Five Reasons to Oppose the Now-introduced USMCA Implementation Act – Christian Gomez

On December 13, 2019, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calf.) introduced the USMCA Implementation Act (H.R. 5430). Officially entitled, “To implement the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada attached as an Annex to the Protocol Replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement,” and also known by its short title, “United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act,” the 239-page bill would both approve and implement the now-2,410-page USMCA trade scheme. Despite the bill’s rare bipartisan fanfare, below are five reasons to oppose H.R. 5430.

Building Globalism by Regionalism

Overall, the USMCA builds upon what NAFTA set out to accomplish when it was first proposed. In 1993, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote about the then-proposed NAFTA: “What Congress will soon have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the hopeful architecture of a new international system.” Kissinger further elaborated, “A regional Western Hemisphere Organization dedicated to democracy and free trade would be a first step toward the new world order that is so frequently cited but so rarely implemented.” (Emphasis added.)

Instead of individual, sovereign nation-states, Kissinger’s “new world order” would be comprised of interlocking and overlapping regional, economic unions masquerading as “free trade.”

In fact, this is exactly what has taken place in Europe. Over a period of 50 years, what originally began as the six-nation European Coal and Steal Community in 1952, gradually — through a series of numerous trade pacts and treaties — evolved into what is now the European Union, with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on European Union) on February 7, 1992.

The EU’s now-28 member-nations all share a single flag, capital, passports, foreign and diplomatic service, central bank, currency (with the exception of England), anthem, supreme court, parliament, president (elected by the unaccountable European Commission), and constitution (in the form of the Lisbon Treaty, which has been repeatedly rejected by the people of Europe in various national referendum). The “European experiment” for creating a “United States of Europe” has been heralded by globalists as the model for integrating the world.

Multilateral trade schemes — such the Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP); the various proposed U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement (USJTA), US-EU trade agreement, and Japan-EU trade agreement; NAFTA; and even the USMCA are intended follow the same pattern of Europe. They are not about free trade in the classical sense, i.e. the simple elimination of tariffs; instead they are about managing trade by super-national bureaucracies — and are designed to foster economic and eventually political integration at the regional and global levels.

Whereas classical free trade was about eliminating the obstruction or hindrance of government in the realm of commerce, modern “free trade agreements” (FTAs) do the opposite. Modern FTAs empower the role of government, elevate the World Trade Organization as a global regulatory body over trade agreements, and create new regional governance — where none previously existed. This is because the actual purpose of such agreements is not simply to lower trade barriers but to raise world government — what Kissinger and many globalists have called the “new world order.”

As such, opposition to modern “free trade agreements” does not constitute a rejection or opposition to the theory of free trade, as espoused by Adam Smith; rather, it is a rejection of managed trade, regional regimentation, and globalism.

Lincoln P. Bloomfield, a longtime State Department apparatchik and member of the pro-one world government Council on Foreign Relations, argued that a unified world government could emerge through customs unions and other regional integration schemes. In 1962, Bloomfield wrote a report entitled A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations: A Preliminary Survey of One Form of a Stable Military Environment. The report was financed by the State Department and published by the Institute for Defense Analysis. In the report, Bloomfield envisioned “ever-larger units evolve through customs unions, confederation, regionalism, etc., until ultimately the larger units coalesce under a global umbrella.”

As this article is being written, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is expected to schedule a vote on H.R. 5430 on Thursday, December 19, 2019. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has previously stated that the Senate will not vote on USMCA implementation legislation until after an impeachment trial. While the date of a vote may not be certain in the Senate, the following is certain: When the House of Representatives and Senate vote on H.R. 5430, they will not be simply voting on just a “free trade” agreement; this vote may determine the fate of the United States and its longevity as an independent and sovereign nation. A Yea for USMCA is an Yea for regionalism and world order.

Source: Five Reasons to Oppose the Now-introduced USMCA Implementation Act

About SARTRE 4368 Articles
"Populism" best describes the approach to SARTRE's perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of "Pragmatic Anarchism." Reforms will require an Existential approach. "Ideas Move the World," and SARTRE'S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.