By Al Colombo, Editor
Does free trade agreements like NAFTA, GATT, and now the WTO derail jobs in the United States? Do they undermine the Constitutionally-protected rights that citizens in this country have come to enjoy and expect? What about the effects of the WTO and IMF on the citizens of other countries?
Globalization is like a two-edged sword. On one hand it might actually benefit those who live in third-world countries by opening up a new source of low-paying jobs. On the other, it results in the loss of industrial jobs in developed countries, converting them into service economies. Trade liberalization agreements have given companies the option of picking up and moving their manufacturing operations out of country in search of cheap labor. We've all seen this result in the loss of thousands of industrial-based jobs and the conversion of America to a service-based economy.
What effect has this had here in America? Although it is difficult to lump the result into one general statement, it is safe to say that many of those who lost their jobs, those who once made upward to $25 an hour, now have to work for service job wages, which is generally less then $9 an hour. Where they once had nice homes, where they once lived in nice neighborhoods, many of them live in small, run down apartments in urban centers. Others live in homeless conditions, which means on the street or in and out of homeless shelters and soup kitchens.
Is this what America is all about: Service Jobs? The fact is, there is no shortage of $5 an hour jobs out there. Many folks who once made $15 and $25 an hour are working them. Without those high-paying industrial jobs, many folks are no longer able to purchase your products or your services. How can they when they went from $25 to $5 an hour? It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that sending our industrial jobs over the border has thrown many of the workers who once occupied these positions into a massive tail spin.
Ah, but that's them and not us, right? So long as it does not touch our lives we can gloss over it, ignore it, and even forget it. But industry is what made this country great. If you take industry out of this country, we are no longer a self sufficient people. But self sufficiency is not within the intent of the New Global Economy.
What is the intent of the New Global Economy? Quite simply, besides making our transnationalists even more rich, those who dreamed up and implemented this New Global Economy intend to make all nations' people interdependent upon one another. Sounds neat and family oriented, no? Well, interdependency, when it comes to national concerns, is simply a tool to weaken an opponent. If a country wants to weaken its enemies, the most simple way is to disable their industry, in this case by taking it out of country. By so doing this, they have reduced their enemies' ability to make weapons and other necessary goods that would enable them to militarily protect themselves.
A few decades ago if anyone would have suggested allowing our industry to move out of country in such a manner our Congress would have said no, and they did! Trade liberalization is not new. It's been around for a long time; but, folks with common sense always knew that it would lead to a state of weakness where the United States would not be able to take care of itself.
Take World War I and World War II, for example. If the United States had not had the high degree of industrial firms already in place, do you think for one moment that we would have been able to assist the cause of freedom elsewhere in the world? Now, bring this home to America. If war were to be waged against our nation, do you think that we could immediately react by manufacturing the necessary armaments? The answer is NO!! Now, add to this the United Nation's expressed intent to disarm the little folks in this country, as they have done elsewhere, and you see a pattern emerging. (To read more about this issue, go to the Front Page Menu on The Giant Killers web site and look for the title: Department of State Publication 7277.)
But war will never break out here, right? You had better guess again, for China is working full speed ahead, building it's military capability just to engage this country in war. You don't believe that? It's on record. Our own CIA released a report outlining their intent and their strategy. Now, they're in the Panama Canal Zone, which is a hop, skip, and a jump away.
Folks, wake up.
Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why this is happening and who's behind this? The fact is, there are many well meaning folks behind the Global push, but these well meaning folks do not know the whole story. They've been given only a small part of a much larger agenda to which they do not have access. So, they work for rich men in high places and they don't even know it.
The push for "Globalism" centers on free trade and the redistribution of wealth. This effort has been long in the making, but recently, the United Nations adopted a little known document they entitled Agenda 21. This document is comprised of 40 chapters that describe and define a global plan by which world governments are to conduct their everyday business. References to this document can be found within may other U.N. agendas and other legal documents.
On its face, some of what it says may very well benefit the poor in third-world countries; but, there is little doubt that those who have the most to gain are those who hold the purse strings of large, transnational companies. Helping those poor folks in undeveloped nations will, indeed, provide low-wage jobs, but it will also come at a huge price to the poor and middle-income folks in developed countries, like the United States of America.
