The Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty: America on the Auction Block

Free-Trade Masquerade, Part 2

In the first installment of this series, Free-Trade Masquerade Part 1, I explained how the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade treaty is likely being designed to undermine American sovereignty, and why Congress has a responsibility to protect the integrity of our Constitution by overseeing all trade treaties and subjecting them to a 2/3 majority approval vote to pass.  I outlined why it is an abdication of this responsibility for Congress to renew Fast-Track Trade Authority which allows the President to conduct trade treaty negotiations in secret.

In this installment I will be focusing on what leaked documents indicate about the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s likely effects upon the American economy, and how those effects are related to transnationalist plans for a world government.  All quotes are from the ObamaTrade.com website unless otherwise indicated.

As I explained in part one of this series, it is difficult to discuss the TPP trade treaty without embedding it within a discussion of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and United Nations’ aspirations for a system of world governance that supersedes the laws and courts of sovereign nation-states. The following quote from ObamaTrade.com highlights this effect on American law:

“TPP is misleadingly called a ‘trade agreement.’ But only two of the 26 chapters actually cover trade issues. It is really an expansive system of enforceable global government that the Obama administration is negotiating with eleven Pacific Rim nations: Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Japan, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Mexico and Peru.”

The TPP treaty is one way of undermining American law and bringing about a one world government.

America on the Auction Block

Now on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s effects on the economy. When I use the term, America on the auction block, I mean it literally.  The “TPP would surrender control of 544 million acres–a quarter of the entire U.S. land area–to international authorities. TPP would subject to the foreign tribunals’ judgment all contracts between the U.S. federal government and investors from TPP nations–including subsidiaries of Chinese firms–that obtain mining, logging or other concessions, run a power plant or obtain a government construction contract on U.S. federal lands.” The foreign tribunals spoken of here are the United Nations and World Bank tribunals.

To give an idea of the impact of this aspect of TPP on the economy, we should think about the fact that one conservative estimate of the natural resources on American public lands is 128 trillion dollars. This is an exceedingly conservative figure. Ken Ivory, of the American Lands Council, in an interview with Alex Jones, cites the Institute for Energy Research as saying that we have 150 trillion dollars in mineral resources alone. But let’s take the smaller figure and make the following hypothesis: if we have a national debt of 18 trillion dollars, it means we can pay our national debt off over 7 times, at a minimum, if we manage our own resources. This does not even take into account that many of our resources, such as timber, are renewable. There are enough resources to put America back on good fiscal standing, to provide for future American generations, with plenty left over to protect the forest and environment. We don’t need to exhaust our lands to ensure American security.

The TPP trade treaty is selling our American wealth out cheaply when there is absolutely no reason to do so, and it is placing those material resources at the disposal and judgments of United Nations and World Bank tribunals.

Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fair Trade or Making America Fair Game?

Ron Taylor discusses the effects of so-called free-trade and environmental treaties on America. He notes that the United Nations needs a world tribunal and a global tax in order to establish a global government.

Obamatrade.com describes another aspect of this disturbing treaty. Under the TPP, foreign companies “would be able to take their disputes with the U.S. government to the U.N. and World Bank Tribunals while U.S. companies with identical contracts would go before domestic courts. This not only creates an unacceptable double standard, it cedes control of federal lands to international tribunals.”

It is worth noting that the United Nations and its affiliates also need to control economic resources in order to realize their dreams of exerting control through Agenda 21. The document, Agenda 21, discusses this need to identify new sources of income in order to affect its implementation. Remember that the 3 E’s of Agenda 21 are Economy, Equity and Environment. It’s quite likely that America’s vast natural resources will add to that sought-after disposable income.

To heap injury upon injury, “TPP would give foreign firms operating here a competitive advantage over American-owned businesses. Foreign businesses operating here would be exempted from financial, environmental and land use regulations that would continue to strangle American businesses…. TPP gives [f]oreign companies unfair advantage…[by exempting] foreign companies from EPA and other onerous regulations that American firms would still be forced to comply with. Under TPP, foreign companies could actually go to an international tribunal and sue American taxpayers for cash awards to compensate them for costs associated with government regulations–something American owned companies cannot and would not be able to do.”

