Panama Papers thread

[Napkiraly]

I'm going to point out that relations between the USA and Russia were not good from the mid 90's until 2001. Mainly because there was a lot of domestic pressure within Russia to move away from the West because hardcore nationalists and much of the public couldn't accept that Russia was no longer a great power. You can easily see the differences between Russia and the West when you look at the rhetoric and policies of Kozyrev and then Primakov. While not as bad as they are now, they were far from being "good" especially considering there was a freaking showdown with Russian forces at Pristina airport in 99.

Also, for the love of God can we stop treating international relations realist theorists as somehow being the gold and only true standard. Personally, constructivists offer the best way of investigating international relations with realism only being applicable to certain states. Realists "States pursue their interests!!!!!" Wow, such fucking enlightenment. It's what those countries see as being their interests that matters however. Sweden, Iran, America, et al. have different interests and different ways of pursuing them. They also usually fail to account for other variables in dictating foreign policy from domestic pressure to ideological orientation of government and state officials.

Saying "If America just followed realism XYZ would have happened!!!!" means precisely jack shit since America did pursue its interests, they just aren't the interests favoured by realist scholars and officials.

[Panslavicland]

Now let's note what changed, step by step:

US was on good terms with all of the World's Major Powers... Russia and China are now confrontational towards the US
Al Qaeda was a minor nuisance... ISIS is rampaging through Iraq and Syria
Genuine Peace Process in the Middle East... Clusterfuck that's getting worse
America enjoying a Unipolar Moment... Rapid shift to a Multipolar World

The US was never on “good terms” with all of the world’s major powers. The US was on good terms with the small group of Soviet leaders who were willing to destroy their own country to further US interests. The US was on good terms with the Chinese leadership when China was hostile to Soviet interests.
The chaos in the Middle East is exactly what the globalists in charge of US foreign policy want.

The realists aren't blaming the US for centuries of Middle East Violence, or for the aggressive Russo-Chinese policies. We're blaming the US for making the proverbial pass when the game was on the line. Confrontational was inevitable, but it could've been a soft confrontation, instead of a hard one. What made Russia's confrontation hard?

First, how did America benefit from the Color Revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine? Were they vital to American Interests? Second, was there a point into attempting to make Khodorkovsky into a martyr, when he clearly evaded taxes and attempted to steal from Putin? Third, was it absolutely vital to US Interests to support most of what Saakashvili did, including a disastrous war? Fourth, was it vital to American Interests to expand NATO beyond Poland? Would a Partnership for Peace have been a better deal? Fifth, was it vital for American Interests to pass the Magnitsky Act? Sixth, was it vital to American Interests to intervene in Ukraine, (at least through financial and diplomatic means,) yet again? Because those are the steps that put Russia firmly in China's corner, and with the traditional Northern Rival gone, China can now challenge the US in the Pacific, focusing on one, (perhaps two if you count ASEAN and the South China Sea,) Fronts?

The Color Revolutions have encouraged Russophobia and entrenched the oligarchs in Georgia and Ukraine, which is exactly the outcome the US wanted.
Khodorkovsky’s case was used by the US to create the lie that Russia is a country with no justice where people are imprisoned for political rather than criminal acts.
The US backed Saakashvili because they have had an interest in creating instability in the Caucasus since the 1990s.
A partnership for peace would not allow NATO to station troops on Russia’s borders or to subvert democracy in Russia’s neighbours.
The Magnitsky case was basically the same as Khodorkovsky – portray a criminal as a political prisoner to support the false image of Russia as a country where political opponents are persecuted.
Although Crimea and parts of East Ukraine are now free, much of the rest of the country is now firmly in control of the oligarchs who will now implement austerity, destroy social rights and promote US corporate interests.
Conflict with China was inevitable regardless of relations between the US and Russia, the US only accepts China so long as its interests are secondary to the US, a situation which would not persist as China’s economic and political influence expands.

Moving on to the Middle East. Was it vital to US Interests to remove Saddam Hussein from power? In doing so, the counterweight to Iran was gone. With Saddam gone, Iran was going to get a much better deal than they would've gotten with Saddam present. Was it vital to US Interests to block a narrowly tailored condemnation against Israel's expanding construction in Palestine. Just that. That would've led to a much peaceful area, instead of Operation Cast Lead. I could go on and on, about every theater.

The globalists could not risk Saddam Hussein dying (naturally or otherwise) and inevitably being replaced by an elected pro-Iran leader. US foreign policy has been to systematically destabilize pro-Iranian governments in the Middle East.
The military industrial complex don’t want peace in Palestine, they want lawlessness and a weak government to justify military support to Israel.

[Mugrul]

The Color Revolutions have encouraged Russophobia and entrenched the oligarchs in Georgia and Ukraine, which is exactly the outcome the US wanted.

You couldn't be more wrong on that. The oligarchs (one of whom was implicated in the Panama papers btw) were Saakashvili's opponents most of the time.

In addition Saakashvili initially did try to improve relations with Russia, so no teh ebil color relvolutions are not a Russophobic conspiracy either.

[Napkiraly]

The Color Revolutions have encouraged Russophobia and entrenched the oligarchs in Georgia and Ukraine, which is exactly the outcome the US wanted.

You couldn't be more wrong on that. The oligarchs (one of whom was implicated in the Panama papers btw) were Saakashvili's opponents most of the time.

In addition Saakashvili initially did try to improve relations with Russia, so no teh ebil color relvolutions are not a Russophobic conspiracy either.

To be fair, the Colour Revolutions were seen by the Russian elite as threatening the political regime within Russia and threatening Russia's influence in its near abroad. But meh.

[Shofercia]

The Color Revolutions have encouraged Russophobia and entrenched the oligarchs in Georgia and Ukraine, which is exactly the outcome the US wanted.

You couldn't be more wrong on that. The oligarchs (one of whom was implicated in the Panama papers btw) were Saakashvili's opponents most of the time.

In addition Saakashvili initially did try to improve relations with Russia, so no teh ebil color relvolutions are not a Russophobic conspiracy either.

By attacking South Ossetia in 2004? It's been well established that Color Revolutions in Georgia, (once,) and Ukraine, (twice,) brought Russophobic Regimes to power.

You couldn't be more wrong on that. The oligarchs (one of whom was implicated in the Panama papers btw) were Saakashvili's opponents most of the time.

In addition Saakashvili initially did try to improve relations with Russia, so no teh ebil color relvolutions are not a Russophobic conspiracy either.

To be fair, the Colour Revolutions were seen by the Russian elite as threatening the political regime within Russia and threatening Russia's influence in its near abroad. But meh.

If the Caucasus was to reignite, the main people to suffer would be the average Russians living in the Caucasus District and South Russian Federal District.

I'm going to point out that relations between the USA and Russia were not good from the mid 90's until 2001. Mainly because there was a lot of domestic pressure within Russia to move away from the West because hardcore nationalists and much of the public couldn't accept that Russia was no longer a great power. You can easily see the differences between Russia and the West when you look at the rhetoric and policies of Kozyrev and then Primakov. While not as bad as they are now, they were far from being "good" especially considering there was a freaking showdown with Russian forces at Pristina airport in 99.

Also, for the love of God can we stop treating international relations realist theorists as somehow being the gold and only true standard. Personally, constructivists offer the best way of investigating international relations with realism only being applicable to certain states. Realists "States pursue their interests!!!!!" Wow, such fucking enlightenment. It's what those countries see as being their interests that matters however. Sweden, Iran, America, et al. have different interests and different ways of pursuing them. They also usually fail to account for other variables in dictating foreign policy from domestic pressure to ideological orientation of government and state officials.

Saying "If America just followed realism XYZ would have happened!!!!" means precisely jack shit since America did pursue its interests, they just aren't the interests favoured by realist scholars and officials.

A lot of factors led to the 1999 Pristina Airstrip Liberation/Occupation, (Serb/Albanian,) one of which Yeltsin partying with Clinton and not paying the soldiers. Relationship began to turn frosty only after the US helped Yeltsin rig the elections and the Commies relayed that information to the military, KGB, and pretty much anyone who'd listen. Also, there's no fucking way in which one could argue that Invading Iraq was pursuing genuine US Interests. Ditto for intervening in Georgia/Ukraine, unless the objective was to push Russia closer to China, in which case:

[Archegnum]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-35944255
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35960329
http://www.itv.com/news/topic/panama-papers/

I am sure that pretty much everyone is now aware of the controversy surrounding the recent release of the 'Panama Papers'; leaked documents concerning the offshore accounts and trusts set up by various individuals and groups of the world elite.

Just today, David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has stated that he did have a stake in his late father's offshore trust (http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-07/davi ... ore-trust/).

My question is as follows: what makes David Cameron guilty of tax evasion, which is illegal, as opposed to him being 'guilty' of tax avoidance, which is legal. Which is it, and how so? Furthermore, why is David Cameron being criticised for this when:

a) The stake was left to him by his father - who would simply refuse to inherit something left to them, especially something of such value?
b) Anticipating potential controversy, he claims to have sold the stake off already, before becoming Prime Minister.

Now, while I am a Conservative supporter, I generally do not support many of his policies. However, in this instance, I feel like that he is being wrongly accused of corruption when only having engaged (briefly, it seems) in tax avoidance via an offshore trust - which is perfectly legal.

NationStates! Am I wrong? Is what he and many other world leaders have done in fact illegal, and I have got my facts crossed? Or am I right? Is Cameron being wrongly accused? Or, most importantly of all, does this prove that every world leader involved is in fact a Reptilian member of the Illuminati !

(last question was sarcastic, for the more gullible NSers out there)

[Wolfmanne2]

You spelt Hameron wrong.

I mean, all we want to see is his tax returns and bit of transparency. I do not trust his mouth in this regards.

[Imperializt Russia]

There are already two threads where it would be valid to discuss this, and indeed it has been discussed there.

The UK Politics Megathread (2), as David Cameron is the sitting Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the political implications of such discussions are obvious; and the Panama Papers thread, as this is a revelation part of the overall Panama Papers revelations.

In any case tax avoidance, though "legal" for the fact of not directly being illegal, is immoral and unethical.
Cameron trying to brush off allegations of tax avoidance, or being associated with such, make him appear deeply hypocritical after going after individuals such as Jimmy Carr who also participated in and benefited from tax avoidance schemes.

[Vassenor]

There is also the fact that he has actively tried to protect these sorts of entities from official scrutiny in the past.

[Chestaan]

While tax avoidance may not be legal, it is an extremely dick thing to do. A lot like farting in a lift.

[MERIZoC]

"Eh, at least it wasn't illegal."

What a fantastic moral standard for elected officials.

[Chestaan]

"Eh, at least it wasn't illegal."

What a fantastic moral standard for elected officials.

And a lot of them don't even hold to that!

[Wolfmanne2]

One more thing, it took Cameron three days to admit he made a profit. Why not say so on day 1? What he is hiding goes deeper than a pig's throat.

[Imperializt Russia]

One more thing, it took Cameron three days to admit he made a profit. Why not say so on day 1? What he is hiding goes deeper than a pig's throat.

Damage control, obviously.

[Farnhamia]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-35944255
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35960329
http://www.itv.com/news/topic/panama-papers/

I am sure that pretty much everyone is now aware of the controversy surrounding the recent release of the 'Panama Papers'; leaked documents concerning the offshore accounts and trusts set up by various individuals and groups of the world elite.

Just today, David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has stated that he did have a stake in his late father's offshore trust (http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-07/davi ... ore-trust/).

My question is as follows: what makes David Cameron guilty of tax evasion, which is illegal, as opposed to him being 'guilty' of tax avoidance, which is legal. Which is it, and how so? Furthermore, why is David Cameron being criticised for this when:

a) The stake was left to him by his father - who would simply refuse to inherit something left to them, especially something of such value?
b) Anticipating potential controversy, he claims to have sold the stake off already, before becoming Prime Minister.

Now, while I am a Conservative supporter, I generally do not support many of his policies. However, in this instance, I feel like that he is being wrongly accused of corruption when only having engaged (briefly, it seems) in tax avoidance via an offshore trust - which is perfectly legal.

NationStates! Am I wrong? Is what he and many other world leaders have done in fact illegal, and I have got my facts crossed? Or am I right? Is Cameron being wrongly accused? Or, most importantly of all, does this prove that every world leader involved is in fact a Reptilian member of the Illuminati !

(last question was sarcastic, for the more gullible NSers out there)

ROlled up into the existing Panama Papers thread.

[Shofercia]

"Eh, at least it wasn't illegal."

What a fantastic moral standard for elected officials.

"It's not illegal if the president does it" - Tricky Dick

[District XIV]

Is Cameron being wrongly accused?

No.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 72311.html

[Vassenor]

David Cameron admits he profited from father's offshore fund

David Cameron has finally admitted he benefited from a Panama-based offshore trust set up by his late father.

After three days of stalling and four partial statements issued by Downing Street he confessed that he owned shares in the tax haven fund, which he sold for £31,500 just before becoming prime minister in 2010.

In a specially arranged interview with ITV News’ Robert Peston he confirmed a direct link to his father’s UK-tax avoiding fund, details of which were exposed in the Panama Papers revelations in the Guardian this week.

[Geilinor]

"Eh, at least it wasn't illegal."

What a fantastic moral standard for elected officials.

We can't punish people for legal activity, which is the point.

[MERIZoC]

"Eh, at least it wasn't illegal."

What a fantastic moral standard for elected officials.

We can't punish people for legal activity, which is the point.

When they're a politician you most certainly can.

[Imperializt Russia]

"Eh, at least it wasn't illegal."

What a fantastic moral standard for elected officials.

We can't punish people for legal activity, which is the point.

Codes of ethics.