Partners across the pond: across the Atlantic, the United States and the EU are reaching for closer economic integration and more international regulations, but why are they doing it under the table?

New American, The, May 12, 2008 by John F. McManus

Toward the very end of the two-hour program, I raised my hand and was given a chance to speak. I said:

   I'm John McManus from THE NEW
   AMERICAN magazine. I want to note
   that several million American jobs
   have been lost since NAFTA, which
   many feel is somewhat responsible
   for these losses. And I note that no
   one from the Congress is in attendance
   at this meeting. I have two
   questions. One: do the SPP and TEC
   derive authorization from NAFTA to
   move ahead and tie the U.S. to more
   rules and regulations? And two: some
   Europeans (former German President
   Mr. Herzog, for one) note that as
   much as 80 percent of the laws being
   enacted in their countries stem from
   the EU in Brussels. Does this committee
   intend to duplicate for the U.S.
   what is occurring in Europe?

Kassinger immediately reminded me that Chatham Rules were in effect, and told me that I could address my questions to one of the State Department officials in attendance after the meeting. He quickly moved on to something else and the meeting ended soon. I was effectively quieted.

I waited around to speak to Assistant Secretary of State Sullivan after the meeting ended. A junior State Department employee immediately appeared at my side, asked if I intended to question Sullivan, and stood by me for a good 10 minutes while others finished their comments to Sullivan. This was a bit unsettling. He remained at my side when I finally got a chance to talk to Sullivan.

To Daniel Sullivan, I repeated my question about NAFTA being the source of their authorization to proceed. He never answered. I asked how they could move ahead without any input from Congress and he danced around that too. I said, "Look, the SPP has 20 working groups at the Department of Commerce and they're putting out reports and working on convergence and no one in Congress is involved." At this point, the junior State Department official reminded me about the Chatham Rules, but Sullivan said he didn't mind being quoted. When he sought to defend what they were advocating by discounting the fact that "some towels were being made" in a faraway land, I told him that there were many U.S. textile plants that had closed or downsized because of NAFTA. He didn't like that, but didn't respond.

I could see I wasn't getting anywhere with Sullivan, so I handed him a copy of the "Merger in the Making" issue of THE NEW AMERICAN and told him that there are many Americans who are determined to protect the independence of the United States and don't like what SPP and its related groups are doing. He looked intently at the cover of the magazine and said nothing.

I left. The junior State Department official carefully watched me as I walked down the corridor toward the door where I exited the building.