“Free” Trade: Undermining Defense, Sovereignty, and the American Job Market

[Origanalist]

Nothing To Do with Either Freedom or Trade
BY PETER GEMMA • JANUARY 23, 2014 •



A powerful conglomerate consisting of Wall Street moguls, multi-national corporate elites, and political insiders — the one percent cabal as some call them — are mounting an assault on the American economy, endangering national defense, and subverting U.S. sovereignty. Their weaponry includes so-called “free trade” treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — the godfather of subsequent deals — and the establishment of regulatory agencies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

That’s a mouthful of allegations, but let me address each charge. First, the once percent cabal.

Paul Craig Roberts was the Assistant Treasury Secretary in Ronald Reagan’s cabinet. He’s written eight books and his articles appear in leading publications like The New York Times, BusinessWeek, and the Wall Street Journal. He knows his stuff. Roberts concisely defines the power elites:

“The U.S. now resembles an oligarchy of private interests. The most powerful ones are Wall Street, AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the military/security complex, the oil industry, agri-business, insurance and pharmaceuticals. These private interests control economic and foreign policy, write the legislation that Congress passes and the President signs, and have achieved the monopolization of the U.S. economy by large-scale commercial organizations. As far as I can tell, traditional conservatives scarcely exist in the U.S. today. They have been eliminated by the neoconservatives, essentially militarists committed to U.S. world hegemony.”

Now let’s get to the real deal of “free trade” vs. American sovereignty.

Free trade treaties have nothing to do with free or fair trade: they are managed commerce arrangements. The NAFTA pact (January 1st marked its 20th birthday) had over a thousand pages of fine print — it was filled with favors and exceptions for special interests, while imposing obligations and restrictions on the beleaguered American manufacturing sector. Free trade deals pose a threat to national sovereignty by ceding trading controls and accountability to such international agencies as the World Trade Organization. Pundit Patrick Buchanan has noted, “The WTO elevates trade to the highest good. It is trade uber alles. Trade trumps the environment. Trade trumps human rights. It trumps the security of countries. It trumps the sovereignty of countries. It should never have been created.”

The fine print contained in the investment chapters of free trade deals grant foreign corporations property rights that are nonexistent under U.S. constitutional law. These rights enable corporations to drag the U.S. before international tribunals, and to seek money to compensate for the costs of complying with “free trade” regulations (an oxymoron) that protect their self interests. During the debate over the Korea free trade pact, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Jim Hoffa issued this statement: “One of the real dangers of this deal is that it gives South Korean multinationals new rights to challenge U.S. laws. Why should a foreign company or investor have more power in this country than our own small businesses?”

When this writer interviewed Ian Fletcher, author of Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace it and Why, he referenced the recent Korea free trade deal as an example of how international courts can overrule U.S. jurisdictions: “Korean corporations can take any dispute with federal or state laws, regulations, or rules to the WTO. There are over a two hundred corporate affiliates of Korean firms in the U.S. that can obtain these new rights under the free trade agreement to challenge local, state and national laws.”

Congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX) and Walter Jones (R-NC) wrote a letter to their House colleagues stating: “Free trade theorists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo must be rolling in their graves to see pacts like President Obama’s Korea Agreement called ‘free trade.’ It includes endless pages of rules and regulations enforced by foreign tribunals. This act is a sneaky form of international preemption, undermining the critical checks and balances and freedoms established by the U.S. Constitution’s reservation of many rights to the people or state governments.”

Continued at..http://www.unz.com/article/free-trad...an-job-market/

[Zippyjuan]

Maybe we should ban all imports and exports. No trade for everybody. We can't compete with other countries.

It includes endless pages of rules and regulations enforced by foreign tribunals.

On US companies operating on other countries being subject to "international rules" -should foreign companies operating in the US be exempt from our rules if we don't want to operate under the rules of others? Or should everyone just use US rules?

[Occam's Banana]

Maybe we should ban all imports and exports. No trade for everybody. We can't compete with other countries.

That is an egregious straw man. So far as I have seen, no one has even remotely suggested any such thing - not even the "protectionist" wing of those of us opposed to so-called "free" (actually "managed") trade. There were certainly no such suggestions made (or even implied) in the OP article.

On US companies operating on other countries being subject to "international rules" - should foreign companies operating in the US be exempt from our rules if we don't want to operate under the rules of others? Or should everyone just use US rules?

US companies operating in other countries being subject to those countries' rules (and foreign companies operating in the US being subject to US rules) is NOT in any way, shape or form the same thing as everyone being subject to the "international rules" of elite "managed trade" organizations, institutions & regulatory regimes that are accountable only to internationalized & well-connected special interests and their assorted rent-seeking hangers-on.

Trade that is subject to the rule of organizations & institutions that arrogate to themselves the power to override the authority of sovereign states over their own affairs (internal laws, regulations, rules, etc.) is NOT "free" trade. Free trade is achieved by allowing people to trade freely - NOT by "managing" trade (for the benefit of whom, by the way?), as these so-called "free" trade agreements purport to do.

[Lucille]

Liberal Politicians Launched the Idea of “Free Trade Agreements” In the 1960s to Strip Nations of Sovereignty
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...-strip-nations

Preface: Liberals might assume that it is Republicans who are cheerleaders for global corporations at the expense of government. But, as shown below, liberal politicians have been just as bad … or worse.

Matt Stoller – who writes for Salon and has contributed to Politico, Alternet, Salon, The Nation and Reuters – knows his way around Washington.

Stoller – a prominent liberal – has scoured the Congressional Record to unearth hidden historical facts. For example, Stoller has previously shown that the U.S. government push for a “New World Order” is no wacky conspiracy theory, but extensively documented in the Congressional Record.

Now, Stoller uses the Congressional Record to show that “free trade” pacts were always about weakening nation-states to promote rule by multinationals:
[...]
The bottom line is not that liberals – or conservatives – are evil.

It’s that neither the Democratic or Republican parties reflect the true values of the American people (and see this).

Indeed, a scripted psuedo-war between the parties is often used by the powers-that-be as a way to divide and conquer the American people, so that we are too distracted to stand up to reclaim our power from the idiots in both parties who are only governing for their own profit … and a small handful of their buddies.

Free Trade is global fascism
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/02/f...l-fascism.html

...Fascists are always all about "efficiency". If the thought of global efficiency doesn't put a shiver down the spine of a God-fearing free trader and cause him to rethink his position, well, there isn't much hope for him. Note that "the idea behind getting rid of these barriers wasn’t about free trade, it was about reorganizing the world so that corporations could manage resources for “the benefit of mankind”"

Corporate resource management in the name of freedom. That's what "free trade" is.

[Queer_Libertarian_Radical]

"Free" trade agreements kinda reminds me of the "Patriot" Act. In Orwellian double speak, the authoritarians use the exact opposite of what they are doing to pass their agenda.