Part 6:Treason,The NWO...Rise of the Transnational Corporations...Rise of the National Security State
the New World Order
Rise of the Transnational Corporations
“There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains.”
“The corporations...have successfully leveraged economic power into political power that undercuts the Constitution.”
The growth of modern transnational or multinational corporations has created many problems for our constitutional form of government. These changes have come upon us almost unannounced and with little recognition by the general public, although in recent years more people are examining the implications of this development. From trade and banking to tourism, human rights, and environmental concerns many activities are now global in outlook and influence. These cross-border economic, social, cultural, and political interactions are increasingly being directed and controlled by large corporations not by governments. Especially with the end of the cold war, economic not military competition rules supreme. Globalization represents the radical transformation of the global economy to benefit large corporations.
Nations have lost the power to control their economics, and financial markets often determine the success or failure of government programs. The Boston Globe, on April 11, 1994, said: “Corporate taxes are crumbling in many industrial countries as companies move their booked profits from one locale to another, telling different stories to different tax collectors.” In 1993, the General Accounting Office told Congress that 40 percent of corporations with assets of at least $250 million paid under $100,000 in U.S. income taxes. Dateline, on August 18, 1995, said the U.S. government isn't properly taxing foreign corporations in the U.S., because U.S. corporations would then be forced to pay higher taxes overseas. About 75 percent of foreign corporations with U.S. operations pay no U.S. taxes.
Large corporations now can compete on equal terms with governments. They are accountable to no one, as the BCCI scandal demonstrated. Multinational corporations can move their production to countries where wage and production costs are much lower. Until recently, this could not be done easily because of political considerations and a lack of capital and technology. However, there has been an increased fusion of economic and political power because of increased capital flows and technological advances. There is now one global work force, with labor far cheaper in third world nations. National interest is determined by what industry, not the people, wants. In 1973 George Ball told the House Committee on Foreign Affairs: “The multinational corporation not only promises the most efficient use of world resources, but as an institution, it poses the greatest challenge to the power of a nation-state since the temporal position of the Roman Church began to decline in the 15th century.”
The rise of the corporate state has given transnational corporations the power to threaten the very existence of democratic institutions throughout the world. Local political movements and regulations have been weakened, while international organizations like the World Bank are beyond democratic control. Steve Solomon, in The Confidence Game, said many governments are transferring power to central banks. Institutions and agreements like the World Bank, GATT, NAFTA International Monetary Fund (IMF), UN, Inter-American Development Bank, World Economic Forum, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations were established by the corporate elite “to create a new, highly undemocratic governing structure for the global economy. These institutions are imposing a global corporate agenda designed to extract wealth and resources from poorer countries and communities and concentrate them among the global elite.”1 Representing the corporate elite, the World Bank supports programs that increase trade at the expense of social stability, the environment, and worker welfare. 2 Under the guise of free trade, corporate control over our lives increases while national sovereignty is weakened. The goal is global economic union to create political union and a one world government. Henry Kissinger, on July 18, 1993 in the Los Angeles Times, said: “What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system...a first step toward a new world order.” NAFTA represents “the vital first step for a new kind of community of nations.”
As economic power grew and expanded overseas, the multinational corporations received government assistance to manage their economic empires. Greater corporate involvement and interaction with the government required greater secrecy to maintain the myth of democracy to keep the people quiet. Meanwhile corporate control over the people grows, labor unions continue to weaken, disillusionment with government grows, and free market ideology rules. With little accountability to workers or the public, multinational corporations now have tremendous political power in the U.S. 3 Accompanying this transformation has been a growing transfer of bad corporate debt to the government. [Actually to us DC]
James Morgan, in the London Financial Times, described the “de facto world government” now forming in the “new imperial age.” This world government will represent and serve the multinational corporations, preferably with the consent of the ignorant masses, but, if necessary, force and terror have and will continue to be used. The military arm of the coming one world government, for now, is money and capital flows. In the immediate years ahead, the growing UN army, its armed agent NATO, and the disarmament of individual nations will make countries powerless to protect their rights and sovereignty.
The West has used international institutions, military power, and economic resources to maintain political and economic dominance over third world nations. Democracy through a manipulation of market forces is being used as a weapon to promote the profits of transnational corporations. Foreign aid increasingly represents the corporate agenda. The goal of U.S. foreign policy is to promote capitalism, not democracy. Especially in China, Africa, and Latin America political reform is cosmetic because of the growing influence of multinational corporations. 4 Trade with China is no longer limited because of human rights, but a trade war almost developed when China illegally reproduced patented goods. Charles Lane, in The New Republic, recently said he might be denied some lunches at the CFR because he supported what many Republicans and the people demand: sharp cuts in foreign aid. Lane even called the arguments of those defending foreign aid acts of desperation. Foreign aid has often been an extension of the national security state and part of the vast corporate welfare programs of the federal government. It has for too many years been used to promote dictators who have nothing to do with our moral values. Foreign aid should end or be sharply reduced and be used primarily where the people actually benefit.5
U.S. government agencies, such as the U.S. Information Agency and the Agency for International Development, promote false or “low intensity democracy” around the world. 6 It costs the U.S. less to do this than to support an open and often unstable dictatorship, and social stability is more important in the global economy. The Trilateral Commission called for flexible methods to increase social control with less coercive methods. 7 A small group of elites legitimatize their rule with carefully controlled elections. The goal is stability, preferably through persuasion, for economic gain. 8 These ideas were promoted by Joseph Schumpeter, who said democracy only means that people have the opportunity to accept or refuse the men who rule them. 9
Third world governments are usually controlled by a ruling elite who may terrorize or kill those who interfere with official policy. Multinational corporations are relatively free to operate in these countries with favorable terms that included cheap labor, low taxes, and limited social programs, while local poverty grows as income distribution becomes more unequal. Local elites are bribed to control the people and prevent unions and dangerous popular movements. The welfare of the people is irrelevant. Democratic dialogue interferes with corporate efficiency. Examining how transnational corporations act in third world countries offers a clue to what is planned for the U.S., Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. In a one world government, transnational corporations wouldn't have to worry about inconveniences like strong labor unions, grass root revolts, or environmental issues. People who raised these issues will simply disappear.
Different countries strive to bring new corporations into their region by offering numerous benefits in bidding wars. Nations are forced to compete with each other for foreign investment and aid, which lowers the business costs of the multinational corporations but also lowers incomes and weakens the social and economic fabric of many nations. The result is increased unemployment, lower wages, more debt, weakened infrastructure, and slower economic growth. “The world is being moved by state-corporate policy towards a kind of third world model, with sectors of great wealth, a huge mass of misery, and a large superfluous population, lacking any rights because they contribute nothing to profit making for the rich.”10
Consumers in third world countries are sold inferior products by the multinationals through sophisticated marketing techniques that include Western logos and brand names. 11 More expensive Western medical drugs replace native folk medicines that are much cheaper and often more effective. Providing large scale food aid to third world nations has damaged their agriculture base and made them dependent on western bankers and corporations to survive. We spend billions to provide food aid, yet for decades far less aid was provided to make these nations self sufficient in food production. This dependency made it easier to control and exploit the natural resources of third world nations.
There is growing resistance to the expanding power of the corporate elite and Western cultural dominance of globalization, as the world's living standards drop. In Bangalore, India, 500,000 farmers protested GATT provisions that allowed corporations to limit their freedom to use certain seeds. Hundreds of thousands of farmers protested against GATT in the Philippines. The urban slums of third world nations, like Brazil, were made much worse during the Green Revolution. Overly efficient farming drove people off the land into the cities weakening families, destroying social stability, and leaving people unable to support themselves. Over 3.1 billion people live off the land. If farming productivity in the third world matches Western nations, at least two billion people will become unproductive.
