This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, August 29, 2018:
In a sudden rhetorical turn, President Donald Trump, who vehemently criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as being “a disaster,” now welcomes an agreement to modify that same agreement with the outgoing president of Mexico, Enrique Pena Nieto. The details are skimpy, to be fleshed out more fully on Friday. Friday is the deadline for Nieto to sign it, with the conversation then turning to Canada for its approval and ratification. After that the U.S. International Trade Commission must do an economic analysis of the final agreement before it is presented to Congress for its approval.
One sticking point illustrates the danger of the new agreement that Trump wants to rename as the United States-Mexico Trade Agreement (presumably, USMTA) in case Canada fails to get on board. The sticking point – one of many over the past five weeks of intense negotiations by both parties – is just how much a vehicle built would contain parts made in the region, and how much regionally-produced steel would be involved. The idea is that the trade deal can tilt the tables in favor of more highly-paid auto workers in the U.S. and away from lower-paid Mexican auto workers. It might also shift some auto parts business away from China and towards Mexico.
But what business is it of any supranational group even to suggest such requirements? Isn’t that a decision to be made by automakers themselves? And how will the inevitable disputes over such requirements be resolved? If the present NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements are the standard, such disputes will be resolved, by force, by unelected officials far outside the reach of the sovereign American citizen, taxpayer and voter.
In other words, what is at risk in the new agreement (just as it was in the old) is the loss of national sovereignty.
And this, unfortunately, is by design. As globalist Henry Kissinger wrote during the initial NAFTA negotiations in 1993,
Before the end of summer, President Bill Clinton will ask Congress to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)…. It will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War.
In 2002, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox reiterated the purpose behind the NAFTA Trojan Horse:
Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.
As Christian Gomez noted in The New American last Friday, “While ostensibly sold and described as a ‘free trade agreement’ … the real objective behind NAFTA is the eventual economic integration and merger of all three member countries into one supranational structure.”
So dangerous is the “free trade” agreement – whether it is called NAFTA or USMTA – is that the John Birch Society has made it a priority issue of activism for its members. In the June issue of the members’ bulletin, JBS CEO Art Thompson made clear the reasons why:
Other people ignore the warnings of The John Birch Society because we seem to be the only source of those warnings.
This appears to be particularly true of NAFTA. It is rare that a nationally syndicated conservative commentator even mentions the deep problems associated with NAFTA, since it is treated as a trade deal [and] not a platform for merger of the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a supranational government of North America.
Thompson then warned against renegotiating NAFTA:
Let me be clear: renegotiating NAFTA, rather than pulling out, leaves in place the problematic aspects of merging the Mexican, Canadian, and American branches of government and society in the future. Even if a renegotiated NAFTA is a “good deal” compared to the old, it still leaves the platform in place for full merger in the future.
NAFTA/USMTA poses even a deeper threat: the loss of national sovereignty would ultimately destroy the culture of Western Civilization and return the planet to the dark ages characterized by the Hundred Years War and the Thirty Years War. Here is why: in 2005 the Council on Foreign Relations, the prime driver for globalism since its creation, created the Independent Task Force on North America, which in turn created a policy paper, Building a North American Community. Among its recommendations were:
- Establish a common security perimeter;
- Develop a North American border passport;
- Adopt a common external tariff; and
- Establish a permanent tribunal of unelected officials for North American dispute resolution.
Most pernicious of all, however, was this recommendation:
- Lay the groundwork for the free flow of people within North America.
This would destroy any sense of nationalism, national pride, and patriotism, and would lead to the homogenization of cultures, with disputes to be resolved by that “permanent tribunal” of unelected officials, no doubt appointed by globalists seeking control of the planet.
A rebuttal to such evil appeared in a sensible, carefully crafted article published as The Saturday Essay by the Wall Street Journal on Friday. From that article:
Nationalism is … the foundation of limited government and individual liberty and … allowing human diversity to flourish….
Nationalism was the engine that established modern political liberty, and it has been a spur to diversity among nations….
National cohesion is the secret ingredient that allows free institutions to exist, the bedrock on which a functioning democracy (sic: republic) is built.
Recognition of sovereign nation-states didn’t come easily: “Medieval Europe knew nothing of borders in the modern sense of the term; every ruler added to his dominion to the extent that he was able to [by force]. The ruinous efforts to conquer France by five generations of English kings during the Hundred Years War (1337-1453) offer a good example of what a world without strong national borders looks like.”
It took the treaties of Westphalia in 1648 to end the Thirty Years’ War and establish the concept of national sovereignty for nation-states. Said the Journal:
The Westphalia treaties of 1648, which brought an end to the Thirty Years’ War, marked Europe’s turn away from the ideal of a universal monarchy – a Christian inspiration since Roman times – in favor of a diversity of constitutional and religious arrangements in different states.
It is that culture upon which the American Republic was built that is endangered by so-called free trade agreements, which deliberately hide the threat of enforced globalism by unelected elites who are sure they know what is best for the rest of us.
Many obstacles remain before NAFTA/USMTA can be implemented, as noted above. That gives Americanists, including activist members of The John Birch Society, time to bring pressure to bear on their elected representatives to reject outright any attempt to “modify” the odious NAFTA in its new iteration. This gives them time to remind their elected representatives that they are sovereign citizens who have no interest in giving away any part of that sovereignty to any supranationalist, globalist NWO-type organization, no matter how attractive it may appear on the outside. At stake is nothing less than Western Civilization itself.
Politico.com: Trump announces preliminary NAFTA deal with Mexico
The Wall Street Journal: Trump Hails U.S.-Mexico Trade Pact, Says ‘We’ll See’ With Canada
The Wall Street Journal: The Liberty of Nations
The New American: “Free Trade” Isn’t Really About Trade