contents - Description: Description: Description: Description ...

overseer of the multilateral trading system. It was an instrument of the United Nations. On
January 1, 1995 the World Trade Organization (WTO), the descendant of the proposed
International Trade Organization (1948) and Organization for Trade Cooperation (1954),
replaced GATT, presenting a new agreement which included “GATT 1994.” During the 1940’s
and 1950’s the Congress and the country was not ready to have their economic authority
transferred to international control. In 1958, Sen. George Malone of Nevada said: “The global
theory of free trade is siphoning off America’s wealth and bringing her economy to the level of
others. The theory is displacing American workers who otherwise would be employed.”
“GATT 1994” was a document consisting of 22,000 pages of information, tariff schedules,
rules and regulations; and 650 pages of enabling legislation. Based on its size, how many of our
legislators do you think read every word of this trade agreement; and based on its complexity, if
it was read– was it understood?
It is the only international agreement which sets the global rules for world trade, and provides
for the mediation of disputes, which is argued by many to be the best way to open up foreign
markets to U.S. exports, because protectionist countries, as well as the U.S. would have to lower
their tariffs (producing a loss in revenue), to create an even playing field. However, critics
familiar with its contents say that it will succeed in seriously damaging our national sovereignty
and independence. Proponents disagree, saying that any country can withdraw from membership
after giving a six month notice. As one of the 146 member nations, the United States would only
have one vote, yet it would have to pay nearly 25% of the cost. The GATT agreement would
have the power to force Congress to change laws by declaring them to be “protectionist” (WTO
Charter, Article 16, Section 4), and if we don’t comply, we would be subject to trade sanctions.
Financier, Sir James Goldsmith, a member of the European Parliament, said in his testimony
before Congress, that GATT would “cause a global social upheaval the likes of which Karl Marx
never envisioned.” The October 24, 1994 issue of Barron’s, indicated that the WTO is a de facto
world government. William Holder, deputy general counsel of the UN’s International Monetary
Fund, said that the WTO is a de jure (by law) world government. In all actuality, this legislation
is a Treaty, and as such, should have required approval by two-thirds of the Senate; instead, it
was considered a Trade Agreement, which only required a majority vote.
Even though, during the midterm elections of November, 1994, the country overwhelmingly
voted to change the course our country has taken, GATT was still brought to a vote during the
lame duck session of the 103rd Congress and passed, rather than waiting for the Republicanmajority
Congress that was elected. Some opponents believe, that if the vote had been
postponed, it may never have been ratified, at least, in its present form, But that was unlikely,
since its passage was a bipartisan effort spearheaded by a group of key Republicans lead by
Majority leader, Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, and Speaker of the House Rep. Newt Gingrich of
Georgia (a member of the CFR); and conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation and
the American Enterprise Institute.
The question looms before us as to whether we are actually better off as a country now,
compared to the way we were prior to the initiation of everything that has been outlined in this
book. I think the answer is a resounding “No!” Right now, the world is a very volatile place–
hostilities in foreign countries are threatening, the world economy is teetering, and democracy
hangs in the balance, as a handful of men patiently wait for a few more pieces of the puzzle to
fall into place, so they can spring their trap.