Posted on 01/03/2005 8:59:09 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
Here is the opening declaration:
the ILO was founded in the conviction that social justice is essential to universal and lasting peace;
Whereas economic growth is essential but not sufficient to ensure equity, social progress and the eradication of poverty, confirming the need for the ILO to promote strong social policies, justice and democratic institutions;
Now, the latest free trade agreement USA-Australia(remember everyone free trade is about lowering barriers to trade /sarcasm) with Australia, contains commitments by the USA to the socialist workers global body the ILO:
Under Chapter Eighteen, the Parties reaffirm their obligations as members of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and under the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
But this wasn't the first trade agreement that the US threw sovereignty away for, in order to placate the international socialists.
NAFTA has its own commitment to the ILO:
The Parties shall seek to establish cooperative arrangements with the ILO to enable the Council and Parties to draw on the expertise and experience of the ILO for purposes of implementing Article 24(1).
The USA Jordan free trade agreement:
The Parties reaffirm their obligations as members of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and their commitments under the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up.
If one looked, one could probably find commitments to international labor law in all our free trade agreements. The fact that our congress is committing to international laws, that may not be in conformance to state laws means nothing to them. All Americans should be alarmed at the socialist language of these international treaties and should deny implementation of international treaties that promote socialist policies internally to the United States.
Doesn't seem like a big deal, Australias like the US, only they have summers during winter.
I'm glad our free trade agreement with Australia has gone into effect on Jan 1. Thanks for the news!
FYI
Won't this put domestic kangaroo meat packers out of business; Australia seem to have a big advantage there.
The problem is that the trade negotiations include promises to support UN organizations like the ILO and allow the UN to set our labor policies in our country without the knowledge of most American citizens.
Do you think the UN should be empowered by a "trade" agreement, knowing how corrupt and power hungry that internationalist organization is?
Well, if they drive fast enough they might make it...
Does this mean it will be easier to get access to Austrailian beers and coverage of the Austrailian-rules football/rugby/soccer/controlled-riot sporting events?
You can read it yourself
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/australia/ustrsummary.pdf
Then you can tell us.
You don't care that the ILO is a branch of the United Nations, and that our trade agreements are purposed to conform US laws to the United Nations?
Hooray for free trade, this is "good news"
So what?
Have you ever read a "free trade" agreement? Just curious.
I guess the Green party would support this treaty:
"Greens support sustainable development and social and economic justice across the globe."
social justice:
EC202 To achieve an equitable distribution of resources , wealth, opportunity and power which ensures access for all to the means of sustenance and of personal and social development.
Do you think the Global green party might have influenced the WTO into adopting the United Nations ILO in order to socially engineer the parties to the treaties by setting conditions underwhich the trading parties are allowed to negotiate?
Green Party Short term aims:
To introduce into the WTO a social clause, based on ILO standards,establishing minimum labour rights and conditions for participation in the multilateral trading system
"Free-Market Ping!"
What is the libertarian preferred way to conduct free trade?
(BTW...Im all in favor of free trade myself.)
That's a question requiring a fairly complicated answer. Let me see if I can shorten it down to its essence. MOST libertarians, I'm pretty sure, would say absolute free trade with no restrictions. Those calling themselves "anarcho-capitalists," such as those found on mises.org and lewrockwell.com for examplte, would certainly take such a position.
I am a libertarian nationalist, however, so MY position is that we should use access to our markets to break down barriers other nations impose against us. In other words, if France is "protecting" its farmers, we should deny them access to our markets at least to the exten they deny us access to theirs.
But other than to BREAK DOWN trade barriers, I oppose almost all restrictions on trade, which after all, are restrictions on liberty no less than any other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.