For example, in Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Agenda 21 says:
2.3. The international economy should provide a supportive international climate for achieving environment and development goals by:
(a) Promoting sustainable development through trade liberalization;
(b) Making trade and environment mutually supportive;
(c) Providing adequate financial resources to developing countries and dealing with international debt;
(d) Encouraging macroeconomic policies conducive to environment and development.
All of this sounds good, calling for the cooperation between governments for free trade, the protection of the environment, and helping those in third-world countries financially, until you read further.
Section 2.10, says:
Accordingly, the international community should:
(a) Halt and reverse protectionism in order to bring about further liberalization and expansion of world trade, to the benefit of all countries, in particular the developing countries;
(b) Provide for an equitable, secure, non-discriminatory and predictable international trading system;
(c) Facilitate, in a timely way, the integration of all countries into the world economy and the international trading system;
(d) Ensure that environment and trade policies are mutually supportive, with a view to achieving sustainable development;
(e) Strengthen the international trade policies system through an early, balanced, comprehensive and successful outcome of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations.
Let's look further at what the United Nations expect developed countries to do. In Section 2.22, Agenda 21 says that:
Governments should encourage GATT, UNCTAD and other relevant
international and regional economic institutions to examine, in accordance
with their respective mandates and competences, the following propositions and
(a) Elaborate adequate studies for the better understanding of the relationship between trade and environment for the promotion of sustainable development;
(b) Promote a dialogue between trade, development and environment communities;
(c) In those cases when trade measures related to environment are used, ensure transparency and compatibility with international obligations;
(d) Deal with the root causes of environment and development problems in a manner that avoids the adoption of environmental measures resulting in unjustified restrictions on trade;
(e) Seek to avoid the use of trade restrictions or distortions as a means to offset differences in cost arising from differences in environmental standards and regulations, since their application could lead to trade distortions and increase protectionist tendencies;
(f) Ensure that environment-related regulations or standards, including those related to health and safety standards, do not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade;
(g) Ensure that special factors affecting environment and trade policies in the developing countries are borne in mind in the application of environmental standards, as well as in the use of any trade measures. It is worth noting that standards that are valid in the most advanced countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost for the developing countries;
(h) Encourage participation of developing countries in multilateral agreements through such mechanisms as special transitional rules;
(i) Avoid unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country. Environmental measures addressing transborder or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus. Domestic measures targeted to achieve certain environmental objectives may need trade measures to render them effective. Should trade policy measures be found necessary for the enforcement of environmental policies, certain principles and rules should apply. These could include, inter alia, the principle of non-discrimination; the principle that the trade measure chosen should be the least trade-restrictive necessary to achieve the objectives; an obligation to ensure transparency in the use of trade measures related to the environment and to provide adequate notification of national regulations; and the need to give consideration to the special conditions and developmental requirements of developing countries as they move towards internationally agreed environmental objectives;
(j) Develop more precision, where necessary, and clarify the relationship between GATT provisions and some of the multilateral measures adopted in the environment area;
(k) Ensure public input in the formation, negotiation and implementation of trade policies as a means of fostering increased transparency in the light of country-specific conditions;
(l) Ensure that environmental policies provide the appropriate legal and institutional framework to respond to new needs for the protection of the environment that may result from changes in production and trade specialization.
Ask yourself this one question, couldn't there be a better way to help the poor in these third-world countries without damaging the poor and middle-income class in developed countries? Like a parent might do with their young children, the global money rulers have given us one choice, globalization. Shouldn't we have something to say about this? Surely there's a better way to do this without you and I sacrificing our jobs.
If you are interested in learning more about Agenda 21, Chapter 2, click HERE. This will open up a new window in your browser. Close it out when you are finished.
|Editor's Note: Permission is granted to reproduce this or any of the other articles and commentaries that appear on this web site, providing they appear in their entirety with the author's name, e-mail address, and www.GiantKillers.Org included.
Thank you. --Al Colombo
Return to Comments Menu
Return to Main Menu