Earthlinggb's Blog

MH370: The TPPA connection

Posted in Disappearance of MH370, Uncategorized by earthling on May 14, 2014

Look, I’m sorry if I cannot quite get across, in a single or even a few blogposts, how this MAJOR TPPA Corporate deal is what this MH370 disappearance is all about. Yes, many people will say “WTF is this guy going on about? How can he connect a Trade agreement with the possible hijacking of a plane and suggest it has been taken to Diego Garcia? He must be nuts!”

But he’s NOT asshole! He’s just read and analysed a whole hell of a lot more shit than you have! Trying to compress that amount of knowledge is bloody difficult! It’s MUCH bigger than a plane disappearance or even the trade agreement itself. You need to cover one hell of a lot of ground to be able to “see” the connections, however subtle they are. You need to look at organisations such as the UN, the IMF, the EU and you need to understand the geopolitical importance and context within which players like China and Malaysia play. You need to understand who is connected to who and why and what their micro agenda is while looking at a macro agenda. You need to study history. You have to analyse trade flows and capital flows and investment and look who (which country and which individuals) are working for who and whose side they are on.

You need to understand the monetary system and how it works (or doesn’t as the case may be). You need to recognise BIG answers to BIG questions such as: How is the world in debt? How can a single entity (the Earth and its inhabitants as one symbiotic whole) be in a net debt? It CANNOT unless there is another organisation it is in debt to! But if that organisation is composed of people (which it is) then they comprise part of the symbiotic whole do they not? Yes and no is the answer to that but the BIG answer is: They have, with respect to the global monetary system, disconnected themselves from the symbiotic whole and it is THEY who the world is in debt to!

There will be some of you who read this who are still living in that “box” where you listen to economists telling you about things like the US buys chinese goods and Russia exports to Brazil and sells gas to the EU etc, thereby causing there to be “creditor nations” and “debtor nations” and that is how the world is in debt! BUT you (and they, purposefully because they damned well know better than that) are missing the point!




The TPPA to these people is of fundamental importance to their agenda of achieving the next step toward world government! They want, essentially, 4 or 5 trading blocks. They have one called the EU (now breaking at the seams but they will do whatever it takes to maintain it no matter what and that is what Ukraine is all about). Breaking up the UK also works into the plan because, then, they can pick off each of the individual states within it, each with a more manageable population which, by the way, has been “diluted” by the introduction of masses of immigrants. That dilution reduces the ability of the population to speak as one voice toward government and the EU because it breaks itself into “tribes” and fights among itself based upon whatever “bones” the government/establishment throw it to fight and divide itself over.

NAFTA is another of those trading blocks which will, in time, become an american “EU” and it is why Obama and the american governments before, now and after, are allowing the immigration across its border from Mexico, filling the US with legal and illegal immigrants. They are doing precisely the same as the British, French and German governments are and it IS an agenda!

Next is TPPA. Obama and the globalists he works for, want that TPPA and it has nothing to do with “free trade” for the benefit of PEOPLE (just as the EEC wasn’t to the ultimate benefit of the populations of each European country. Each of these trade blocks, which then become superstates are for the benefit of the “old wealth”. The corrupt banking and monarchical families. Until you get this through your head you will understand NOTHING of the world you live in and you will NEVER be able to analyse events and understand the significance and the purpose of them.

I wrote about this TPPA/Anwar/CIA/Malaysia component/connection to MH370 long before any of it hit the press. Then the press come out with the “political maniac” story re the pilot. A couple of days later (just yesterday?) they then publish the fact that Anwar Ibrahim is actually related to the pilot.

Meanwhile, you have a satellite company (owned by the UK and works with UK and US defence projects) telling you that the search points should be along two arcs – one going as far a Afghanistan (how surprising!) and one going deep south toward the antarctic. Neither of which makes sense because the north arc? Not a hope in hell of a plane not being spotted by radar and the southern arc – which they now seem to be focusing on (and THAT is what worries me re the decided fate of the flight – YES DECIDED!) – leads to nowhere but some story which will suggest the pilot was probably suicidal and not one of the passengers will ever be seen again.

You see, the north arc gave them a story of terrorism if they could make it stick. The south arc is the “safety” one for them if they couldn’t make the terror connection work.