Tying Down the Giant

What would be the possible rationalization for the destruction of the American economy and for placing American businesses at a disadvantage? One justification for placing the United States at an economic disadvantage that has been discussed at the United Nations level is that, supposedly, America has used more than its share of natural resources and the size of its carbon footprint must be reduced, so therefore, other developing nations must be given a chance to prosper at America’s expense.

According to Ron Taylor, at the 2010 16th annual conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, there was a call by underdeveloped nations for cash payouts from developed nations, namely the United States, as reparations for our carbon footprint and abuse of global resources. This was seconded by the U.N. Secretary, South Korea’s General Ban Ki-moon. This is probably why international global warming conferences come up with resolutions like those that call upon America to radically reduce her carbon footprint, but announce that China will be allowed to go on polluting at the current rate (by the way, China has one of the worst environmental records in the world.)

Seen from this point of view, the TPP could be considered an instrument of wealth redistribution.

Some of us see it as an instrument of plunder. Ron Taylor puts it well when he expresses his doubts about the altruism of these motives. He points out that many of the 194 signatories to the United Nations resolutions on sustainable development and Agenda 21 can’t wait to get their hands on American material and technological resources, as their own gross national products barely make up the budget for one American school district.

Others among us love nature as well as the rest of the world, but have smelled a rat regarding extensive land and water lock-ups done in the name of sustainable development and ensuring earth and social justice. Freedom advocates have warned that the extensive locking up of public lands from the American people under the guise of preserving wilderness and diverse species will end by multinational corporations, often owned by foreign governments, being allowed to plunder the natural resources and wealth of the American people and our children.

Since I am writing from Idaho, This may be a good place to mention that China has been given access to 30,000 acres in Idaho, including 3,000 in Boundary County for use as Free-Trade zones. An Australian company that is 80% owned by China has been given mining rights in Boundary County at a time when we have witnessed unprecedented closure of public lands and resources to citizens and curtailed activities such as firewood gathering, hunting and berry picking. I know these Free-Trade zones are being replicated in other parts of the United States, as well.

According to Obamatrade.com, the TPP is considered a docking agreement with other countries being able to sign on later. China has already registered an interest. I just bet it has.

Still other cynical souls object that, for the globalists, America’s carbon footprint is of secondary importance to its standing as one last bastion of constitutional government, and as such, its financial prosperity serves as an obstacle to global dreams of power.  John Fonte tells us that America, as the most powerful democratic sovereign nation in the world, must be taken down in order for transnationalist interests to achieve their goals: “The global governancers [Americans and non-Americans alike] know that if the bridle can be put on the American nation-state, it will be much easier to harness others” (p. 187).

Is America to blame for other nations’ poverty?

Let’s momentarily take a look at the contention that America’s prosperity is a threat to other nations’ well-being. Let’s consider the fact that United Nations NGOs and World Bank affiliates have deliberately stifled the economies of developing nations under the mistaken belief that industrialism and capitalism are the root of all environmental evil. Many of these underdeveloped nations have abundant natural resources, but are not allowed to develop them due to onerous environmental regulations and loan terms. For more on that read the book, Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death by Paul Driessen.

Bird’s-Eye View

Now, let’s get a better look at the political landscape and some of the players in this international game. Given that I have embedded expected characteristics of the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty within a discussion of global institutions and their urge to form a transnational system of global governance, who can be expected to support such a treaty? Do Democrats or Republicans favor TPP? What about environmentalists? Is global governance an agenda of the Right or one of the Left? Is control of land and natural resources fascism, as some claim, or socialism? The fact is that there is no neat dividing line between those who support TPP and global governance and those who don’t. Let’s begin by discussing the environmentalists.

What’s Green from Up Here?

To be fair, there are environmental groups protesting the TPP treaty as well as those of us on the Right. Many environmentally sensitive Americans sincerely thought the political agenda behind the Endangered Species Act (and its maniacally illogical applications) were based on altruistic motives, but other big players in the environmental movement have not been so naive.

As I have pointed out in blog after blog, there has been continual collusion between multinational corporations and environmental nongovernmental organizations to allow those same corporations to exploit natural resources, while at the same time locking the common people out of those lands. In fact this way of doing environmentalism has become known as neoliberal environmentalism.

An investigation into neoliberal environmentalism opens up a whole area of research. One facet of the conflict created by environmental groups’ stated mission and corporate interests is highlighted by Paul Comstock in his interview with Christine MacDonald:

“In the last few decades, with the urging of international conservation groups, and the enticement of foreign aid dollars, millions of [indigenous] people have been evicted from their ancestral homes around the globe…and the land turned into national parks and other protected areas. At the same time, conservation groups have come under fire for cutting deals with corporations operating in these same remote areas. The groups often trade their acquiescence of large-scale logging operations, open pit mines, oil drilling and pipeline building in exchange for corporate money to do conservation work nearby. The money is often used to strengthen management of protected areas, which usually includes hiring more park rangers to police the parks and keep local people out” (qtd. in Comstock).

And these corporations are not just what we think of as foreign corporations. Conservation International, an environmental group based in Washington D.C., is a huge global player whose corporate supporters include CEMEX, Citigroup, Chiquita, Exxon Mobil Foundation, Ford, Gap, JP Morgan Chase and Co., McDonalds, Sony, Starbucks, United Airlines and Walt Disney. Critics of Conservation International point out that it has ties to some of the worst polluters on the globe, and that it supports the “World Bank-backed Mesoamerican Biological Corridor project and the Mesoamerican Coral Corridor,” lofty sounding names that serve as a cover for corporate biopiracy (Choudry).

Interestingly, Conservation International has ties to corporations that belong to families controlling major philanthropic foundations that, in turn, control the environmental movement at the global and national levels. Of note are the Rockefeller foundations and the Ford foundation.  JP Morgan Chase and Exxon Mobil, among other corporations, have ties to Rockefeller and CEMEX has ties to Ford.  It just so happens that the United Nations science advisory group, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), as well as the United Nations and other global environmental organizations, were founded by the Rockefellers and/or their agents.

They also founded the Conservation Foundation, which eventually merged into the World Wildlife Fund.  Rockefeller, Ford and other major philanthropic corporate foundations, have co-opted and dominated the world’s top ten environmental nongovernmental organizations, all of whom are members of the IUCN, and who have myriad ties to global corporations, the World Bank and the United Nations.  These organizations have put environmental policies into place that favor CEMEX and Exxon, and other polluting industries related to Rockefeller, Ford and other corporate players.  Their policies have allowed these major players to plunder Africa and South America (Barker, Philanthropic Roots and Environmentalists Legitimize Plunder).

The Rockefellers and their cronies also have a network of ties to governments and are known in some circles as manipulators of democracies.

We are told that the World Wildlife Fund has ‘backed nearly every trade bill to come down the pike, from NAFTA to GATT.”  The World Wildlife Fund has ties to nineteen of the worst industrial polluters such as “Union Carbide, Exxon, Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, Du Pont, and Waste Management” (St. Clair in Barker, Philanthropic Roots).

To put it bluntly, the major environmentalist groups have been riding a tiger for a long time.  While some well-known environmental groups are protesting the TPP, one can only wonder how many will join the protest, and how hard the major environmental groups can be expected to struggle against their masters.

Let Me Take You Higher

Odd as it seems, these mega-capitalists are often funding the America-is-bad-and-should-pay and capitalism-is-bad narratives at the global level. Rockefeller and Ford foundations largely funded the leftist groups who attended the United Nations conference held in Durban, South Africa in 2001. These groups indicted the United States for structural, institutional racism, and advocated such positions as reparations to African Nations and an end to free-market capitalism (Fonte, pp. 3-7).

Now why would these premier capitalists call for an end to free-market capitalism? Perhaps we can get some insight by listening to Maurice Strong, Rockefeller protégé and sustainable development evil genie. Strong describes himself as “a socialist in ideology and a capitalist in methodology” (Sussman, p. 35).  Just what does that mean?  It may well mean that these titans of industry don’t mind holding us over the anvil of the Right while they pound on us with the hammer of the Left.

Possibly, one may illustrate this concept by referring to the ongoing subsidy of big agribusiness in Mexico made possible by NAFTA.  Government subsidies of corporate agribusiness farming has driven small Mexican farmers, who can’t compete, into poverty and caused many of these desperate people to stream across the border (Hodges).  When American citizens protest, because they quite reasonably expect their immigration laws to be obeyed and their borders protected, leftist groups, likely funded by foundations with ties to big agribusiness (Big Ag is part and parcel of the international collusion I describe above), point to the protest as evidence of structural racism, which further justifies taking America down by delegitimizing her government, undermining her sovereignty and creating a world without borders.  It never occurs to the migrants that the same people who have displaced them are likely the very same who are behind NAFTA and the call for the destruction of American law, and it never occurs to the protesting American citizens either. The two groups become polarized and bicker, lending momentum to this maneuver.

That’s the ring of a hammer and an anvil.  And these are some of the reasons that we’ve got to fly higher than the Left/Right view of the world that is being urged on us daily.

Neither Fish nor Fowl, nor Good Red-Blooded Americans

One might expect American Corporations and businesses in general to resist the TPP due to its disadvantages to American companies, but the National Chamber of Commerce is endorsing TPP and has sent scores of corporate lobbyists to the offices of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.  Stephanie Scruggs points out that the Chamber of Commerce seems to represent multinational corporations more than the U.S.

This is no surprise when we learn that, in the 21st Century, many traditionally American, multinational companies no longer see themselves as Americans.  In the past they were headquartered in the United States and were loyal to this country, but they now see themselves as global corporations and global citizens, not loyal to America first.  Many of these global companies believe that sovereign nation-states are no longer relevant to a global economy.  Fonte includes typical quotes from company CEOs that demonstrate this outlook:

“Jeff Seabright, vice-president of Coca-Cola, said, ‘We are not “an American company” with a presence in Beijing, Brunei, Bangalore, or Bucharest. Rather, we operate in Beijing, Brunei, Bangalore and Bucharest very much as members of those local communities…”

Fonte ironically remarks, “One wonders, if Coca-Cola is not ‘an American company’ then what is?” He then goes on to quote a top executive of Colgate-Palmolive: who said, “The United States does not have an automatic call on our resources. There is no mindset that puts this country first.”

Even more to the point, Fonte tells us that there is at least one report about an American CEO saying he is not concerned about the ‘hollowing out’ of the American middle-class. Evidently, this attitude is not universal among American companies, though, and Fonte names Boeing and Lockheed-Martin as having “embraced the symbols of American patriotism in the post-9/11 era” (pp. 169-170).

Given these insights, it is especially significant that 600 corporate lobbyists have been given clearance to sit at the TPP negotiating table and have access to drafted documents, while members of Congress are locked out.  These little piggies are going to market.

This isn’t the first time that lobbyists have orchestrated trade treaties that favor the economies of foreign governments.  Dick Morris describes how Colombia hired a U.S. lobbying firm with ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton when they wanted to push through the Colombian Free-Trade Agreement.  In another instance, Clinton’s trusted White House adviser, Mark Penn, was paid to lobby the President on behalf of the Central American Bank for “Economic Integration, a group operated by Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua, with Mexico, Taiwan, Argentina, and Colombia as additional shareholders” (pp. 137-138).  Morris comments that, if this type of activity isn’t illegal, it ought to be.

So, what about political parties? What can we expect from them?  Fonte tells us that there is no easy thinking for us here either.  There are Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians who are globalists, while there members of those parties who support national sovereignty. Importantly, Fonte warns that many members of the American Center-Right are globalists, due to their ties to corporate interests (pp. 192-197).  Perhaps, this is why many Republicans are supporting TPP and are expected to embrace the rhetoric of free-trade, while renewing Fast-Track Trade Authority.

In general, however, there are Democrats and Progressives who are opposing the TPP, as well as members of the Right.  The Teamsters Union has come out against the TPP because members realize that these trade treaties are sucking jobs away from the United States. They also realize this treaty is not necessary to restore the American economy.  The Teamsters Union, the Coalition for a Prosperous America, American Manufacturers, and other organizations, have sat down with members of Congress to discuss alternatives as to how America’s economy can be revitalized.  Stephanie Scruggs has pointed out that these Pacific Rim countries need us more than we need them, and when the U.S. government negotiates a treaty, it needs to be negotiated to the best possible advantage for American citizens.

So, Who is Listening?

Your elected representatives can’t listen if you don’t speak. You can give your representatives in Congress something to think about by contacting them about Fast-Track Authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Sign petitions and fax your elected representatives in the Action Center at ObamaTrade.com and/or call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3141 to let your Representatives and Senators know you want them to vote No on Fast-Track Authority and the TPP.

 

Works Cited and Consulted

Barker, Michael. The Philanthropic Roots of Corporate Environmentalism. Electronic document retrieved 9/30/2012 at http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker07.html.

Barker, Michael. When Environmentalists Legitimize Plunder. Electronic document retrieved9/30/2012 at http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker12.html.

Choudry, Aziz. Conservation International: privatizing nature, plundering biodiversity. Electronic document retrieved at http://www.grain.org/article/entries/406-conservation-international-privatizing-nature-plundering-biodiversity.

Comstock, Paul. Christine MacDonald on the Corruption of the Environmental Movement. Electronic document retrieved at http://calitreview.com/1249/christine-macdonald-on-the-corruption-of-the-environmental-movement/.

Fonte, John. Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or Be Ruled by Others? Encounter Books: New York, 2011.

Ellis, Curtis; Alan Keyes, Judsen Philips, Phyllis Schlafly, Stephanie Scruggs and Patrick Wood. Top 5 Reasons to Deny President Obama Fast Track Authority. Online Webinar held November 10, 2014.

Hodges, Dave. The Agenda 21 Depopulation of Rural Areas Will Give Obama Stalin-Like Control Over Food. Electronic document retrieved 8/24/2014 at http://agenda21news.com/2014/08/agenda-21-depopulation-rural-areas-will-give-obama-stalin-like-control-food/.

Morris, Dick and Eileen McGann. Fleeced: How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want to Kill Talk Radio, The Do-Nothing Congress, Companies that Help Iran, and Washington Lobbyists for Foreign Governments are Scamming Us and What to do About It. HarperCollins Publishers, New York: 2008.

Sussman, Brian. Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda will Dismantle America. WND Books: Washington, D.C., 2012.

Taylor, Ron. Agenda 21: An Expose of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Initiative and the Forfeiture of American Sovereignty and Liberties. Kindle Edition, 2011.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedinmailby feather
This entry was posted in Agenda 21, Blog, politics, rural life. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty: America on the Auction Block

  1. biao says:

    BIG MISTAKE
    this guy is south korean not chinese!!!

    This was seconded by the U.N. Secretary, China’s General Ban Ki-moon

    • PoetHerbalist says:

      Thank you Biao. I checked and you are correct. I will change this. I’m not sure if I misunderstood or if my source was incorrect. Thank you again.

  2. Terry Capurso says:

    Good job putting this together Sara!! Lot’s of time and effort on your part, thank you, Terry

  3. Liz Sloot says:

    Nice going Sara! Keep up the good work.

Leave a Reply to Terry Capurso Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *