Stiff Right Jab: Bush's 'America First' Foreign Policy

There´s good news, and not so good news. First the good news. When it comes to foreign policy, unlike his predecessor, William Jefferson Clinton, President George W. Bush stands up like a man and declares America first. That is good news and amen. For speaking like a man on that issue, and for that matter an American man, Mr. Bush has deservedly received hallelujah praise from the conservative right, and hellfire and damnation from the malevolent left.

Now for the bad news. Bush´s definition of America first does not translate from Third Way middle-speak into plain old American English as a daring defense of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. sovereignty. It is more like a lordly, bossy reminder of whose interests must always come first when it comes to the world – those of America´s global/socialist elites.

Does Bush care about American sovereignty under the U.S. Constitution? We think not. A quick, revealing look.

First, a quick background. Karl Marx proclaimed that his much ballyhooed, one-world socialist government would be achieved by selling the world on the idea of Internationalism. (1) Lenin expanded on this theme by declaring that "the aim of socialism is ... to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together, but to merge them. ..." (2) Joseph Stalin continued this theme of internationalism by arguing that national loyalties won't easily be swayed by a frontal global governmental assault, and he proffered a solution – accompany global efforts with a regional approach.

In his 1912 essay, "Marxism and the National Question," Stalin wrote that "regional autonomy [was to be] an essential element in the solution of the national problem." (3)

The 1936 official program of the Communist International was on the same page when it announced:

"The world dictatorship can be established only when the victory of socialism has been achieved in certain countries or groups of countries, when the newly established proletarian republics enter into a federative union with the already existing proletarian republics ... [and] when these federations of republics have finally grown into a World [Socialist] Union ... uniting the whole of mankind under the hegemony of the international proletariat organized as a state." (4)

What is so great about the regional approach? Simply, when conservatives put the heat on the United Nations as appearing to be every bit as pro-socialist as its pro-Communist founders were, a "conservative" president can take the dialectical approach: Criticize the U.N. and thus gain conservative support, even while he strengthens regional alliances – alliances designed, for surface appeal, to protect national interests. But in fact, any permanent entangling alliance, especially an economic one, creates a precedent, step by step, of surrendering national constitutions, loyalties, legal and moral concepts, economic and military independence to the whole – in this wild world, a whole dominated by thugs and moral idiots.

The first successful implementation of the regional approach is the now 50-year-old plot to unite Europe under one socialist head. It began under the Marshall Plan, which orchestrated a simple beginning to interdependence and "free" trade in Europe, and which, a half-century later, blossomed into a situation where we have one currency, one central bank, one trade plan, one interdependent military force (NATO) – that is, one government with an entranced preference for hard-to-the-left socialism. When Khrushchev said "we will never have to fire a shot," he meant it. Like overripe fruit, Europe has fallen into the socialist lap. Russian complaints about the spread of NATO, therefore, make good, closed door, dialectical humor.

The second regional plan of significance was the 1994 three-nation permanent "trade" alliance of NAFTA, replete with international governmental organizations, NGO lawmaking powers, and thousands of regulations and enforcement mechanisms affecting American sovereignty. Passed at the same time was the far more pretentious GATT Treaty, which created the WTO and its tens of thousands of pages of international regulations. You may thank, more than anyone else, Republican icon and CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) member Newt Gingrich for these sovereignty grabs. Clinton was grateful. Buchanan, a true America-first patriot, was not.

The EU, NATO, NAFTA and WTO are all regional alliances that swear allegiance in their preambles to "the principles and purposes of the United Nations."

So, then, how does Bush´s America First plan fit into this? Bush fiercely loves the regional approach and is working furiously to take regionalism to the next level.