The REAL “arc” is out onto the West/SW Indian Ocean but NO-ONE wishes to “go there” (even if they were allowed to!).


The article goes on to state….

“Only the US and Japan support the proposal, while the rest expressed their objections … but the US has shown no sign of flexibility…”

The summary also revealed the unhappiness of some member states over the insistence of the US to reintroduce a “Transparency Annexe on Medicine” that had been overwhelmingly discarded in previous rounds of negotiations.

“Some countries expressed annoyance for the way [the US, Australia and Japan] resubmitted a text that had been strongly rejected in the past.”

Last month, WikiLeaks published online a secret draft of one of the chapters under negotiation for the TPPA. In it were contained passages that confirmed critics’ fear that the deal would hamper access to generic drugs and cause healthcare costs to rise as a result.

Despite the reported eagerness for the US to see the negotiations wrapped up before the end of the year, the table depicted stalemates across the 14 chapters of the trade deal.

Malaysia also either rejected or is reserving its positions on nearly as many clauses as it has agreed to, illustrating its ambivalence towards the controversial agreement that Putrajaya has so far been supportive of in public.

Trade ministers and representatives are currently gathered in Singapore for the latest round of talks over the TPPA in an attempt to sew things up before the year is out, but analysts believe the possibility was now increasingly remote as some nations rankle over the allegedly “manipulative” tactics employed by the US.

President Barack Obama has hailed the TPP as a centrepiece of renewed US engagement in Asia, saying it contains market-opening commitments that go well beyond those made in other free-trade accords.

But the complexity of the issues has already caused negotiators to miss the original 2012 deadline set by Obama to reach a deal, with the new target also looking unlikely.

The TPPA is a free trade agreement that has been negotiated by the US, Malaysia and nine other nations as part of the larger Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership since 2010.


UK Parliament:

Human Rights Annual Report 2008 – Foreign Affairs Committee Contents

2  Rendition Definitions of rendition and extraordinary rendition

17.  Some of our witnesses expressed continuing concerns about US policy. Kate Allen told us that “we still see the ability to use rendition in transitory detention, so although there have been some progressive moves, we have not seen the complete end of rendition and its use in temporary and short-term measures.”[19] Benjamin Ward expressed concern about “the military commissions and proposals for administrative detention”.[20] Clive Stafford Smith told us that there was still much that needed to change:

there is an awful lot that he is not doing. He is one person who has a lot of poisoned chalices to deal with. Let us be clear: rendition is still going on and it will continue to go on. The business of closing CIA prisons is chimerical because the vast majority were not CIA prisons and they still exist. For example, the two people rendered by the British to Afghanistan are still being held in secret detention, and we don’t know what their names are. President Obama is no more likely to make that public than President Bush was. An awful lot of work remains to be done, and a lot of the prisons that we have dealt with—that in Djibouti, for example, and I am sure that we will talk a little about Diego Garcia—still exist. They are not CIA prisons but are very active. We delude ourselves if we think that Obama’s first few pronouncements have solved the problem.

22.  It has been alleged that the UK Government has not fulfilled these commitments. In July 2007 the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) reported on rendition in the wake of:

allegations that the UK Government has not done enough to ensure that the UK is not involved in such operations, and, furthermore, that it has not sufficiently investigated these allegations, which might be counter to its obligations under UK and international law […] There have also been allegations of direct involvement in these operations by the UK intelligence and security Agencies and by Her Majesty’s Government more widely.[25]

Clive Stafford Smith was emphatic that “there is zero probability that the British officials did not know about rendition and were not complicit in it.”[26] Kate Allen was less categorical, concluding that:

I think that at a minimum what we see is a complete lack of grip by the British Government in terms of who is passing through British territory. We see a lack of control. We have seen false information given to Parliament on this issue, and we see a rather passive response by the UK Government in asking the American Administration, but not being able to look at their own records, being very minimalist in the questions that they are asking and the definitions of rendition that they are using.”


26.  The Government has claimed to have only limited information about the flights that landed on Diego Garcia in 2002 and the individuals in question. When we questioned the Foreign Secretary about why details of the cases had not been published by the Government he answered that “we have no confirmation of their names, and that is why we have not put them into the public domain”.[40] In answer to a Parliamentary Question by Andrew Tyrie MP, the FCO Minister of State, Bill Rammell MP, stated that “We have very limited specific information about these flights and, despite enquiry, have not been able to establish further details that would be essential for purposes of further investigation.”[41] Mr Tyrie told us that “the implication is that the US is withholding information about these flights” and that this information would be essential for investigation of whether criminal offences were committed.[42]

27.  From the information provided, Reprieve believe that have identified one of the men rendered through Diego Garcia in 2002 as Mohammed Saad Iqbal Madni. They urge that the Government should clarify further what it knew of his apprehension, transfer and treatment, whether British personnel had contact with him and provide details of assurances sought by the UK regarding his treatment.[43] Clive Stafford Smith told us that evidence for this assertion was “pretty much indisputable” but that the Government had failed to respond to the claim. He believes the second prisoner was Shaikh Ibn Al-Libi but told us that “we are by no means certain.”[44]

28.  We conclude that it is unacceptable that the Government has not taken steps to obtain the full details of the two individuals who were rendered through Diego Garcia. We recommend that the Government presses the new US Administration to provide these details, and that it should then either publish them, or explain the reasons why it considers it would not be in the public interest to publish them.


In our 2008 Report on Overseas Territories we noted that the US lease on Diego Garcia is due to expire in 2016. The FCO told us that the 1966 Exchange of Notes which established the agreement would “continue in force for a further twenty years beyond 2016”, unless it was ended by “either government giving notice of termination, in accordance with its terms”.[45] However, at that time, Ministers had not discussed the possibility of terminating the lease or altering the terms of the agreement to increase UK oversight of activities on the Island.[46] Referring to the acknowledge rendition through Diego Garcia, Andrew Tyrie MP has argued that “if the agreements in place were not breached, then they appear inadequate for the purpose of preventing British involvement in extraordinary renditions.”[47]  Clive Stafford Smith also told us that

there is no doubt that it violated that agreement, but it violated a lot of other things. British law applies in Diego Garcia, notwithstanding what some other people have said. It has very interesting aspects. In fact, the law provides for a Diego Garcia supreme court that is meant to apply British law, of which there is no such thing. […]The whole process has been one to skirt the law[48]

29.  We questioned the Foreign Secretary about whether the use of Diego Garcia for rendition flights would breach the terms of the agreement between the UK and the US on the use of the island. He told us:

In our view there should be consultation. I think there was consultation about a previous case—there were a couple of cases in the 1990s. That is certainly the procedure that now exists […] the US Administration have said that they will consult us if they ever want to use it. So they obviously share that view.[49]

He did not believe that there were grounds to examine the terms of the agreement that govern the use of the island, adding:

If the American Administration were now saying that they did not need to consult us, that would be a prima facie case for reviewing the arrangements. I am sure in 2016 we will want to look at whether they are adequate for the times; there is no limitation on that. In respect of the use of Diego Garcia for rendition there is an absolutely clear position from the British Government and the American Government about the appropriate way to act. In that respect, there is no lack of clarity.[50]

30.  We conclude that the use of Diego Garcia for US rendition flights without the knowledge or consent of the British Government raises disquieting questions about the effectiveness of the Government’s exercise of its responsibilities in relation to this territory. We recommend that in its response to this Report, the Government indicates whether it considers that UK law has effect in British Indian Ocean Territory, and whether it considers that either UK law or the agreements between the US and UK over the use of BIOT were broken by the admitted US rendition flights in 2002.


31.  The Intelligence and Security Committee’s July 2007 report on rendition commented that:

We are concerned that Government departments have had such difficulty in establishing the facts from their own records in relation to requests to conduct renditions through UK airspace. These are matters of fundamental liberties and the Government should ensure that proper searchable records are kept.[51]

The Government has admitted that flight records from Diego Garcia covering the period during which renditions are known to have occurred through the island have been destroyed.[52] In its submission, Reprieve questioned why accurate records were not kept and argued that the Government should make available details of how, why and by whom records were destroyed.[53] When we asked the Foreign Secretary whether the Government would be willing to do this, he replied: “”I have never been asked that before and there is no proposal to do it.”[54] He stated that on Diego Garcia since 2008 “all flight records are now held by the British representative”[55] and outlined his intention to make improvements in record keeping:

The record-keeping systems that have to be improved are partly a matter of what happens on the base and partly a matter of what happens back in London. In respect of all detainee issues, there is now a central point in the Foreign Office for arranging that, and I think that is the right way forward.[56]

32.  Non-commercial, non-state flights do not require permission to land in the UK.[57] Redress has previously suggested that the law covering the use of civil aircraft for rendition and the procedures for authorising the entry of ‘state aircraft’ into UK territory should be assessed.[58] They comment in particular that although many rendition flights are designated as ‘civil’ flights, they might more accurately be described as ‘state’ flights and therefore should require more explicit authorisation.[59] Benjamin Ward was

supportive of the initiative by the all-party parliamentary group on rendition to create a permission system for rendition flights, including for overflights, similar to that which exists already in extradition cases under the European Convention on Extradition. That proposal was put forward to the Government in 2006 and, as far as I am aware, nothing ever came of it. Obviously that would not entirely eliminate the risk of transfers, but effectively requiring a transferring state to certify, in advance, what opportunity the prisoner had had to challenge any risk of human rights abuse that they might be subject to would make it much more difficult and much less attractive to use UK territory and UK airspace for such transfers. It would be a very important and symbolic change and it is not clear to me why that was not taken up.

33.  We conclude that, in the light of the controversy over the use of British Indian Ocean Territory for purposes of rendition by the US, it is important that full records of flights through the territory are kept, and retained for an indefinite period. We conclude that it is to be welcomed that the British representative on Diego Garcia now keeps flight records. We recommend that the Government discloses how, why and by whom the records relating to flights through Diego Garcia since the start of 2002 were destroyed. We further recommend that the Government provides, in its response to this Report, full details of its record-keeping and record-disposal policy in relation to flights through British territory, particularly BIOT, and state for how long it now retains such records. We recommend that, in its response, the Government addresses the question of whether it considers that current aviation law and aircraft identification procedures are sufficient to identify flights which may be carrying out rendition both through Diego Garcia or elsewhere through UK airspace.


34.  The lack of historical flight data makes it very difficult to test allegations that the two flights in 2002 do not represent the full extent of Diego Garcia’s involvement in the rendition circuit. It is claimed that the island was used by the CIA as a ‘black site’. During our inquiry into Overseas Territories it was further alleged that ships in or near the island’s territorial waters had been used to hold detainees and facilitate rendition.[60] Such allegations include the following:

  • US Army General Barry McCaffrey, former head of Southcom, has stated twice in public that Diego Garcia has been used by the US to hold prisoners, stating in a radio interview in May 2004 “We’re probably holding around 3,000 people, you know, Bagram Air Field, Diego Garcia, Guantánamo, 16 camps throughout Iraq.”[61]
  • In October 2003 Time magazine reported that the Al-Qaeda operative known as Hambali had been interrogated on the island.[62]
  • A former senior American official told Time magazine in July 2008 that “a CIA counterterrorism official twice said that a high-value prisoner or prisoners were being held and interrogated on the island. The identity of the captive or captives was not made clear.”[63]
  • In August 2008, the Observer reported that former American intelligence officers “unofficially told senior Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón that Mustafa Setmarian, a Spanish-based Syrian accused of running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, was taken to Diego Garcia in late 2005 and held there for months.”[64]
  • Reprieve allege that Abu Zubaydah and Khaled Skeikh Mohammed, currently held at Guantánamo, were also held on the island.[65]
  • The Observer has reported that Manfred Novak, the United Nations special investigator on torture, told the paper that “he had talked to detainees who had been held on the archipelago in 2002, but declined to name them.”[66]

35.  In its 2008 Annual Report on Human Rights the FCO stated that:

The US government denies having interrogated any terrorist suspect or terrorism-related detainee on Diego Garcia since 11 September 2001. They have also informed us that no detainees have been held on ships within Diego Garcia’s territorial waters over that period, and that they do not operate detention facilities for terrorist suspects on board ships.[67]

36.  We asked the Foreign Secretary whether this assurance extended to the use of Diego Garcia as a victualling point for ships outside its territorial water which may have been used for renditions. He stated that “we have no information, either of vessels inside territorial waters being used for rendition or of supplies from Diego Garcia going to ships outside the territorial waters.[68] The FCO state that such re-victualling would be “highly unlikely to occur” because:

The territorial waters of Diego Garcia extend to 3 nautical miles. Replenishment at Sea […] requires a stable transfer system between the two vessels concerned. This would usually be provided by an auxiliary vessel. No such vessels are currently berthed in Diego Garcia and consequently all vessels have to come into port to be replenished.[69]

The Foreign Secretary undertook to supply us with an assessment of whether, under the US/UK agreements on the use of BIOT, the British Government’s prior consent would be required for the use of the territory as a re-victualling point for vessels outside territorial waters. He later told us that:

Under the UK/US Exchange of Notes which govern the use of the British Indian Ocean Territory for Defence purposes, the US undertakes to inform the UK of intended movements of its ships in BIOT territorial waters in “normal circumstances”.[70]

37.  We conclude that it is a matter of concern that many allegations continue to be made that the two acknowledged instances of rendition through British Indian Ocean Territory in 2002 do not represent the limit of the territory’s use for this purpose. We further conclude that it is extremely difficult for the British Government to assess the veracity of these allegations without active and candid co-operation from the US Administration. We recommend that the Government requests the Obama Administration to carry out a further, comprehensive check on its records relating to the use of BIOT with a view to testing the truth of the specific allegations (including those set out in paragraph 34 above) relating to rendition through the territory. We conclude that it is unsatisfactory that the Government is not able to give us a categorical assurance that re-victualling of ships anchored outside BIOT’s territorial waters by any vessel from BIOT, for purpose of assisting rendition, has not occurred. We further conclude that it is unsatisfactory that the US has only undertaken to inform the UK of the movement of ships in Diego Garcia’s territorial waters in normal circumstances but not in all cases. We recommend that the Government requests the US Administration to supply details of any movement of ships in Diego Garcia’s waters since January 2002 that were not notified at the time to the UK authorities, and seek assurances that at no point were these or other vessels used for re-victualling of vessels outside Diego Garcia’s territorial waters which were being used for purposes of rendition.


38.  The Government has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to accept US assurances in relation to the use of BIOT for rendition flights. A report from the Council of Europe in 2007 criticised the Government for having accepted these assurances “without ever independently or transparently inquiring into the allegations itself, or accounting to the public in a sufficiently thorough manner”.[71] The 2007 ISC report on rendition exonerated the Government from this charge, but did so before the revelation in February 2008 about the use of BIOT for rendition purposes.[72] In our own Report on the Overseas Territories, published in July 2008, we concluded that “it is deplorable that previous US assurances about rendition flights have turned out to be false.”

39.  The Foreign Secretary continues to argue that US assurances, such as those given by former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, can be relied upon:

I have had assurances, as I say, at the highest level that there are no cases beyond those two, and also that if there was any desire on the part of the United States to use Diego Garcia for so-called extraordinary rendition, or for any kind of rendition, the British Government would be consulted.

We can be confident that our closest intelligence and foreign policy ally seeks to honour its trust with us in all respects. The degree of intelligence co-operation that exists between the US and the UK is of a unique standard and standing. It is based on mutual trust. It is not only one-way traffic. The US Government understand the importance of transparency and full openness with us. When the Secretary of State of the United States gives you her word, you take it very seriously. [73]

40.  Mr Miliband argued that:

It was certainly proactive on the part of the US to notify us in the first place of this new evidence that arose in February 2008. That did not emerge because I had been in touch with them about a particular case—they came to us. They were clearly proactive in that instance. I think that they have subsequently looked hard at their own systems, but they have been clear with me, in a way that I have then reported in full to Parliament, about the limits of their use of Diego Garcia. [74]

The Foreign Secretary assured us that in future the US would seek agreement for use of Diego Garcia for rendition flights:

Just to be clear, the information came out because the Americans found it; they found it and they told us. We said, very clearly, that our understanding of the agreement in respect of Diego Garcia was that there had to be agreement. They subsequently said, “We give you absolute assurance that, in all future cases, there will be; we will see that agreement.” So there is no mystery about that.[75]

41.  We reiterate our previous conclusion that it is deplorable that previous US assurances about rendition flights through Diego Garcia have turned out to be false. We further conclude that the basis of trust in subsequent US assurances about the use of BIOT has been undermined. We recommend that the Government outline what practical action it is taking to ensure that it has full sources of information about US rendition activity on BIOT.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: