Truth Out has the story WikiLeaks Reveals Global Trade Deal Kept More Secret Than the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

“This agreement is all about making it easier for corporations to make profits and operate with impunity across borders,” said PSI General Secretary Rosa Pavanelli in response to the leak. “The aim of public services should not be to make profits for large multinational corporations. Ensuring that failed privatizations can never be reversed is free-market ideology gone mad.”
.
.
.
The secrecy of the TISA negotiations “exceeds even the controversial Trans-Pacific Partner Agreement (TPPA) and runs counter to moves in the WTO towards greater openness,” wrote Jane Kelsey, a law professor at the University of Auckland in New Zealand who analyzed the leaked documents on behalf of Wikileaks, which leaked portions of the TPPA in the past.
.
.
.
Kelsey’s analysis also confirms the concerns of trade unions like PSI that the TISA agreement would lock governments into and extend their current levels of deregulation and trade liberalization, thus preventing governments from returning public services into public hands when privatizations fail and establishing greater regulations to protect the environment and workers safety.

It is the antithesis of free markets to write rules that lock you into one way to provide a service even if the provider is a failure.  If people can get together to provide a service more cheaply and/or with better quality than another group of people, why should we have a treaty to prevent the first group from competing?  That first group of people might be in the form of a government entity.  Why are people trying to foist their ideology on us that all work must be done in the private sector?  Because they make money when they can trick us that way, obviously.

If people were really committed to actual “free markets” they wouldn’t be biased toward organizing those “free markets” in one particular way as opposed to another.  Why not chose the method of organization for what works best in each individual case?  Or at least let people freely choose to try any method they want.

Democracy Now has the interview Juan Cole: Mass Sunni Uprising Forces Iraq to Confront Sectarian Blowback of 2003 U.S. Invasion.

ARON MATÉ: And, Juan Cole, how would you characterize this conflict right now? When we talk about ISIS, it’s generally referred to as this monolithic force, but of course there are many militant groups that comprise this pushback against the Iraqi government. So, your assessment of the overall picture right now?

JUAN COLE: I don’t believe that we can think about the—what has happened in Iraq as a series of military conquests. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is a small group, a few thousand fighters. It doesn’t have formations or brigades. And I think what really happened was that they have cells on the ground in the Sunni Arab cities, and they coordinated with other groups, including secular and socialist groups, like ex-Baathists, to stage urban uprisings against the al-Maliki regime and its security forces. So, I think that this is a very complex phenomenon and an expression of popular discontent, and not just a series of military advances.
.
.
.
JUAN COLE: Well, the Bush administration very explicitly sided with the Shiites and wanted to create a Shiite-dominated government and enthusiastically cooperated in the de-Baathification or the firing of thousands and thousands of Sunni bureaucrats and teachers from their jobs. So this—this was a policy of the Bush administration, and it is, in some large part, responsible for the current crisis.

Here is the link  to Juan Cole’s blog Informed Comment that is mentioned several times in the video.

Thanks to Marden Seavey’s posting this on his Facebook wall.

The UK Telegraph has the article Saudi Arabia: ‘This is Iraq’s problem and they must sort it out themselves’ by Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, Ambassador to the UK of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

There are three things that the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia strives for above all others: peace, stability and security, for the international community, for our region, and for our country and our people, whether they are old or young, men or women, Sunni or Shia. These are the cornerstones of our government and at the foundation of our thinking.

The escalating and alarming situation in Iraq is of serious concern to us. These are our neighbours, our friends, and we watch with distress as this terrible situation escalates next to us.

As our Foreign Minister HRH Prince Saud al Faisal told the Islamic Conference of regional leaders meeting in Jeddah this week: “This grave situation carries with it signs of civil war that has implications for the region we cannot fathom.”
.
.
.
So where do we stand? Despite the false allegations of the Iraqi Ministerial Cabinet, whose exclusionary policies have fomented this current crisis, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia supports the preservation of Iraq’s sovereignty, its unity and territorial integrity.

We oppose all foreign intervention and interference. There must be no meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs, not by us or by the US, the UK or by any other government. This is Iraq’s problem and they must sort it out themselves. Any government that meddles in Iraq’s affairs runs the risk of escalating the situation, creating greater mistrust between the people of Iraq – both Sunni and Shia.

Instead, we urge all the people of Iraq, whatever their religious denominations, to unite to overcome the current threats and challenges facing the country.

Perhaps this may appear to be just a bit self-serving and hard to believe.  Perhaps it is a case of one hand in Saudi Arabia not knowing what the other hand is doing.  Perhaps it is actually true.

Surely, the Saudi government has told this directly to the Obama administration.  I wonder if any of this will give the Obama administration even a moment of pause before they head down the destructive path that they seem hell bent on following.  What do McCain and Graham know about this?  Will they listen?