The WTO Has Put America on the Path to Becoming a “Colony” Again

[Ferd Berfel]

http://economyincrisis.org/content/the-wto-has-put-america-on-the-path-to-becoming-a-colony-again

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has come to represent the most efficient form of colonization the world has ever seen – reaping all the benefits with no downsides of occupation. The corporate agenda of the organization has destroyed the American economy, allowing multinationalists to exploit the world’s cheap resources and put America out of work and out of business.

The WTO routinely trumps U.S. laws and conventions with its rulings. According to former trade representative Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. is one of the most sued nations in the WTO, and we lose 9 out of every 10 cases brought against us. By signing the agreement with the World Trade Organization, Congress agreed to concede a major portion of our sovereignty and usurp our democratic legislative process, including:

Conforming U.S. laws, regulations and administrative procedures to the will of the WTO (Article XVI, p. 10)
Subjecting all federal, state and local laws and practices that affect trade to international review by the WTO (Article XVI, p. 10)
Allowing any WTO member country to challenge federal, state and local laws and practices as trade impeding (Section 2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding)
Taking all trade disputes to the WTO judiciary – giving the WTO final jurisdiction over all trade altercations. No appeal exists outside of the WTO (Section 2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding)
Empowering the WTO to enforce its rulings by imposing fines on the United States until we comply
Disallowing Congress to change the agreement

----------------------------------

But that is the goal of all of these Neocon deals. NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, WTO, GATT.....
To put Nations under total Corporate control.

Obama is providing the Coupe de grace to US Sovereignty with TPP. Once enacted there will no longer be US laws. Just Corporate Rules. And Hillary wants to continue this.

[Kip Humphrey]

1. Thank you Bill Clinton for jamming Hillary's globalism agenda down our throats.

[FreakinDJ]

2. When the Clinton's DLC morphed into The Third Way they went Global

The Third Way International

Throughout the 1990s, Bill Clinton and other Democratic Leadership Council figures launched a campaign to take their Third Way ideology global.


In October 1998, flush with victory after Tony Blair’s triumph in the previous year’s elections, the British sociologist Anthony Giddens published his now famous manifesto, The Third Way. In just over 150 pages, the volume announced to the world a new political faith.

Appearing in an era when the spirits of socialism and communism still haunted the Left, Giddens’s call for a “renewal of social democracy” was meant to close the book on the past and begin a new chapter in the history of social progress. Everything was new — the new economy, New Labour, New Democrats, the New Middle.


https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/atkins-dlc-third-way-clinton-blair-schroeder-social-democracy/

[Ferd Berfel]

3. "... new political faith", for the New Democrat Party

Just like a Cult

[highoverheadspace]

4. This is what I don't get about the Obama adoration here.

He, like Clinton, has sold us down the river to corporate interests. The middle class is still decimated and all the good jobs have gone overseas. Hillary will be no different. At the moment Jill Stein of the Green Party has the best platform for representing the American people but the corporate establishment owns the media and would never give her a chance at winning. I like Bernies domestic platform, but his foreign policy platform is as bad as Bush and Obama's. More corporate war machine enrichment is what Bernie is advocating. He has the same agenda as Obama in that regard. And Hillarys use of force in Libya and Syria plus selling weapons to the Saudis and Ukrainians is definitely not on. The Saudis dropped over $2 billion of US supplied bombs on schools and hospitals in Yemen while the media has covered it up.

[fasttense]

9. Obama's trade policies have been no different from a RepubliCON's

In one of his state of the Union addresses he started listing what All Americans believed. "We all believe in freedom, we all believe in democracy," and he said, "We all believe in free trade." That's when I knew we would continue to suffer from a corporate controlled economic system run by handful of elites. That's when I knew the corporate thieves of this world had nothing to fear from Obama.

There is no such thing as free trade. Trade has always been regulated from the time of slavery and feudalism to today. You can never really have free trade because the closer you get to it the more it resembles criminal behavior. Eventual, if trade were Free of all regulation, people would be out and out stealing because there would be no rules. And adding globalism to the list of tortured free trade ideology does not make it any less a Utopian pipe dream. When you hear free trade and globalism used you know it's RepubliCON code for neofascism.

Anyway though I agree with your assessment of Obama and Hillary's stand on trade. You've got Bernie's stand on war and peace all wrong. Go to his web site here if you really want to know what he thinks about war and peace: https://berniesanders.com/issues/war-and-peace/

[Perseus]

20. Not sure why you blame all of it on Obama

"all the good jobs have gone overseas" - This did not start with Obama, this started a long time ago, Obama has actually restored jobs at home.

"Bernie's foreign policy platform is as bad as Bush and Obama's." - Explain, don't just throw a comment out there.