Between 1980 and 1992, Mexican manufacturing productivity rose 41 percent, and real wages fell 32 percent as Mexico entered the international market place. The result was a revolt in Chiapas, Mexico partly because NAFTA helped the ruling elite but not the people. The Mexican rebels called NAFTA “the death certificate for the indigenous people of Mexico.” In Mexico perhaps 800,000 small farmers will be forced off their land and have to move into the cities unemployed. Hundreds of U.S. corporations have established factories along the U.S./Mexican border. People trying to unionize are fired or assaulted, environmental conditions are among the poorest in the world, and wages remain low with the active support of the Mexican government.
The Mexican economic collapse shows how our government continues to represent the bankers, not the American people. William Seidman, past chairman of the FDIC and of the RTC, said Wall Street stood to lose $10-15 billion from the Mexico collapse, so it naturally turned to Washington to be saved. Desperate to protect Wall Street and stop people from saying NAFTA was a disaster, Clinton, without congressional approval, violated the Constitution by committing $9 billion and then a further $20 billion credit line to help Mexico. Over 90 percent of the funds available in the Exchange Stabilization Fund, an emergency agency established in 1934 only to defend the dollar, was illegally used. In July, 1995, the House voted 245 to 183 to halt further disbursement of the remaining $8.5 billion in the Clinton loan, but the House leadership blocked implementing this vote. Numerous domestic projects are slashed or cancelled yet, at least $29 billion was available to rescue Wall Street, and The Nation said Mexico had secretly receive $12 billion in credits from the U.S., Japan, and Europe in the months before the late 1994 debt crisis. While these loans were meant to support Mexico and the peso, much of the money actually went to Mexican and foreign elites. 12
As the weakened dollar demonstrates, there is no way paying such large sums of money could be justified as being in America's national interests. Patrick Buchanan said: “The looting of America on behalf of the new world order has begun.” According to The Economist, by June, 1994 U.S. banks had Latin American loans totaling $50 billion. Time magazine said that 380,000 jobs will be lost in the next four years from NAFTA, and there will be between $13-28 billion in lost output. 13 Now that NAFTA has passed many corporations have broken their promises and moved more jobs outside the U.S. Current laws often provide tax incentives to corporations when they close plants and export jobs.
The Mexico crisis also exemplifies how our news is managed. The “experts” the national media used to speak about Mexico often came from financial firms with large investments in Mexico. Between 1992 and 1994 the largest holder of Mexican stocks and bonds was Goldman Sachs, which is the firm Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin worked for. He played a major role in arranging the Mexican bailout. Ralph Nader said Rubin should have recused himself from the Mexico loan because of his obvious conflict of interest. Goldman Sachs has also been a major financial supporter of Clinton. When the Mexican president visited the U.S. in October, 1995 the press praised Mexico for repaying $700 million due on the loan; however, the press ignored the fact that $2 billion was then due, but Mexico lacked the money to repay that on time. Today Mexico's debt is $153 billion, which is much more than in 1982.
Dr. Felipe Arismendi, a UN economist, and certain Mexican officials, such as Hugo del Valle, who work for the UN in New York, said Wall Street firms were warned in advance by the Federal Reserve Bank about the collapsing Mexico economy, so they withdrew about $30 billion. Newsday headlined: “Surprise Profits for Top N.Y. Banks.” The Mexican bailout was a bank relief act. Citibank, Chase Manhattan, and Chemical Bank all made considerable profits, despite having large holdings in Mexico. Mexico spent most of its foreign reserves throughout 1994, and the Federal Reserve was aware of what was happening.
