Posts tagged treaty
By Chen Zhi
BANGKOK, Aug. 25 (Xinhua) — China’s currency could be eventually used as an alternative to the U.S. dollar and Euro by southeast Asian countries, experts said.
Phathanaphong Phusuwan, a senior official of the Bank of Thailand, said in a seminar on Thai-Chinese trade, investment and finance relations on Saturday that the yuan would likely be used more between China and ASEAN member states in the long run.
In the panel discussion co-hosted by the National Research Council of Thailand, Huaqiao University and the Thai-Chinese Culture & Economy Association here, the official of the Thai central bank commented the Chinese currency could possibly replace the U.S. dollar and Euro when it comes to trade, financial and money-exchange dealings throughout the ASEAN community, due in part to the unresolved economic and financial problems in the United States and the European Union.
“In the long run from 2015 onwards, trade with Asia will largely increase under the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area agreement, which will influence the use of the yuan and the local currencies. The yuan is then a good alternative for the international trade in the future,” said the official, referring to the year in which the regional bloc will become an ASEAN Economic Community.
Nevertheless, he said, the role of the Chinese currency in Thailand and other ASEAN states will remain limited in the short and medium terms.
Thai merchants have increased their use of the yuan in trade, following the easing of restrictions by the Chinese government, he said. A dozen Thai commercial banks and foreign banks’ branches here currently offer yuan-based services, including foreign currency deposits, money exchange, fund transfers and purchases of Chinese banknotes.
The Chinese currency has accounted for 10.8 percent of China’s trade dealings with the world during the first half of this year, according to a report of the Thai central bank.
Yuan photo added to original post.
By Matt Cover
(CNSNews.com) – Thirty-four Republican senators have now signed on to a letter circulated by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) declaring that they will not support ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Ratification would have required a two-thirds vote in the Senate to pass, meaning that 67 Senators would have needed to vote for the treaty in order for the U.S. to formally agree to it.
Now that 34 senators have pledged to vote against ratification, there are not enough votes to ratify the treaty.
“President Obama and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were trying to ram through a misguided treaty that conveys ownership of the oceans (2/3 of the earth surface) to a United Nations agency and subjects the U.S. to international environmental judgments,” said Sen. DeMint in a statement released today. “But conservatives defeated this threat to sovereignty by rallying together enough senators to block the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).”
Earlier today, DeMint announced that four additional Republicans had signed his opposition letter stating that they will vote against ratification.
The European Parliament has voted to reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Acta).
The proposed agreement sought to curb piracy, but internet campaigners said it posed a threat to online freedoms.
The rejection vote followed a failed attempt to postpone the decision because of ongoing investigations into Acta by the European Court of Justice.
Euro MP David Martin said: “It’s time to give [Acta] its last rites.”
Twenty-two EU member states, including the UK, had signed the Acta treaty – but it had not been formally ratified.
Outside the EU, the treaty also had the support of the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea.
However, following significant protests, several countries chose not to back it.
Wednesday’s vote is seen by most observers as the final blow to the treaty in its current form. It means no member states will be able to join the agreement.
By James Corbett
29 January, 2012
When legislators in the US abandoned their support of SOPA and PIPA in the wake of mass popular protest earlier this month, many of those who had been mobilized by the legislation–which would have granted the US government almost total power to block access to foreign websites accused of so much as linking to copyrighted material–did not have long to enjoy their “victory.” The very next day the New Zealand police swooped in to the million-dollar estate of MegaUpload.com founder Kim Dotcom, arresting him and three others at the US government’s request for alleged racketeering, copyright infringement and money laundering. The Department of Justice is now seeking the MegaUpload CEO’s extradition to the US.
Some amongst those who had been campaigning against SOPA and PIPA did not know that the US government already had the authority to shut down entire websites and in fact has exercised that authority on numerous occasions. What many are now learning is that, far from some potential future threat, internet censorship already exists in a variety of legislation that is already on the books in the United States and in nations around the world.
Although most commonly associated with China, which has implemented strict internet filters that prevent its citizens from finding politically sensitive material, various internet censorship programs have already been implemented by countries around the globe.
In 2010, Japan passed amendments to its copyright law making it illegal to download copyrighted material. The move has yet to curtail file-sharing in the country, so the Japanese government recently announced that they are going to begin putting fake copies of popular tv dramas on file-sharing websites that, when opened, remind users that it is illegal to download such material.
In July of 2010, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement seized the domains of 8 websites that it accused of hosting illegal copies of copyrighted material as part of an investigation dubbed Operation In Our Sites. The seizures came before any trial took place, and six of the websites did not actually host any of the copyrighted material in question, only linking to it. That November, ICE acted once again, this time seizing 82 domains. In December of 2011, over one year later, the agency returned one of the domains, Dajaz1.com, to its owner, after admitting that it had not in fact breached any laws.
In May of last year, the US Justice Department began seeking the extradition of one of the website’s operators, Richard O’Dwyer, from the UK. O’Dwyer is a British citizen who established TVShack.net in December of 2007. The DOJ is hoping to bring O’Dwyer to the US under the Extradition Act of 2003 to face charges of copyright infringement in the Southern District of New York.
Late last year, a number of nations signed a new global copyright agreement known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or ACTA. Signatories include the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, South Korea, and, as of this past week, 22 member states of the European Union.
Purported to be a treaty against counterfeit goods, generic drugs and copyright, it threatens to fundamentally alter the internet as it has so far existed.
When the Polish government announced its intention to sign earlier this month, protests sprang up around the country.
For awhile now I’ve gotten e-mails from people concerned about Pres. Obama and this administration restricting gun rights. I honestly thought they were being a bit conspiratorial. That is, until I read this:
Twelve Democratic senators have joined 45 Republicans in a fast growing movement to halt progress on an Obama-backed United Nations effort that could bring international gun control into the United States and slap America’s gun owners with severe restrictions.
Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester’s office today provided Whispers with their letter, signed by 11 other Democrats, urging the president to press for significant changes in the treaty. Their major concern: that domestic manufacture, possession, and sales of firearms and ammo will be included, thereby giving an international authority the right to regulate arms sales already protected by the Second Amendment. They also said any move for an international gun registry would be a non-starter
When Democrats themselves are joining Republicans to defend our 2nd Amendment rights, you know you have something to worry about.
Speaking to La Raza the other day, Pres. Obama said, “I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own,” (to which the crowd chanted “Yes you can!” (Scary, right?) Then Obama added, “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting.”
In this case, so tempting he decided that if he can’t change the laws here, he could just bypass them by an international treaty.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which the Bush administration had opposed, would regulate with the international trade of arms. It would cover the trading of conventional firearms likes those used by collectors and sportsmen and women.
The goal of the treaty is to come up with internationally recognized rules governing the trade of guns and ammo.
Sen. Jerry Moran wrote in a letter to Pres. Obama, “Our country’s sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations. Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.”
This sort of thing is not out of the ordinary for Pres. Obama. Bypassing Congress with Executive Orders is something he’s gotten very good at doing. From actions using his executive power to advance energy and environmental policy, to getting us involved in the war in Libya, Obama sees no need to let Congress in on these decisions.
Instead of letting Congress enact laws about guns at our border, earlier this month, through an Executive Order (of course), the Obama administration is implemented new restrictions on the sale of certain weapons in border states, and increasing the penalties for violating certain firearms laws.
All Presidents have used Executives Orders to their own end, but this trend is truly concerning for gun owners, and for those who believe in our 2nd Amendment rights.