Since the World Trade Organization recently met in Seattle, perhaps it's appropriate that each of us ask ourselves the grand question:
Why are we subjecting ourselves, one of the most powerful nations on the face of the earth, to the will and whims of an organization largely run by and for those who live in third-world countries?
Oh, perhaps the hidden agenda here involves rich Internationalists who have big money to gain by its existence--at the expense of American industrial workers, of course. When you step back and take a long look at the bigger picture here, you should begin to realize that those who have the most to gain by this oganization and free trade are none other than the Internationalists who own 98% of the assets in this and other countries.
I do not believe that the issue of free trade involves preceived or imagined benefits for the citizens of third-world countries. It's more about the creation of a cheap labor pool from which the Internationalist Elite are able to hire.
Folks, in other words, instead of paying the customary $10 to $18 an hour for American industrial workers, they are now able to hire 80-cents-a-day workers (in some cases) in third-world countries and then bring their off-shore-made products and monetary profits back home, wherever that happens to be, without the customary tariffs and monetary taxation. When they bring their products back home to the United States guess who they expect to buy them? In many cases, it's the very people who they've put out of work!
The following story is an example of how the WTO routinely rules against the United States in matters of trade. This is one of many cases where they have ruled in favor of third-world countries at our expense.
Why should you care? Even if you work in a service-oriented job, you should care because someone here must be able to afford your products and services. The more men and women who work on the industrial side, making $15 to $20 an hour, the more your wares and services will be purchased.
Frankly, I'm concerned that many of the remaining U.S. industrial companies may not be able to remain on U.S. soil for much longer. Hey, you add it up:
Cheap Labor (at pennies per hour)
vs.
U.S. Labor (at $15 to $20 an hour).
It does not take a math genius to figure this out.
Kind Regards,
Al Colombo
P.S. At the end of the following story, please read the Editor's Note. I believe it offers one possible answer to why the Globalist Elite have intentionally unlevel the financial/economic playing field here in the Untied States and other developed nations across the world.
In April, the World Trade Organization ruled that the United States must accept shrimp from other countries when the manner in which it is caught violates established U.S. import laws. It has long been an accepted fact that shrimp caught in nets can snag seat turtles and many other types of ocean life. Thus, for years it has been illegal to import shrimp caught in this manner.
"As an April decision by the World Trade Organization (WTO) indicates, the interests of one nation's consumers may be consistently forced to yield to the interests of free trade," said Marguerite Holloway, author of TRADE RULES, published in Scientific American, August 1998.
According to Holloway, the environmental community has mobilized and the U.S. intends to appeal the WTO's decision. One reason is that all seven species of sea turtles are endangered. The other reason is that U.S. law makers and environmentalists are concerned about the WTO's lack of concern for the environment.
Holloway says that this is not the first instance where the WTO has ruled against a nation's right to determine its own trade policies. For example, U.S. companies must import tuna from Mexico that places dolphins in danger. Likewise, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently lowered air-quality standards to make way for imported reformulated gasolines. Europeans must also import hormone-treated beef from the U.S.
According to the WTO, if the product is like most others, then the United States or any other country is obligated to import it. In Holloway's story, Daniel A. Seligman of the Sierra Club says that the WTO fails to take into consideration how a product is produced. Where U.S. producers are forced to comply with strict manufacturing and environmental laws, their foreign competitors are free to produce their products in almost any manner they wish, which has raised food- safety concerns in the past.
Although the WTO is charged with advancing sustainable development, "The preamble to its charter...; Article XX, GATT..., offers exceptions to the rule of free trade; and the organization set up the Committee on Trade and the Environment. But that committee has not clarified the relation between the WTO and international environmental treaties," says Margurite Holloway, author of TRADE RULES, Scientific American, August 1998, pg. 33).
©1998 Safety & Security Magazine
Editor's Note: One possible reason for the WTO's lack of concern over the violation of import laws may be the mandates set forth in a little-known document called Agenda 21, endorsed and promoted by the United Nations. To read about Agenda 21, click HERE. In particular, read Chapter 2. --Al Colombo
Send me your comments please | The Beginning or End By Alicia Colombo |
Return to Comments Menu
Return to Main Menu