Bush led the way at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec last April to expand NAFTA´s "free" trade zone to include all of North and South America. That is, in real terms, to move forward toward an American version of the European Union, as a subsidiary organization of the United Nations, subject to its principles and purposes – and the goal is to do it by 2005. (5)

The ploy is free trade. The broader agenda – as revealed by Bush´s left-swinging secretary of state, Colin Powell – includes such open-ended goals as "set[ting] a common agenda of how our democracies can safeguard human rights ... to promote good governance on all levels ... [to] make life better and our neighborhood safer ... [to promote] skills and education ... [to] improv[e] the environment, [fight] drugs and [stop] disease." (6)

Or – if you are not catching on – to create an international government of the Americas, which will permit leaders, jealous and antagonistic to the Constitution and peoples of the United States, to use an undemocratic, unelected government to take us down the path to a one-world socialist order.

Yes, that´s the bad news: Bush´s White House policy of America First is really the Pratt House´s policy of Americas First.

An afterthought. The Bush administration has identified fast-track authority as the key to implementing this stealthy step toward a government of the Americas. (7) Texas Rep. Ron Paul's HR 1146 American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2001 is our best bet to derail Bush. Write your congressman and invite him or her to become a co-sponsor.

Shifting gears, but maybe not, we revisit Washington Irving's "George Washington: A Biography" with this insight from Gen. Washington as to the purposes of the revolution and the Constitution which followed. He stated the goal as "national independence and sovereignty." (8) Lest we forget!

By 2005 we are going to be flung by the neck into the worst nightmare in history. You might want to study it. Here is the web address: http://www.ftaa-alca.org/alca_e.asp

Or go to goole and do a search on FTAA and read all about it.

Be sure and click on the icon "Civil Society". Below is a smidgen of one NGO's statement of what she finds "disturbing" about the lack of transparency of the FTAA.

Basicly in the "Civil Society" section, the section I prefer to title "Now the Dumba$$'s Worry", are liberals who have labored for decades to birth this monster, being told, thank you for your efforts, now get in line with the rest on their way to the gulaug.

Read other articles, pro and con on the subject of FTAA, form your own opinion. Do you want settlements inforced on Americans by appointed panels affecting our food, electricity, national interests, health care, that will often fly in the face of our Constitutional freedoms and protections?

Public FTAA.soc/civ/86 May 27, 2003 Original: English FTAA - COMMITTEE OF GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES ON THE PARTICIPATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY CONTRIBUTION IN RESPONSE TO THE OPEN AND ONGOING INVITATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mara M. Burr, Special Counsel The Humane Society of the United States -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Summary Written Comments of The Humane Society of the United States Dispute Settlement 1. The settlement of disputes is an important part of the FTAA and should be as inclusive as possible. The current text contains some troubling language that is neither transparent not allows for the participation of civil society in the process. These issues need to be addressed in a manner that provides for greater transparency in the process and a system that is more open to the participation of civil society.

Chapter on Agriculture

2. The negotiations on agriculture need to address the issues of animal welfare and environmental protection. The FTAA Parties should consider the economic benefits of adopting more humane, animal friendly and environmentally responsible agriculture production methods.

General and Institutional Issues

3. A mechanism should be created to allow for the formal participation of civil society in the FTAA process. This would be a bold and innovative proposal and exactly the type of mechanism that will be important to the future of the FTAA.

4. Capacity building and technical assistance are important aspects of the FTAA process but have not received either the attention or the resources necessary to address the needs of the region. The FTAA Parties should create a mechanism whereby governments, NGOs, corporations and other private parties could join forces to begin to address the capacity building needs of the region.

Conclusion

5. To be successful and gain popular support, the FTAA Agreement must be innovative and forward thinking, including to the greatest extent possible the input and participation of civil society in the negotiations and in the overall process.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter on Dispute Settlement

1. A regime for the settlement of disputes is an important aspect of any free trade agreement. The Contracting Parties of the GATT agreed to revamp the dispute settlement system for the WTO so that disputes were settled in a more legalistic and timely manner.1 Although WTO Members had high hopes for the dispute settlement system, there have been a number of problems identified over the last 8 years and Members are currently negotiating changes to the system.2

2. Rather than repeat the mistakes/omissions made in the Uruguay Round, the FTAA negotiators should assess and address the problems identified by WTO Members in the current negotiations to retool the WTO dispute settlement system. These issues include: ability of panels/Appellate Body to accept non-solicited information i.e., amicus briefs; transparency in the process i.e., public access to hearings before panels and the Appellate Body; timely access to information, briefs, oral arguments and other submissions; and the participation of NGOs and private parties in dispute settlement proceedings.

