminum workers have lost their jobs in the last decade. But Brown also cautioned that the investigation must lead to action.

'It's good that the Administration is using this tool, but what matters to Ohio workers and the aluminum supply chain is whether it leads to real relief and action against China's market-distorting policies,' Brown said.

Heidi Brock, president and CEO of the Aluminum Association, said in a statement that Trump's executive action 'recognizes the value of U.S. aluminum industry.' United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard, whose union represents thousands of aluminum industry workers, said any action stemming from the investigation should focus 'on those countries that are actually breaking the rules.'

He named names. 'China's overcapacity is swamping world markets, driving down prices and making some operations unprofitable,' he said.

While Section 232 investigations are rare, this is now the second time that Trump has opted to initiate one; he announced a Section 232 investigation into steel imports on April 20.

But as our Scott Paul noted last week, China's industrial overcapacity and persistent unfair practices - coupled with the need to maintain a strong industrial supply chain for our national security needs - mean such action is appropriate.

'America's steelmakers are vital to our national security, providing essentials ranging from the armor plate on our tanks and specialty metals in our high-tech aircraft, to the hulls of our battleships and everything in between,' Paul said. 'China's massively subsidized and grossly over-scaled steel industry is an existential threat to our own domestic makers.'

Note EU-Digest: Once again this Trump executive order is probably not only worth the paper it is written on but also  in conflict with established rules of the World Trade organization. But also contradictory as to the actual situation of the US Aluminum Industry .

How would this order be applied to US Aluminum giant Alcoa, which has operations in Australia, Brasil, Canada, Guinea, Iceland, Norway, Saudi Arabia Spain and Suriname (Alcoa is presently in a negotiation phase with the government, as Alcoa winds down its operations there)? Nevertheless,would these subsidiary, or partner companies of Alcoa, also be seen as "foreign competition", which in a geographical sense they are.

Once again. it looks like the Trump administration only used this "Executive Order" signing  ceremony today, April 27, surrounded by CEO's of the US aluminum industry, "to investigate Aluminum Imports", as a  PR photo opportunity.

EU-Digest

USA: Trump tax plan needs dynamic scoring to justify budget - by Linette Lopez

We now know a bit more about President Donald Trump's massive tax cut, which he has called "the biggest in history."

We know it's intended to be a simplification that would cut corporate tax rates to 15% and eliminate deductions and things like the alternative minimum tax, which would be a big deal for Trump himself.

We know that, according to the Tax Policy Center, the corporate tax cut alone could cost the country $2 trillion over the next 10 years.

Most importantly, we know that if the plan has any hope of survival, its architects must engage in a massive generational theft, and they would use a classic budget trick to pull it off.

The trick is a method is called dynamic scoring, which in reality is just a fancy way of justifying massive increases in the national debt.

"As we said, we're working on a lot of details," Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said during a press conference on Wednesday to unveil the plan. "This will pay for itself with growth and reduced deductions."

Dynamic scoring has to do with the "growth" part of Mnuchin's explanation. To make tax cuts that look as if they wouldn't put a massive hole in the budget, policy wonks estimate the future benefit of tax cuts to the economy after making a load of assumptions — including about what a future government might do in response to falling tax revenue.

Those imagined benefits are then added to future budget projections, and — BOOM — you've got a healthy-looking balance sheet for America.

Now, you might think that so-called fiscally conservative Republicans would be opposed to things like this and that Trump might face opposition from his party.

But he won't. That's because there is a way to make Washington's budgets sound more sensible than they are. That's where dynamic scoring, much beloved by deficit hawks like House Speaker Paul Ryan, comes in.

The Republican-controlled House adopted dynamic scoring last year, but it's still up for debate in the Senate, where opponents like Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont have been critical of the practice. They say it politicizes the budgeting process.

That's in part because there's no exact way to dynamically score anything. This is not a science. There's no set process, and there are no set rules on the assumptions made. For example, Mnuchin said during the press conference that his office was playing with a bunch of different models. (That's reassuring.) 

Read more: Trump tax plan needs dynamic scoring to justify budget - Business Insider

EU-Electric Car Market: E-mobility and the growth of the electric vehicle in a decarbonized Europe – by ENEL

Mercedes Electric Car

Last November, the European Commission presented a package of clean energy initiatives with the aim of achieving global leadership in renewable energies and promoting energy efficiency. The package seeks to provide a fair deal for consumers and support the EU’s commitment to cutting CO2 emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030.

The so called “jumbo package” also includes specific measures to support e-mobility, such as promoting the installation of recharging points in new, non-residential buildings. With these measures, there is a commitment to use renewable electricity in transport and to ensure renewable sources and new technologies are integrated and allowed to compete on a level playing field.

It is hoped that these changes will improve the penetration of electric vehicles (EVs) in the transport sector. Figures currently estimate their market share to be well under 1 percent, although analysts predict a potential upsurge that could see this figure as high as 35 percent by 2035.

“E-mobility has the potential to be a game changer,” explains Simone Mori, Executive Vice President for European Affairs at Enel. “It can help to deliver a whole range of inter-connected benefits, from cleaner air and less pollution, to greater energy security. But barriers exist and these need to be pulled down if these benefits are to be realized.”

EVs are also supporting the market for renewable energy sources (RES), with car batteries offering new opportunities for grid-connected storage and bringing “prosumers” into the electricity market.

A key to this is the continued development of innovative Vehichle2Grid (V2G) technology, which allows managing bi-directional flows between the EV’s battery and the electric grid. By acting as a “virtual power plant,” they can sell the energy back to the grid and help the system operator improve reliability by balancing supply with demand. Enel is currently working on major V2G programs in Denmark and the U.K., with the goal of introducing it to other European cities.

