The unfolding FTAA battle: understanding the dynamics involved in previous congressional votes on NAFTA and other so-called trade pacts is key to stopping the dangerous erosion of our sovereignty

New American, The, May 3, 2004 by William F. Jasper

Creating the WTO. One year after the adoption of NAFTA, the Clinton-Gingrich combine went into high gear again. This time the objective was passage of legislation to implement the mammoth Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The primary objective of the agreement was the creation of a permanent World Trade Organization (WTO) and its attendant bureaucracy to supersede GATT. We reported in these pages: "The trade agreement would create the WTO's own court (the Dispute Settlement Body), legislative branch (Ministerial Conference), bureaucracy (secretariat), and dozens of subsidiary bodies. The WTO would be the sole interpreter of the intentionally vague, 20,000-plus page agreement and would be empowered to authorize global sanctions to enforce its dictates."

The WTO is the larger global regime under which NAFTA and FTAA are intended to function as subsidiary regions. Rep. Newt Gingrich knew full well that he was subverting the U.S. Constitution that he had taken an oath to uphold and protect when he led the WTO charge for President Clinton. These are Gingrich's own words during the raging WTO debate:

   I am just saying that we need to be
   honest about the fact that we are transferring
   from the United States 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 change.

      I agree ... this is very close to
   Maastricht [the European Union treaty
   by which the EU member nations surrendered
   considerable sovereignty],
   and twenty years from now we will
   look back on this as a very important
   defining moment. This is not just another
   trade agreement.... [I]t is a very
   big transfer of power.

      Now, yes, we could in theory take
   the power back.... But the fact is we
   are not likely to disrupt the entire
   world trading system [by pulling out].
   And, therefore, we ought to be very
   careful, because we are not likely to
   take it back.

Despite his caveats and appeals for others to be honest about the scope of the power grab, Gingrich joined Democratic President Clinton and Republican Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole in one of the most sordid, corrupt spectacles of vote-buying and arm-twisting ever seen in the U.S. Congress. Incredibly, among the many tactics used by the Clinton-Gingrich-Dole team to sell the WTO as "free trade" was to promise tariff protection to various congressmen for interests in their districts: home appliances, sugar, wheat, peanuts, tomatoes, citrus fruits, airplanes, etc. All of this was carried out after the November 1994 elections during a high-pressured, lame-duck session. (See House vote #2 and Senate vote #2.) We may face similar circumstances with the CAFTA, if President Bush and Congress decide to hold off a vote until after the November elections.

In 2000, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) offered a resolution to withdraw U.S. membership in the WTO. As Rep. Paul explained, the WTO "is an unconstitutional approach to managing trade. We cannot transfer the power to manage trade from the Congress to anyone. The Constitution is explicit. 'Congress shall have the power to regulate foreign commerce.' We cannot transfer that authority." Indeed, transferring that authority would be tantamount to the president transferring his authority as Commander in Chief to the secretary-general of the UN. Amazingly, Rep. Paul's sensible measure to get U.S. out of the WTO was defeated by a huge bipartisan majority. (See House vote #3.)