American Sovereignty and
The North American Union
By John W. Wallace
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
www.johnwallaceforcongress.com
The term ‘Free Trade’ is usually defined as the absence of tariffs, quotas, or other
governmental barriers to international trade. There is no doubt that many recent free
trade agreements have not been very good for the American worker. On the other hand,
the agreements have been great for the large multinational corporations, particularly those
that have moved their manufacturing plants from the United States to China, Mexico and
other low-wage countries where they can hire people there for a few dollars a week.
These corporations can now produce their products without worrying about the costs of
meeting OSHA requirements, providing employee health care or pensions for its workers
and then they can bring their products back into the USA to sell. These products
oftentimes are not made to the same quality standards as when they were produced in
America and as recents incidents involving Chineese imports have shown, these products
can pose health hazards to Americans as well.
The supporters of many free trade agreements, particularly the North American Free
Trade Agreement (
NAFTA), have always promised increased exports, better jobs and
better wages. Under many of these free trade agreements, however, just the opposite has
occurred. Under NAFTA, for example, the U.S. trade deficit has soared and now
averages $55-65 Billion dollars per month; the U.S. has lost over a million manufacturing
jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen significantly. In short,
NAFTA has not been a friend to the citizenry of either the United States or Mexico.
The force behind much of the modern free trade movement has been two very private,
though official sounding organizations, the Council on Foreign Relations and the
Trilateral Commission. Members of these two organizations, which have included recent
U.S. presidents, currently dominate key positions in America's government, military,
multinational corporations, media outlets and educational foundations and institutions.
Both organizations support the economic integration of the United States, with Canada
and Mexico.
For example, in 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations published a report entitled
"Building a North American Community." Some of the recommendations included the
need for the US, Canada and Mexico to:
- "Adopt a common external tariff."
- "Adopt a North American Approach to Regulation"
- "Establish a common security perimeter by 2010."
- "Establish a North American investment fund for infrastructure and human
capital."
- "Establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution."
- "An annual North American Summit meeting" that would bring the heads-of-state
together for the sake of public display of confidence.
- "Establish minister-led working groups that will be required to report back within
90 days, and to meet regularly."
- Create a "North American Advisory Council"
- Create a "North American Inter-Parliamentary Group."16
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States,
Canada and Mexico was negotiated by President George H.W. Bush. The US Trade
representative at the time, Ms. Carla Hills, was the primary architect and negotiator of
NAFTA. Both President Bush and Ms. Hills were members of the Trilateral Commission.
Bill Clinton, the next President, who also became the champion of NAFTA, ultimately
fast tracked its passage through congress. Clinton was also a member of the Trilateral
Commission.
The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission have both supported the
joint screening of travelers from countries outside of North America at their first point of
entry into North America and have recommended the elimination of most controls over
the temporary movement of these travelers within North America. In other words, the
United States should not control its own border, nor limit the travel of other North
Americans into our country. Maybe this is why our government currently seems
unwilling or unable to control our borders.
In 2005, a new mechanism was created to speed the further expansion of the NAFTA free
trade agreement into a North American Union. It is called the Strategic and Prosperity
Partnership of North America (SPP), which was an agreement between President George
W. Bush, President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin during their
March 2005 summit meeting in Waco, Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership is
designed to facilitate the establishment of a North America Union through the “economic
integration” of the US, Mexico and Canada. The NAFTA superhighway proposal is
another part of the plan and it is also designed to help erase the borders between the three
countries. The goal is to create a single entity out of the United States, Canada and
Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and possibly with its own monetary system
similar to the Euro. Unfortunately, the people of the United States have never had the
opportunity to be heard as to whether or not they wanted “economic integration” with
Mexico and Canada.
The most important feature of the SPP is that it does not require congressional ratification
or the passage of any federal legislation by the congress of the United States. This design
places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United
States. How else would Mexican truckers be able to begin operating in the USA over the
objections of Congress, American truckers and most of the American people?
The people and their elected representatives in congress no longer seem to have a voice
when it comes to international trade. This is definitely a national sovereignty issue.
International trade issues that affect 300+ million Americans should be made by the
people’s representatives in Congress, not by a handful of government bureaucrats and
corporate elites who use their government connections to bypass congress and ignore our
Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international
trade.
The goal of these international trade elite is to create an integrated North American
Union, complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless
travel within the proposed Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union
would represent another step toward the destruction of our national sovereignty. A free
America, with limited, constitutional government, would just be a memory.
I support any legislation, similar to House H.CON.RES.40 of the 110th Congress that
expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should:
1. Not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) Superhighway System;
2. Not allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership to implement regulations that
would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and
3. Urges the President to oppose these acts or any other proposals that threaten U.S.
sovereignty.
The language of Resolution 40, however, is not strong enough. Free trade agreements like
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT
), World Trade Organization (WTO), and Central American Free Trade
Agreement CAFTA
are a threat to our sovereignty and independence as a nation because
these types of agreements transfer power from the U.S. government to unelected
international bureaucrats.
Not all free trade agreements are bad, but I believe that the United States of America
must withdraw from any international agreements that infringe upon the freedom,
sovereignty and independence of the American people.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|
