Brazil, BRICS, Oil, Military, World Trade Organization, and Trump

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Lots of ground covered in this article.  As I tend to agree more than disagree with this author's views in general (this is one of the news sites I tend to browse) I do disagree with a few of the points here.  But I generally agree with the overall gist of this article.   Here's an excerpt just of the end of it, more in the link:

Bolsonaro Open To “U.S. Strategic Alliance” Military Base in Brazil…

Back to the BRICS…  What we now see is two central regional components of the BRICS alliance, India and now Brazil, allied in economic ideology with President Trump.

In essence: Russia is bleeding financially (oil revenue dependent). China is being weakened during the U.S. -vs- China trade confrontation.  And India along with Brazil are joining with the U.S.  This fractures the BRICS alliance. [Hell, it just about destroys it.]

That’s the background.

Now, lets take a look at the article from Brazil we cited in the beginning:

France24 – Brazil’s new President Jair Bolsonaro said on Thursday that he would be open to the possibility of the United States operating a military base on his country’s soil, a move that would form a sharp shift in direction for Brazilian foreign policy.

Bolsonaro, who took power on Tuesday, said that Russia’s support of President Nicolas Maduro‘s “dictatorship” in neighboring Venezuela had significantly ramped up tensions in the region and was a worrying development.

Asked by the SBT TV network in an interview taped on Thursday if that meant he would allow U.S. military presence in Brazil, Bolsonaro responded that he would certainly be willing to negotiate that possibility.

“Depending on what happens in the world, who knows if we would not need to discuss that question in the future,” Bolsonaro said.  He emphasized that what Brazil seeks is to have “supremacy here in South America.”

But wait, here’s the even bigger part of the story:

[…] Separately, Bolsonaro met with the head of the World Trade Organization, Roberto Azevedo, who said the government’s sharp rebukes of globalism were shared by many other countries and that the trade body was making changes.

On Wednesday, Brazil’s new Foreign Minister Ernesto Araujo said that under his watch the country would fight for change at multilateral institutions like the WTO.

Araujo’s words were not a threat, Azevedo said.

“To the contrary, I think it was very propitious and compatible with what is happening,” he said after meeting Bolsonaro. “The World Trade Organization itself is beginning the process of reforms.”  (link)

Hello?

Wait.., wha?…

Mr. Robert Azevedo, the head of the World Trade Organization, is now acquiescing to President Donald J Trump’s position that the era of multilateral, multinational, financial and corporate trade exploitation, ie. “globalism“, is over.

The WTO has agreed to reform in order to survive? …And the WTO is admitting this to nationalist political leaders after their successful elections?….

Pinch me!

 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Lots of ground covered in this article.  As I tend to agree more than disagree with this author's views in general (this is one of the news sites I tend to browse) I do disagree with a few of the points here.  But I generally agree with the overall gist of this article.   Here's an excerpt just of the end of it, more in the link:

Bolsonaro Open To “U.S. Strategic Alliance” Military Base in Brazil…

Back to the BRICS…  What we now see is two central regional components of the BRICS alliance, India and now Brazil, allied in economic ideology with President Trump.

In essence: Russia is bleeding financially (oil revenue dependent). China is being weakened during the U.S. -vs- China trade confrontation.  And India along with Brazil are joining with the U.S.  This fractures the BRICS alliance. [Hell, it just about destroys it.]

That’s the background.

Now, lets take a look at the article from Brazil we cited in the beginning:

France24 – Brazil’s new President Jair Bolsonaro said on Thursday that he would be open to the possibility of the United States operating a military base on his country’s soil, a move that would form a sharp shift in direction for Brazilian foreign policy.

Bolsonaro, who took power on Tuesday, said that Russia’s support of President Nicolas Maduro‘s “dictatorship” in neighboring Venezuela had significantly ramped up tensions in the region and was a worrying development.

Asked by the SBT TV network in an interview taped on Thursday if that meant he would allow U.S. military presence in Brazil, Bolsonaro responded that he would certainly be willing to negotiate that possibility.

“Depending on what happens in the world, who knows if we would not need to discuss that question in the future,” Bolsonaro said.  He emphasized that what Brazil seeks is to have “supremacy here in South America.”

But wait, here’s the even bigger part of the story:

[…] Separately, Bolsonaro met with the head of the World Trade Organization, Roberto Azevedo, who said the government’s sharp rebukes of globalism were shared by many other countries and that the trade body was making changes.

On Wednesday, Brazil’s new Foreign Minister Ernesto Araujo said that under his watch the country would fight for change at multilateral institutions like the WTO.

Araujo’s words were not a threat, Azevedo said.

“To the contrary, I think it was very propitious and compatible with what is happening,” he said after meeting Bolsonaro. “The World Trade Organization itself is beginning the process of reforms.”  (link)

Hello?

Wait.., wha?…

Mr. Robert Azevedo, the head of the World Trade Organization, is now acquiescing to President Donald J Trump’s position that the era of multilateral, multinational, financial and corporate trade exploitation, ie. “globalism“, is over.

The WTO has agreed to reform in order to survive? …And the WTO is admitting this to nationalist political leaders after their successful elections?….

Pinch me!

 

I don't get the the meme - I thought the USA was a borrower, not a lender? 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I don't get the the meme - I thought the USA was a borrower, not a lender? 

Trump has repeated told NATO (and the UN) that they are not paying their fair share.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

2 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Trump has repeated told NATO (and the UN) that they are not paying their fair share.

Fair share of what? Do you mean to say that we should pay a share of the American defense budget?

ps. see my post under the Venezuela thread.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Fair share of what? Do you mean to say that we should pay a share of the American defense budget?

ps. see my post under the Venezuela thread.

U.S. pays a disproportionate share of NATO costs.  And also United Nations costs.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

4 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

U.S. pays a disproportionate share of NATO costs.  And also United Nations costs.

do you mean in terms of membership fees? Or in terms of defense budgets ? And are you also factoring in stuff like "soft security" i.e. 3rd world aid?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

do you mean in terms of membership fees? Or in terms of defense budgets ? And are you also factoring in stuff like "soft security" i.e. 3rd world aid?

A year or so ago, Trump told numerous NATO countries that they were not paying their fair share.  Some countries coughed up a bit more money.  Some didn't.  I don't recall the details.

Same for United Nations. U.S. paying a disproportionate amount.  I really don't recall the details.

My own preference is for the utterly useless United Nations to move out of the U.N. building in New York City.  And have the U.N. move out of the USA.  The U.S. is currently withdrawing from the horrid UNESCO.  Hopefully the U.S. will withdraw from other useless U.N. programs as well.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

 

5 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

A year or so ago, Trump told numerous NATO countries that they were not paying their fair share.  Some countries coughed up a bit more money.  Some didn't.  I don't recall the details.

My understanding of this is that NATO has as a goal / demand that all members spend minimum 2 % of their GDP on their defense budget. this demand was already made by Obama administration. At least in Denmark we started increasing our defense budget before Trump / Mattis. But in fairness this are likely accellerating now. 

NATO membership fees should be paid eqaually on a per capita basis

ps. I don't disagree with everything, but this is very complex - as an example Iraq was not a NATO mission so naturally not all NATO countries participated (Denmark did). 

Same for United Nations. U.S. paying a disproportionate amount.  I really don't recall the details.

Really hard to discuss when we don't know what we are discussing. 

My own preference is for the utterly useless United Nations to move out of the U.N. building in New York City.  And have the U.N. move out of the USA.  The U.S. is currently withdrawing from the horrid UNESCO.  Hopefully the U.S. will withdraw from other useless U.N. programs as well.

comments above in bold

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

16 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Same for United Nations. U.S. paying a disproportionate amount.  I really don't recall the details.

Really hard to discuss when we don't know what we are discussing. 

UN 'running out of cash' and facing urgent cuts, warns chief

António Guterres, the UN secretary general, has warned that the organisation is facing an unprecedented shortage of funding for its core budget and will need to make urgent cuts unless member states pay up.

 

... Guterres told staff he was concerned with a broader trend. “We are running out of cash sooner and staying in the red longer,” he said, adding that the UN would take measures to reduce expenses with a focus on non-staff costs.

Haley came to the UN in January last year pushing for reform of the world body in a bid to cut costs.

“The inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked,” she said in December, when the core budget was agreed.

 

@Arjun anything you would like to add?  I'm guessing you read some of the same news sites that I do, based on your comments in other threads.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

31 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

UN 'running out of cash' and facing urgent cuts, warns chief

António Guterres, the UN secretary general, has warned that the organisation is facing an unprecedented shortage of funding for its core budget and will need to make urgent cuts unless member states pay up.

 

... Guterres told staff he was concerned with a broader trend. “We are running out of cash sooner and staying in the red longer,” he said, adding that the UN would take measures to reduce expenses with a focus on non-staff costs.

Haley came to the UN in January last year pushing for reform of the world body in a bid to cut costs.

“The inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked,” she said in December, when the core budget was agreed.

 

@Arjun anything you would like to add?  I'm guessing you read some of the same news sites that I do, based on your comments in other threads.

The article you linked says nothing about how the membership fee is calculated. See here : http://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/budget.shtml 

https://qz.com/1398226/un-budget-funding-formula-us/ 

Interestingly, although us pays the most in absolute terms, the US is only 21st in per capita terms. 

I get the comments about in-efficiencies aabove and I guess the other half our your argument is : What is the UN worth to the US? 

Edited January 4, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Arjun + 39]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

UN 'running out of cash' and facing urgent cuts, warns chief

António Guterres, the UN secretary general, has warned that the organisation is facing an unprecedented shortage of funding for its core budget and will need to make urgent cuts unless member states pay up.

 

... Guterres told staff he was concerned with a broader trend. “We are running out of cash sooner and staying in the red longer,” he said, adding that the UN would take measures to reduce expenses with a focus on non-staff costs.

Haley came to the UN in January last year pushing for reform of the world body in a bid to cut costs.

“The inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked,” she said in December, when the core budget was agreed.

 

@Arjun anything you would like to add?  I'm guessing you read some of the same news sites that I do, based on your comments in other threads.

@Tom Kirkman Did you know that the guy at the UN who was all about conservation and banning single use plastic, Erik solheim just quit after spending 400,000 Euros on travel. Its a corrupt machine and their tremendous virtue signalling has left them open to these discoveries.

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/un-environment-chief-quits-following-travel-expense-report-1.3704942

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 minutes ago, Arjun said:

@Tom Kirkman Did you know that the guy at the UN who was all about conservation and banning single use plastic, Erik solheim just quit after spending 400,000 Euros on travel. Its a corrupt machine and their tremendous virtue signalling has left them open to these discoveries.

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/un-environment-chief-quits-following-travel-expense-report-1.3704942

Perhaps best to let the U.N. go bankrupt.  Just my opinion.  Mainstream Media tends to glorify the U.N. but I don't trust their globalist agenda.

[Arjun + 39]

2 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Perhaps best to let the U.N. go bankrupt.  Just my opinion.  Mainstream Media tends to glorify the U.N. but I don't trust their globalist agenda.

Well the original declared purpose is good, but just like communism it inevitably degenerates into corruption. So for it to survive it needs to be pared down to the basics, if you want million dollar caviar, you pay for it yourself. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

8 minutes ago, Arjun said:

Well the original declared purpose is good, but just like communism it inevitably degenerates into corruption. So for it to survive it needs to be pared down to the basics, if you want million dollar caviar, you pay for it yourself. 

U.N. ideals sound good and noble.  But their actual deeds show otherwise. 

● Climate Change scaremongering. 

● Unlimited and unrestricted economic migration - national borders becoming meaningless.

● Basically pushing for an end to independent, sovereign countries. 

EU seems to be a test case for the U.N. one global government / one global currency push.

[JoMack + 547]

On international organizations:  The U.N. needs to go the way of the League of Nations!   The IMF is a boondoggle but the U.S. is the major vote and contributes about 18%.  If the U.S. doesn't approve a loan to an unstable or corrupt regime, it doesn't happen.  China also has to be moved to the "developed" status at the WTO.  This favored nation is b.s. and China needs to be shown the way to do business or out the door!

[Illurion + 894]

17 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Hello?

Wait.., wha?…

Mr. Robert Azevedo, the head of the World Trade Organization, is now acquiescing to President Donald J Trump’s position that the era of multilateral, multinational, financial and corporate trade exploitation, ie. “globalism“, is over.

The WTO has agreed to reform in order to survive? …And the WTO is admitting this to nationalist political leaders after their successful elections?….

Pinch me!

 

I really like Bolsanaro.

Not sure whether we should put a base there,  but it might help stabilize the area.

As for the WTO,   we are the major funder,  and we are tired of their crap,  as Trump likes to say.

It is the IMF that will be interesting to see,  as it has practically been taken over by the Chinese.

It too gets largest funding,  and siphons it off to China.

 

[Illurion + 894]

15 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

do you mean in terms of membership fees? Or in terms of defense budgets ? And are you also factoring in stuff like "soft security" i.e. 3rd world aid?

We give 3rd world aid directly to those countries.

So Tom is talking about your country paying a higher share of the actual NATO cost to protect you.

[Illurion + 894]

14 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

The article you linked says nothing about how the membership fee is calculated. See here : http://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/budget.shtml 

https://qz.com/1398226/un-budget-funding-formula-us/ 

Interestingly, although us pays the most in absolute terms, the US is only 21st in per capita terms. 

I get the comments about in-efficiencies aabove and I guess the other half our your argument is : What is the UN worth to the US? 

The US doesn't count as far as per-capita is concerned.

NATO needs to pay for itself.   100%.

You need to understand that the US will eventually withdraw from NATO.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

21 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

The article you linked says nothing about how the membership fee is calculated. See here : http://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/budget.shtml 

https://qz.com/1398226/un-budget-funding-formula-us/ 

Interestingly, although us pays the most in absolute terms, the US is only 21st in per capita terms. 

I get the comments about in-efficiencies aabove and I guess the other half our your argument is : What is the UN worth to the US? 

The power in the United Nations is largely allocated to the most numerous nations, many of which are Muslim and or Sub-Saharan African nations that are Third World nations. The world should not be run by them through the globalist United Nations and many other NGOs. This is one reason for the revolt by the larger nations that are more advanced. Nationalism is becoming much more politically popular than globalism. 

See One World Government AKA Globalism https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k8kNhtZJLuN66TpDuo67WBV1U2JhhZIvAefxeMNK0ls/edit

See Conservatism Around the World https://docs.google.com/document/d/1twQ_yBtl-FPwhXf2mYA7qvGj1D8yts8El0m8nObWxuU/edit

Edited January 5, 2019 by ronwagn

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

12 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

 

Yellow Vest rally schedules for Canada tomorrow, January 5th.

Most beginning at 11:00 am.

NEW BRUNSWICK

SAINT JOHN - Market Square

FREDERICTON- City Hall

MONCTON- City Hall

P.E.I.

CHARLOTTETOWN- Jean Canfield Building

NEWFOUNDLAND

ST. JOHN'S- Confederation Building

ONTARIO

TORONTO - Nathan Phillips Square

LONDON - City Hall

HAMILTON - City Hall

BRANTFORD - City Hall

WINDSOR- City Hall

SARNIA- City Hall

MARKHAM- City Hall

KITCHENER- City Hall

VAUGHAN - City Hall

DRYDEN- City Hall

SUDBURY- City Hall

KENORA- City Hall‎

SAULT STE. MARIE- City Hall

THUNDER BAY- City Hall

BARRIE- City Hall

WELLAND- City Hall

TIMMINS- City Hall

QUEBEC‎

MONTREAL - Montreal City Hall

BRITISH COLUMBIA

‎FORT ST.JOHN UTC-07

DAWSON CREEK

Northern Alberta Railway Park (NAR Park)

VANCOUVER - City Hall

VERNON - Courthouse‎

WILLIAMS LAKE- City Hall

‎VICTORIA - Parliament Building

CHILLIWACK- Exit 119 Vedder Road West

KELOWNA -  B.K. parking lot (HWY 97/Cooper)

KAMLOOPS- City Hall

FORT ST. JOHN- Merritt Bridge

(beside A&W)

PRINCE GEORGE- TOWN Hall

LANGLEY -  232nd Overpass

ABBOTSFORD - City Hall

NOVA SCOTIA

HALIFAX -City Hall

SASKATCHEWAN‎

SASKATOON - City Hall 

KINDERSLEY- City Hall

‎REGINA - Legislature Building

‎ESTEVAN- City Hall

MOOSSEJAW- City Hall

YORKTON - City Hall

SWIFT CURRENT- City Hall‎

ALBERTA

LETHBRIDGE - City Hall

WHITECOURT

(Near Tim's/Police Station)

BONNYVILLE- Courthouse‎

‎SUNDRE - Sundre Town Hall

EDMONTON - Alberta Legislative Building

LLOYD MINSTER – City Hall

GRANDE PRAIRIE - Muskoseepi Park

RED DEER - City Hall

CALGARY - City Hall

MEDICINE HAT - 2810 13th Ave. S.E. @12:00

FORT MCMURRAY - City Hall

MANITOBA

WINNIPEG - Manitoba Legislative Building

BRANDON- City Hall

THOMPSON- City Hall

PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE- City Hall

DAUPHIN- City Hall

CHURCHILL- Town Hall

https://yellowvestscanada.net/events.html

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Very impressive. I hope lots of patriots show up!

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

8 hours ago, Illurion said:

The US doesn't count as far as per-capita is concerned.

NATO needs to pay for itself.   100%.

You need to understand that the US will eventually withdraw from NATO.

My comment was about UN. Not NATO.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

8 hours ago, Illurion said:

We give 3rd world aid directly to those countries.

So Tom is talking about your country paying a higher share of the actual NATO cost to protect you.

what percentage of GDP?

I will do your research for you : 

Denmark : 0,7 percent. 

USA : 0,15 percent

Third world aid is a soft security cost. 

Actual NATO cost - see my comment to @mthebold post.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

14 hours ago, mthebold said:

Membership fees are a side issue; the real problem is defense budgets.

The EU enjoys security and global trade on America's dime.  Specifically, we kept Russia at bay for decades, and our presence in Europe still mitigates that risk.  We also pay to keep the sea lanes open, a condition on which the EU's beloved globalization and extensive oil imports depend.  Without extensive US defense spending, the EU economy would crumble. 

Failing to meet defense obligations is especially rude of Europe because their globalist ideas harm the US economy.  E.g. Germany sells machine tools and expertise to poor countries, which use cheap labor and a lack of regulation to undercut US manufacturing.  We're paying to enable the destruction of our own economy.  Trump's argument is that if Europe wants globalism, Europe should pay for it.  My guess is that forcing everyone else to pay for globalism would render it economically unfeasible. 

There was a similar situation when Europe attempted to unseat the US dollar with the Euro.  The original deal post WWII was that the US would spend our blood and treasure keeping things stable, and in return, we benefited from control of the financial system.  This was a modest price.  Europe's attempt to gain advantage demonstrated that Europe only cares about itself.  It's no better than the selfish nationalism it accuses Trump of. 

Given these two examples, I would argue that Europe et al. championed "globalism" because it was in their selfish best interest, and America's generosity thus far has been laughably naive.  Europe established the rules through bad behavior; Trump is just playing the game. 

I look forward to watching reality crash down on the EU, forcing it to cut socialist programs, reduce immigration, and tend to its own defense.  If we're lucky, it will rise from its infantile condition and become a strong culture once again. 

I really did not want go here, but let's get real. American defense spending is something 3,6 % of GDP or something like 700 billion total. This is more than double the combined military spending of China and Russia. I don't have the numbers but my guess is that combined EU military spending by far exceeds Russia. 

The US could easily cut they their defense budget by a 3rd without having to worry about being able to defend themselfes against Russia or China. 

The 2 directly and indirectly most expensive conflicts in recent history has to be Iraq and Syria. Iraq was not a NATO (even NATO members incl Denmark particiapted). The Syrian refugee crisis is directly caused by the Iraq war. The Syrian refugee crisis has been extremely expensive for Europe! As is well documented in this thread. 

Pls consider above perspective when making comments about evil exploitive Europe and poor altruistic America. 

[John Foote + 1,135]

The USA fundamentally pissed away the "peace dividend" after the U.S.S.R. collapsed. And the classic big military machine we have is poorly suited for likely wars anyway. Example 1, Middle East. I am all for Europeans paying for their defense.

But IMHO most of Europe doesn't need to spend more, the USA needs a huge drop in defense spending. The notion of needing to go fight wars in Europe, the Middle East, South America, where ever, to defend other countries. Drop that notion we need to be able to fight a two front war.

Traditional army/navy/air force threats are not the fundamental threat. Worry more about technology and economies. 

And yes, don't disarm by any means. Keep MAD in place (mutually assured destruction). But a military half the size of what we have today is probably far more than we need. And it's not like we can afford the one we have.