From the Radio Free Michigan archives ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu. ------------------------------------------------ New World Order, Clinton-Style World Trade... Yes! World Government... No! Congress is expected to vote soon on whether or not to put the United States into a new World Trade Organization (WTO), a sort of Economic United Nations. Like NAFTA, the WTO agreement will bypass the clear requirement in the U.S. Constitution that treaties are valid only if ratified by two-thirds of the Senators. WTO will be submitted under a newly- invented procedure called "fast track," which labels the treaty an "executive agreement," forbids amendments, and calls for only a simple majority in both Houses of Congress. The WTO will be much worse than the UN, because the WTO is based on the one- country-one-vote pattern. This means the United States will have only one vote out of 117 nations, and no veto. We'll have only the same vote as Somalia or Haiti or Cuba or Rwanda or Korea or Guyana (population 735,000) or Antigua (population 64,000). Third World countries will hold 83 percent of the votes in the WTO. Most of them are dictatorships, are not our friends, and look upon international organizations as vehicles to redistribute U.S. wealth and technology to themselves. More than three- fourths of the WTO member nations voted against the United States on more than half of UN votes in 1993. The WTO will make us subject to a new unelected multinational bureaucracy, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, that will set, administer, and enforce rules of trade for the entire world. The WTO is designed to function as the global trade pillar of a triumvirate that will plan and control the world's economy. The other two pillars are the World Bank, which loans capital to developing nations, and the International Money Fund (IMF), which supervises the flow of money around the world. This three-legged plan to plan and control the world's economy was devised at the Bretton Woods Conference at the end of World War II. The World Bank and the IMF got off the ground rapidly (largely financed, of course, by the United States), but the global trade arm, then called the International Trade Organization (ITO), was blocked by President Harry Truman and U.S. Senators who concluded that it would diminish U.S. sovereignty and interfere with U.S. domestic laws. In the course of the ITO talks, the countries negotiated a reduction of global tariffs by a 1947 agreement called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Originally, GATT was supposed to be part of the ITO, but when ITO was rejected by the United States, GATT became the basic multilateral agreement on global trade. Since the 1940's, there have been seven additional rounds of international trade negotiations under GATT. On April 15, U.S. representatives in Morocco signed the Final Act of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, the 22,000-page document that creates the WTO to replace GATT and is now being submitted to Congress. WTO is very different from GATT. GATT was a contractual relationship among sovereign nations. All member nations must agree to make any changes. If there is a dispute, action and penalties can happen only when all agree. The GATT staff in Geneva has little power. The WTO is a supra-national body in Geneva that will set, administer, and enforce the global rules of trade. It includes a legislature (called the Ministerial Conference, consisting of a 117 nations casting one vote each), an executive branch (including a Director-General, a multinational bureaucracy consisting of a secretariat, committees, councils, dispute panels, and review bodies), and a supreme court (that will decide trade disputes, and whose rulings cannot be vetoed by any nation). The WTO's procedures are dramatically different from those now used by GATT. GATT requires a consensus decision to impose a penalty recommended by a dispute panel. Under GATT, the United States can reject rulings that intrude on our interests and we can veto sanctions. Under WTO, we are locked in; unilateral action is forbidden. We must abide by the judgments of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Board. It and the WTO's dispute panels will deliberate and vote in secret. Article XVI of the WTO obligates the United States to change our laws, regulations, and administrative procedures to make them conform to the WTO. The WTO will have the final say about whether U.S. laws meet WTO requirements, and WTO can impose financial penalties and sanctions if WTO decides that our laws don't comply. Of course, WTO is presented as a boost toward "free trade" and cutting tariffs. For that, we don't need WTO; GATT was adequate. Tariffs have been dramatically reduced since GATT was formed, and besides, free trade cannot be called free trade if it is mandated by a bureaucracy in Geneva. The Office of Management and Budget warns that the cost of WTO will be $14 billion over five years, and nearly $40 billion over 10 years. The Clinton Administration is floating the idea of waiving the Congressional pay-as-you-go budget requirement and adding the cost of this deal onto the national debt. The WTO would turn control of the U.S. economy over to a bunch of bureaucrats in Geneva, accountable to no one. WTO would control U.S. trade, investment and technology, and make decisions about our jobs, production, labor standards, environment, and security. The Congress must reject WTO if America is to remain an independent nation with the sovereign power to write our own laws and make our own decisions about our own