There are further wins for both consumers and the environment. Building the market share of EVs means a higher use of electricity in satisfying consumers’ energy needs in transport, which improves energy efficiency by reducing primary energy needs. In fact, evidence shows that in the past decade, as the use of electricity as an energy carrier has grown, the economy’s energy intensity — the ratio between final energy consumption and GDP — has decreased, providing the tangible proof of the benefits of electrification. In particular, EVs can be three to four times more energy efficient than conventional cars, therefore they bring greater energy security to Europe by reducing energy imports. With poor air quality currently exposing urban populations to numerous health risks, e-mobility can dramatically reduce air pollution in our cities.

Read More: Decarbonizing Europe By Growing The Electric  Vehicle Market Politico

USA: Trump Administration: Trump's 100-days promises: A long way to go on most of them - by J. Colvin and C. Woodward

Sure enough, the big trans-Pacific trade deal is toast, climate change action is on the ropes and various regulations from the Obama era have been scrapped. It's also a safe bet President Donald Trump hasn't raced a bicycle since Jan. 20, keeping that vow.

Add a Supreme Court justice — no small feat — and call these promises kept.

But where's that wall? Or the promised trade punishment against China — will the Chinese get off scot-free from "the greatest theft in the history of the world"? What about that "easy" replacement for Obamacare? How about the trillion-dollar infrastructure plan and huge tax cut that were supposed to be in motion by now?

Trump's road to the White House, paved in big, sometimes impossible pledges, has detoured onto a byway of promises deferred or left behind, an AP analysis found.

Of 38 specific promises Trump made in his 100-day "contract" with voters — "This is my pledge to you" — he's accomplished 10, mostly through executive orders that don't require legislation, such as withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

He's abandoned several and failed to deliver quickly on others, stymied at times by a divided Republican Party and resistant federal judges. Of 10 promises that require Congress to act, none has been achieved and most have not been introduced.

"I've done more than any other president in the first 100 days," the president bragged in a recent interview with AP, even as he criticized the marker as an "artificial barrier."

In truth, his 100-day plan remains mostly a to-do list that will spill over well beyond Saturday, his 100th day.

It was not what you call a success story for President Trump these 100 first days.

Read more: Trump's 100-days promises: A long way to go on most of them

Suriname: A struggling country's past and future shaped by Alcoa and its aluminum - by Rich Lord and Len Boselovic

Suriname: The Brokopondo dam at Afobaka

The following excerpts come from a lengthy and fascinating  report in the US Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Pulitzer Center , describing the Multi-National Aluminum Company of America's exploitation of  Suriname's (a former Dutch colony on the North East Coast of South America) natural resources (bauxite deposits) since 1916. 

It must be noted that several governments, especially in Latin America and Africa, have been receptive to the negative images and have adopted hostile policies towards MNCs. 

However, a careful examination of the nature of MNCs and their operations in the Third World reveals a positive image of them, especially as the allies in the development process of these countries.

Even as MNCs may be motivated primarily by profits to invest in the Third World, the morality of their activities in improving the material lives of many in these countries should not be obscured through miss-perceptions and negative publicity usually circulated by corrupt local governments.

"It electrified this South American country even as it drowned a jungle, so the 1.2-mile-long dam Alcoa built here to harness the Suriname River is more than stone and turbines. It’s a symbol, in this tropical land of 560,000, of progress, trauma and a global company’s ability to dominate a little country’s landscape and society.

Now the Alcoa Corp. is leaving Suriname, and the Afobaka Dam’s future rivets everyone from the capital’s dealmakers to the forest’s subsistence farmers.

In a country just north of the equator that would fit within a combined Pennsylvania and West Virginia — a country that’s already in a downturn locals call “the crisis” — Alcoa’s decision to permanently end mining and refining has delivered a resonating blow.

Alcoa, the aluminum company founded in Pittsburgh in 1888 that eventually spanned six continents, set up shop here in 1916 when it found bauxite beneath the jungle floor. Cutthroat conditions in the global aluminum market compelled a shutdown in November 2015.

Halfway through that century, Alcoa finished the dam, flooding a forest people’s heartland but also jolting a plantation-based economy into the industrial age. Alcoa created mammoth mining and refining sites and raucous river towns, building a middle class while toughing out a nation’s independence, civil war and an unstable government.

Alcoa found in Suriname, circa 1916, “an almost forgotten and impoverished Dutch colony … which had to look forward to a future without a glimmer of hope,” according to a glossy, celebratory magazine the company produced in late 2014.

It was a land of subsistence farms and wild rubber extraction, plus “colonial plantations” producing cocoa, coffee and sugar. In Alcoa’s first half-century there, the company mined bauxite to the east and south of the capital and sent it abroad, by boat, for processing.

In 1958, the company, the local minister-president and the Dutch governor agreed on a plan to power an ore-to-aluminum industrial complex and signed the 75-year Brokopondo Agreement, named for the town just north of the proposed dam site.

From 1959 through 1965, Alcoa built the Afobaka Dam, and in Paranam a refinery to turn bauxite into alumina, and a smelter to convert that to aluminum ingots. The plans were crafted “on the drawing table of Alcoa’s Engineering Department in Pittsburgh,” according to a company history of the project.

The lengthy Brokopondo Agreement contained just one sentence about the 6,000 people living in 43 villages just upstream of the dam — leaving it to the government to “remove the population, the buildings and other property from the reservoir area.”

The lengthy Brokopondo Agreement contained just one sentence about the 6,000 people living in 43 villages just upstream of the dam — leaving it to the government to “remove the population, the buildings and other property from the reservoir area.”

The 1958 agreement gave Suriname’s government a fraction of the dam’s cheap electricity priced at 0.4 cents per kilowatt hour. But circumstances changed in 1999 when Alcoa closed the smelter, a big user of the dam’s electricity.

Although many say the smelter’s small size and environmental issues were the reasons for the shutdown, there was a nagging suspicion among some that Alcoa had another motive.