"More corporate war machine enrichment is what Bernie is advocating." - When did he do that? I have heard the opposite to what you are saying here.

"He has the same agenda as Obama in that regard." - Obama's agenda was not war, he voted against the Iraq invasion, he wanted to close Guantanamo, he pulled most of the forces out of Iraq...Pleas explain.

"Hillary's use of force in Libya and Syria plus selling weapons to the Saudis and Ukrainians is definitely not on." - When did this happen?

[highoverheadspace]

22. I'm not going to go through your list. I won't be taking the bait.

I see you have nothing to say about the Saudis, Turks and Ukrainians getting US military weapons and training for bombs that are being dropped on civilians. The US Secretary of State is just as responsible for these atrocities. Why shouldn't she be? Do you deny what she said laughing about Gaddafi after she helped orchestrate that horror show? Look at that country now. Thousands upon thousands of innocent lives taken and destroyed because of actions she and President Obama initiated. Sorry you can't see it. Maybe all the propaganda was enough to fool you? Not me. I just call it like I see it. I said the same when Bush invaded Iraq both time. This was always about imperialism. It has nothing to do with democracy or helping people. Certainly you are so naive as to believe it does?

[Perseus]

23. Noone is throwing you a bait, and that sounds like an excuse to not

explain your statements.

Whatever...

Regardless, anything the democrats may have done or said pales in comparison with what republicans have done and continue to do.

"This was always about imperialism. It has nothing to do with democracy or helping people." This I won't disagree with, but to try to blame Obama for things that have been going on before he became president was the premise of your comments, for which you don't provide backup material.

[highoverheadspace]

24. Jesus, wake up please.

Obama has supplied $2 billion worth of bombs just a few months ago to the Saudi regime. They have been dropping them on civilians in Yemen which they invaded. They have no right to be in that country. Obama knows this. He could have stopped it. He didn't. He could have stopped supplying and helping the Libyan warlords that now rule that destroyed country. He didn't. He could have stopped supplying the nasty Kiev coup regime with millions of dollars for military supplies and training. He didn't. He could have stopped the Turkish dictator from sending ISIS jihadists through to Syria. He didn't. Quit kidding yourself. He was always on board. People just read him wrong. I was fooled too. I voted for him. I spent a lot of years trying to expose the Republican lies about Iraq and I'm not of the type that looks the other way when someone with a D above their name does the same thing. The EU refugee crisis occurred because of the US instigated wars, whether by proxy or directly, we are the reason they are flooding into Europe. They have lost everything due to corrupt US foreign policy. A little known fact, President Obama had the Saudis appointed as the chairpersons of the UN Human Rights Council, if you can believe that! It is beyond the pale. Like I said, Wake up.


One other thing, theres a reason why the Neocons are all switching over to vote for Hillary now. Its because they know she'll continue to carry out their PNAC agenda, the same as Obama did.

[SCantiGOP]

5. What a crock

Group is run by the old Ross Perot group.
Using the good old "Trash this Thread" button.

[Hortensis]

7. IMO, cramming DU with foolishness like this

is just as destructive as dishonest hyperpartisanship. You get the same noise on far right forums, except that of course the usual evil Jewish world domination conspiracy is supposedly behind the "re-colonization" of America.

THIS kind of inability to understand the world is why extremists almost always end up marginalized and why, on those occasions when they do lead for a while, they always end up destroying and destroyed.

[KPN]

8. So, can you elaborate a bit?

Is your comment specific to this article/WTO? What about the trade agreements/TPP in particular? Just wondering, do you favor or have issues with TPP?

Just trying to gain perspective here ... no landmines.

[gregcrawford]

10. We must seriously question your motivation for criticizing...

... irrefutable facts. Ferd's take on the WTO is dead nuts accurate. This has all been exhaustively documented. Do you also think the Earth is flat?

[TheFarseer]

18. What's wrong with Ross Perot?

Yes he was a little erratic but everything he said in 92 was 100% correct. The national debt, energy policy, nafta, trade deficits. He was not in it for the money but truly wanted to make a positive difference for the USA.

[whereisjustice]

6. +1. Wait for TPP. It's gonna get much worse. India and China have proven

workers will happily live in plywood shacks for pennies a day. That's why Bill and Hillary are selling us to Wall Street for pennies on the dollar.

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. Have you noticed that Hillary holds few rallies?

A weekly schedule for her and for Bernie was posted, his was full of talking to people in rallies and large groups, like colleges,
hers was full of "fundraisers" and "conversations" with a media person or a media event, and "small gathering" of professional groups.

All ya need to know.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

11. Facts Facts Facts

I do not need fact. I want to break some glass and rehab kissinger.

[JDPriestly]

13. K&R.

Campaign finance reform is needed if we are to make trade compatible with democracy.

The international nature of our trade and our domestic economy enable foreign interests to greatly influence if not dominate our media and politics. That results in a government that is of the oligarchs, by the oligarchs and for the oligarchs.

That's not democracy. That's how we got this very unpleasant oligarchy.

It will get worse if we don't reform our campaign finance system and fund candidates and campaigns solely with tax money.

Every dollar that funds one of our candidates whether directly or through a superpac should be a dollar earned and taxed (if taxable) in the United States.

There is no wqy to guarantee that with our current Citizens United private campaign funding system.

[TheFarseer]

14. I'd be interested in knowing

What specifically the court forces us to do. Does it force us to have lower tariffs than our trade partners?

[Cal33]

15. There always have been people who wanted to rule the entire world. Let's begin with

Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Kahn, Hitler. These were narcissistic individuals
who were quite open about wanting to, and did try to, control the world.

Then there are existing rumors of small groups of powerful individuals in several countries who
thought (perhaps are still thinking) of uniting for greater strength. This would better their
chances of taking over the world. "The New World Order" is the name given to one group.
However, they are so secretive that practically nothing is known about them. One can only
guess. No one is sure that they even exist at all.

Today we know that Multinational Business Corporations do exist and are doing very well financially
-- worldwide. Are they forming a group to rule and control the entire world, too? If so, this group
is considerably larger, their wealth is immense, and they also try to be secretive. So far, in the
USA they have already bought their way into political power -- bribing, corrupting, and pulling the
strings from behind the scenes. The Republican Party seems to be totally owned by them, and
a large portion of the Democratic Party also. Many members of both major parties have left,
because they sense that something going on in their parties are simply too wrong.

Some have described the above as a slow, creeping cancer that is destroying our nation. I
really wonder sometimes what's coming next. But something is coming to a head -- perhaps soon!

http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/

[Rex]

16. Well if anyone would know it would be the main organizations like the WTO that hurt nations

with their elitist view of the world.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. Trump is talking about building infrastructure but I expect him to run to the World Bank.

[Arizona Roadrunner]

19. H-1b and TPP

Bernie has pointed out Clinton's statements of support for the companies in India bringing contract H-1b employees to the USA and Michigan. He also should say this is why we need to see what she told Goldman-Sachs for the $675,000. How much support did she give them? After all, Goldman-Sachs probably tax deducted the "expense" and therefore we have standing to ask what did we get for either paying more taxes or getting less services as a result of the deduction.

Also, she is "currently" against TPP. However the US Chamber of Commerce has put out a message to it's membership that after the election, they are sure she will find reasons to be "currently" in favor of TPP

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/02/chamber-of-commerce-chief-tom-donohue.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/chamber-of-commerce-

Also, say goodbye to minimum wage increases by State and Local governments. All a corporation will do is declare that a raise in minimum wages will adversely effect their profits. How many State and Local governments can afford such a fight by corporations using the TPP ISDS dispute resolution process designed by and for multi-national corporations? You will now have corporations able to use this dispute resolution process to sue all levels and forms of governments. They can also just threaten to use said process which will "discourage" defenders due to the legal costa etc..Does this sound like giving up governmental sovereignty for corporate profits? Follow the money.....

[pampango]

21. Blame FDR and Truman. There was no international trade organization under Coolidge and Hoover.

In terms of trading rules, under FDR's republican predecessor's, the US did whatever it wanted, to whomever it wanted, for any reason it wanted. I sense Donald would like to go back to era of unilateral American action and get away from the whole 'international cooperation' concept to govern trade that FDR came up with.

FDR proposed the International Trade Organization in 1944. Part of that ITO was a temporary agency called GATT that would govern trade until the ITO was ratified. The ITO was signed in 1948 but by then republicans controlled congress and it was never ratified. Seeing that the ITO was doomed and that the congress would never even approve the more limited GATT, Truman created GATT by executive order thus going around congress. Both the ITO and GATT has dispute resolution provisions that were meant to make trade dispute resolution less nationalistic by taking it out of the hands of national governments (which must make Donald very mad since he seems fond of the idea of unilateral tariffs and other trade 'punishments').

Blame the modern trade dispute resolution mechanisms on FDR and Truman. They did not exist before them.

[bhikkhu]

25. Not really, mostly it arbitrates trade disputes

and we complain as much as we are complained against, following all the same rules.

Anyone who really wants to look into what kinds of things are disputed, here's the whole 9 yards: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm

Look over the list and ask - if the WTO didn't exist or didn't arbitrate trade disputes, how would trade disputes be arbitrated?