livelihood. U.S. Troops Under UN Control? In the same week that the news media were preoccupied with Paula Jones filing her lawsuit, President Clinton signed a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) asserting his authority "to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander." This is the most unconstitutional transfer of power in the history of America. It will put U.S. troops under foreign command and also under the United Nations rules of engagement. And it's a secret order! The White House won't let the American people see a copy of the PDD that Clinton signed. All we are allowed to see is the State Department "summary" (which probably conceals its most outrageous effects). This PDD, dated May 1994, is the same document that last year was called PDD 13. The number 13 was probably ditched as bad PR. It was all ready for Clinton's signature in August 1993 when history intervened to delay it. In Somalia, U.S. troops were killed, wounded, captured, and dragged through the streets in humiliation. Adverse Congressional reaction put PDD 13 in a temporary deep freeze. But the New World Order advocates were determined to proceed with their objective. Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die. And it will, indeed, be do or die for Americans in the U.S. Armed Forces. That's what military service is all about: being ready to take orders, and do or die to carry them out. The only problem is that, when young Americans enlist, they rightfully expect that those giving the orders will be Americans, and that the orders will be according to American law and for American goals and interests. This May 1994 PDD is called "The Clinton Administration's Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations." It should be called "The Clinton Administration's Policy on Transferring Congress's War Power to a Multilateral Organization under the United Nations." Some people think Clinton doesn't have a foreign policy, but that's not true. Instead of a foreign policy designed to protect America and preserve our interests, the Clinton foreign policy is designed to subordinate American interests to a multinational authority. This new PDD makes it our job to combat "current threats to peace," which include "territorial disputes, armed ethnic conflicts, civil wars, and the collapse of governmental authority in some states." There probably is not a year in recorded history when such events were not transpiring somewhere in the world, so when did it become our responsibility to get into the middle of the action? Even if these troubles don't directly affect American interests, the PDD asserts that their "cumulative effect" requires us to act. But who says? Not until Clinton's secret PDD did any American official have the gall to say that resolving these conflicts is our job. Not only has Clinton's secret PDD changes the goal of our foreign policy, but it has also changed the mission of our Armed Services. The PDD states that the "establishment of a capability to conduct multilateral peace operations is part of our National Security Strategy and National Military Strategy." "The primary mission of the U.S. Armed Forces," continues this PDD, "remains to be prepared to fight and win two simultaneous regional conflicts." The PDD doesn't call this war; in classic Orwellian language, this PDD confirms that Clinton plans to deploy American forces for "peacekeeping." But peacekeeping's open-ended definition includes "promoting democracy, regional security, and economic growth." The U.S. State Department doesn't win any battles on the battlefield, but it is very adept at winning rounds of double- talk. This new PDD shows why. While the President, it says, "will never relinquish command authority over U.S. forces," on a case by case basis "the President will consider placing appropriate U.S. forces under the operational control of a competent UN commander for specific UN operations authorized by the Security Council." This means that, while we may still call our President the Commander-in-Chief, Slick Willie will allege that "operational control is a subset of command," and then delegate operational control of U.S. forces to a foreigner who reports to the UN Security Council. "The participation of U.S. military personnel in UN operations can, in particular circumstances, serve U.S. interests," the PDD asserts. However, under the U.S. Constitution, that should be a matter for Congress-not Clinton or the UN- to decide. The new Clinton policy clearly subordinates U.S. interests to a multinational authority. As the PDD puts it, "The U.S. will continue to emphasize the UN as the primary international body with the authority to conduct peacekeeping operations." If U.S. servicemen are captured by the enemy while they are serving under multinational command as part of some peacekeeping force, the Administration will demand that they be "immediately released to UN authorities." That's not very reassuring. Another slippery section of this new Clinton directive is the stipulation that the Department of Defense "will pay the UN assessment" for the "peacekeeping missions." That sounds like a cunning way to say "we're not cutting the defense budget" while actually diverting some defense appropriations into UN projects. Are you ready to pay for the blue-helmeted operations of the New World Order? In money and in blood? ------------------------------------------------ (This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the Radio Free Michigan site by the archive maintainer. All files are ZIP archives for fast download. E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)