Henk Ramdin, Suralco’s general manager until retiring shortly before the smelter was shuttered, said many employees at the time believed the company could make more money selling the power than it could making aluminum.

“They didn’t say it openly, but I could feel it,” Mr. Ramdin recalled.

An Alcoa spokesman wrote that such decisions are based on “a comprehensive evaluation of market conditions, regulatory certainty, and capital requirements,” but declined to be more specific.

The dispute over the dam and electricity pricing came to head in October 2015, when Alcoa and Suriname’s current minister of natural resources signed a nonbinding memorandum of understanding outlining proposed terms for Alcoa’s departure.

Alcoa agreed to clean up its mines and industrial sites to U.S. standards, to consider eventual mining of bauxite in western Suriname, and to give the dam to the country’s government at the end of 2019 — 13 years before the Brokopondo Agreement ended."

For the complete report click here: A struggling country's past and future shaped by Alcoa and its aluminum | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

EU Panel Warns Against Rise of Nationalism in Populist Surge- by Karl Herchenroeder

A European Parliament member on Tuesday warned against the surge of nationalistic and xenophobic sentiment in populist movements across the globe, citing troubling trends in the U.S. and the UK.

Pedro Silva Pereira – a Portuguese member of the European Parliament who appeared at Georgetown University – described Britain’s exit from the EU as a “marvelous illusion.”

Brexiteers leading the campaign, Pereira said, convinced the majority of voters that in order to block unwanted migration of refugees, terrorists and the democratic failings of the EU, Britain should turn inward, restoring power to Parliament. He said similar pleas were made by President Trump during his 2016 campaign, when he pushed for border control and immigration reform.

“We have to fight (in the United States), where the battle is based on the issue of values and political ideas,” Pereira said. “Let’s bear in mind that history tells us that we should take nationalism seriously.”

Recent developments show how volatile the situation remains with the refugee crisis in Europe, where politicians continue pushing populist agendas. British Prime Minister Theresa May announced Tuesday that the country will hold a general election on June 8, three years ahead of schedule. British general elections determine who will serve in Parliament, and June 8 will offer a good reading of the political temperature in the UK following Brexit.

Meanwhile, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, fresh off his contested victory in a controversial referendum that boosted his powers, plans to restore the death penalty in Turkey and has demanded that Europe allow visa-free travel for Turks across the region.

According to Eurobarometer, EU’s official public opinion poll, immigration and terrorism top the list of concerns for citizens across the continent. Tuesday’s panel agreed that populists have also seized on fears over continued downward mobility brought on by wage freezes, economic stagnation and high unemployment.

“The incapacity to implement bold and necessary reforms has led, in my point of view, to a lack of confidence in the political class as a whole and to the belief that there are no efficient solutions to the problems facing our societies, and therefore there is a perception that this negative cycle might have no end,” said Pedro Reis, former president of the Portuguese Agency for the External Commerce.

Reis said that sustained cycles of unemployment and a lack of competitiveness have left the majority of European citizens with little hope that the economic situation will improve. Recent surveys, he said, show that 36 percent of European citizens trust EU institutions, compared to 57 percent in 2007.

While immigration and terrorism are chief among the EU’s concerns, France is most worried about unemployment, according to Eurobarometer. Unemployment stands at 10.5 percent in France. Maria Carrilho, former member of the Portuguese and European parliaments, said the French outlook is particularly interesting considering that the country has been repeatedly hit by terrorist attacks. 

Both Carrilho and Pereira predicted the defeat of France’s right-wing candidate Marine Le Pen in this Sunday’s presidential election. Pereira cited the losses of far-right candidates Norbert Hofer in Austria and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands as evidence, while Carrilho said Le Pen’s program for job creation is not consistent enough.

Read more: EU Panel Warns Against Rise of Nationalism in Populist

Earth Day: April 22: The G20’s Time for Climate Leadership, as Trump Adm. ready to block project - by Teresa Ribera

Global Warming Disaster:The question is not if but when

At the start of 2016, the United States was well positioned to lead the global fight against climate change. As the chair of the G20 for 2017, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had been counting on the US to help drive a deep transformation in the global economy. And even after Donald Trump won the US presidential election, Merkel gave him the benefit of the doubt, hoping against hope that the US might still play a leading role in reducing global greenhouse-gas emissions.

But at Merkel and Trump’s first in-person meeting, no substantive statements were issued, and their body language made the prospect of future dialogue appear dim. Trump’s slogan “America first” seems to mean “America alone.”

By reversing his predecessor’s policies to reduce CO2 emissions, Trump is rolling back the new model of cooperative global governance embodied in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. The countries that signed on to that accord committed themselves to sharing the risks and benefits of a global economic and technological transformation.

Trump’s climate-change policy does not bode well for US citizens – many of whom are now mobilizing resistance to his administration – or the world. But the rest of the world will still develop low-carbon, resilient systems. Private- and public-sector players across the developed and developing worlds are making the coming economic shift all but inevitable, and their agendas will not change simply because the US has a capricious new administration. China, India, the European Union, and many African and Latin American countries are still adopting clean-energy systems.

As long as this is the case, businesses, local governments, and other stakeholders will continue to pursue low-carbon strategies. To be sure, Trump’s policies might introduce new dangers and costs, domestically and worldwide; but he will not succeed in prolonging the fossil-fuel era.

Still, an effective US exit from the Paris agreement is a menacing development. The absence of such an important player from the fight against climate change could undermine new forms of multilateralism, even if it reinvigorates climate activism as global public opinion turns against the US.

More immediately, the Trump administration has introduced significant financial risks that could impede efforts to address climate change. Trump’s proposed budget would place restrictions on federal funding for clean-energy development and climate research. Likewise, his recent executive orders will minimize the financial costs of US businesses’ carbon footprint, by changing how the “social cost of carbon” is calculated. And his administration has already insisted that language about climate change be omitted from a joint statement issued by G20 finance ministers.