3. The current text of the FTAA dispute settlement chapter contains a number of troubling elements. Each provision will be discussed in the order it appears in the chapter.

Non-Governmental Organizations --Article 4

4. In Article 4, chapter 26, the bracketed text explicitly bars the participation of non-governmental organizations from participating in the FTAA dispute settlement system. What exactly is meant by this language? Are NGOs prohibited from filing amicus submissions, offering support to Parties or offering expert advice to the Panels or the Parties? The FTAA Parties need to clarify the meaning of this Article and set out what roles NGOs may play in the dispute settlement process.

5. This provision does not promote transparency or civil society participation in the FTAA and runs counter to the proposal submitted by the United States to the WTO.3 It is difficult to imagine how the United States or the other 33 FTAA countries will find popular support for the FTAA when provisions such as this are in the proposed FTAA text.

6. The HSUS respectfully requests that the United States declare that this Article is unacceptable and must be rewritten so as to remove the language banning participation of NGOs.

Roster of Panelists -- Article 12

7. Article 12, paragraphs 63 through 66 provide for the establishment of an indicative list of panelists. The individuals may be government or non-governmental individuals. In paragraph 64, the procedure for submitting the names of proposed panelists is set forth:

[To establish the Roster and for its future modifications, the Parties may forward to the Secretariat the names of xx candidates, whether nationals or not, providing for information on their qualifications according to Article xx, within xx months after the entry into force of this Agreement. The Parties shall have a maximum period of xx days, from the date of notification of the proposed candidates by the Secretariat, to indicate in writing via the Secretariat their reaction to the proposed candidates. The Secretariat shall communicate to the Parties whose candidates have been duly challenged for failing to meet the qualifications of Article XX (Roster of Panelists). These Parties shall have xx days to present their new candidates, without prejudice to the Roster, containing the candidates who have not been challenged pursuant to this paragraph, shall be considered approved.]4

8. The language used in paragraph 64 is troubling because proposed dispute settlement panelists can essentially be vetoed by other parties. It should be within the prerogative of each of the Parties to submit the names of proposed panelists without being vetoed by other Parties. The names submitted are for the indicative list of panelists, and individuals on this list may or may not actually serve as a panelist in a dispute. At the time of the dispute, the Parties must agree on the composition of the panel. The Parties should have the option of choosing from a wide range of panelists submitted by the Parties.

9. In contrast to the provisions of paragraph 64 of the FTAA dispute settlement chapter, Article 8 of the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes5 calls for panels to be “composed of well-qualified government and/or non-government individuals . . . .“6

10. Article 8.4 of the DSU sets out that the “Secretariat shall maintain an indicative list of governmental and non-governmental individuals possessing the qualifications outlined in paragraph 1, from which the panelists may be drawn as appropriate.”7 The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) has final approval over which individuals will be added to the indicative list of panelists.8 This process is clearly more acceptable than the one set forth in the FTAA dispute settlement chapter because individuals are not vetoed for inclusion on the indicative list by other Members and a wider range of potential panelists may be included in the indicative list.

Model Rules of Procedure -- Article 16

11. Article 16, paragraph 83 provides for Model Rules of Procedure to govern the proceedings of the neutral panel. These Model Rules are to be established in Annex XX. The Parties should consult with civil society and other private interests in the development of these Model Rules of Procedure. The FTAA Parties have different legal and procedural traditions when it comes to the settlement of disputes. All parties that will be affected by FTAA dispute settlement, including civil society and private parties should have input into the development of the proposed Model Rules of Procedure.

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.