Today’s very informative post is from Stephen L. Hall. Much thanks, Stephen!
***
The globalists in our government under the Roosevelt administration, in the United Kingdom, and in the Soviet Union, after World War II and the Nuremburg trials, conceived of the idea and worked toward creating a type of one world government. This is not conspiracy theory but history. On the political side, they created the United Nations as a kind of international legislature. There were also plans for economic and trade organizations and a World Court as an international judicial branch of the world government.
The did manage to establish the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank and were working on establishing a World Trade Organization (WTO). However, the appetite of the United States to fund all of these global quasi-governmental organizations quickly wore out. The IMF and World Bank ended up much more limited than originally intended and the idea of the WTO was virtually abandoned and would not be revised for another fifty years.
Instead, the globalists contented themselves with trying to piecemeal their vision of controlling international trade through the concept of international treaties. Particularly a series of international trade treaties known as the GATT treaties. GATT stands for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It was the globalists’ belief that WWII was caused by the Great Depression, and that was in turn caused by the various nations imposing protectionist tariffs against other nations. This was of course a false representation of the economic history, but that requires more space than available or desirable here at this time.
For more information on this can be found here.
As leftist often do, the constructed these institution out of fear of ever again plunging the world into another world war as they did not want their new United Nations to fail the way that their first attempt of the League of Nations had.
The GATT treaties simply prohibit signatories from ever raising their tariffs on other signatory nations. Unlike most international treaties, the GATT treaties are multinational treaties, with a majority of the world’s nations as signatories. In addition, the signatories agree that they will not charge any signatory nation any higher tariff than the lowest tariff they charge on the same import. This is called the most favorable nation (MFN) status, so that a nation with MFN status is being charged the lowest offered tariffs.
The basic construct of the GATT treaties is what the proponents of such a scheme like to call a ratcheting mechanism that once a tariff was lowered, it could not be increased. The theory was that eventually the tariffs would keep getting lowered and eventually just go away so that tariffs would no longer be a barrier to trade.
Of course, it always struck me that a nation’s tariffs under such a system were more like a container of compressed air, and rather than eliminating the tariffs as the schemers supposed, the more tariffs were lowered the more pressure and resistance would be created against any further lowering. And eventually I figure the pressure will build until the resistance to the lowered tariff schemes of the globalists explodes.
I also had the good fortune in a law school course to engage in a mock GATT negotiations, while being assigned the country of Syria. A little bit of research and the foolishness of GATT became even more clear. Syria does not have tariffs. No one, except the government, is permitted to trade internationally. Trade in Syria is a state monopoly. They export oil and textiles. No one puts a tariff on oil; it is in too high a demand. So I got to encourage other people to lower their textile tariffs, while offering absolutely nothing at all in return.
Their economic theories hypothesized that the reason the United States had grown in economic power was primarily, if not solely, due to the lack of tariffs and other barriers to trade between the states imposed by the federal government in the Constitution. Their idea was that if they could export America’s free trade policies to the rest of the world, then they would be as prosperous as the United States.
Upon this “free trade” misconception, the European Union (EU) was created to mimic the free trade zone of the United States with open borders between European Union nations incorporating even more people than the United States. We can see how that is playing out for the national security of those European nations with their current immigration crisis.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), was created to expand the free trade zone of the United States to all of North America just to be larger than the EU. Unwisely, NAFTA treats the third world economy of Mexico as if it were a first world nation. NAFTA and the EU were incorporated as specific exceptions to the GATT treaties as allowable free trade zones.
Click here for more information on NAFTA.
This completely ignores many other social, philosophical, legal, and even geographic components of American prosperity. Essential to the prosperity of every English colony throughout the world is the English system of deed and title recordation which grew out of William the Conqueror’s Doomsday Book. For more information on the economic effect and necessity of title recordation, I would encourage the reader to consult the works of noted economist Hernando de Soto, of Peru.
So what, you may be asking, does any of this have to do with Donald Trump?
Donald Trump’s entire political campaign is built upon one single issue: to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Well, that and to get better trade deals with China.
First, let us look at China. He has stated that he would threaten to raise barriers and tariffs against China in order to negotiate better trade deals. Okay, China is not a signatory of the GATT treaties. The United States extends to China MFN status, but it is under no obligation to do so. The President has the authority to negotiate treaties, but it would still take an act of Congress to raise tariffs against China. However, such an action would not violate our treaty obligations under GATT.
Border security, in particular a wall, being his central singular issue, one would expect some specifics as to how he might plan to accomplish this task. You would be disappointed. The only thing he has said is to reassure the voters that the wall will be free, or rather that he will get Mexico to pay for it. Trump told Newsmax TV on June 29. “Between trade and between the border, they will pay for that wall. … Remember what I said: They will pay for that wall.”
That is not an answer. How? In theory, under the 13th Amendment, illegal trespassers could be fined or put to work building such a wall, although there would be a huge, albeit unfounded, outcry over such a notion. No, the only possible way of making Mexico pay for the wall can only be by creating a tariff on all Mexican goods. Houston, we have a problem. Mexico actually is a signatory of the GATT Treaties.
So Trump’s one single issue requires the United States to unilaterally withdraw from this series of international trade treaties. If Trump raises a tariff against Mexico to pay for his wall as he has promised before withdrawing from the GATT treaty, then the US is in violation of the treaty and subject to economic reprisals. So Trump’s real proposal is to withdraw from GATT, but he does not want to publicly tell everyone that as it would be unpopular.
When Pat Buchanan ran for President, he proclaimed that the first thing he would do in office would be to have the United States withdraw from the United Nations. While I agree with withdrawing from all of these foolish globalist created monstrosities, Pat Buchanan was adamantly opposed and vilified by every media outlet as a dreaded isolationist. Where is the media vilification of Trump to proposing to unilaterally isolate America economically completely abandoning a sixty year series of international treaties.
Trump will never say he wants to withdraw from GATT, but his solitary issue mandates withdrawal from GATT. Why will he not say what he must do to do what he says he will do? Because he never intends . . . to win? . . . to keep his promise to build a wall? . . . to actually be serious? . . . to ever answer the one question, “how”?