These are all unwise decisions that pose serious risks to the US economy, and to global stability, as United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently pointed out. The US financial system plays a leading role in the world economy, and Trump wants to take us all back to a time when investors and the general public did not account for climate-change risks when making financial decisions.

Since 2008, the regulatory approach taken by the US and the G20 has been geared toward increasing transparency and improving our understanding of possible systemic risks to the global financial system, not least those associated with climate change and fossil-fuel dependency. Developing more stringent transparency rules and better risk-assessment tools has been a top priority for the financial community itself. Implementing these new rules and tools can accelerate the overall trend in divestment from fossil fuels, ensure a smooth transition to a more resilient, clean-energy economy, and provide confidence and clarity for long-term investors.

Given the heightened financial risks associated with climate change, resisting Trump’s executive order to roll back Wall Street transparency regulations should be a top priority. The fact that Warren Buffet and the asset-management firm Black Rock have warned about the investment risks of climate change suggests that the battle is not yet lost.

Creating the G20 was a good idea. Now, it must confront its biggest challenge. It is up to Merkel and other G20 leaders to overcome US (and Saudi) resistance and stay the course on climate action. They can count as allies some of the world’s large institutional investors, who seem to agree on the need for a transitional framework of self-regulation. It is incumbent upon other world leaders to devise a coherent response to Trump, and to continue establishing a new development paradigm that is compatible across different financial systems.

At the same time, the EU – which is celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome this year – now has a chance to think about the future that it wants to build. These are difficult times, to be sure; but we can still decide what kind of world we want to live in.

Note EU-Digest: the EU needs to take its own independent and united position on this issue. Compromise should not be part of the equation. In addition, it has become extremely difficult  for any country to negotiate with the Trump Administration on just about any issue, given they change their position more often than the Kama Sutra. 

Read more: The G20’s Time for Climate Leadership by Teresa Ribera - Project Syndicate

France: Champs-Elysées terror shooting impact on the French election? Could LePen Presidency increase terrorism?

Terrorism or manipulation ?: The French Presidential Elections

France has long feared a terror attack in the run-up to the presidential election. What impact will the Champs-Elysées shooting of a policeman that was claimed by terror group Isis have on Sunday's crucial first round vote?

The news that a policeman had been shot dead on the famous Champs-Elysées avenue broke as the 11 presidential candidates were appearing live on TV in a show dubbed “15 minutes to convince” France.

The far-right Marine Le Pen had not long finished her 15-minute slot when it became clear that France had been hit by another jihadist attack against its forces of law and order. An attack quickly claimed by terror group Isis.

Authorities had long feared an Isis-inspired or organised attack in the run-up to the election, as it would represent not just a symbolic attack on democracy, but also a chance to perhaps influence the result to their liking, with a victory for Le Pen fitting in with their desire to divide France's communities.

Hence the reason the government extended the state of emergency to cover the campaign.

The immediate impact of Thursday night's attack saw Marine Le Pen, François Fillon and Emmanuel Macron announce they were suspending their campaigns. They all cancelled meetings on Friday, the last official day of campaigning.

Although events have been cancelled the candidates haven’t quite gone quiet.

Marine Le Pen, who has seen her campaign tail off in recent weeks launched an attack on previous governments.

Mrs. Le Pen, however, has several major supporters in Europe and the US, including President Putin and President Trump

Marine Le Penn went to Russia only recently and met with President Putin and has often also praised President Trump on his foreign and immigrant policies.

Yesterday, right after the attack in Paris, Mr. Trump went live on US TV and deplored not only the attack in Franc,  but also indirectly mingled in French politics, supporting Marine Le Penn by saying that the attack will have a "big impact" on the polls in France, as they relate to the Sunday Presidential elections there. 

Unfortunately, US president Donald Trump, whose own populist victory was celebrated by Marine Le Pen, used this deplorable attack in France to once again show his loyalty to fellow populist right-wing nationalist politicians in Europe - just as he had done earlier in the week, after the contested Turkish Referendum, by congratulating Turkish "strongman" Erdogan with his so-called victory.

Even though the Paris Champs-Elysées terrorist carried a note on himself  showing support  for ISIS, one can only hope that the French criminal investigators will scrupulously investigate this case to eliminate all possible doubts, as to the motives of this attack, so close to the French Presidential   elections   

EU-Digest   

The Netherlands: Ecommerce in the Netherlands was worth €20.16 billion in 2016

Last year, e-commerce in the Netherlands was worth 20.16 billion euros. This corresponds with an increase of 23 percent compared to the situation in 2015. The Dutch especially love to buy shoes and lifestyle products online, as well as IT and (near)food products.

These are the key findings from the Ecommerce Report The Netherlands 2017, published by EcommerceWiki, together with Dutch ecommerce association Thuiswinkel.org and research company GfK. The Netherlands remains an attractive online market. Despite its relative few inhabitants (17 million), the country has an internet penetration of almost 94 percent and a steadily increasing GDP per capita of 40.900 euros.

In the beginning of this year, consumer confidence has grown 14 points, which has resulted in an increase in consumer spending. Last year, the Dutch spent 20.16 billion euros online, of which 75 percent was spent on services such as travel and insurances. For 2017, a growth percentage of 20 percent is expected, which should result in the Dutch ecommerce market being worth over 24 billion euros.

Growth of ecommerce in the Netherlands
15.2 million shoppers spent on average €116 per transaction

A quarter of every euro spent online in the Netherlands, was spent on products. Media and entertainment products were bought the most in terms of transactions, followed by event tickets and fashion items. Last year, 15.2 million online shoppers spent on average 116 euros per transaction and spent a total amount of 1.242 euros online.

