NOBEL PEACE PRIZE ACCEPTANCE SPEECH OF PRESIDENT TRUMP

Translated by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post

OSLO, DEC. 10, 2018

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee:

I have received a lot of honors — like, a lot. I was on the cover of Time more than anybody else. I went to the best schools. I was elected president on my first try. It was the biggest electoral college landslide since Reagan. But people tell me this is a big honor — the biggest, maybe. And I think this is very good for you, because your ratings are going through the roof right now. This crowd is much bigger than Obama’s was.

People don’t know this, but some other top guys like Nelson Mandela have won this award before. He’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, even though South Africa is a crime-ridden mess that is just waiting to explode — not a good situation for the people! Anyway, with me, you’re breaking all the records. You’re welcome.

I love Norwegians! I want more immigrants from Norway and others who have the same merit-based complexion that Norwegians have. Why are we having all these people from shithole countries? Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out. They all have AIDS.

I thought I was going get this peace prize when I told your prime minister in January that I was sending Norway some F-52 fighter jets. People laughed and said the F-52 only exists in the video game “Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare.” But they aren’t laughing anymore, because we also sent Norway barrels full of Xbox Ones.
You’re going to need those F-52s because there are a lot of bad hombres in Europe. You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? They’re having problems like they never thought possible. Germany is a total mess. Brussels is a hellhole (although, I admit, Belgium is a beautiful city). Have you seen the videos of destructive radical Islamic terrorism in Britain? Paris is no longer Paris.

The haters and the liars say I don’t deserve this award. They make up fake news about how I invented the country of Nambia, shoved the prime minister of Montenegro, thought the prime minister of Singapore was from Indonesia, mistook New Zealand’s prime minister for Justin Trudeau’s wife, called Israel’s Holocaust memorial “so amazing,” admired Brigitte Macron’s body, rewrote the history of Napoleon’s Russia invasion, substituted a porn actress’s name for the British prime minister’s, mixed up the names for China and Taiwan, and had missile talks while guests at Mar-a-Lago listened.

Wrong!

I was, like, really smart, when I made peace with Rocket Man. By calling him short and fat and saying I would totally destroy him with fire and fury from my big and powerful nuclear button, I got him to negotiate. He still hasn’t given up his nuclear weapons, but he has agreed to stop calling me a dotard. In exchange I have agreed not to attack him, and I have given California to North Korea.

I am bringing peace to the rest of the world, too — peace from terrible, horrible and disgusting deals like the Paris accord and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The world’s shipping lanes are now more peaceful and quiet. Trade wars are good, and easy to win! I might give people peace from other stupid deals: the insane Iran nuclear deal, the terrible Cuba exchange deal, the worst ever Australia refugee deal, bad-joke NAFTA and obsolete NATO. We have also made air travel more peaceful by making sure people fromSyria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen don’t visit America.

On my way to the Nobel Prize, I knocked the hell out of the Islamic State, sent nice, new, smart missiles into Syria and dropped the Mother of All Bombs on Afghanistan. But those are only a tiny, tiny fraction of the countries I could have bombed.

I did not bomb Mexico even though they’re murderers and rapists. I did not bomb Canada, even though they are disgraceful about trade. I didn’t bomb Pakistan, even though they have given us nothing but lies and deceit. I didn’t bomb China, even though they are raping our country. And I have strongly supported the leaders of Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines and Russia, as they promote peace by silencing noisy dissidents.

Your Majesties and Highnesses, people who worked for me once said “do not congratulate!” — but I fired most of them. So come on, get up and applaud. You are so lucky that I gave you that privilege.

Text of the TPP

Now that the full text of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been released, the furor over it has increased. It looks as though it's worse than what had been revealed earlier. It gives the corporation the power to sue governments almost at will. For example, if a province puts a moratorium on fracking, corporations can sue; if a community tries to stop a coal mine, corporations can overrule them. It looks  like our food safety rules on labeling, pesticides, or additives are in jeopardy.

Further, from Chris Hedges:

The TPP removes legislative authority from Congress and the White House on a range of issues. Judicial power is often surrendered to three-person trade tribunals in which only corporations are permitted to sue. Workers, environmental and advocacy groups and labor unions are blocked from seeking redress in the proposed tribunals. The rights of corporations become sacrosanct. The rights of citizens are abolished.

A quote from Ralph Nader, “It allows corporations to bypass our three branches of government to impose enforceable sanctions by secret tribunals. These tribunals can declare our labor, consumer and environmental protections [to be] unlawful, non-tariff barriers subject to fines for noncompliance. The TPP establishes a transnational, autocratic system of enforceable governance in defiance of our domestic laws.”

It's a huge document, 5,544 pages to be agreed upon by 12 countries comprising nearly 40 percent of global output.

