Inside the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
By John F. McManus
Approximately 50 people gathered in a conference room at the State Department on March 10. They were there for a meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) that serves as an advisory body to the U.S. government. As it turned out, those attending would be treated to a discussion that would focus on issues of national interdependence and international convergence. In other words, the discussion included talk about issues related to merging the United States economically with other nations.
Washington lawyer Ted Kassinger, a former Deputy Secretary and General Counsel at the Department of Commerce, chaired the session. He was assisted by Assistant Secretary of State Daniel S. Sullivan.
Attendees were immediately instructed that the meeting would be held according to “Chatham House rules,” which means that no person should be identified with any comments given during the proceedings. It would be permissible to mention what was discussed but no attribution would be allowed. Chatham House is another name for Britain’s Royal Institute for International Affairs, the internationalist equivalent in that nation for the Council on Foreign Relations in America.
It was explained at the outset that ACIEP’s purpose was not just trade but the entire field of economics. Other than Kassinger and Sullivan, presenters at the meeting included the following:
- State Department official William E. Lucas who is the department’s director for European Union and regional economic affairs.
- Michael Maibach, President and CEO of the European-American Business Council, an association of 75 major companies forging policy alliances to enhance Trans-Atlantic investment, innovation and integration.
- Retired Army General Dan Christman, a Senior Vice President for International Affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
- State Department official Greg Delawie who is the Director of the Office of Bilateral Trade Affairs.
- William A. Reinsch, a former Under Secretary at the Department of Commerce and current President of the National Foreign Trade Council representing 300 companies and actively supporting the efforts of the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, both foreign aid dispensers.
Regarding our nation’s future independence, the words “convergence,” “harmonization,” and “integration” were used frequently and each was characterized as the overall goal. Every dictionary I have consulted states that “integration” means creating a single entity.
Beyond frequent mention of 
NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the participants delighted in discussing the Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration created in April 2007 by President Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. According to information distributed at the meeting, this “Framework has put the United States and the European Union on a joint path toward further transatlantic economic integration ….” Claiming it also to entail a “political commitment,” the Framework has led to “a new Cabinet-level Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC).
Some of the comments made about the TEC were enlightening. “We are in close contact with the EU.” “We have great hopes for more US-EU discussions.” “We want to reduce and harmonize regulatory burdens.” “It was simply wonderful to have this meeting [TEC] with our EU friends, and six cabinet leaders were in attendance along with the heads of two regulatory agencies [EPA and FDA].” Obviously, this TEC is paving the way for convergence of North America and the EU.
One speaker said it would be wise not to refer to what they were doing as “NAFTA Plus.” Evidently, those favoring “convergence” are aware of growing opposition to NAFTA. Another admitted: “SPP builds on NAFTA.” Still another offered, “The Security aspect of SPP is being directed by the Department of Homeland Security, and the Prosperity aspect is being directed by the Department of Commerce.”
There were quite a few references to progress already achieved (both within SPP and TEC) regarding accounting standardization and some regulatory controls. New areas where they intend to make further progress include harmonization of standards in the areas of bio fuels, health, IT products, and RFID technology.
On participant noted, “Together, North America and the EU nations add up to 11 percent of the world’s population and 58 percent of the world’s Gross Domestic Product.” He seemed unhappy about this.
Another stated, “It was great progress when the North American Competitiveness Council was launched at the Montebello SPP meeting.” “The NACC’s input from the private sector helps to harmonize what we are doing.” There are 17 major U.S. corporations in the NACC, each assisting in this drive toward globalization.
One speaker mentioned the goal of defusing potential terrorism by creating jobs for young people who might become terrorists. He specifically mentioned programs already being planned for the Pakistan/Iraq border and the Philippines. He said he would be going to Pakistan soon to work on this project. While jobs are fading fast in the United States, these people are working to create jobs elsewhere.
Toward the very end of the program, I raised my hand and was given a chance to speak. I said:
I’m John McManus from The New American magazine. I want to note that several million jobs have been lost since NAFTA which many feel is somewhat responsible for these losses. And I note that no one from the Congress is in attendance at this meeting. I have two questions. One: Do the SPP and TEC derive authorization from NAFTA to move ahead and tie the U.S. to more rules and regulations? And two: Some Europeans (former German President Mr. Herzog, for one) note that as much as 80 percent of the laws being enacted in their countries stem from the EU in Brussels. Does this committee intend to duplicate for the U.S. what is occurring in Europe?
Mr. Kassinger immediately reminded me that Chatham Rules were in effect, and told me that I could address my questions to one of the State Department officials in attendance after the meeting. He quickly moved on to something else and the meeting ended soon after, so I was effectively quieted.
I waited around and spoke to Assistant Secretary of State Sullivan after the meeting ended. A junior State Department employee immediately appeared at my side, asked if I intended to question Sullivan, and stood by me for a good ten minutes while others finished their comments to Sullivan. This was a bit unsettling. He remained at my side when I finally got a chance to talk to Sullivan.
To Daniel Sullivan, I repeated my question about NAFTA being the source of their authorization to proceed. He never answered. I asked how they could move ahead without any input from Congress and he danced around that too. I said, “Look, the SPP has 20 working groups at the Department of Commerce and they’re putting out reports and working on convergence and no one in Congress is involved.” At this point, the junior State Department official reminded me about the Chatham Rules but Mr. Sullivan said he didn’t mind being quoted. When he sought to defend what they were advocating by discounting the fact that “some towels were being made” in a faraway land, I told him that there were many U.S. textile plants that had closed or downsized because of NAFTA. He didn’t like that but didn’t respond.
I could see I wasn’t getting anywhere with Sullivan, so I handed him a copy of the “Merger in the Making” issue of The New American and told him that there are many Americans who are determined to protect the independence of the United States and don’t like what SPP and its related groups are doing. He looked intently at the cover of the magazine and said nothing.
I left. The junior state Department official carefully watched me as I walked down the corridor toward the front door of the building.
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
|