“However, the Ecommerce market in the Netherlands is not an easy one to enter”, Ecommerce Wiki writes. “Although Dutch are quite fluent in English, they still prefer to shop online in Dutch. Likewise, the local payment method Ideal (57 percent market share) is a must have to sell online in the Netherlands.”

There are currently over 32,000 online stores registered at the Chamber of Commerce, but the actual number of online stores in the Netherlands is estimated to be as high as 50,000 or more. Nonetheless, Dutch consumers also like to shop online across the border. Last year, a quarter of the Dutch (26 percent) bought cross-border at popular websites like Amazon and Zalando. For Dutch cross-border shoppers, China is currently the most popular country to shop abroad.

Read more: E-commerce in the Netherlands was worth €20.16 billion in 2016

Special Report: EU In Danger: Brexit’s Real Purpose: Killing the EU?- by Rupert Strachwitz

As the European Union and its members prepare for Brexit, it seems timely to reflect on who nudged the voters in the United Kingdom to vote by a slim majority in favor of exiting from the EU – and especially why they did so.

It has always been known that Rupert Murdoch has very strong negative views on Britain’s EU membership and has consistently used his media power to influence public opinion.

We now know that the campaign had other deep-pocketed backers, too. The American billionaire Robert Mercer, a close friend of Nigel Farage, provided ample funds for the Brexit campaign.

With the help of “Cambridge Analytica,” Mercer had been instrumental in providing Donald Trump (who wished to see Nigel Farage as Britain’s Ambassador to Washington) with tools to fine-tune his campaign that go well beyond traditional campaigning.

What is driving certain hedge fund, media and real estate tycoons — who all see themselves as masters of the universe — to support Brexit is pretty straightforward. They want to secure their very personal vision of unvarnished capitalism.

No big surprise then that we have witnessed the Trump administration boycotting a G-20 declaration on multilateral trade and stalling – if not marching back — on climate change. Trump has announced that there is more of the same to come.

It seems to me as if, so far at least, we have not even focused on the right lens or playing field.

Too many questions have been focused on the incongruities of the campaign inside the UK, such as why David Cameron’s government did not provide accurate and comprehensive information before the referendum.

The much more relevant set of questions concerns the wider lens of continental Europe, rather than just the group of islands off its shores:

    Could it be that the whole Brexit issue was deliberately orchestrated not so much with regard to Britain, but in order to weaken Europe in the global arena?

    If this is even remotely true, the British people should be seen as being mere pawns (or, as Russian revolutionaries might have said, useful idiots) in a power game that is way beyond their control.

Crass distortions by the Brexiteers, such as lying about certain facts (like the 350 million pounds sent to Brussels every week) would then represent the mere tip of a very much larger iceberg.

The attitude adopted by the May government — deriding the citizens of other countries, brushing aside Scottish and Irish sentiments, alienating Commonwealth countries, and attempting to dictate the timetable to the European Union – can easily be interpreted as supportive evidence.

If we look at the remaining 27 EU members post-Brexit, we can see that in the future the protectionist members of the EU will have a blocking minority.

Under the complicated EU voting regulations in the Council, the staunch advocates of free trade will no longer be able to override protectionist vetoing from France and Southern European member states.

There is as of yet no compelling evidence that Europe has become the victim of an orchestrated campaign that aims at destroying it.

But it is reasonable to assume there are vested political and economic interests around the world that would rather see Europe weakened than strengthened.

Certainly, this would explain a few things. U.S. conservatives and the billionaries that support them have long been irked by the existence of a Western “side” power.

They see the EU and the – in comparison to the United States often enlightened, if not progressive – interests it stands for as a real thorn in the side of the imperial nation.

It stands to reason that, with the help of the often clandestinely placed instruments at their disposal, they deliberately set forces in motion whose goal it is to strike a fatal blow against Europe. These forces may well have identified Brexit as an intelligent and feasible way to achieve their goal.

By stoking up existing popular sentiment, they have succeeded in nudging the British people towards actually voting for this option, while pressuring or even blackmailing the government into acting as they wish them to.

However, given the attitude adopted by the governments of all 27 remaining countries and, probably even more importantly, the steadily growing pro-European popular spirit with new civil society action groups starting up every week, this scenario now seems increasingly unlikely.

Messrs. Putin and Trump, with help from Mr. Erdogan and others, and indeed Brexit itself, seem to have brought Europeans closer to one another than they have been for a long time.

Determination to make it a success has grown rather than waned. The Dutch have been the first to show that anti-European feelings will not necessarily help win an election in a European member state. Chances that Marine Le Pen will be the next President of France are slimmer now than even a few months ago.

So, possibly, what we are seeing at the moment is a backlash. Of course, dissatisfaction with the European Union has not just gone away, although the Commission seems to be on its best behavior by cutting down on the number of rules and regulations it had got accustomed to issue.

Of course, we still need to tackle fundamental reforms. And of course, people with very different ideas are still around.

But it looks as if a growing number of citizens know very well what the real issues are and have woken up to the fact they have to do something about it.

If any of this is true and proves to be sustainable, the United Kingdom will end up a loser. Not only might the UK split up as such and might the government be landed with more problems on their hands than they can manage (with a price to be paid by the Tories in future elections).

England in the end could find herself in a position exactly opposite to the one the Brexiteers said she would, and will not be better off for it.

It may well be that some of the Brexiteers really do hope they can take England into a glorious future of its very own in a global world, once the ties with Europe have been severed. But judging from the reactions to Brexit from all potential allies anywhere around the globe, this does not seem at all likely.

Foreseeably, not one of the global players who used the British people for their very own ends, will want to come to their rescue.

At the end of the day, England, by her insistence on being on her own, might be exactly that, struggling to live up to the responsibilities that come with a permament seat on the UN Security Council, a nuclear power (albeit minor), and sovereignty over a very mixed bunch of fourteen little territories, ranging from bits of Cyprus to the Falkland Islands, all costly remainders of what was once the British Empire.

World history will move on, but Great Britain, once the largest global empire ever assembled, will have reduced itself to an historical footnote, instead of extending its potentially considerable leverage through a Europe that has managed to reinvent itself.

Can the UK still come to its senses?

Can Britain still avert this fate? I believe it can. Over the next two years, the government can still revise its policy and withdraw its application to leave.

Or parliament can choose a new government. Or indeed the people can, by voting in a new parliament. It is just possible that one of these options might still be feasible. Let us hope somebody will draw one of them. Britain would certainly be greater for it.

Special Report:: Brexit’s Real Purpose: Killing the EU?

US - Turkey Relations: Pres. Trump’s deafening silence on Turkey dictatorship: Are business interests muzzling POTUS? - by Jordan Schachtel

Birds of a feather flock together

Are President Trump’s business ties to Istanbul stopping him from reprimanding the Turkish president for his authoritarian power grab?

On Monday, Trump congratulated Turkish dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan for a referendum victory (contested as undemocratic by multiple international monitoring organizations) that boosted his unilateral authority over his country.

Further, “[T]he leaders agreed on the importance of holding Syrian President Bashar al-Assad accountable,” a readout of his call with Erdogan said. “President Trump and President Erdogan also discussed the counter-ISIS campaign and the need to cooperate against all groups that use terrorism to achieve their ends,” the statement concluded.

Over the past several months, Turkey has continued to move in the direction of becoming a full-blown Islamist tyranny.

President Erdogan, whose AKP party continues to push for an Islamist ideology that rejects Turkey’s founding as a secular country, has continued to cozy up with terror advocates like the Muslim Brotherhood and its subgroup Hamas. Some have even alleged that top officials in Ankara are responsible for financing operations by the Islamic State terror group.

Erdogan has pushed a vicious crackdown of any type of dissent. After Erdogan said that members of a rogue party attempted a military coup, the authoritarian leader has rounded up tens of thousands of military officials, journalists, academics, students, and others who he has alleged are part of a movement that is attempting to overthrow his seat of power.

But this isn’t exactly a new problem. Under Erdogan, Turkey has, year after year, become less free and more authoritarian, according to Freedom House.

So why hasn’t President Donald Trump called Turkey out for its gross violations of basic human rights? Is it simply because he wants to hold together the NATO alliance, or are there more selfish and financial motives at play?

One explanation points to his notable business interests there.

The president has licensed his name to a towering development in Istanbul. The agreement makes him an estimated $1 to 5 million per year, according to reports. Trump even admitted in 2015 that he has a “conflict of interest” when it comes to Turkey.

“I have a little conflict of interest ’because I have a major, major building in Istanbul. It’s called Trump Towers. Two towers, instead of one. Not the usual one, it’s two. And I’ve gotten to know Turkey very well,” the president said in a December 2015 radio interview describing his Istanbul property.

And on social media, Trump has repeatedly tweeted excitedly about his property there, and his love for Istanbul.

But this isn’t exactly a new problem. Under Erdogan, Turkey has, year after year, become less free and more authoritarian, according to Freedom House. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/pres-trumps-deafening-silence-on-turkey-dictatorship-are-business-interests-muzzling-potus#sthash.IP3H104r.dpuf

But this isn’t exactly a new problem. Under Erdogan, Turkey has, year after year, become less free and more authoritarian, according to Freedom House. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/pres-trumps-deafening-silence-on-turkey-dictatorship-are-business-interests-muzzling-potus#sthash.IP3H104r.dpuf

But this isn’t exactly a new problem. Under Erdogan, Turkey has, year after year, become less free and more authoritarian, according to Freedom House. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/pres-trumps-deafening-silence-on-turkey-dictatorship-are-business-interests-muzzling-potus#sthash.IP3H104r.dpuf

Read more: Pres. Trump’s deafening silence on Turkey dictatorship: Are business interests muzzling POTUS?

Turkey: Trump Congratulates Erdogan on the disputed Referendum Vote

President Trump called to congratulate Turkish President ­Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Monday after a referendum greatly expanding his powers, despite a more circumspect State Department response to Sunday’s vote, which international election observers declared unfair.

According to accounts by both Trump and Erdogan, the two also discussed the U.S. missile strike on a Syrian air base in response to the April 4 chemical weapons attack on civilians in Idlib province. Trump thanked Erdogan for Turkey’s support of the retaliatory action.

The "leaders" agreed that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should be held accountable for the chemical attack that killed at least 70 people, and they talked about the ongoing campaign to counter the Islamic State.

Trump’s comments differed in tone from those of the State Department, which urged Turkey to respect the basic rights of its citizens and noted the election irregularities witnessed by monitors with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The United States is a member of the OSCE.

Note EU-Digest: Even though the OSCE/ODIHR, observers who were in Turkey offered a harsh analysis on the way the Turkish referendum was conducted and noted "The legal framework for the referendum neither sufficiently provided for impartial coverage nor guarantees eligible political parties equal access to public media." President Trump for some bizarre reason went ahead and congratulated Erdogan. What makes this even more bizarre is that this was not about Erdogan winning an election, but that it was about a contested referendum. 

Very poor judgement on the part of President Trump to support a disputed vote in a foreign country and thereby indirectly supporting a very tainted political leader of that country  .

 EU-Digest

Turkey votes to expand president’s powers wih minimal margin; critics cry fraud - by E. Becatoros, S. Fraser and Z.Bilginsoy

Turkey Referendum :Erdogan 's intimidation worked  barely

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan won a historic referendum Sunday that will greatly expand the powers of his office, although opposition parties questioned the outcome and said they would challenge the results.

With 99 percent of the ballots counted, the “yes” vote stood at 51.37 percent, while the “no” vote was 48.63 percent, according to the state-run Anadolu Agency. The head of Turkey’s electoral board confirmed the “yes” victory and said final results will be declared in 11-12 days.

Although the margin fell short of the sweeping victory Erdogan had sought in the landmark referendum, it could nevertheless cement his hold on power in Turkey and is expected to have a huge effect on the country’s long-term political future and its international relations.

The 18 constitutional amendments that will come into effect after the next election, scheduled for 2019, will abolish the office of the prime minister and hand sweeping executive powers to the president.

In his first remarks from Istanbul, Erdogan struck a conciliatory tone, thanking all voters no matter how they cast their ballots and calling the referendum a “historic decision.”

“April 16 is the victory of all who said ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ of the whole 80 million, of the whole of Turkey,” Erdogan told reporters in address that was televised live.

But he quickly reverted to a more abrasive style when addressing thousands of flag-waving supporters in Istanbul

“There are those who are belittling the result. They shouldn’t try, it will be in vain,” he said. “It’s too late now.”

Responding to chants from the crowd to reinstate the death penalty, Erdogan said he would take up the issue with the country’s political leaders, adding that the question could be put to another referendum if the political leaders could not agree.

Note EU-Digest: Given the result of the referendum and charges of intimidation, in addition to the possibility of electoral fraud, President Erdogan, in all reality, can not really claim he got a sweeping mandate to change the Turkish Constitution in this referendum

The fears of electoral fraud and government meddling is now more relevant than ever, fueled by the extraordinary powers the government wields under the state of emergency. 

The badly crippled Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), the main Kurdish political force, which has been trying to soldier on with its “no” campaign against its main rival, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has also voiced their concerns.

HDP members say they have been facing the “unchecked power” of the government, reflected not only in obstructions to their campaigns, but also in moves to keep party activists away from polling stations today, March 16.

Read more: Turkey votes to expand president’s powers; critics cry fraud - The Washington Post

Turkey-EU ties: a bargaining chip on eve of referendum

Turkey’s president Tayyip Erdogan has ramped up his anti-EU rhetoric on the eve of a referendum which would hand him sweeping powers.

Erdogan said he would review Ankara’s relationship with Brussels, as he seeks to shore up support for the constitutional changes needed to transfer more power away from parliament to the president.

Turkey’s president Tayyip Erdogan has ramped up his anti-EU rhetoric on the eve of a referendum which would hand him sweeping powers.

Erdogan said he would review Ankara’s relationship with Brussels, as he seeks to shore up support for the constitutional changes needed to transfer more power away from parliament to the president.

“The EU has lost all credibility. We don’t defend democracy, human rights and freedoms because they want us to, we do that because our citizens deserve it. As we get closer to democracy, they are moving away from it,” Erdogan told supporters at a rally in Istanbul.

He continued saying that the EU feared the new system because Turkey would be ‘even stronger’. In his speech he said that the EU had left Turkey waiting 54 years for membership, and that the vote on Sunday would be a turning point.

Over the course of the campaign Erdogan’s speeches have shown a clear shift in ties with Brussels, becoming far more critical of the 27-member bloc. When ministers attempted to campaign in EU countries, there was a clampdown on rallies and Erdogan responded by calling leaders ‘fascists’ and ‘Nazis’.

Also in Istanbul, the ‘No’ campaign formed a symbolic human chain on the European side of the Bosphorous strait which divides Asia and Europe.

They fear the constitutional changes would see Turkey lurch towards authoritarianism. The new system could allow Erdogan to run for two more terms, potentially stretching his rule to 2029.

“I have two children. I’m here for my children and for a Turkey where the values I was born with remain, where my children can continue to think freely and where journalists and teachers are not put behind bars,” said one ‘No’ supporter.

The vote comes at a time of turmoil, with the country reeling from a series of bombings by ISIL and Kurdish militants, a failed coup and subsequent purge as well as a deep economic slowdown, something which the president says requires a stronger leadership to bring under control.

Turkey-EU ties: a bargaining chip on eve of referendum | Euronews

France Presidential Elections: Mélenchon: Far-leftist surges in French polls, shocking frontrunners

With ten days to go before April 23’s first round vote, the colourful, cultured and cantankerous far-leftist has the front-runners on the defensive.

Suddenly, the grumpy far-leftist -- a showman in a Chairman Mao jacket who openly admired late Venezuelan populist leader Hugo Chavez -- holds the mantle of France’s most popular politician.

In the course of a whirlwind month, the 65-year-old Mélenchon surged nine spots to number one in weekly glossy Paris Match’s opinion poll. A full 68 percent of those surveyed hold “favourable opinions” of the far-left candidate, the poll by the Ifop-Fiducial firm showed.

On some polls, Mélenchon has now bypassed embattled conservative François Fillon for third place in a presidential race that will see the top two advance to the May 7 run-off.

Read more: Mélenchon: Far-leftist surges in French polls, shocking the frontrunners - France 24

USA: More than 1,000 Economists Agree: This Trump Policy Will Be a Disaster - by Bess Levin

Making America Great again?

President Donald Trump has big, terrific plans to make America great again, just as soon as he finishes watching multiple hours of Fox News ever day and finding out the secret ingredient in Mar-a-Lago’s “beautiful” chocolate cake. One way he plans to restore greatness to America, a country founded by immigrants, is to kick out as many undocumented people as is logistically possible.

The decision by the Trump administration in February to set the stage for a massive immigration crackdown—expanding the powers of federal agents, calling for local law enforcement to get involved in the effort, and widening the definition of “removable alien”—has already taken an incredible human toll. Sara Beltran Hernandez, a mother of two who was reportedly the victim of domestic abuse in El Salvador, was removed from a Texas hospital bed—where Beltran Hernandez says she was being treated for a brain tumor—and taken to the Prairieland Detention Center (she was later released and is being allowed to live with family in New York while her asylum claim is processed). Last week, Roberto Beristain, a restaurant owner living in Indiana for 20 years who received permission from the Obama administration in 2012 to stay in the country as long as he periodically checked in with immigration officials, was deported to Mexico. The pages of countless newspapers across the country are filled with similar stories.

But the president’s anti-immigration policies also present a major risk to several U.S. economic sectors that rely on immigrant labor, a fact that Trump—as a businessman who routinely hires seasonal immigrant laborers at his hotels and golf courses and winery, and employed undocumented workers to build Trump Tower—ought to understand better than anybody. Nevertheless, 1,470 economists have decided to give the president a refresher on the importance of immigration in the form of a very public letter. Per CNN Money:

    In a letter to President Trump and top Congressional leaders Wednesday, nearly 1,500 economists extolled the economic benefits immigrants bring to the U.S. and urged Congress to "modernize" the country's immigration system.

    “[I]mmigration is one of America's significant competitive advantages in the global economy,” the letter said. “With the proper and necessary safeguards in place, immigration represents an opportunity rather than a threat to our economy and to American workers.”

Among the economic benefits that immigration brings are entrepreneurs who start businesses, young workers who replace retiring Baby Boomers and people with diverse skill sets to keep American companies competitive and innovative in high-growth fields like STEM, the letter stated. The letter was signed by economists from across the political spectrum, including Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served under President George H.W. Bush, and Austan Goolsbee, the former chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. The group also included six Nobel laureates. “Immigration is not just a good thing,“ said Eakin, who is now president of the right leaning American Action Forum think tank. “It’s a necessity.” Last month, a survey of 285 economists at America's major corporations by the National Association of Business Economics (NABE) found that a clear majority believed President Trump's restrictive stance on immigration is a mistake. These economists favored more “relaxed immigration policies” that they said would help boost the economy and noted that fixing the H-1B visa program should be the priority over deporting illegal immigrants.

Read more: More than 1,000 Economists Agree: This Trump Policy Will Be a Disaster | Vanity Fair

Turkish Referendum - "Erdogan's Turkey" - by Mark Lowen EU-Digest

Referendum: Is Turkey moving
towards a legalized dictatorship 

A BBC special report on Turkey notes:  "Some guests were awoken by the gunshots, others by the buzzing of three Black Hawk helicopters"

It was the early hours of 16 July 2016. Around two-dozen Turkish commandos dropped into the grounds of the luxury Club Turban hotel in the coastal resort of Marmaris, armed with automatic rifles and grenades.

They were hunting one man - Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The president had been holidaying at a private villa linked to the hotel. Commandos had been sent to capture the president. It should have been the climax of their coup d'etat. Opening fire and hurling grenades, they stormed the hotel, killing two bodyguards. But they were too late.

 Acting on a tip-off, Erdogan had been whisked away from the resort by helicopter. Once at Dalaman Airport, he took a private jet to Istanbul, with his pilot masking its identity so it appeared on radars as a normal civilian passenger plane.

After 03:00, the president emerged outside Istanbul's Ataturk Airport to the roars of his supporters.

The coup attempt had failed - and Recep Tayyip Erdogan was to emerge stronger than ever.

Erdogan went from almost losing control of his country to becoming untouchable.

But for Turkey's most powerful leader since its founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, it wasn't enough. After 11 years as prime minister, Erdogan had been elected president in 2014.

The post was traditionally largely ceremonial but Erdogan had other ideas.

The dominant figure in Turkish politics had long dreamed of enshrining his authority through constitutional change, turning Turkey from a parliamentary to a presidential republic, scrapping the post of prime minister and consolidating his hold on the country.

This previously stable corner of the region has become consumed by terror attacks - once-rapid economic growth has stalled.

Dozens of journalists are in jail. Three million, mostly Syrian, refugees have poured into the country.

Tens of thousands of people have been arrested or dismissed following the failed coup. The country's hope of EU membership is evaporating. And Turkey is arguably more politically polarized than ever.

But at the same time, Turkey has gone from a financial basket-case at the turn of the century into one of the world's top 20 economies.

The middle-class has hugely expanded. Millions of impoverished Turks have been economically emboldened under Erdogan's leadership.

And now, on April 16 the country will vote on its future in a referendum  which: proposes:

*Prime minster role scrapped, new vice president role created
*President becomes head of government as well as state, and can retain political party ties
*President given sweeping powers, with ability to enact laws by decree and dismiss parliament
*Parliament no longer able to scrutinise ministers
*Parliament given limited powers to investigate or impeach president

Basically if this referendum passes on the terms as listed above it will turn Turkey into a democratically legalized dictatorship.

Insure-Digest - Digest Publications

U.S. Email Surveillance Bothers EU Privacy Chiefs - by Daniel R. Stoller

This might be best way to stop big brother US read EU e-mails

Bloomberg reports that European Union privacy regulators intend to question U.S. national intelligence officials about the extent to which the government orders online communications companies to cooperate in surveillance, they said April 10.

The EU Article 29 Working Party of data protection officials from the 28 EU countries isn’t convinced that U.S. surveillance activities don’t harm EU citizens’ privacy interests, they said.

The group will send a letter to U.S. Director National of Intelligence (DNI) Dan Coates “asking for additional information regarding the legal basis and justification for any surveillance activities concerning EU data subjects.”

The move comes after the EU privacy regulators in October 2016 said they were concerned about the alleged scanning of Yahoo! Inc. customers’ incoming emails at the request of U.S. intelligence agencies.

Note Insure-Digest: If this surveillance bothers you drop GMail, Hotmail, Yahoo etc., and get European based Protonmail at https://protonmail.com or Eclipso mail at https://www.eclipso.euwhich are more secure

EU-Digest