Four Pinocchios

That's what Glenn Kessler awards to the Obama administration claim that the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] will add 650,000 jobs and provide $77 billion a year in real income to our economy. Kessler writes a fact checking column for the Washington Post and 4 Pinocchios is the worst score possible. While the numbers sound big, they represent only 0.4% increases in jobs and revenues.

Will any of our Senators act on this information?

The TPP and ISDS

The people behind the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) don't like to use the courts to settle disputes; the courts have appeals procedures and build up case law via precedent. They would rather use ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms), which allow companies to take governments to arbitration, where neither precedent nor appeals exist.

You should also know that the TPP would be incorporated as a U.S. law rather than as a treaty. As a law, it only needs a majority in both Houses of Congress. If it were to be offered for approval as a treaty, it would need a 2/3 majority in the Senate, with no House vote.

Yves Smith on TPP

If you read Smith's article - and you really should, you have to wonder how the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)has gotten so far. For example, minor point: this 'trade' deal has only five of its 29 chapters dealing with tariffs.

Most of the pact is focused on strengthening intellectual property laws to help US software and entertainment companies, along with Big Pharma, increase their hefty profits, and to aid multinationals by permitting the greatly increased use of secret, conflict-ridden arbitration panels that allow foreign investors to sue governments over laws that they contend reduced potential future profits. 

Unbelievably, the TPP gives privileges to foreign companies that are not available to domestic companies. A quote from Elizabeth Warren's Washington Post op-ed: The TPP 

"would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with TPP, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages."

Uruguay may be doing the right thing

A few days ago I told you that I was impressed by Jose Mujica, the president of Uruguay. Now I've learned a little more about the country and am even more impressed.

It is South America's second smallest country yet has seen annual economic growth of 5.6% since 2004. Its per capita environmental footprint is low. The Happy Planet Index gives a high rating to the country. 

You'd have to say it's fairly liberal. It was the first nation to legalize marijuana.  It has also legalized gay marriage and prostitution. Naturally, it provides universal health care. And it has challenged the legitimacy of the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) and TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) trade agreements.

It is a welcoming nation. I spoke of its accepting Syrian refugees. Now it has also accepted the first six US prisoners resettled to South America from Guantánamo. 

Harbinger of TPP?

I've written about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) a few times. It is a proposed treaty favored by Obama. In my opinion - and that of many others - it is not good for this country. The example of Pacific Rim's attempt to mine in El Salvador is, I think, indicative of what will happen under TPP, except that there will be more legal arguments for Pacific Rim should TPP pass.

Pacific Rim seeks to mine gold in El Salvador and obtained license for preliminary mining explorations. However, after the license was granted, it came to light that full fledged mining will cause cyanide to enter the watershed of the Rio Lempa, which provides water to half the population of El Salvador. Thus, the government did not approve Pacific Rim's environmental impact assessment. In fact, three successive presidents have said no.

Pacific Rim has sued El Salvador before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, part of the World Bank Group in Washington. The company is asking for over $300 million or the right to mine. Current laws allow such a suit if they contend that government actions threaten their future profits. This case will be heard by arbitrators, not a judge. Legal precedents need not be followed. And everything will be private.

Some problems with Obama

The editors at Alternet have some strong opinions as to Obama's policies. These are the ones they feel strongest about. I can't say I agree with all of them, but I think #1, which refers to his management abilities or lack of them, is probably the fundamental problem I have with him.

1. Obama's caver-in-chief leadership style

2. Obama's deportation of nearly 2 million undocumented immigrants

3. Obama's coziness with, and failure to regulate or punish, the big banks

4. Obama's education "reformers" are corporate privatizer

5. Obama's call to ramp-up and embrace of our now pervasive surveillance state

6. Obama's dedication to secrecy and his hypocrisy about drones

7. Obama's attempt to ram through the corporation-loving, people-harming Trans-Pacific Partnership in secret

8. Obama's failure to do much about the racist drug war and discriminatory sentencing

9. Obama's counter productive energy policy

10. Obama's huge expansion of the number of countries where we are fighting secret wars with Special Ops

Some more problems with TPP

From Examiner.com:

Among the 29 chapters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, only 5 relate to traditional trade policy. The bulk of the agreement is geared toward giving the multinational corporations currently negotiating the deal the power to overwrite a sovereign nation’s environmental, labor, intellectual property rights, and other local laws so they can maximize their profits.

The TPP “Investor-State” provisions would allow corporations to sue member countries for possible “loss of profits”, not actual losses. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has a similar provision that has already cost US taxpayers $3 billion, with another $14 billion in pending claims.

Say "no" to the TPP

Bob Burnett, who has a strong technical background, summarizes some of the problems with the Trans Pacific Partnership:

1. U.S. trade negotiators want TPP to get special, "fast-track" treatment from Congress.
2. TPP doesn't include China.
3. Free-trade agreements, such as TPP, haven't protected U.S. jobs.

4. If TPP were to be approved, most of the benefit would go to corporations and the rich.

5. There are a wide variety of serious issues that need to be discussed by Congress and the American public.

Maybe the TPP won't be fast- tracked

Obama has wanted to fast-track TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), which means that lawmakers would be limited to a simple up-or-down vote on the completed deal, shortening floor debate and prohibiting amendments. Some Congressmen are saying "no".  Last week 23 Republican and 151 Democratic Congressmen wrote to Obama in opposition to fast-tracking the issue.  Who knows whether they will succeed, but at least some of our leaders are finally saying something about TPP.

Wikileaks reveals a section of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty

Here are some summary comments about the leaked section:

Bill Black 
Obama has caused the TPP to violate every standard he has endorsed as president, including secret lobbying.  There is no limit on the political contributions that corporations can make to influence TPP policy or disclosure of their lobbying positions.  The TPP is bankrolled” by the world’s most powerful corporate interests.  TPP policies are not made by the American people, but they are also not made by our elected representatives in Congress. Obama’s “fast track” process for adopting TPP is designed to eliminate normal congressional powers.  Obama knows TPP is indefensible and that Americans would vote against it.  He is desperate to avoid any open, democratic debate between the people of America and the corporations, most of them foreign, that TPP seeks to make our unelected, all-powerful rulers.  

Dean Baker  
Specifically, there are several provisions that will increase protectionism in the prescription drug market, pushing up prices in the countries that sign the agreement. There are also provisions that would strengthen copyright protection, increasing the responsibility of third parties to assist copyright holders in enforcing their copyrights.

The TPP also provides for stronger and longer protection for test data used to establish a drug’s safety and effectiveness. If this gets into law, patients in many countries will likely have to wait longer before having access to generic versions of drugs. The US proposed language for the TPP that would require countries to issue patents for medical procedures. This means that a surgeon who has developed a creative way to carry through a particular operation – or was at least able to get a patent issued — would be able to sue other doctors for doing similar operations.

Publicizing TPP

Gee, someone is trying to publicize the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). This sign was put up on the building housing the U.S. Trade Representative, whose major mission seems to be getting the TPP approved, but not necessarily informing the nation just how bad this partnership can be.  Over the past year or so I've written a few posts about the TPP.  Here are some excerpts.

• Mr. Bloomberg feels that, at least as regards tobacco the "deal that sells out our national commitment to public health, and forfeits our sovereign authority over our tobacco laws, does not merit the support of Mr. Obama; of the Senate, which would have to ratify it; or of the American people."
• In the words of United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk the TPP  “will create binding policies on future Congresses in numerous areas,” including “those related to labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, professional licensing, state-owned enterprises and government procurement policies, as well as financial, healthcare, energy, telecommunications and other service sector regulations.”  
• I recently found out that the treaty could also make us sick in that food, such as seafood, will also be subject to the rules of the treaty.  As such, we will have to abide by the lowest standards of all participating countries.  If we don't, we can be sued for the loss of anticipated future profits.
• Foreign corporations operating in the United States would no longer be subject to our laws regarding protections for the environment, finance or labor rights.  If we try to make the companies comply, they can appeal to an international tribunal made up of lawyers specializing in corporate law.  
• While it has been billed as a trade agreement, only two of its 26 chapters actually have anything to do with trade. 

Bloomberg opposes tobacco section of TPP

Mayor Bloomberg has done a lot to curb the use of tobacco around the world. So, he is quite upset about the Obama Administration agreeing to eliminate the safe harbor provision relative to tobacco that has been part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement.  The safe harbor provision would have prevented the tobacco industry from interfering with governments’ sovereign right to protect public health through tobacco control laws. Mr. Bloomberg feels that, at least as regards tobacco the "deal that sells out our national commitment to public health, and forfeits our sovereign authority over our tobacco laws, does not merit the support of Mr. Obama; of the Senate, which would have to ratify it; or of the American people."

Why Mr. Bloomberg is not as concerned about other provisions of the TPP escapes me.  Perhaps, it's because he - like members of Congress and we citizens - doesn't know very much about the other provisions, as the treaty and the negotiations surrounding it have been kept secret by Obama and company.   

In the words of United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk the TPP  “will create binding policies on future Congresses in numerous areas,” including “those related to labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, professional licensing, state-owned enterprises and government procurement policies, as well as financial, healthcare, energy, telecommunications and other service sector regulations.”  

Why won't Obama reveal the details of this treaty?

Lowering food standards

I've written a number of times about the dangers inherent in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  I recently found out that the treaty could also make us sick in that food, such as seafood, will also be subject to the rules of the treaty.  As such, we will have to abide by the lowest standards of all participating countries.  If we don't, we can be sued for the loss of anticipated future profits.

I won't repeat my other concerns about TPP.

TPP finally made The Times

I should say that for the first time a negative article about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has appeared in a major publication, as far as I can tell.  The TPP is a major agreement that in the words of United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk “will create binding policies on future Congresses in numerous areas,” including “those related to labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, professional licensing, state-owned enterprises and government procurement policies, as well as financial, healthcare, energy, telecommunications and other service sector regulations.”  Yet, the Obama administration has been keeping it secret.  

It has yet to allow Congress to attend negotiations as observers, which is common with such an agreement, or to see the text of the draft agreement. The Administration wants the agreement to be given fast-track treatment on Capitol Hill. Under this extraordinary and rarely used procedure, Obama could sign the agreement before Congress voted on it. And Congress’s post-facto vote would be under rules limiting debate, banning all amendments and forcing a quick vote. 

And Obama continues to talk about transparency.  Why hasn't the major media given this any real attention?

Still a big secret

You wouldn't think that the government could keep the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) so secret.  Have you ever seen it mentioned in the main stream media?  I haven't.  It's only in sites like Truthout that you see it discussed.  Yet, if the reports are true - and I don't have much reason to think most of them are not - the impact of TPP on our country will be quite significant.  

While it has been billed as a trade agreement, only two of its 26 chapters actually have anything to do with trade.  A letter from Congress to United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk stated, the TPP “will create binding policies on future Congresses in numerous areas,” including “those related to labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, professional licensing, state-owned enterprises and government procurement policies, as well as financial, healthcare, energy, telecommunications and other service sector regulations.”

Foreign corporations operating in the United States would no longer be subject to our laws regarding protections for the environment, finance or labor rights.  If we try to make the companies comply, they can appeal to an international tribunal made up of lawyers specializing in corporate law.  Do you suppose these lawyers would be prejudiced in any way?

Why so secret?

Once a month or so I see a story about the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  Each of the articles points out the secrecy of the talks by the participants; not even Congress is involved, although corporations and trade associations are.  Each is down on the trade treaty for several reasons: consumer safety, environmental practices, intellectual property protection, financial industry deregulation, egregious patent extensions, etc.  Now the articles are about loss of jobs.  Yet, the day when this treaty will be signed draws closer.  I wonder why Romney has not mentioned it as it is another example of poor judgment by the Obama administration.

Why the secrets?

In June I wrote about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and passed along a severe criticism of the pact by Leo Hindery.  Another smart guy, Dean Baker, has picked up the hammer and inveighed against the pact. 

One wrinkle he adds to the debate is the secrecy relative to the negotiations about the pact.  For some reason - probably to protect large corporations - these negotiations are considered virtually top secret.  Not even congressional committees involved in the issues being negotiated are in the loop.  However, the in guys at some major corporations know what is being discussed.

What has slipped out does not sound good.  The implications are that these negotiations will really benefit the entertainment and pharmaceutical industries.  Plus, the idea of our being a sovereign nation will likely be diminished as the rules TPP creates would override domestic laws on the environment, workplace safety, and investment.

Why has there been zero mention of this in the campaigns?

Trans-Pacific Partnership

Very little has been written about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is an attempt to create a trade agreement between the U.S. and Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, all of which are considered Pacific Rim nations. Canada will soon be joining.

However, it does not appear to be an agreement that we should be pushing.  Leo Hindery may have the most salient reasons why.

1.  It pays short shrift to the issues consumer safety and environmental practices and to the concerns of organized labor.
2. It breezes through intellectual property protection, regulatory coherence, and antitrust enforcement, especially of state-owned enterprises (SOEs).
3. It allows for even more extreme financial industry deregulation while allowing for equally extreme foreign investor protections that in the past have helped American multinational corporations offshore American jobs. A proper trade agreement -- multilateral or bilateral -- should limit the massive investment incentives that many nations (although not the U.S., of course!) now use to draw jobs to their shores and thus have cost America millions of manufacturing jobs in just the last decade. These indirect export subsidies are nothing more than a highly effective way to circumvent WTO's prohibition of direct export subsidies.
4. It bans "Buy American", which would give all companies operating in any signatory country equal access to U.S. government procurement contracts (even though none of these other government's procurement comes even close to matching ours in amount).
5. It gives America's "Big Pharma" companies patent extensions while at the same time limits our ability to cut costs through 'drug formularies', even though such formularies are now deeply embedded in our Medicare, Medicaid and VA programs. The only possible result is much higher drug prices for American consumers.
6. It allows TPP's signatory nations to export the products of their highly subsidized State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), contrary to the objections of every small and medium sized American manufacturer, all of our non-service labor unions, and every right-minded trade economist in America. Nor are there likely to be appropriate limits on major foreign SOEs investing directly in the United States.