In late 1993 the director of the Ethos Capital Management Inc. in New York said: “There are things that would disturb any investor when you talk about redefining income distribution.” Wall Street does not want the Mexican people to increase their wealth. A leaked Chase Manhattan memo on January 13, 1995 warned that the Chiapas uprising should be crushed to calm the international investment community, and the ruling party should consider committing electoral fraud to maintain control and stability. According to the memo it would be frivolous to have social and economic reforms and improve people's lives, because it was more important to repay international investors. This memo was sent to 100 major investment groups. John Sweeney, of the Heritage Foundation, in a January 25, 1995 report also called for stopping the Chiapas rebellion to restore investor confidence. On February 9, 1995 the Mexican government responded by conducting military operations against the rebels. 14
In the future, how many hundreds of billions of dollars will U.S. taxpayers have to pay to bailout Wall Street in other failed business ventures. Other nations with unsound fiscal policies will figure they can also be rescued by American taxpayers. Already the Wall Street Journal reported May 4, 1995 that the previous week the U.S. Treasury Department had made a loan to Argentina via the Exchange Stabilization Fund. 15 Walker Todd, ex-attorney for the Federal Reserve, reported in the Sacramento Bee that U.S. officials were planning to rescue Japanese banks by having the Federal Reserve, supported by the Treasury Department, purchase up to $50 billion worth of U.S. securities from Japanese banks. Details of this scam were leaked to Todd by government officials. Since Japanese voters are unwilling to pay for the mistakes of their banks the U.S. will help. Part of this scam was discussed by Rep. Leach on October 16, 1995. 16
The IMF said 10 nations could have trouble similar to Mexico's. For markets to work, investors must also suffer for their mistakes partly to prevent worst mistakes from occurring. Risk and reward must be preserved. On the same day the $40 billion Mexican loan was proposed by Clinton, the Democrats said the party needed to get back to its roots with labor and the minorities. How stupid they think the people are!
Despite the Mexican fiasco, Clinton is proceeding to expand NAFTA throughout Latin America. 17 The book, Western Hemisphere Economic Integration, which is dedicated to David Rockefeller, explains why the Western Hemisphere should be joined in an economic union. Negotiations are underway for the entrance of Chile into NAFTA, although attempts to fast track such legislation in Congress failed. Newt Gingrich, Henry Kissinger, and others want a North American and European union called a North Atlantic Free Trade Area (FTA), and said it should merge with NAFTA. 18 Naturally The Economist 19 and Secretary of State Warren Christopher 20 support this next step towards a one world government. On March 3, 1996 Christopher was in Brazil urging adaptation of the FTA. The May/June, 1996 issue of Foreign Affairs contained an article by Charles A. Kupchan promoting a “transatlantic union” between Europe and the U.S, and Forbes on July 1, 1996 had an article promoting a transatlantic union, partly because this would limit American protectionism.
Plans to create one European currency by January 1, 1999 are part of the one world agenda to have a united Europe. At a 1983 economic summit, Ronald Reagan said: “An integrated world economy needs a common monetary standard....But, no national currency will do—only a world currency will work.” In 1984 Foreign Affairs called for creating a single common world currency and “a pooling of monetary sovereignty.” 21 In an editorial, The Economist said creating one European currency was part of the “broader designs for Europe's political future” that included plans for one police force and one foreign policy. 22 Bernard Connolly, a 17-year career Eurocrat, wrote The Rotten Heart of Europe, harshly attacking the single currency and the hidden political objectives to promote the corporate elite at the expense of the people. Promoters of one European currency will attempt to establish one central bank, which will damage each nation's sovereignty.
Sir James Goldsmith said GATT will be a disaster for the industrial nations because unemployment will greatly increase and wages will drop sharply. 23 On November 15, 1994 Goldsmith spoke before the Senate Committee on Commerce. He said: “What we are witnessing is the divorce of the interests of the major corporations and the interests of society as a whole....We have a system ...being proposed...which will result in massive unemployment, massive hemorrhaging of jobs and capital, but which will increase corporate profits....There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a major diminution of sovereignty....GATT, the global free trade, is the replacement utopia for Marxism. It is another one of these mad utopias.”
On June 10, 1994 Rep. Gingrich testified before the House Committee on Ways and Means about GATT. He said: “We need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the U.S. at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of the change....This is not just another trade agreement....We have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power....(and) We are not likely to take (our authority) back.” 25 Just before Gatt was ratified, Senator Hollings said: “This Gatt agreement is being pushed by David Rockefeller and the Trilateral Commission.”
The New York Times on May 23, 1992 included an article entitled “The End of Sovereignty” promoting the new European system. However, after 20 years, the Common Market has been a disaster for social stability and the economic wellbeing of many Europeans. In the last 20 years, the GNP of France has grown by 80 percent while unemployment has grown from 400,000 to over five million. Over four million are jobless in Germany. This is what awaits the industrial world with GATT. 26 Goldsmith called for replacing global free trade with regional free trade. Instead of specialized economies, there should be diversified economies with the free movement of capital and managed trade to protect jobs, social stability, and small businesses. Too often experts rely on Wall Street, forgetting about the rest of the nation. Wall Street and Main Street are not the same.
Sharply increased long-term unemployment and slowed growth in Europe developed partly because jobs were exported as tariffs came down with international trade agreements. Corporations say the solution is to reduce the role of government in business, cut taxes, and privatization to make businesses more efficient. However, expanded trade can benefit all only if it also protects labor rights and wage standards. Working closer with workers and having better relations in the work place can enhance productivity. Economic growth should be used to increase social stability and the happiness of the people.
In America wages have been dropping for over 20 years, while corporate profits continue to grow as globalization expands. The traditional lie between corporate profits and better wages for workers no longer exists in the U.S. or Europe. The manufacturing base is being exported with millions of jobs lost. M.I.T. economist Lester Thurow said: “No country without a revolution or a military defeat has ever experienced such a sharp shift in the distribution of earnings as America in the last generation.” Using the media the large corporations have engineered a silent revolution.
Many highly trained and educated people cannot find work, or they are forced to take low paying service jobs. Once unemployment benefits end, after about six months, these people are removed from the unemployment statistics. Many more people are unemployed than what the government and press admit. This is partly why so many people are nervous about their jobs, despite claims that the economy is booming. Workers increasingly have no value except to increase corporate profits and power. The third worldization of the U.S. is making many people poor with a small elite in control. The better off the people are, the harder it is to control them. When people are kept poor and are forced to work harder for less money, they have less time and energy for politics. Even Time admitted that the middle class is shrinking while the poor and very rich increase. 27 In October 24, 1994 Time said the U.S. has the largest gap between the rich and poor of any major industrial nation. Upward mobility for U.S. workers is no longer assured. 28
Since 1992 Congress has permitted U.S. corporations to hire over one million foreigners in two programs. The Permanent Alien Certification and H-1B visa programs allows companies to replace U.S. employees with cheap foreign workers. The companies are supposed to first try to hire capable U.S. workers but this is usually a farce, and many high-tech jobs go to foreign workers. It is easier and cheaper for the corporations to import trained foreigners, instead of educating Americans. Taxpayers pay $60 million a year to administer this corporate welfare. Even the White House and other government agencies hire foreign workers. The New York Times admitted that tens of thousands of highly skilled professionals have been laid off so the large corporations can import this cheap labor supply. 29 Senator Simpson's recent attempt to limit this influx of foreign workers was defeated by the corporate onslaught.
Charles Lasch, in The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, described the contempt, arrogance, and scorn the corporate elite feel towards the American people. They no longer believe in the Constitution, so the elite act irresponsibly. We are heading towards a two-class society, with the ruling elite feeling little loyalty or responsibility towards the U.S. The new patriotism is corporate profits and self-aggrandizement. Civic responsibility is sacrificed for profits in the global market. Traditional public institutions like political parties are used to increase power and control over the people. United to an “international culture of work and leisure” our elite rulers feel “indifferent to the prospect of national decline.” 30 The ruling elite have more in common with their counterparts in Hong Kong and Frankfurt than with the American people.
Leaders of multinational corporations represent their businesses; they do not act in the best interests of the U.S. or of other nations within which they reside. The U.S. has for years contributed tens of billions of dollars to the IMF, so banks could collect on their loans to third world nations. Robert B. Reich said that, increasingly, U.S. owned corporations have no special relationship with Americans, so it makes no sense to trust these corporations with our national competitiveness. “The interests of American-owned corporations may or may not coincide with those of the American people.” 31 A vice-president of Colgate-Palmolive said: “The U.S. does not have an automatic call on our resources. There is no mindset that puts this country first.” 32 The U.S. Bureau of Economic Statistics said 20 percent of all U.S. imports come from foreign subsidiaries or affiliates of U.S. firms. Many large U.S. corporations like Citicorp (51 percent), Chevron (55 percent), and Gillette (66 percent) have shifted much of their assets overseas. In the past, wealth was usually concentrated in a region or nation and a particular industry. Today, wealth is more purely financial and easily shifts between nations.
The ability of money to move quickly between nations has created job insecurity, falling incomes, rising debt, and a weakened middle class. Lasch, in describing the collapse of the middle class in third world nations, said this same fate may await the U.S. The existence of a trading and manufacturing class has been crucial to establishing a stable nation state for hundreds of years. Aristotle said a large middle class “has a great steadying influence and checks the opposing extremes” of the rich and poor. Once a large and stable middle class develops, there is always a demand for self-government. Unrestrained market forces destroy communities and traditional family and spiritual values, which ultimately weakens national sovereignty. “The revolt of the elites against time-honored traditions of locality, obligation, and restraint may yet unleash a war of all against all.” 33
There is a need for more community action to mobilize people to counteract corporate power. Ralph Nader said: “Societies rot from the top down. They reconstruct from the bottom up.” We should help people mobilize at the community level, not ask what Washington will do for the people. The U.S. should promptly leave GATT and NAFTA. H.R. 499 to withdraw from NAFTA should be supported. Committing $29 billion or more to save Wall Street in Mexico and defend a poorly constructed trade agreement is ridiculous. We should protect our sovereignty, workers jobs, and use trade to improve our standard of living.
All parties can benefit from international trade agreements but only if they are properly structured. NAFTA and GATT represent attempts to use trade as a weapon to destroy national sovereignty to establish the one world government. In 1974 Foreign Affairs, the voice of the CFR, published an article slating: “The 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than the top down....An end run around sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” Richard Gardner, a CFR member and past assistant deputy secretary of state, called for world government, surrender of U.S. sovereignty, strengthening the central role of the UN, increased use of UN troops, and changing “the ground rules for the conduct of international trade” such as with GATT. Strengthening international agencies such as the World Bank and UN Development Programs was seen as strengthening international agencies and weakening the influence of individual nations in world affairs. These new policies “will subject countries to an unprecedented degree of international surveillance over up to now sacrosanct 'domestic' policies.” Gardner believes this approach “can produce some remarkable concessions of sovereignty that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis.” 34
The GATT agreement regulates governments much more than businesses; governments must adjust their policies so corporations can grow. Under GATT, the WTO is creating panels to review and reject the laws of member states that interfere with international trade. Nations must comply or face sanctions. Before GATT passed, 42 state attorney generals told Clinton GATT was unconstitutional and it would cancel many state laws. Already Europe, Japan, and Canada have issued reports attacking U.S. federal and local laws as unfair barriers to free trade. Pesticide regulations, nutritional food labels, nuclear licensing, the Marine Mammal Protection Act involving tuna and dolphins, and court agreements allowing native Americans to protect their natural resources are called unfair non-tariff trade barriers. Based on U.S. ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, British lawyers tried to stop Texas from executing a convicted rapist-killer. Under NAFTA, Mexico has filed a complaint over a labor dispute with Sprint in San Francisco. This type of intervention in our internal affairs will become normal under GATT and NAFTA. Even small nations can now challenge and change U.S. laws.
U.S. Clean Air Act discriminates against foreign oil refiners and this decision was upheld on appeal. Hundreds of consumer protection laws will be lost in this manner, which will also increase corporate profits. The corporations will say it is the fault of a foreign body, and the people will have no real recourse as they have already been sold out by their representatives. Phony politicians like Dole who voted for GATT complained about this decision but many similar decisions are now inevitable.
Nations should join together and demand an international corporate code of conduct, with labor, health, and environmental rights and enforcement procedures. Unions should be allowed to organize. International organizations like the World Bank should be closed. Groups from different nations should work together to counterbalance the actions of the multinational corporations. Governments should adapt monetary policies that raise the people's economic standards and lessen the gap between the rich and poor. 35 When a corporation closes U.S. factories to move jobs overseas, it should face a special tariff to import their products into the U.S.
Drastic steps must be taken to restore balance to our trade with China and Japan. For too long we have been played like fools by these nations, especially since certain corporations benefit from this sharp trade imbalance. Secret stock ownership of many Japanese corporations by Wall Street is one reason why nothing has been accomplished to end the huge balance of trade deficit with Japan. “American Big Business was found at the time of the first World War to be linked to Japanese Big Business through the Harvey cartel....” Companies with investments in Japanese firms from early this century included GM, GE, Standard Oil, Westinghouse, Eastman Kodak, and Singer Sewing Machine. After World War II, Rockefeller agents bought into more Japanese companies at a sharp discount. This quiet interaction between Japanese and American corporations continues today. 36
With Japan, free trade means unfair trade. Now that GATT has passed, Japan refuses to even negotiate with the U.S. about the huge trade imbalance. Instead they have turned to GATT mechanisms for protection. After 27 years, it is time to recognize that we must have managed trade with Japan. Even some commentators said the recent auto agreement with Japan was managed trade. We should sit down with Japan and China and develop a program over several years to restore an almost equal balance of trade. It is time to end the vast transfer of our economic wealth to other nations. The huge trade imbalance is more evidence that the Washington politicians represent economic interests not the American people.
Historically Holland, England, and now America have shown that free trade causes serious problems for developed nations as wages are lowered and the manufacturing base is exported. The working classes benefited when foreign competition was controlled, as in early nineteenth century England and in the U.S. after World War II. Open immigration into the U.S. weakens U.S. sovereignty, keeps wages low, and limits the ability of unions to grow. This is partly why the national media supports immigration and attacks as racists those who want it limited. With open borders, corporate profits raise while U.S. wages drop. U.S. corporations go overseas for cheap labor while foreigners immigrate to the U.S. seeking higher wages.
From the time of George Washington until World War II, except during the first world war, we had a policy of isolationism. However, while this policy kept us from foreign political alliances it also included managed trade, usually done to benefit America. As Benjamin Franklin said: “No nation was ever ruined by trade.” Our economy and manufacturing base developed with economic treaties between various nations. In recent decades the corporate controlled press falsely claimed that the choice is only for free trade or isolationism and strict limits on trade. This is disinformation used to increase corporate profits and surrender U.S. sovereignty to the planned world government. Rep. Duncan Hunter, in a letter published in the March 18, 1996 Business Week, noted that free trade is a recent policy with a poor track record. We should return to our historical policy of managed trade which means that American jobs and sovereignty will again be protected.
New Zealand has shown how populist policies and free-market reforms can benefit an entire nation, including the people and large corporations. After 10 years of reforms, New Zealand has a government surplus, low unemployment, and 59 percent of all government employees have been fired. 37 American corporations must be forced, through tax incentives and penalties, to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. This would make it easier to remove more people from public welfare and unemployment compensation, which would also bring down taxes. There would also be improved social stability and less crime as more people worked. If the manufacturing base of the nation is destroyed, the middle class will be severely weakened. It is time to remind American multinational corporations that they have responsibilities to America.